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

Heart attacks on rise for 25-44 age group

khon2.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 311 posts

Re: Heart attacks on rise for 25-44 age group

#141

Post by neuronic »

spaceman_2020 wrote: post #133
SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #17

For those who are desperate to draw a link between vaccines and heart attacks, this article essentially says the opposite of that. While the paper itself doesn't differentiate between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, it does contain a graph showing a state-by-state breakdown of acute myocardial infarction (AMI)-associated deaths: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/c0aed082-9f81-4a88... Dark purple is a…

I don't understand the rush to defend vaccines. I've been vaccinated and don't regret that because in those circumstances, they were a positive health choice. But it's impossible to know the long-term impact of any medicine unless you've actually studied it, well, long-term. In 5 years, the vaccines might be death in a vial. Or they might be completely benign. You'll only know after 5 years.

Stop spreading these right wing anti-vaxxer lies, my god. "Death in a vial". Dont you feel ashamed and ridiculous posting this insane over-the-top inflammatory rhetoric?

People are already discussing the science and long term effects and few people just take the vaccines at face value.

And to add to your harmful, conscious spread of disinformation, you thinly veil it in "I am vaccinated myself, but..."

Re: Heart attacks on rise for 25-44 age group

#142

Post by headsoup »

nyrulez wrote: post #21
SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #17

For those who are desperate to draw a link between vaccines and heart attacks, this article essentially says the opposite of that. While the paper itself doesn't differentiate between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, it does contain a graph showing a state-by-state breakdown of acute myocardial infarction (AMI)-associated deaths: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/c0aed082-9f81-4a88... Dark purple is a…

It's difficult to draw conclusions because first graph is not the delta in deaths, just total deaths. and southern states have always had a high cardiovascular mortality. I guess the bigger question that I often have is why the rush to completely rule out vaccines? Whenever this discussion comes up, its either complete blame or zero blame. How about investigate it like any other factor with the help of proper data? A…

Exactly, it's not 'desperate to link them to vaccines,' but that it is 'desperate to find any reason at all before even looking at vaccines.'

Considering the distrust of both Pharma and government (both sides) that preceded the vaccines and the 'heart attack' issue, it is quite astonishing the level of support seen for dismissal of them possibly causing anything. And especially as they're a novel vaccine.

I don't mean to accept it's the cause here, I mean even the thought of genuinely investigating it.

Re: Heart attacks on rise for 25-44 age group

#143

Post by headsoup »

autoexec wrote: post #29
nyrulez wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's difficult to draw conclusions because first graph is not the delta in deaths, just total deaths. and southern states have always had a high cardiovascular mortality. I guess the bigger question that I often have is why the rush to completely rule out vaccines? Whenever this discussion comes up, its either complete blame or zero blame. How about investigate it like any other factor with the help of proper data? A…

> I guess the bigger question that I often have is why the rush to completely rule out vaccines? I don't believe that anyone has completely ruled out vaccines. I think that's a boogeyman conspiracy theorists tell each other "The possible risks from vaccines are forbidden from being considered or talked about!". It's attractive to conspiracy minded people to have secret suppressed information that "they" don't want yo…

What world have you been living in to miss all the documented reality of the government and co censoring, deplatforming and manipulating social/traditional media to reduce that. You're painting a very rosy picture of reality here.

Unless you believe that all those censored, shadow-banned and deplatformed people are just the conspiracy nuts with lies and fake data?

Re: Heart attacks on rise for 25-44 age group

#144

Post by autoexec »

idontwantthis wrote: post #126
autoexec wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Covid infection, even previous infection, will doubtless be one reason. With so many people getting infected (and reinfected), that's got to take a toll on the population. > anyone infected with COVID is at higher risk for heart issues—including clots, inflammation, and arrhythmias—a risk that persists even in relatively healthy people long after the illness has passed...I went into it thinking that [the risk] was go…

Any idea if an EKG as part of an annual checkup will notice if your heart has been damaged in this way?

