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

Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

link.springer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 662 posts

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#131

Post by nyolfen »

aaomidi wrote: post #121
nyolfen wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the more interesting unaddressed question is, for whom ? i am a young-ish healthy person, i have basically no risk of ending up in the hospital for covid. what is the risk tradeoff for people similar to me, rather than an abstraction of the entire population? what is the risk tradeoff for a young child, who effectively has zero risk of serious covid?

Why do people keep thinking young people have no risk of ending up in the hospital for Covid? So many people have, and so many have died?

statistically, it is extremely unlikely[0] for an otherwise healthy young person to end up in the hospital for covid, much like myocarditis -- i am simply interested in which is more likely for specific population subsets

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/figures/mm6915e3-F1.g... -- from https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6915e3.htm

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#132

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

gfodor wrote: post #100
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Besides pneumonia, myocarditis is another manifestation reported during SARS-CoV-2-infection [24]. I mean, your point only makes sense if you ignore that COVID causes the same myocarditis and ignore that the vaccine has been proven to reduce severity and duration of symptoms. This study was of 5 autopsies, unless you can prove this was incredibly widespread concern I don't understand why you think it would be bette…

The data on myocarditis has been clear and significant for quite some time: 1 in approximately 5000 young men under 40 by shot two. Without a full understanding of the underlying mechanism of action, we can’t be that confident of number of deaths due to the vaccine, but given the size of the deployed population and the recurrent nature of the shots it’s not unreasonable to think we killed tens of thousands of people…

> it’s not unreasonable to think we killed tens of thousands of people with them.

It's not unreasonable to think otherwise as well given that it was a rare occurrence and typically mild. Also, there were no young men in this study. "Median age at death was 58 years (range 46–75 years)", so you're drawing your own conclusions without data here.

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#133

Post by gfodor »

lanstin wrote: post #72
danhak wrote: post #8

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…

As we also coerce babies into screening for various diseaaes and for vax against the diseases that afflict societies without this science. That is how it works. That is why we mostly don't die from infectious diseases for the first time since we built cities.

Not for an emergency use drug that doesn’t maintain herd immunity for a disease that is minimally harmful to children and is under immense selective pressure to break out of the vaccine.

Maybe you’ve got a bad mental model because of the word “vaccine.” This is not a vaccine of the kind we give children, in terms of what it prevents and the extent of data and knowledge we have of its side effects.

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#134

Post by delecti »

torstenvl wrote: post #75
librish wrote: post #39

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,…

> 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 No. Reasonable people make choices all the time that don't bear out under a cost-risk-benefit analysis like you propose. Those choices are still reasonable, despite perhaps not being stri…

The comment you replied to didn't mention mandates of any sort. It started with:

> For it to be a reasonable choice to not want to take the vaccine

"Basically everyone should get the vaccine" is a meaningfully different statement from "we should force people to get the vaccine".

Also, whether a person can be reasonable while making unreasonable choices isn't really the point either. The most reasonable option on this particular choice for the overwhelming majority pretty clearly seems to be to get the vaccine. It is similarly disingenuous to move the goal posts from "the most reasonable decision is to get the vaccine" to "you are an unreasonable person to not get the vaccine".

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#135

Post by almostnormal »

> Of note, it has been recently reported that intravenous injection of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine is able to induce an acute (epi-) myocarditis in a preclinical model

There have been lots of vaccinations shown in various TV reports over the last years. Watching carefully, there's two different variants: a) jab, aspirate, inject, b) jab, inject. Maybe it is just stock footage and not from covid shots, and everyone has been checking carefully for not finding blood?

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#136

Post by hammock »

nluken wrote: post #65

"Interestingly, we recorded inflammatory foci predominantly in the right heart, which may suggest a gradual blood-stream derived dilution effect and based on this finding it is at least tempting to speculate that inadvertent intravascular vaccine injection may be contributive." Does this indicate that the authors believe aspirating the vaccine during administration would reduce the risk of myocarditis? I don't have a…

Yes. Complication from jab administration is something that has been widely discussed (not widely reported though). The clinical trials were supposed to show that the jab (and therefore the mRNA, and the resultant spike protein generated, which is known to be toxic) stayed in the muscle local to the injection site.

What is widely speculated is that on some not-insubstantial portion of injections, the jab makes it into the bloodstream. This would explain why we see spike protein collecting in the heart, reproductive organs and other parts of the body.

And because of how the jab works - inducing spike protein genesis as well as an immune response - when the immune system finds spike protein on the cells that are creating it (supposed to be just your arm muscle but ends up being your heart and other things), it starts attacking those cells. Which leads to inflammation, blood clots, etc.

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#137

Post by manwe150 »

nulld3v wrote: post #67

I am vaccinated but I am upvoting this post because I believe that it is important to investigate these cases to determine how to improve future vaccines. I really don't like how this topic seems to be treated like some fringe conspiracy theory. Maybe it is just a conspiracy, but we won't ever know until sufficient research has been done. Currently, I still believe that people should vaccinate, even if vaccines cause…

I agree it is good we keep funding studies to try to better understand and predict the effects of the vaccines. What would it mean to feel like we have a good understanding though? How would we quantify "god"? We have observed that the side-effects have minimal deviation from the normal variations observed in the population for those effects. And we also know it is highly dependent on individual characteristics as to who exhibits the worst side-effects or best antibody response.

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#138

Post by LarryMullins »

fein wrote: post #44
gfodor wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is that still happening? (Genuine q)

In the USA on a government level? No idea, at least it isn't a thing around where I live, but I also sit at home and get paid to write software. No idea what applying for jobs in some industries might look like. On the social level? People have fractured families over it and/or forced(you can't see your grand children unless you're vaxxed, for example)/coerced family members into getting it despite their otherwise re…

Yep. I'm now estranged from half my extended family because of the awful way they treated my unvaccinated brother. They invited him to visit for Thanksgiving, knowing he was unvaccinated and saying it was okay. Then after he drove 8 hours to visit, they changed their mind and wouldn't let him into their house. They gave him a sandwich and told him to eat it on the porch. They're dead to me after that.

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#139

Post by kyleyeats »

librish wrote: post #110
torstenvl wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 No. Reasonable people make choices all the time that don't bear out under a cost-risk-benefit analysis like you propose. Those choices are still reasonable, despite perhaps not being stri…

My question wasn't about public policy or mandates, I'm asking what data an individual is looking at to come to the conclusion that not getting vaccinated is the right choice.

I swore off getting it after the very first instance I heard of someone getting covid after the vaccine. That was my only data point.

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#140

Post by ROTMetro »

layman51 wrote: post #109
estewart wrote: post #37

The last paragraph in the article literally indicates there is no causal relationship or proof of any direct link between the vaccination and myocarditis. > "Finally, we cannot provide a definitive functional proof or a direct causal link between vaccination and myocarditis."

That's not what it says. I will give you an example. Before the 1980s or so when the first serious studies on second-hand smoke exposure were conducted, anybody could have also written that "we cannot provide a definitive causal link between second-hand smoke and lung cancer." Today, it is common sense.

No, it's not common sense. It's science, proven over decades and presented to people in an understandable way so that were willing to adopt it as a belief they hold.

Common sense nonsense: You can fall off the edge of the world You should put ice on burns We only use 10% of our brain

Post reply on HN