5 ms·

The Norwegian study landed on 4.5 cases per 100k from vaccinations [0]. Unvaccinated occurance was 200 per 100k [1]. [0] https://www.oslo-universitetssykehus.

by croon 3mo ago

The Norwegian study landed on 4.5 cases per 100k from vaccinations [0]. Unvaccinated occurance was 200 per 100k [1]. [0] https://www.oslo-universitetssykehus.no/en/departments/hjerte-lunge-og-karklinikken/procardio-center-for-innovation2/A-new-study-from-Procardio-indicates-that-myocarditis-after-mRNA-vaccination-is-rare./ https://www.oslo-universitetssykehus.no/en/departments/hjert... [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38262150/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38262150/

tuesdaynight 3mo ago
It's so sad to see that you are the first one with any kind of source in your comment. The rest are only saying scary stuff and you are supposed to argue with that. They are saying stuff like "my friend died because of the jab" and you come with studies links, which can sound unfriendly. And we are on HN, for fuck's sake.
- trimethylpurine 3mo ago
  The articles are fantastic, it's the unscientific claim that the data implies safety that's at issue. You can't post research about the fact that people misinterpret research right? But it's factually true. Most of the people on HN are not trained in doing or reviewing research. And not just on HN. Everyone can purchase an ad that claims to be the arbiter. Everyone can say they represent the consensus. But the people with more money can buy more ads just like Google can stomp out any competitor, because they control the data channel. It's a logical problem. Should we start requiring a license to hold an opinion about research? Who would we trust to govern that licensing process? It's not really so simple as finding a source to back your claim. You need to be able to defend your interpretation of that source. Bottom line "safety" is subjective. That's the critical argument. Compared to what is it safe? Vaccine with a guarantee of infection, maybe the vaccine is safer. Vaccinating everyone? Well, we didn't really study that. How do you study people in larger numbers with a guarantee that they don't get infected? They didn't. They just assume everyone is infected and that number makes the research look valid and safe. In fact, it's not. The average person is more likely to have negative outcomes from vaccine than natural infection combined with non-infection. So is it safe for someone who won't be infected at all? What about for someone that won't exhibit symptoms? No. It's far less safe for those people. 300x-30,000x less safe. Depends on your estimation of asymptomatic and uninfected subjects in the real world. It's more safe for someone in their 70s, with cancer, or whatever. Fine. But say that clearly. Don't try to bury that in summaries that obfuscate what you really studied. Doing so destroys trust in science. Not advocating for or against this vaccine platform, though. I'm advocating for laws about what meets and doesn't meet scientific rigor, as are most scientists right now.
trimethylpurine 3mo ago
In [1] "those who are not vaccinated" is a tiny subset of society that is actually composed of those who are infected, and also symptomatic, and also not vaccinated. A large portion of society can't be counted because they are asymptomatic. How do you find them to count them? In fact that's nearly everyone. And for those people the vaccine increases their risk by 4/100,000. (More harm than good.) Let me know if I've misunderstood.
- tuesdaynight 3mo ago
  Why increase? Are you saying that asymptomatic people don't have myocarditis risk?
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  - trimethylpurine 3mo ago
    Because it's causally linked to myocarditis[0]. [0] https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/12/myocarditis-vaccine-covid.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/12/myocarditis-v... >Are you saying that asymptomatic people don't have myocarditis risk? No.
    - croon 3mo ago
      Then you also accept that the asymptomatic (unvaccinated) covid risk of myocarditis is higher than the vaccine risk, because it is.
      - trimethylpurine 3mo ago
        See my other comment answering this. It's only higher if you don't trust peer reviewed research, and instead use the numbers provided by the drug company in a study that was not peer reviewed. See the list of peer reviewers in Pfizer's study and notice that they are the same as the researchers, and that they've made claims without providing their results (those are still being released over an 80 year period by FOIA court order, you'll get the results when we're all dead). If you can't find a link to the court case on this, let me know. I'll find it for you.

by croon 3mo ago

tuesdaynight 3mo ago

It's so sad to see that you are the first one with any kind of source in your comment. The rest are only saying scary stuff and you are supposed to argue with that. They are saying stuff like "my friend died because of the jab" and you come with studies links, which can sound unfriendly. And we are on HN, for fuck's sake.

trimethylpurine 3mo ago
The articles are fantastic, it's the unscientific claim that the data implies safety that's at issue. You can't post research about the fact that people misinterpret research right? But it's factually true. Most of the people on HN are not trained in doing or reviewing research. And not just on HN. Everyone can purchase an ad that claims to be the arbiter. Everyone can say they represent the consensus. But the people with more money can buy more ads just like Google can stomp out any competitor, because they control the data channel. It's a logical problem. Should we start requiring a license to hold an opinion about research? Who would we trust to govern that licensing process? It's not really so simple as finding a source to back your claim. You need to be able to defend your interpretation of that source. Bottom line "safety" is subjective. That's the critical argument. Compared to what is it safe? Vaccine with a guarantee of infection, maybe the vaccine is safer. Vaccinating everyone? Well, we didn't really study that. How do you study people in larger numbers with a guarantee that they don't get infected? They didn't. They just assume everyone is infected and that number makes the research look valid and safe. In fact, it's not. The average person is more likely to have negative outcomes from vaccine than natural infection combined with non-infection. So is it safe for someone who won't be infected at all? What about for someone that won't exhibit symptoms? No. It's far less safe for those people. 300x-30,000x less safe. Depends on your estimation of asymptomatic and uninfected subjects in the real world. It's more safe for someone in their 70s, with cancer, or whatever. Fine. But say that clearly. Don't try to bury that in summaries that obfuscate what you really studied. Doing so destroys trust in science. Not advocating for or against this vaccine platform, though. I'm advocating for laws about what meets and doesn't meet scientific rigor, as are most scientists right now.

trimethylpurine 3mo ago

In [1] "those who are not vaccinated" is a tiny subset of society that is actually composed of those who are infected, and also symptomatic, and also not vaccinated. A large portion of society can't be counted because they are asymptomatic. How do you find them to count them? In fact that's nearly everyone. And for those people the vaccine increases their risk by 4/100,000. (More harm than good.) Let me know if I've misunderstood.

tuesdaynight 3mo ago
Why increase? Are you saying that asymptomatic people don't have myocarditis risk?
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- trimethylpurine 3mo ago
  Because it's causally linked to myocarditis[0]. [0] https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/12/myocarditis-vaccine-covid.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/12/myocarditis-v... >Are you saying that asymptomatic people don't have myocarditis risk? No.
  - croon 3mo ago
    Then you also accept that the asymptomatic (unvaccinated) covid risk of myocarditis is higher than the vaccine risk, because it is.
    - trimethylpurine 3mo ago
      See my other comment answering this. It's only higher if you don't trust peer reviewed research, and instead use the numbers provided by the drug company in a study that was not peer reviewed. See the list of peer reviewers in Pfizer's study and notice that they are the same as the researchers, and that they've made claims without providing their results (those are still being released over an 80 year period by FOIA court order, you'll get the results when we're all dead). If you can't find a link to the court case on this, let me know. I'll find it for you.