5 ms·

Stanford Medicine study shows mRNA-based Covid-19 vaccines can cause myocarditis

19 points by DeusExMachina 10mo ago

metadope 10mo ago
Why does the HN headline here drop the original's important word: 'why'? Original (emphasis mine): >> Stanford Medicine study shows why mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines can cause myocarditis Transcribed to an HN headline here: >> Stanford Medicine study shows mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines can cause myocarditis A significant difference, no? Why? ---- After reading the article at Stanford, the word I'd choose is 'how' as in 'how vaccines can cause myocarditis'.
- guywithahat 10mo ago
  I sort of thought that too; we've known it can cause myocarditis for years, it was the basis for people avoiding the mRNA vaccine (i.e. "clot shot"). Still though I'm happy to see people continuing to research this instead of just avoiding politically tense fields all-together
  - estearum 10mo ago
    > it was the basis for people avoiding the mRNA vaccine (i.e. "clot shot") That's generous. There is no sane reading of data at any point in time netted out risk in this way. "Avoiding the clot shot" is a cultural statement, not a medical or scientific one.
- krapp 10mo ago
  HN automatically redacts what it considers unnecessary words from titles. It doesn't inform you that it's doing so, you're expected to notice and edit the post again if the change is unwarranted. Most people don't, because most people aren't even aware that this "feature" exists.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
mc32 10mo ago
Slowly the skeptics and the conspiracy theorists are getting proven correct in this case. It’s unfortunate it’s taken so long for the hidden truth to come out. It’s also unfortunate they swept this under the rug which just increases people’s suspicion around vaccine safety. I hope they, the establishment, learn from this boondoggle.
- triceratops 10mo ago
  The article says "Stanford Medicine investigators have unearthed the biological process by which mRNA-based vaccines for COVID-19 can cause heart damage in some young men and adolescents — and they’ve shown a possible route to reducing its likelihood." That's very different from the headline. It's pretty well-established by this point that mRNA Covid vaccines caused myocarditis in younger males. They also protected against the significantly higher risk of myocarditis from Covid itself. This second point is conveniently omitted by the "skeptics and conspiracy theorists" when they cry vindication.
  - netsharc 10mo ago
    Yeah, the skeptics and conspiracy theorists want to roll back time and prevent any vaccination at all (or have the smugness of saying "See, we were right, there shouldn't have been any vaccination at all!"), because of a 1 in 16750 peak incidence rate among a group, and "Fortunately, most of these cases end well, Wu said, with full heart function retained or restored. Recovery is typically swift.".
    - cruffle_duffle 10mo ago
      “See, we were right, there shouldn't have been any vaccination at all!” Nobody sane says that. Such rhetoric is a divisive wedge. Same people would have liked to see an open honest discussion about the vaccine. Instead you had political figures, “experts” and tech sites suppress any and all discussion. All medicine has side effects… but these fuckers were on a mission. Anything remotely suggesting that maybe, just maybe, not everybody should get a vaccine… oh boy can’t have that. But if you want to mis-characterize things, by all means do so.

19 points by DeusExMachina 10mo ago

Why does the HN headline here drop the original's important word: 'why'? Original (emphasis mine): >> Stanford Medicine study shows why mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines can cause myocarditis Transcribed to an HN headline here: >> Stanford Medicine study shows mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines can cause myocarditis A significant difference, no? Why? ---- After reading the article at Stanford, the word I'd choose is 'how' as in 'how vaccines can cause myocarditis'.

guywithahat 10mo ago
I sort of thought that too; we've known it can cause myocarditis for years, it was the basis for people avoiding the mRNA vaccine (i.e. "clot shot"). Still though I'm happy to see people continuing to research this instead of just avoiding politically tense fields all-together
- estearum 10mo ago
  > it was the basis for people avoiding the mRNA vaccine (i.e. "clot shot") That's generous. There is no sane reading of data at any point in time netted out risk in this way. "Avoiding the clot shot" is a cultural statement, not a medical or scientific one.
krapp 10mo ago
HN automatically redacts what it considers unnecessary words from titles. It doesn't inform you that it's doing so, you're expected to notice and edit the post again if the change is unwarranted. Most people don't, because most people aren't even aware that this "feature" exists.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

mc32 10mo ago

Slowly the skeptics and the conspiracy theorists are getting proven correct in this case. It’s unfortunate it’s taken so long for the hidden truth to come out. It’s also unfortunate they swept this under the rug which just increases people’s suspicion around vaccine safety. I hope they, the establishment, learn from this boondoggle.

triceratops 10mo ago
The article says "Stanford Medicine investigators have unearthed the biological process by which mRNA-based vaccines for COVID-19 can cause heart damage in some young men and adolescents — and they’ve shown a possible route to reducing its likelihood." That's very different from the headline. It's pretty well-established by this point that mRNA Covid vaccines caused myocarditis in younger males. They also protected against the significantly higher risk of myocarditis from Covid itself. This second point is conveniently omitted by the "skeptics and conspiracy theorists" when they cry vindication.
- netsharc 10mo ago
  Yeah, the skeptics and conspiracy theorists want to roll back time and prevent any vaccination at all (or have the smugness of saying "See, we were right, there shouldn't have been any vaccination at all!"), because of a 1 in 16750 peak incidence rate among a group, and "Fortunately, most of these cases end well, Wu said, with full heart function retained or restored. Recovery is typically swift.".
  - cruffle_duffle 10mo ago
    “See, we were right, there shouldn't have been any vaccination at all!” Nobody sane says that. Such rhetoric is a divisive wedge. Same people would have liked to see an open honest discussion about the vaccine. Instead you had political figures, “experts” and tech sites suppress any and all discussion. All medicine has side effects… but these fuckers were on a mission. Anything remotely suggesting that maybe, just maybe, not everybody should get a vaccine… oh boy can’t have that. But if you want to mis-characterize things, by all means do so.