131–140 of 207 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I saw a statistic of Denmark (who are aspirating) vs Norway (who aren't), and vaccine complications[0] were something like 1 in 25.000 in Denmark vs 1 in 15.000 in Norway[1], so there was a clear difference. [0] Or myocarditis specifically? [1] Don't quote me on these numbers, they are ballpark numbers from my memory
isnt that backwards from the expectation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This paper essentially argues that the risk of myocarditis in under-40 males getting 2 shots is greater (perhaps much greater) than the risk of getting it from COVID. There have been similar studies before, but none (that I saw) broken down by age and sex like this. This is especially fascinating to me because for months I noticed that whenever I or anyone else would bring up the fear of myocarditis from the vax (w…
This preprint agrees that the risk of myocarditis is significantly higher, except if you are a. A male b. Under 40 years old c. Took the Moderna vaccine So the statement that COVID has a higher risk of myocarditis is still true. The media and those people got their information from existing data. This data was correct for the original question. However it wasn't delineated by age and by vaccine, and it's only after t…
Yes but it's misleading, and whether or not you want to argue it's deliberately so, is another debate. Are men under 40 who are considering Moderna (or don't even know what vax they're going to get since both are considered fairly equal) not worthy of being informed that their risk of myocarditis is actually potentially higher than if they got COVID? That doesn't make much sense to me, if it does to you then at what threshold would they be worthy of being informed that the blanket statement that's been being thrown around, doesn't actually apply to them? I seem to recall most people arguing that "COVID isn't actually that bad" not having an acceptable argument because while it's true for many people, for other groups of people, COVID actually is bad...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know. I feel that many people got unfairly labelled as "anti-vaxxer" because they simply opposed to forced vaccination --not the efficacy of the vaccine itself, based on the argument that risk of death from covid was relatively very low for healthy adults and children. And given the time constrains for the vaccine production and trials, it would have been prudent to assume that the side effects associated wit…
> I don't know. I feel that many people got unfairly labelled as "anti-vaxxer" because they simply opposed to forced vaccination Unlikely because the most of the same people chose not to get vaccinated themselves well before any mandates or requirements came into force, and were posting arguments online warning people not to get the vaccine or that it hadn't been sufficiently tested - as you yourself do in this post.…
As did many news media organizations - only up until the election, that is. [0] Then everyone was a conspiracy theorist immediately after.
[0]: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/01/health/eua-coronavirus-vaccin...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This paper essentially argues that the risk of myocarditis in under-40 males getting 2 shots is greater (perhaps much greater) than the risk of getting it from COVID. There have been similar studies before, but none (that I saw) broken down by age and sex like this. This is especially fascinating to me because for months I noticed that whenever I or anyone else would bring up the fear of myocarditis from the vax (w…
They might still be right; this is only a pre-print, only focused on one specific aspect of COVID and the effect size is small. But if they are wrong, the most likely explanation is they misunderstood something and were just wrong. Ironically, as is well known but bears repeating, the vocal "follow the science" types tend more to be believers in authority figures than people who care what science says. They aren't es…
I think you're giving the media far too much credit especially when it comes to this issue. Remember, this is a media that actively called a legitimate, low-side-effect profile, WHO-listed essential drug "horse paste" or at least actively made comparisons to it, and a media that sowed fear and doubt about the vaccine while Trump was still President.
I think the time is long gone for giving the media the benefit of the doubt on things like this. Scientists sure, but the media, absolutely not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
> This is not peer reviewed With Covid moving so fast it's not really feasible to rely on peer-reviewed data alone. Once a paper gets reviewed things have usually changed (like new variants). Pre-prints are very necessary because of this. Of course it's not optimal, you either have unreliable or outdated data.
Do they know why the shot skyrockets myocarditis risk mostly among young men? Like what's the mechanism?
Peter McCullough in his recent Joe Rogan interview suggested it may be due to the mRNA vaccines nano lipids. He said the heart, brain, and reproductive organs are "sponges" for the nano lipids. Thus these organs are getting exposed to more spike proteins than else where in the body. The damage from spike proteins is otherwise well documented.
2 questions we can use to vet this: 1. are there significant cardiovascular differences between genders, and 2. Do we see significantly more myocarditis in Pfizer vs astrazeneca.
Other than that I don't have enough medical knowledge to dispute it, but no one seems to have picked up on it in the medical community.
If it's not something that can be quickly dismissed on first principles then I think it would an interesting area to study.
Wasn't there a none live attenuation vaccine coming to market that doesnt use MRNA? I read myocarditis is partly caused by the mechanisms of producing the spike protein. Can't we just go back to traditional vaccines?
Inactivated vaccines appear to be quite ineffective against severe COVID and I have read that experts are doubtful about long-term protection against severe cases as well.
One alternative might be recombinant protein vaccines like the one from Novavax. This one was just approved in the EU and apparently the phase-3 trial went well. Of course, rare side effects (like myocarditis in mRNA vaccines) can only be measured once at least a few million people have been vaccinated. Also the longevity of the protection is still unknown.
[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201967
Wasn't there a none live attenuation vaccine coming to market that doesnt use MRNA? I read myocarditis is partly caused by the mechanisms of producing the spike protein. Can't we just go back to traditional vaccines?
"Traditional vaccines" are by no means free of side effects. The smallpox vaccine is a live vaccine and causes much more severe side effects than mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, including myocarditis [1]. This risk was accepted since smallpox is incredibly dangerous. Inactivated vaccines appear to be quite ineffective against severe COVID and I have read that experts are doubtful about long-term protection against severe cas…
In particular, it was way more dangerous than COVID is. To figure out an acceptable level of side effects, wouldn't it be better to compare COVID to other diseases of a similar danger level?