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

151–160 of 662 posts

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

#151

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

gfodor wrote: post #143
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I’m not drawing conclusions - you invented that claim. The data I’m referring to is available in several other studies, with regards to estimated myocarditis rates in young men. But if you agree with me that it’s not unreasonable to think that is the scope of fatalities, I would urge you to integrate that new prior into things like the ethics of mandating this drug for college.

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

I mean, what is this if not a conclusion you're trying to draw?

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

#152

Post by torstenvl »

delecti wrote: post #134
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…

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…

No. Reasonable decisions are literally defined as "what a reasonable person would do." What is disingenuous and dishonest is moving goal posts from "a reasonable choice" to "the most reasonable decision."

It's true that the post didn't mention mandates, but any time a group of people are putting themselves in the position to decide whether a person's individual choice about their own body is "reasonable" or not, you are pretty damn mandate-adjacent.

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

#153

Post by gamacodre »

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…

This has bugged me since the beginning of this mess. It ought to be possible to say "Hey this looks kind of funny, could the vaccines be having weird effects in this .0000001% of the population?" without daggers coming out all around.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that "The SARS-Cov-2 vaccines occasionally cause health problems" and "Almost everyone should get vaccinated/boosted" are both entirely true statements.

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

#154

Post by mizzack »

kaio wrote: post #42

Key takeaway: >>The reported incidence of (epi-)myocarditis after vaccination is low and the risks of hospitalization and death associated with COVID-19 are stated to be greater than the recorded risk associated with COVID-19 vaccination [29].

"stated" is an interesting choice there, especially when using "recorded" a few words later. It reads as being a bit untrusting of the COVID death numbers.

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

#155

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

fzeroracer wrote: post #80

The discussion here is absolutely rancid. So here are the actual the salient points from the study: > Standardized autopsies were performed on 25 persons who had died unexpectedly and within 20 days after anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. In four patients who received a mRNA vaccination, we identified acute (epi-)myocarditis without detection of another significant disease or health constellation that may have caused an u…

Yes, thank you. Also, important to call out ages here:

> Median age at death was 58 years (range 46–75 years).

I keep seeing "young men" over and over in the comments. These are not the people being studied here.

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

#156

Post by hammock »

Ensorceled wrote: post #84
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…

> We claimed that vaccinated people would not spread the virus. Who is "we", I have never seen anything other the claims that there were claims. Can you point me to an epidemiologist that made this claim. > And we gave the companies producing these vaccines blanket legal immunity from any potential liability. We have ALWAYS given vaccine companies blanket legal immunity. This isn't a new thing and there are good reas…

>Who is "we", I have never seen anything other the claims that there were claims. Can you point me to an epidemiologist that made this claim.

https://twitter.com/guccibase/status/1488297386208378889

Included in the video: Rochelle Walensky, Monica Gandhi

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

#157

Post by mrtksn »

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…

This paper doesn't claim that mRNA vaccines are dangerous, it investigates through autopsy 35 people in a region of Germany who died within 20 days of vaccination and only 5 of the deaths are found to show myocarditis of which only 3 somewhat might be attributed to the vaccine.

This is not an expose of big Pharma or anything like that, I don't know why the HN comments are acting as if this is some kind of research supporting the anti vaxxer claims.

If you look into the statistics, it actually might be the case that those 35 deaths were attributed to the vaccine. They found for fact that 10 of those died actually died of something else.

This is also why it takes an expert in a field to evaluate the content and make conclusions. Despite the tone in the HN comments, this actually might suggest that the deaths attributed to the vaccine side effect might be significantly higher than the reality but it would take a research to say of this is the case.

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

#158

Post by aeternum »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #70
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,…

> but aren't the side-effects of covid well established, on average more severe, and much more common? 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 compli…

Yes and it shouldn't just be risk of getting the virus, as it looks like the ability of the virus to migrate to the heart also matters.

With environmental infections, it's possible that most people fight the virus within other parts of the body, with the vaccine it looks like the immune response occurred in the heart for many in this study, specifically right heart, possibly due to proximity or accidental intravascular injection:

>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

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

#159

Post by addingadimensio »

vannevar wrote: post #144
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…

The problem here isn't the study---of course we should study possible vaccine side effects. The problem is the massive leaps of logic being made by people who have (quite wrongly, based on available evidence) become convinced that the vaccines are a greater threat to healthy people than the virus is. As unlikely as it is that an otherwise healthy young person will die from covid, it is even less likely that they'll d…

No post body was provided.

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

#160

Post by manwe150 »

Narretz wrote: post #103
chedca21 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[dead]

If what you are saying is true, then the whole mechanism of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humoral_immunity is not working. So the human body maintains a complete system that produces useless antibodies?

What he is saying is not true. The large vaccine trials have always been about testing the effectiveness at combating disease directly (measuring rates of reported illness or hospitalization), with antibody titers used as a quick secondary check. His comment assumes the reverse happened. We still know surprisingly little about how long antibodies are measurable in the blood and for how long and how effective they are at what prevalence rate, etc.
Post reply on HN