EKG results can change after covid, but I'm guessing it'd be even easier to see problems with imaging (CMR) too. I'd make sure your doctor knows you've had covid so they can take that into consideration and I wouldn't wait around for your annual if covid symptoms resolved a while ago but you've been experiencing symptoms like shortness of breath or chest pain.

I've been seeing discussions for a long time about the advantages of cardiac screening for people post-covid and when it'd be most appropriate to recommend it or request it, but I have my doubts it'll ever be common practice to do it for everyone. The healthcare system in my country isn't great about giving preventative care and early screening to the masses.

Re: Heart attacks on rise for 25-44 age group

#145

Post by incrudible »

justsomeadvice0 wrote: post #107
arghnoname wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you note, the VAERS database is voluntary and probably misses many conditions that aren't associated with a vaccine when undergoing treatment. I accept that taking medicine, any medicine, imposes risk for adverse events. What's crazy to me is we just underwent widespread inoculation of a brand new type of vaccine technology that has never been used in humans before, meant to inoculate us against a disease that nev…

Nit: mRNA vaccines were used in human trials for cancer immunotherapy starting in 2001, rabies in 2013, ebola, zika, influenza, cytamegalovirus, etc followed. It's not accurate to say the technology had "never been used in humans before" COVID19; but the US FDA had never approved widespread use of it until then.

This raises the question of why, despite being trialed for twenty years, the technology never was deemed ready for primetime until the emergence of COVID. Part of the reason is safety issues.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/

We assumed that the vaccine doses are low enough to not cause any unacceptable health risks, but after finding these vaccines do cause cardiac complications, particularly in youth, we are hesitant to consider that these vaccines may in fact do more harm than good in some cases.

Re: Heart attacks on rise for 25-44 age group

#146

Post by incrudible »

CydeWeys wrote: post #122
nyrulez wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's difficult to draw conclusions because first graph is not the delta in deaths, just total deaths. and southern states have always had a high cardiovascular mortality. I guess the bigger question that I often have is why the rush to completely rule out vaccines? Whenever this discussion comes up, its either complete blame or zero blame. How about investigate it like any other factor with the help of proper data? A…

> I guess the bigger question that I often have is why the rush to completely rule out vaccines? Whenever this discussion comes up, its either complete blame or zero blame. All the evidence I've seen is that the adverse cardiovascular issues seen rarely as a side effect of the vaccine are a direct result of circulating coronavirus spike protein in the blood stream. You know what causes way more spike protein to circu…

If this hypothesis is true, why are only the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines associated with substantially higher risk of Myocarditis? Why is COVID not associated with Myocarditis in this study?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/

Re: Heart attacks on rise for 25-44 age group

#147

Post by autoexec »

headsoup wrote: post #143
autoexec wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I guess the bigger question that I often have is why the rush to completely rule out vaccines? I don't believe that anyone has completely ruled out vaccines. I think that's a boogeyman conspiracy theorists tell each other "The possible risks from vaccines are forbidden from being considered or talked about!". It's attractive to conspiracy minded people to have secret suppressed information that "they" don't want yo…

What world have you been living in to miss all the documented reality of the government and co censoring, deplatforming and manipulating social/traditional media to reduce that. You're painting a very rosy picture of reality here. Unless you believe that all those censored, shadow-banned and deplatformed people are just the conspiracy nuts with lies and fake data?

> Unless you believe that all those censored, shadow-banned and deplatformed people are just the conspiracy nuts with lies and fake data?

It'd be impossible to make that claim. I couldn't possibly be aware of all of the people who have been censored/shadow-banned/deplatformed for talking about the risks of vaccinations, but I do suspect that the vast majority of them likely were (intentionally or otherwise) spreading FUD and disinformation, making claims not supposed by evidence, and misrepresenting facts. Why would I think that? Here's my reasoning:

Is it possible that in some situations social media platforms have been too heavy handed? I'm sure of it.

Does the likely existence of inappropriate actions taken by social media companies mean that the "government and co" (whatever that's supposed to be) is involved in a conspiracy to silence everyone who dares to mention that there are or could be risks? No, it doesn't.

