Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination • Hacker News Board

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

#411

Post by thehappypm » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 10:39 PM UTC

hammock wrote: post #136

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 int…

I wonder if a similar mechanism is responsible for the blood clotting risk with the J&J shot, which uses a viral delivery mechanism.

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

#412

Post by blub » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 10:39 PM UTC

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 association between heart problems and mRNA vaccines is a settled matter - outside social media at least.

The Paul Ehrlich institute which is monitoring vaccine side-effects has a nice detailed report on vaccine safety with details on heart problems and all sorts of other things.

Most affected are men and male teens between 12-17 and Moderna’s causing more problems than Biontech. This was the main reason why the German vaccination committee recommended that men under 30 get Biontech.

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

#413

Post by puffoflogic » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 10:40 PM UTC

sfusato wrote: post #249

manwe150 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious, but are you referring to the recent Canadian study that showed people who self-selected for vaccination may also be associated with being safer drivers? https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(22)00822-1/fulltex...

There's a good take on this study here: https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/the-unvaccinated-had-more-...

TL;DR: The study is fraudulent as it didn't normalize for distance or time driving, which has a extremely strong correlation to traffic fatalities. What the study actually found is that the unvaccinated drive more, and reporting it the other way was intentional fraud.

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

#414

Post by CadmiumYellow » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 10:43 PM UTC

hammock wrote: post #136

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 int…

This is extremely fascinating to me as a layperson. Can you explain how this effect would be unique to mRNA? Like, could you get a flu shot and end up with some of the inactivated flu virus spreading around the body and sticking to other organs? Or is the spike protein collecting in other organs solely because the mRNA is telling those cells to produce it, whereas with a typical vaccine the dead virus could get into the bloodstream but it would simply float around the body without piling up anywhere til it's taken out by the immune system?

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

#415

Post by zhrvoj » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 10:44 PM UTC

MrMan wrote: post #242

fein wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think it’s an excellent sorting mechanism

Division bell...

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

#416

Post by commandlinefan » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 10:45 PM UTC

vannevar wrote: post #178

tempsy wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so if you believe your chance of dying of covid is improbably small due to age and overall health, why is it necessary to be vaccinated even if there's only a small chance of side effects? Rare is not zero. I don't even take OTC pain killers like advil unless I absolutely feel like I have to.

Because a) the risk from covid, while small, is still greater than the risk from the vaccines and b) unvaccinated people are more likely to be infected and become a vector for the virus, infecting other people.

> unvaccinated people are more likely to be infected and become a vector for the virus

I've read conflicting accounts of whether that's true or false, but even if it is - what difference does it make? We're not going to reach heard immunity here. Everybody's going to get it, several times throughout their lives, no matter what we do at this point.

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

#417

Post by lamontcg » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 10:45 PM UTC

amluto wrote: post #397

lamontcg wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the risk of e.g. dying of myocarditis from the virus still exceeds the risk of dying of myocarditis from the vaccine. Particularly with the mRNA vaccines there isn't much in the vaccine that isn't in the virus already. There has to be a name for this fallacy. It is like we're living in the dark ages where contracting covid is just "God's will" and it doesn't count in risk assessments, while no matter how smal…

> Particularly with the mRNA vaccines there isn't much in the vaccine that isn't in the virus already. I don’t find this compelling at all. At the very least, the mRNA vaccines have the lipid nanoparticles themselves, and LNPs are quite clearly biologically active. And the mRNA gets delivered to cells that would not be infected by the actual virus. One might imagine that such cells would be targeted to at some some e…

The lipid nanoparticle itself is basically a cell wall and it fuses with your cell wall and deploys its payload. There isn't a lot there. It isn't like the adenovirus capsid that binds to PF-4 and causes the clotting disorders in J&J and ChAdOx1. It would have to be something related to ALC-0315 and/or ALC-0159 and be active in the very tiny quantities which are administered. Those are lipids and it is most likely that they're eventually just disassembled.

> One might imagine that such cells would be targeted to at some some extent by CD8+ T cells that learn to recognize spike protein.

This is exactly what we want to see happen, and you're going to get CD8+ T-cells from the virus as well (and if you don't, then you're going to get very extremely ill).

