4 ms·

Why?

• jambalaya8 1mo ago
  [flagged]
  • consumer451 1mo ago
    > (and yes, I have a background in this) Care to share what that is exactly?
    • jambalaya8 1mo ago
      [flagged]
• jimbo808 1mo ago
  People were assured that COVID vaccine mRNA would disappear within days and the spike protein would short-lived. Yet Yale-led researchers later detected circulating S1 and full-length spike as late as 709 days after vaccination. They also left the public in the dark about the risk of vaccine-associated myocarditis, especially in young males, many of whom experienced permanent heart tissue damage. That is a massive gap between what the public was told and what later evidence found. If a technology makes your cells produce a biologically active protein, regulators should establish where it goes, how long it can persist, and what prolonged exposure does before mass deployment. https://news.yale.edu/2025/02/19/immune-markers-post-vaccination-syndrome-indicate-future-research-directions https://news.yale.edu/2025/02/19/immune-markers-post-vaccina... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.02.18.25322379v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.02.18.25322379v...
  • estearum 1mo ago
    > They also left the public in the dark about the risk of vaccine-associated myocarditis, especially in young males, many of whom experienced permanent heart tissue damage. Not true. This was correctly disclosed in the trial results as a super super super tail risk. Once they realized that the (minuscule) risk could be even further mitigated by simply spacing out the booster schedule, they adjusted that (Feb 2022). Nobody was "left in the dark"
    • jambalaya8 1mo ago
      again. over how long.
      • estearum 1mo ago
        What?
        • jambalaya8 1mo ago
          the risk of heart issues.
    • lern_too_spel 1mo ago
      What's more, they found that myocarditis risk was higher in the unvaccinated population after infection. This information didn't get to the so-called "skeptics," who willfully ignored data that didn't fit their conspiracy theory. https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-poses-higher-risk-for-myocarditis-than-vaccines https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-...
      • jambalaya8 1mo ago
        I also get a kick out of people only looking for side effects they think of as side effects, since they are what people think of as side effects for completely different types of technologies.
        • estearum 1mo ago
          What?
      • Argonaut998 1mo ago
        >In men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after a second dose of mRNA-1273 than after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (97 [95% CI, 91–99] versus 16 [95% CI, 12–18]). From your own study you linked. The first comment I ever posted on HN was regarding a similar study where there was no control group whatsoever for unvaccinated people. I can’t get over the sunk cost reaction to this vaccine. No one who was not immunocompromised should have ever taken it. Period. And this is just regarding your study. Remember how the AstraZeneca vaccine (it was called the “Oxford vaccine” before that bad PR) was taken off the market instantly after reports of blood clots. One can go on endlessly.
  • Arkhaine_kupo 1mo ago
    > People were assured that COVID vaccine mRNA would disappear within days and the spike protein would short-lived which is still the case, even in the Yale study. > That is a massive gap between what the public was told and what later evidence found. there is an even larger gap between basic epidemiology and what the public understands. Hard science is difficult to communicate on a good day, on a global pandemic with quacks getting tons of airtime and multiple labs finding conflicting results (due to speed to publish and bad experimental parameters) I would say that was communicated by health experts was surprisingly valid and accurate.
    • estearum 1mo ago
      +1 the public health apparatuses' actual statements were impressively correct even if you don't account for the underlying uncertainty at the time. Where public health officials "failed" was not having a megaphone loud enough to drown out the game of telephone that most people (as these comment threads consistently show) were actually hearing information through. Simplest example: People will say that public health officials told them "masks don't work." But no! Only one person did, and that was USSG Jerome Adams (who wasn't credible nor a major player to begin with). What public health officials said was "we do not know if masks work," which is a more nuanced but completely accurate statement.
      • dosisking 1mo ago
        [flagged]
        • estearum 1mo ago
          Take it from someone who has read all of said emails: no, they don't prove that.
        • jambalaya8 1mo ago
          [flagged]
          • 1mo ago
  • dosisking 1mo ago
    [flagged]
  • jambalaya8 1mo ago
    Inspired me to reread some old papers on mRNA, miRNA, siRNA, RNAi from 15+ year ago. There went the day.