Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

medrxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 212 posts

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#11

Post by goodoldneon »

loceng wrote: post #9
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #4

I wish I could get people that are avoiding the COVID vaccine “because we don’t know what the long term effects are” to realize that we have real data showing that there are long term effects from getting full blown COVID. You don’t want a tiny piece of mRNA but you want the whole organism reproducing in your body? The whole genome and all the proteins made?

I wish I could get people that don't understand the nuances to deeply look into, study the mRNA vaccine, currently known issues including long haul COVID symptoms of people who've only had the vaccine (via the spike protein which has turned out to be cytotoxic and seems to break away causing issues), and look seriously into the Ivermectin research and its suppression; and yes, certainly I'll be downvoted because peop…

It’s hard to trust people who make a bold claim, only to back it up with “do the research”. Why don’t you link to some of these reputable Ivermectin studies?

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#12

Post by plank_time »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #4

I wish I could get people that are avoiding the COVID vaccine “because we don’t know what the long term effects are” to realize that we have real data showing that there are long term effects from getting full blown COVID. You don’t want a tiny piece of mRNA but you want the whole organism reproducing in your body? The whole genome and all the proteins made?

What is the percentage of people who suffered any long term brain effects?

And did they do the same study against people who got the flu and other diseases?

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#13

Post by goodoldneon »

wombatmobile wrote: post #2

This sounds alarming: > There is strong evidence for brain-related pathologies in COVID-19, some of which could be a consequence of viral neurotropism. This doesn't: > We further compared COVID-19 patients who had been hospitalised (n=15) with those who had not (n=379), and while results were not significant, we found comparatively similar findings to the COVID-19 vs control group comparison What are the quantitative…

Kind of a tangent, but I get frustrated when researchers publicly release results when one of their groups have a ridiculously small sample size. It’s irresponsible to release results based on 15 people

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#14

Post by plank_time »

goodoldneon wrote: post #11
loceng wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I could get people that don't understand the nuances to deeply look into, study the mRNA vaccine, currently known issues including long haul COVID symptoms of people who've only had the vaccine (via the spike protein which has turned out to be cytotoxic and seems to break away causing issues), and look seriously into the Ivermectin research and its suppression; and yes, certainly I'll be downvoted because peop…

It’s hard to trust people who make a bold claim, only to back it up with “do the research”. Why don’t you link to some of these reputable Ivermectin studies?

I thought Ecuador heavily used ivermectin with no discernible benefit.

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#15

Post by anthomtb »

hallway_monitor wrote: post #6
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #4

I wish I could get people that are avoiding the COVID vaccine “because we don’t know what the long term effects are” to realize that we have real data showing that there are long term effects from getting full blown COVID. You don’t want a tiny piece of mRNA but you want the whole organism reproducing in your body? The whole genome and all the proteins made?

Agree completely. That said, ideally I don't want either. Since a lot of people wanted to get vaccinated immediately, I can avoid that and the virus with very high probability. If needed, I'll take v3 or so of the mRNA vaccine.

Most of the arguments against accepting an mRNA shot read as “too new, do not want” to me. What are the specific long-term side effects that one should be aware of when accepting an mRNA shot?

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#16

Post by hallway_monitor »

egeozcan wrote: post #8
hallway_monitor wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree completely. That said, ideally I don't want either. Since a lot of people wanted to get vaccinated immediately, I can avoid that and the virus with very high probability. If needed, I'll take v3 or so of the mRNA vaccine.

If many people do what you are doing, some percentage can get the virus and allow it to mutate further, reducing the vaccine efficiency, putting others to risk. Prisoner's dilemma at play. meta edit: I don't like your post becoming completely gray and therefore up-voted you. It's a view that many people hold and it needs to be answered not by screaming "down-vote the selfish!" but rather with good arguments.

Oh 100%. It's a selfish play I admit. But if there's greater than zero risk of any long-term unknown effects from a vaccine, the number of people already vaccinated means the expected value is probably negative for anyone who hasn't been vaccinated yet.

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#17

Post by Xylakant »

goodoldneon wrote: post #13
wombatmobile wrote: post #2

This sounds alarming: > There is strong evidence for brain-related pathologies in COVID-19, some of which could be a consequence of viral neurotropism. This doesn't: > We further compared COVID-19 patients who had been hospitalised (n=15) with those who had not (n=379), and while results were not significant, we found comparatively similar findings to the COVID-19 vs control group comparison What are the quantitative…

Kind of a tangent, but I get frustrated when researchers publicly release results when one of their groups have a ridiculously small sample size. It’s irresponsible to release results based on 15 people

The article is “published” on a preprint server and carries a suitable warning at the top. It’s preliminary, unverified and not reviewed. The target audience is other researchers, not the general public. It’s useful to publish preliminary results based on low sample sizes, it can guide future research. Basically a “hey, we found something we consider interesting, it may be worth having a better look at this.” It’s very dangerous to read too much into this, though - hence the warning at the top.

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#18

Post by elboulangero »

FWIW this thread was a good read: https://mobile.twitter.com/skepticalzebra/status/14058997241...

Apparently there are previous studies (pre-covid Era) that found similar changes in the brain associated with loss of smell.

Quoting:

> What if I told you there was also an illness in which:

> "grey matter reduction was observed in the gyrus rectus, orbitofrontal cortex, thalamus, and the insula"

> This is taken from a study on Chronic rhinosinusitis with olfactory loss

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#20

Post by bavent »

namelessone wrote: post #10
loceng wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I could get people that don't understand the nuances to deeply look into, study the mRNA vaccine, currently known issues including long haul COVID symptoms of people who've only had the vaccine (via the spike protein which has turned out to be cytotoxic and seems to break away causing issues), and look seriously into the Ivermectin research and its suppression; and yes, certainly I'll be downvoted because peop…

>and I won't bother linking to resources related to Ivermectin I'm not informed enough to comment on the content of your post, but this is a horrible way to start a productive discussion.

They aren’t trying to start a productive discussion. Anti-vaxxers don’t approach debates in good faith. They tend to drop long-winded comments that vaguely link together different conspiracies and anecdotal bits of “evidence” but then never cite sources and never back up their claims when pushed.
Post reply on HN