6 ms·

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.

by 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.
    - OKRainbowKid 10mo ago
      Well, is there a group that, statistically, would have been better off not getting vaccinated? If no, then what is your point?
    - netsharc 10mo ago
      > 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. Heh, who's mis-characterizing things? As I recall there was a lot of "the risks are within limits", rather than the authorianism you're characterizing...
    - acdha 10mo ago
      > 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. This is absolutely untrue: what were suppressed by various sites were outright lies and misrepresentation. There was continuously a vigorous discussion about vaccine efficacy and safety, who should be prioritized, etc. and the people who engaged in it scientifically had nothing to fear. The people who were lying about vaccination now claim that’s what they were doing but anyone who watched it at the time could easily see the difference.
      - youarentrightjr 10mo ago
        > the people who engaged in it scientifically had nothing to fear Similar to the question of criminalizing "hate speech" - who gets to decide whether an engagement reaches the scientific threshold? Is it not obvious how policies like this can be weaponized to quell valid dissent?
        acdha 10mo ago
        That’s a vague hypothetical so I can’t answer it but in this case I saw a number examples of people asking questions which were obviously based on known falsehoods or presupposed answers for ideological reasons, so it wasn’t surprising that they encountered forum policies for acting in bad faith. I saw many people acting in good faith who had no negative consequences for exploring questions like this, too, so it’s really doesn’t seem like there was a problem here and the people who lied about why they suffered consequences only had their speech suppressed to the extent that they had to go somewhere else so the consequences were minimal.
yummybrainz 10mo ago
> However, Wu noted, if the inflammation is severe the resulting heart injury can be quite debilitating, leading to hospitalizations; ICU admissions for critically ill patients; and deaths, albeit rarely. > “But COVID’s worse,” he added. A case of COVID-19 is about 10 times as likely to induce myocarditis as an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, Wu said. That’s in addition to all the other trouble it causes. I recall hearing about this as a low-probability potential side effect during the pandemic. What do you mean by "swept this under the rug"?
- mc32 10mo ago
  Twitter and Facebook were urged to label posts around myocarditis as “misleading” and wanted such claims suppressed.
  - acdha 10mo ago
    Who, specifically, urged them and what was the exact request? There was plenty of open scientific discussion on this point so it’s not like it was a secret but, as this article also notes, the risk is significantly higher from COVID.
  - estearum 10mo ago
    What were the specific claims being made?
  - triceratops 10mo ago
    Don't go on Twitter and Facebook. Problem solved.
- ericmcer 10mo ago
  I mean your being a bit obtuse if you don't think there was a stigma around criticizing the vaccine in 2021/22. Writing a LinkedIn/Facebook post about how the vaccine causes heart problems might result in you losing your job and would definitely cause you to lose a few friends. There was a massive stigma around pointing out flaws in vaccines at that time, it was not a nuanced issue, either you were all in or you were a psycho anti-vax nut.
emchammer 10mo ago
It’s worse that we had COVID in the first place, though.
1970-01-01 10mo ago
Hard to disagree here because the skeptics were saying everything at once. It was peak misinformation: It doesn't work. It doesn't help. It is worse than the infection. Ivermectin works better. It causes heart damage. It causes brain damage. I gave it to my dog and my dog died 3 months later. Etc.
- Terr_ 10mo ago
  A similar trajectory to: 1. "Putting seat-belts in cars and making us wear them!? That's nothing but a dangerous government conspiracy! For your own safety, never wear the annoying and evil devices!" 2. "OMG, look at this! Scientists had no choice but to admit the horrible seat-belts do cause injuries on people during a crash!" 3. "THIS PROVES I WAS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING!!11"
didibus 10mo ago
It was the scientific community who first found an association between the vaccine and myocarditis and who then established a more causative effect, who determined its probability, its target demographic, and now who is figuring out the underlying mechanisms. And even the risk assessment hasn't changed, the scientific community was still right in that the risk from the vaccine of this side effect is much lower to that of Covid itself. So I'm really not following your logic, your statement seems plain false to me.
estearum 10mo ago
Lol, no they're not. This is an extremely rare event that was nonetheless detected by scientists who then nonetheless updated dosing guidelines to mitigate it as early as February 2022. This has been an active area of focus since before the drugs were even released which is why such events were in fact tracked closely during the 30,000+ participant clinical trials. Those gigantic clinical trials (some of the largest RCTs ever conducted) didn't detect this issue because of its extreme rarity. This is exactly the drug development and post-market surveillance process working correctly. At every point (and even still) the risk calculus is heavily weighted toward vaccination for nearly everyone, and slightly weighted toward vaccination for the most SAE-prone group (young men). And that's all assuming COVID doesn't have latent systemic effects like many viruses do (chickenpox, ebola, or measles come to mind). The skeptics have been wrong at every turn. It's even too generous to say a broken clock is right twice a day.
- kvnn 10mo ago
  > At every point (and even still) the risk calculus is heavily weighted toward vaccination for nearly everyone You are a zealot.
  - windows_hater_7 10mo ago
    [dead]
- pkphilip 10mo ago
  It is not rare at all. Fact is, as more and more data comes out we are becoming more and more aware that the Covid vaccines have caused severe damage. Here is the data collated from 125 countries: there were about 31 million excess deaths across the 2020-23 period. Spatiotemporal variation of excess all-cause mortality in the world (125 countries) during the Covid period 2020-2023 regarding socio-economic factors and public-health and medical interventions https://hal.science/hal-05110349 https://hal.science/hal-05110349 Explanation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBkKBqpLjAk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBkKBqpLjAk
  - 10mo ago
cthalupa 10mo ago
Vaccines can cause myocarditis. This isn't new information, it's not specific to Covid vaccines or mRNA vaccines. It's a well known potential side effect of vaccines. We've known that flu vaccines can cause myocarditis and pericarditis for a long, long, time. But importantly, just like other flu vaccines, the Covid vaccines cause them at lower rates than getting infected while unvaccinated, and the actual severity is also lower.

