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

221–230 of 311 posts

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

#221

Post by mikem170 »

chimprich wrote: post #203
kossTKR wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vaccines in general is probably one of the most important discoveries of modern science but i find it quite bizarre that people put so much trust into a very unique fasttracked process and pharma companies that have a very visible history of deception and fraud. 7 pharma companies got "reprimanded" by the EU after the last 2010 flu pandemic because of astroturfing and "using a crisis to profit from vaccines" that the…

> especially for the sub 60 cohort when looking at the actual stats Right, I'm going to call bullshit on this. If you're going to make incredible claims like this on HN against all scientific orthodoxy, you have to show your workings. What is the risk of myocarditis from the vaccines in under-60s? What was the unvaccinated fatality rate for under-60s? Cite your sources.

Somebody elsewhere posted this reference:

> But the risk of myocarditis associated with the vaccine was lower than the risk associated with COVID-19 infection before or after vaccination – with one exception. Men under 40 who received a second dose of the Moderna vaccine had a higher risk of myocarditis following vaccination. [0]

[0] https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-...

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

#222

Post by landemva »

Timon3 wrote: post #189
linuxftw wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The experimental products don't prevent infection or transmission, so whether or not coronavirus itself has impact on cardiovascular function is not relevant to whether or not the vaccines do as well. We know for a fact at this point the products cause cardiovascular injury. That's not really up for debate. So now we need to understand the extent. Some of us believe it's higher impact than others. One side was caught…

> The experimental products don't prevent infection or transmission, so whether or not coronavirus itself has impact on cardiovascular function is not relevant to whether or not the vaccines do as well. You are presenting this as a binary option. Either the vaccines fully prevent infection & transmission, or they don't. But what if they reduce the severity of the infection, lowering the likelihood of cardiovascular i…

> there is a definitive difference in likelihood of injury/death between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated

I have looked at a lot of data for children and haven't seen that. It seems children's deaths are mostly unaffected from the virus. What studies have you read which show excess deaths in children?

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

#223

Post by vfclists »

drblastoff wrote: post #64
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…

You should report this to VAERS if you’re in the US and it hasn’t been reported already. Indicate the batch number, which should be written on your vaccine card. I’ve had four Pfizer shots. For three shots, the side effects were mild. But after one, I had chest pains for about a week. It turns out that shot was from a batch with many cases of serious illness and several deaths reported on VAERS. The other batches had…

Perhaps should you should be asking why the batch which damaged you was not withdrawn when it was realized that there were many cases of serious illness and deaths reported on VAERS with it, or why the authorities did not constantly monitor VAERS for batches with higher complaints about them.

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

#224

Post by locustous »

locustous wrote: post #205
autoexec wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have not seen any clear national level data or any discussion around it for vaccination status/blood clots in any media. In research: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35582622/ In media: https://nypost.com/2022/05/05/fda-restricts-jjs-covid-19-vac... I'll be generous and suggest that your doctor misunderstood your question. VAERS is a nationwide data collection program being used to collect evidence for the advers…

The problem is that if the front line medical staff don't collect the data the existence of collections organizations and publications is effectively irrelevant because they end up totally blind to this potential data. "Blind man reports on sky color" is pretty meaningless. Generously we may call this an oversight that so many in front line medical believe there is no collection method or refuse to use it. Negatively…

To the down voters.

Because there exists a backend and reporting system that is extolled for it's beauty and elegance doesn't mean the users reporting front end issues are wrong. And such front end issues prevent all the data from getting to that backend and thus the reports are inaccurate.

For the system to function properly every step must operate well. Not just the ones you might like best. Otherwise it is broken. It only takes one bad line of code to break a system.

Ignoring user reports of it's brokenness is so common because those users have effectively worn out their welcome with the constant complaints.

There are better ways than blame the user though :P

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

#225

Post by AlbertCory »

x3n0ph3n3 wrote: post #54
AlbertCory wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't a properly controlled study consist of comparing 25-44 adults who have not been vaccinated vs. an identical group (as much as that's possible) who have been?

Sure, go ahead and pay for it.

So you think that's the correct test? Or you don't?

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

#226

Post by Timon3 »

landemva wrote: post #222
Timon3 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The experimental products don't prevent infection or transmission, so whether or not coronavirus itself has impact on cardiovascular function is not relevant to whether or not the vaccines do as well. You are presenting this as a binary option. Either the vaccines fully prevent infection & transmission, or they don't. But what if they reduce the severity of the infection, lowering the likelihood of cardiovascular i…

> there is a definitive difference in likelihood of injury/death between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated I have looked at a lot of data for children and haven't seen that. It seems children's deaths are mostly unaffected from the virus. What studies have you read which show excess deaths in children?

I'm sorry, but just how did you suddenly jump to children? Who is talking about children, or what gave you the idea that I was talking about children?

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

#228

Post by chimprich »

mikem170 wrote: post #221
chimprich wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> especially for the sub 60 cohort when looking at the actual stats Right, I'm going to call bullshit on this. If you're going to make incredible claims like this on HN against all scientific orthodoxy, you have to show your workings. What is the risk of myocarditis from the vaccines in under-60s? What was the unvaccinated fatality rate for under-60s? Cite your sources.

Somebody elsewhere posted this reference: > But the risk of myocarditis associated with the vaccine was lower than the risk associated with COVID-19 infection before or after vaccination – with one exception. Men under 40 who received a second dose of the Moderna vaccine had a higher risk of myocarditis following vaccination. [0] [0] https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-...

That's a very different statistic: under 40s, and only in men, and only for one vaccine, after a second dose.

It seems odd to pick that one outlier from the article, which generally concludes the opposite:

"The overall risk of myocarditis – inflammation of the heart muscle – is substantially higher immediately after being infected with COVID-19 than it is in the weeks following vaccination for the coronavirus, a large new study in England shows."

The extra risk seemed to be less than 1 in 10,000, and was easily mitigated by offering younger people a different vaccine.

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

#229

Post by klyrs »

landemva wrote: post #208
autoexec wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have not seen any clear national level data or any discussion around it for vaccination status/blood clots in any media. In research: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35582622/ In media: https://nypost.com/2022/05/05/fda-restricts-jjs-covid-19-vac... I'll be generous and suggest that your doctor misunderstood your question. VAERS is a nationwide data collection program being used to collect evidence for the advers…

> The possible risks of these vaccines are not being ignored Several years after initial outbreak, I wonder if continuation of the emergency use authorization can be justified, or if it continues because it allows the medical establishment to not be liable for realized risks. Possible risks don't matter to manufacturers, because nobody is liable for injury.

The observed risk of naive infection continues to outweigh the possible risks of the vaccine. The long-term effects of both are still being studied. In fact, several treatments that were granted emergency use authorization have been revoked [1], because on the balance, they were not effective enough to justify the authorization.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Use_Authorization#Us...

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

#230

Post by Timon3 »

mancerayder wrote: post #216
lamontcg wrote: post #93

COVID-19 is also a thrombotic disorder. This has been known since the relatively early days of the pandemic. Have any of you been paying any attention at all?

The overwhelming majority of us have gotten covid, though. But only some are suffering from the thrombatic disorder. Have you thought about that at all?

Many have gotten COVID, but not everyone got significantly, sick. Many have gotten the flu, yet only very few of us have died to it. Most of us survived all the various illnesses we have as children, but not all of us were so lucky.

What are you trying to imply? Is it really such a strange thought to you that not everyone will have the same symptoms, and not everyone will have similar kinds of damages?

Post reply on HN