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

621–630 of 662 posts

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

#621

Post by Ensorceled »

hammock wrote: post #193
Ensorceled wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, by "we", you mean politicians. These clowns are also all saying it's 100% effective which was known to be false from day 1.

You asked for an epidemiologist. I gave you two of the world's foremost practicing infectious disease experts : Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, Mass General chief of Infectious Diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital; and Monica Gandhi MD, MPH, Associate Chief of the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases, and Global Medicine at UCSF. It seems you're being intellectually dishonest

> It seems you're being intellectually dishonest

Fair assumption. But actually I'm Canadian and, while I knew COVID discourse was a clusterfuck in the US, I didn't realize that there were people that clearly knew better blatantly lying about this.

For instance, we KNEW that the best case scenario was 90% effectiveness for the MRNA vaccines. Seeing these people saying "you won't get COVID" is an absolute disgrace and people should lose their jobs and medical certifications for this.

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

#622

Post by bena »

emmelaich wrote: post #380
bena wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to this guy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34004500 He is acting like it's support of anti-vaxxer claims. And it is why these articles get shared. Because they contain a very slight, practically negligible affirmation of the smallest portion of their claims. And that, in their eyes, is enough to proclaim victory.

You're inferring a lot from a someone's brief summary of the paper under discussion. If you disagree with the summary, maybe address it? I despise anti-vaxxer lunatics, I still found that comment interesting.

It's not one comment. The guy has a string of them across multiple threads.

And you are going to critique me for "inferring a lot" while ignoring his comment is not only sprinkled with evidence he's a conclusion looking for justification ("lethal jab-associated myocarditis"), but is nothing but inference itself.

It's not interesting, it's just old.

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

#623

Post by willcipriano »

Bud wrote: post #491
willcipriano wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Essentially all children and adolescents will get Covid if they somehow haven't had it already. Something like a quarter of the population being physically disabled to even a mild degree is an extraordinary claim requiring evidence in kind.

I guess it's fortunate that we have almost three years' worth of data conclusively establishing this fact, then! https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/...

A survey essentially asking people "do you have long covid?" isn't extraordinary evidence. Could be a simple case of psychogenesis[0] like has been common during any mass illness event historically. The demographic info in your link seems to indicate that is a possibility. With 25 percent of the population apparently having this disease it's not a hard one to study experimentally.

[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_psychogenic_illness

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

#624

Post by OrvalWintermute »

bb88 wrote: post #583
OrvalWintermute wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that aneuryms are not a potential adverse event associated with MRNA Covid vaccination [1]? Furthermore, we know hypertension is also associated with dissections, and there are several documented cases of acute and non-acute hypertension after MRNA covid vaccination [2] I'm saying that to say there are some possibilities there, but I am also going to say the opposite too. I don't know that we know enou…

These are at least 4 known causes of aortic aneurysms. 1) Smoking (behavioral) 2) High blood pressure (dietary or genetic) 3) High cholesterol (dietary of genetic) 4) Marfan's syndrome (genetic) Last I checked, doctors (who know these things) were seriously considering it was #4. You're a skeptic, right? Why invent new untested possibilities when a there are a series of well known possibilities to be tested first?

Actually, this list is insufficient according to the NIH [1] an article in Circulation [2] and my wife, a boarded surgeon. Where she provided data I have italicized it, all others are from NIH and the other source. Interestingly, Diabetes can also have a protective effective against aneuryms [3]. There is also evidence that viral infection can likewise play a contributing role to local inflammation in aorta, similar to the better-known effects of bacterial infections ...CMV infection can stimulate local inflammation in the aorta but is not a direct cause of most abdominal aortic aneurysms. [4]

Genetic/History

    Ehlers–Danlos syndrome

    Loeys–Dietz syndrome

    Marfan syndrome

    Turner syndrome

    Familial thoracic aortic aneurysms

    Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), which is an abnormal aortic valve
Birth Defect

Diabetes, particularly uncontrolled diabetes

Lifestyle Habits

    Aneurysms of blood vessels in other parts of your body

    Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

    Cardiovascular conditions, such as atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, and peripheral artery disease

    Unhealthy blood cholesterol level

    High blood pressure, which is the leading risk factor for thoracic aortic aneurysms but also a risk factor for abdominal aortic aneurysm

    Bacterial infections, which are a risk factor for thoracic aortic aneurysms.

    Kidney conditions, such as renal failure, chronic kidney disease, and polycystic kidney disease

    Obesity

    Pheochromocytoma external link , a rare tumors of the adrenal gland that can lead to high blood pressure

    Vasculitis
[1] https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/aortic-aneurysm/causes

[2] https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circulationaha.110.0...

[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6198737/

[4] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jmv.26901

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

#625

Post by usefulcat »

addingadimensio wrote: post #194
usefulcat wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> COVID hasn't been shown to be particularly dangerous to young people... In the short term yes, in the long term, that is not known.

Quoted post unavailable.

That's actually a perfectly reasonable point. It's a shame you chose such an aggressive tone; as a result, many people will probably dismiss your comment outright.

