61–70 of 662 posts
As someone who did choose to get the latest booster despite being a young male (highest risk group for myocarditis I believe), we should always be questioning what we put in our bodies.
But they convincingly argue that accidentally injecting the vaccination into the bloodstream towards the heart may cause a heart infection similar to those seen in people who got sick with Covid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're jumping the gun a bit here. If vaccines save 10,000 people and kill 10 people, that's still a net positive. That's the kind of moral calculus public health has to deal with all the time.
I’m not jumping the gun - the net deaths can be negative yet it is still the case that what we witnessed was a massive, arguably unprecedented failure of medical ethics, the defense of body autonomy, the scientific process, the culture of healthy skepticism and debate, and basic decency and opposition to dehumanization campaigns. All due to fear and righteousness, as it often is.
It was said once that 5 deaths is a tragedy, but 500k is just a statistic (as a justification of genocide). This is possibly why the 5 deaths in the article possibly from the vaccine is apparently more terrifying.
We coerced young, low-risk people into receiving these treatments despite known side effects on pain of losing their education or employment or being able to enter privately-owned establishments (irrespective of the wishes of the owners of those privately-owned establishments). We justified it with the specious argument that they were putting other people at undue risk by remaining unvaccinated. We claimed that vacci…
Does this indicate that the authors believe aspirating the vaccine during administration would reduce the risk of myocarditis? I don't have a biological background so I would be interested in hearing someone else's take on this but that sentence seems to indicate that the authors think ensuring correct administration would lower the risk of post-vaccine complications (which from what I've seen, remains low but non-zero). If that's the case, then perhaps the issue isn't as much with the vaccine itself as how it's being administered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should the companies be held liable? This was a government project enforced by the gun; the companies didn't force anyone to take their vaccines, and there's not a way they could have made them meaningfully safer given the timelines.
My employer wouldn't let me go to the office or even any offsites or outdoor actives (i.e. a picnic) until very recently. (Despite my approved religious exemption and "requiring" all employees to work in the office). If that isn't coercion to take an experimental vaccine i don't know what is.
The wording is a telltale sign that the exemption is pure BS.
Currently, I still believe that people should vaccinate, even if vaccines cause mortality/harm in some cases. As long as vaccine side effects cause less deaths and less harm than the virus, vaccination is still the way to go.
My position depends on us having a good understanding of the vaccine's effects however, and right now I feel like we don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vaccines were and still are mandated for people not at risk of severe disease, and myocarditis has been framed as a side effect not worth worrying about despite the fact that it literally can kill you. Not to mention without understanding the mechanism of action, we cannot estimate the number of true deaths that occurred without a myocarditis diagnosis.
> about despite the fact that it literally can kill you. There are many many things that can literally kill you. Heck, even anosmia can literally kill you under the right circumstances. What matters is the total number of vaccine-related myocarditis cases, and the total number of vaccine-related myocarditis death balanced with the number of covid related-death (including Covid-induced fatal myocarditis, because the v…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Myocarditis is rare and has been a part of the discussion from even before the vaccines were released, or at least the professional discussion. They were why the vaccines were not recommended for all ages to begin with.
The vaccines were and still are mandated for people not at risk of severe disease, and myocarditis has been framed as a side effect not worth worrying about despite the fact that it literally can kill you. Not to mention without understanding the mechanism of action, we cannot estimate the number of true deaths that occurred without a myocarditis diagnosis.
Myocarditis is a side effect not worrying about because you have the same or greater chance of getting it if you get infected with COVID: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA....
It's also really really rare in both cases.
A question for vaccine skeptics: For it to be a reasonable choice to not want to take the vaccine wouldn't you need to balance the risk of death / complications from the vaccine against the risk of death / complications from covid multiplied by the risk of getting covid? There seems to be a lot of "aha I knew it" whenever any side-effect of the vaccine is found, but aren't the side-effects of covid well established,…
You forgot to account for the risk of getting the virus. If you choose to get the vaccine, the probability is 1. But what's the probability of getting Covid? Definitely less than 1.
For certain age groups (young men), the risk of complications * probability of getting the vaccine (1) was more than the risk of complications from COVID * the probability of getting it (let's say 0.25 or so).
Remember, COVID hasn't been shown to be particularly dangerous to young people...