The tissue distribution is a reasonably good point, but that should be considered in light of the evidence that the virus itself likes to hide out in places like the gut and that liver and gut activation after vaccination may be protective. And if that argument is wrong, that would be an argument to try to produce nasal mRNA vaccines.

And at this point we do have a really massive amount of data on the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines and we're having to sift the data very closely to find effects lower than one in million. Other vaccines perform worse. I think it probably is because we're getting closer and closer to minimalism.

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

#418

Post by puffoflogic » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 10:48 PM UTC

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,…

> 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?

That would not be a correct comparison, because the vaccine does not prevent you from getting covid. The risks to balance are:

A) The risk of myocarditis and other fatal and non-fatal side-effects from the vaccine, TIMES how many times you get the vaccine, PLUS the cumulative risks of COVID infections over time (which you can get despite being "vaccinated"). B) Just the risks of COVID infections over time.

A is strictly more dangerous than B no matter what the risks of COVID are. Every comment saying, "oh but COVID can cause X risk of death and Y risk of myocarditis and blah blah blah" is completely irrelevant, because all of these risks accrue just as much to the vaccinated. Even if the vaccine is, say, 15% effective, which is very generous given the evidence, then that means that if the risks of the vaccine are 15% as much as the risks of COVID, then (A) is still more dangerous. The risks of the vaccine are more than 15% the risks of COVID, as the evidence is piling up.

Then there's the little fact that the vaccinated are slightly more likely to be reinfected with COVID than the unvaccinated. But the studies on this are still being suppressed, so you can do the math without it and still come up with vaccination being more dangerous for much of the population.

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

#419

Post by skissane » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 10:49 PM UTC

birken wrote: post #403

wsc981 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denmark doesn’t recommend COVID vaccines anymore to anyone under 50 who is not at risk or work in health sector [0]. > People aged under 50 are generally not at particularly higher risk of becoming severely ill from covid-19. In addition, younger people aged under 50 are well protected against becoming severely ill from covid-19, as a very large number of them have already been vaccinated and have previously been inf…

While I think it is certainly fair to talk about the policies of other countries, I don't think just because another country has a different policy necessarily dictates that policy is better or worse. Additionally, I think it's very easy to see something like "Denmark doesn't recommend the vaccines to anybody under 50" and conflate that it means that Denmark doesn't think vaccines were ever beneficial to people under…

> While I think it is certainly fair to talk about the policies of other countries, I don't think just because another country has a different policy necessarily dictates that policy is better or worse.

Sure. But if a person is aware that other countries have different policies, that gives them a legitimate reason to question whether the policy of their own country is correct. If a person looks into the matter, and decides not to follow the recommendations of their own government, because they think some other country's government is more likely to have got it right, such a person isn't necessarily being irrational/irresponsible/etc, nor would it necessarily be irrational/irresponsible/etc for them to share their conclusion with others.

> and conflate that it means that Denmark doesn't think vaccines were ever beneficial to people under the age of 50 (which is the leap in logic you often see on anti-vax sites)

Yes, many people do seem to conflate these two claims:

(1) "for healthy children and young people, the safety risk of additional doses of the vaccine currently outweighs the risk of COVID-19"

(2) "for healthy children and young people, the safety risk of any dose of the vaccine has always outweighed the risk of COVID-19"

While claim (1) is disputed, some highly respected medical experts agree with it; the same cannot be said for claim (2).

However, I think this conflation goes in both directions – some people who want to defend (2) do so by conflating it with (1); but conversely, some people attack (1) by conflating it with (2).

Some people can't distinguish reasonable scepticism about vaccinations from unreasonable scepticism.

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

#420

Post by wpietri » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 10:50 PM UTC

emmelaich wrote: post #371

wpietri wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government has the right (and I'd argue, the duty) to quarantine people with diseases that are both contagious and dangerous if that's the best way to keep them from harming others. More details here: https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantin...

AIDS/HIV sufferers would like a word with you. Speaking of which, Fauci's early statements on AIDS in the initial outbreak were interesting.

Your theory is that the best way to prevent AIDS deaths is quarantining people? That seems extreme.

Regardless, it's not one of the diseases listed on the linked page, and it's very different in nature than the ones there, so that sounds like a red herring to me.