by mc32 10mo ago

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.
  - OKRainbowKid 10mo ago
    Well, is there a group that, statistically, would have been better off not getting vaccinated? If no, then what is your point?
  - netsharc 10mo ago
    > 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. Heh, who's mis-characterizing things? As I recall there was a lot of "the risks are within limits", rather than the authorianism you're characterizing...
  - acdha 10mo ago
    > 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. This is absolutely untrue: what were suppressed by various sites were outright lies and misrepresentation. There was continuously a vigorous discussion about vaccine efficacy and safety, who should be prioritized, etc. and the people who engaged in it scientifically had nothing to fear. The people who were lying about vaccination now claim that’s what they were doing but anyone who watched it at the time could easily see the difference.
    - youarentrightjr 10mo ago
      > the people who engaged in it scientifically had nothing to fear Similar to the question of criminalizing "hate speech" - who gets to decide whether an engagement reaches the scientific threshold? Is it not obvious how policies like this can be weaponized to quell valid dissent?
      - acdha 10mo ago
        That’s a vague hypothetical so I can’t answer it but in this case I saw a number examples of people asking questions which were obviously based on known falsehoods or presupposed answers for ideological reasons, so it wasn’t surprising that they encountered forum policies for acting in bad faith. I saw many people acting in good faith who had no negative consequences for exploring questions like this, too, so it’s really doesn’t seem like there was a problem here and the people who lied about why they suffered consequences only had their speech suppressed to the extent that they had to go somewhere else so the consequences were minimal.

yummybrainz 10mo ago

> However, Wu noted, if the inflammation is severe the resulting heart injury can be quite debilitating, leading to hospitalizations; ICU admissions for critically ill patients; and deaths, albeit rarely. > “But COVID’s worse,” he added. A case of COVID-19 is about 10 times as likely to induce myocarditis as an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, Wu said. That’s in addition to all the other trouble it causes. I recall hearing about this as a low-probability potential side effect during the pandemic. What do you mean by "swept this under the rug"?