Does it mean that researchers aren't allowed to look into the risks of the vaccines and that no data about those risks has been being collected and studied? No, it doesn't.

Does it mean that mass media refuses to inform the public about any possible risks? No, it doesn't.

Are there many many examples of people talking about the health risks of the vaccines on social media, in mass media, and in the literature without being censored and is that information easily found and accessible? Yes, there are and yes it is.

That tells me that if there is some global conspiracy to silence such talk, that it isn't doing a very good job.

When countless people are talking about those risks, researching those risks, collecting data on those risks, and reporting those risks to the public, and they've been doing it in plain sight for years without being censored, it's then pretty unlikely that there's some hidden conspiracy to make sure those risks are never expressed or explored.

If talking about the risks of the vaccines doesn't get you censored/shadow-banned/deplatformed (as evidenced by all the people who do exactly that and aren't censored/shadow-banned/deplatformed) then there must be a different reason that some people who have been making claims about the risks of vaccines are censored/shadow-banned/deplatformed.

Re: Heart attacks on rise for 25-44 age group

#148

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

incrudible wrote: post #145
justsomeadvice0 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nit: mRNA vaccines were used in human trials for cancer immunotherapy starting in 2001, rabies in 2013, ebola, zika, influenza, cytamegalovirus, etc followed. It's not accurate to say the technology had "never been used in humans before" COVID19; but the US FDA had never approved widespread use of it until then.

This raises the question of why, despite being trialed for twenty years, the technology never was deemed ready for primetime until the emergence of COVID. Part of the reason is safety issues. https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/ We assumed that the vaccine doses are low enough to not cause any unacceptable health risks, but after finding these vaccines do cause cardiac complications, particularly…

I’m confused by your link. It describes Moderna trying to use a drug to produce a liver enzyme and that was never safe, so Moderna ended up lowering their expectations with the safer and less profitable vaccines. If anything it shoes vaccines are the way to go with mRNA and the primary issue is profit.

Re: Heart attacks on rise for 25-44 age group

#149

Post by mensetmanusman »

Sakos wrote: post #105
SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #17

For those who are desperate to draw a link between vaccines and heart attacks, this article essentially says the opposite of that. While the paper itself doesn't differentiate between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, it does contain a graph showing a state-by-state breakdown of acute myocardial infarction (AMI)-associated deaths: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/c0aed082-9f81-4a88... Dark purple is a…

It's disturbing how eager people here are to jump on "vaccines are bad" or "why isn't anybody talking about vaccines bad sides". The side effects of vaccines and Covid have been under heavy scrutiny from the very first day. Where in the fuck are you people getting your news and what are you doing on HN?

There is going to be selection bias for articles like this. Who is more interested in the cause of increased heart attacks in the young? Who will most likely comment on their concern.

Once you adjust your priors things start making more sense :)

Re: Heart attacks on rise for 25-44 age group

#150

Post by throw0101c »

autoexec wrote: post #29
nyrulez wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's difficult to draw conclusions because first graph is not the delta in deaths, just total deaths. and southern states have always had a high cardiovascular mortality. I guess the bigger question that I often have is why the rush to completely rule out vaccines? Whenever this discussion comes up, its either complete blame or zero blame. How about investigate it like any other factor with the help of proper data? A…

> I guess the bigger question that I often have is why the rush to completely rule out vaccines? I don't believe that anyone has completely ruled out vaccines. I think that's a boogeyman conspiracy theorists tell each other "The possible risks from vaccines are forbidden from being considered or talked about!". It's attractive to conspiracy minded people to have secret suppressed information that "they" don't want yo…

> Right now, all the evidence we have says getting a covid vaccine is the smart choice, but nobody actually thinks that there's zero chance of unexpected side effects from these vaccines […]

Or any vaccine in general. The question is always do the potential risks outweigh the potential benefits.

There are folks who are allergic to the ingredients of some vaccines, so one of the side effects for them in particular is death. So they absolutely should not / cannot take one. But that doesn't necessarily me you shouldn't.

Post reply on HN