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

#626

Post by mint2 »

daneel_w wrote: post #615
mint2 wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since I didn’t know Sweden was a nation entirely of stats experts, perhaps the poster meant no risk of objective, statistically sound analysis?

I don't know what stupid assumptions you're making, so I'll fill you in: The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare has been producing thorough public statistics over the situation in Sweden ever since the COVID outbreak began. The statistics are accumulated on a weekly basis and cover the number of confirmed infections, number of mild and severe hospitalizations, and the number of deaths. All of it is broken d…

> number of mild and severe hospitalizations

And what about those?

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

#627

Post by addingadimensio »

usefulcat wrote: post #625
addingadimensio wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

That's actually a perfectly reasonable point. It's a shame you chose such an aggressive tone; as a result, many people will probably dismiss your comment outright.

No post body was provided.

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

#628

Post by dennis_jeeves1 »

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?

No they are not well COVID in my view. To me the complications that are supposedly attributed to covid are those of respiratory illnesses that have existed long before COVID came on the scene. In fact I have my doubts whether the whole COVID thing is a brand new disease.

As someone pointed out there are bigger issues: like trust in pharmaceutical companies and current science medical science. In my current view medical science is very primitive, while putting up a front of sophistication and accuracy, while being very crude.

And just so that you know that I'm not a perpetual skeptic, I will go along with Einstein's quotes:

“One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have.”

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

#629

Post by Bud »

burner990 wrote: post #601
Bud wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd prefer that we not all pretend that 2000-year-old religions somehow magically dictated that vaccines were bad. They obviously didn't. These obviously are not legitimate "religious" beliefs. Religion is transparently being used as a cloak for political beliefs fueled by misinformation. Taking covid-related "religious" beliefs seriously only undercuts societal respect for actual religious belief.

> I'd prefer that we not all pretend that 2000-year-old religions somehow magically dictated that vaccines were bad You don't understand any of the religious arguments if you think its just because it's a vaccine. It could be because fetal tissue was used in manufacturing these vaccines (they were). There are many other such examples.

This is misleading. Some vaccines do use two fetal cell lines in their development or testing. NOT in their "manufacturing". These cell lines were derived from two elective abortions in the 1960s and 1970s. The same cell lines have been used now for over 50 years for various other medical purposes.

Saying "fetal tissue" and "manufacturing" paints rather a different picture.

Also, to be more specific, when we speak of covid vaccines, we're largely talking about the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Those specific vaccines did NOT use fetal cell lines in their manufacturing. So now you've gone from being misleading to being flat out wrong.

I understand the pseudo-religious arguments quite well, actually. To that point:

"The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were found to be ethically uncontroversial by the pro-life policy organization the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Further, the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, a committee within the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, has stated: "neither Pfizer nor Moderna used an abortion-derived cell line in the development or production of the vaccine. However, such a cell line was used to test the efficacy of both vaccines. Thus, while neither vaccine is completely free from any use of abortion-derived cell lines, in these two cases the use is very remote from the initial evil of the abortion...one may receive any of the clinically recommended vaccines in good conscience with the assurance that reception of such vaccines does not involve immoral cooperation in abortion."

https://www.health.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/COVID%20...

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

#630

Post by eli »

rednerrus wrote: post #498
eli wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are wrong. The vaccine absolutely reduces your odds of getting covid in the first place.

According to https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/coronavirus/stats/vb... , During the past 60 days for people 18-49 (the cohort sizes are suspect) COVID cases per 100,000 were as follows: Not fully vaxxed: 98.0 Fully vaxxed: 70.3 Boosted: 92.8 For 49-64 (again with the cohort sizing) per 100,000 cases are: Not fully vaxxed: 90.0 Fully vaxxed: 86.7 Boosted: 96.7 Over 65 cases: Not fully vaxxed: 390.05 Fully vaxxed…

Just looking at last 60 days in MN seems a bit cherry picked and ignores confounding variables.

Nationally people 12+ who were vaccinated were 3.2x less likely to test positive for covid in October 2022. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-s.... (The protection against serious illness and death is obviously much stronger.)

The CDC summarizes and caveats the data as follows (note particularly the last point):

- All vaccinated groups had overall lower risk of dying from COVID-19 and testing positive for COVID-19 compared with people who were unvaccinated.

- Based on early surveillance data, people who were vaccinated with an updated (bivalent) booster dose had lower rates of dying from COVID-19 and slightly lower rates of testing positive for COVID-19 compared with people who were vaccinated but had not received an updated booster dose.

- Age-standardized rates of cases and deaths by vaccination status and receipt of the updated (bivalent) booster dose do not account for other factors like the higher prevalence of previous infection among the unvaccinated and un-boosted groups; waning protection related to time since vaccination; and testing practices (such as use of at-home tests), underlying conditions, and prevention behaviors which likely differ by age and vaccination status. Additionally, any data recording errors that misclassify monovalent and updated (bivalent) boosters at the time of vaccine administration would make rates between the two groups appear more similar.

Post reply on HN