mc32 10mo ago
Twitter and Facebook were urged to label posts around myocarditis as “misleading” and wanted such claims suppressed.
- acdha 10mo ago
  Who, specifically, urged them and what was the exact request? There was plenty of open scientific discussion on this point so it’s not like it was a secret but, as this article also notes, the risk is significantly higher from COVID.
- estearum 10mo ago
  What were the specific claims being made?
- triceratops 10mo ago
  Don't go on Twitter and Facebook. Problem solved.
ericmcer 10mo ago
I mean your being a bit obtuse if you don't think there was a stigma around criticizing the vaccine in 2021/22. Writing a LinkedIn/Facebook post about how the vaccine causes heart problems might result in you losing your job and would definitely cause you to lose a few friends. There was a massive stigma around pointing out flaws in vaccines at that time, it was not a nuanced issue, either you were all in or you were a psycho anti-vax nut.

emchammer 10mo ago

It’s worse that we had COVID in the first place, though.

1970-01-01 10mo ago

Hard to disagree here because the skeptics were saying everything at once. It was peak misinformation: It doesn't work. It doesn't help. It is worse than the infection. Ivermectin works better. It causes heart damage. It causes brain damage. I gave it to my dog and my dog died 3 months later. Etc.

Terr_ 10mo ago
A similar trajectory to: 1. "Putting seat-belts in cars and making us wear them!? That's nothing but a dangerous government conspiracy! For your own safety, never wear the annoying and evil devices!" 2. "OMG, look at this! Scientists had no choice but to admit the horrible seat-belts do cause injuries on people during a crash!" 3. "THIS PROVES I WAS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING!!11"

didibus 10mo ago

It was the scientific community who first found an association between the vaccine and myocarditis and who then established a more causative effect, who determined its probability, its target demographic, and now who is figuring out the underlying mechanisms. And even the risk assessment hasn't changed, the scientific community was still right in that the risk from the vaccine of this side effect is much lower to that of Covid itself. So I'm really not following your logic, your statement seems plain false to me.

estearum 10mo ago

Lol, no they're not. This is an extremely rare event that was nonetheless detected by scientists who then nonetheless updated dosing guidelines to mitigate it as early as February 2022. This has been an active area of focus since before the drugs were even released which is why such events were in fact tracked closely during the 30,000+ participant clinical trials. Those gigantic clinical trials (some of the largest RCTs ever conducted) didn't detect this issue because of its extreme rarity. This is exactly the drug development and post-market surveillance process working correctly. At every point (and even still) the risk calculus is heavily weighted toward vaccination for nearly everyone, and slightly weighted toward vaccination for the most SAE-prone group (young men). And that's all assuming COVID doesn't have latent systemic effects like many viruses do (chickenpox, ebola, or measles come to mind). The skeptics have been wrong at every turn. It's even too generous to say a broken clock is right twice a day.

kvnn 10mo ago
> At every point (and even still) the risk calculus is heavily weighted toward vaccination for nearly everyone You are a zealot.
- windows_hater_7 10mo ago
  [dead]
pkphilip 10mo ago
It is not rare at all. Fact is, as more and more data comes out we are becoming more and more aware that the Covid vaccines have caused severe damage. Here is the data collated from 125 countries: there were about 31 million excess deaths across the 2020-23 period. Spatiotemporal variation of excess all-cause mortality in the world (125 countries) during the Covid period 2020-2023 regarding socio-economic factors and public-health and medical interventions https://hal.science/hal-05110349 https://hal.science/hal-05110349 Explanation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBkKBqpLjAk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBkKBqpLjAk
- 10mo ago

cthalupa 10mo ago

Vaccines can cause myocarditis. This isn't new information, it's not specific to Covid vaccines or mRNA vaccines. It's a well known potential side effect of vaccines. We've known that flu vaccines can cause myocarditis and pericarditis for a long, long, time. But importantly, just like other flu vaccines, the Covid vaccines cause them at lower rates than getting infected while unvaccinated, and the actual severity is also lower.