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

Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

medrxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 212 posts

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#131

Post by loceng »

goodoldneon wrote: post #11
loceng wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I could get people that don't understand the nuances to deeply look into, study the mRNA vaccine, currently known issues including long haul COVID symptoms of people who've only had the vaccine (via the spike protein which has turned out to be cytotoxic and seems to break away causing issues), and look seriously into the Ivermectin research and its suppression; and yes, certainly I'll be downvoted because peop…

It’s hard to trust people who make a bold claim, only to back it up with “do the research”. Why don’t you link to some of these reputable Ivermectin studies?

I stated to look in my comments for the links, you could have done that instead of spending minor effort to feel like a social justice warrior thinking you're calling me out for something.

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#132

Post by berberous »

drno123 wrote: post #127
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #4

I wish I could get people that are avoiding the COVID vaccine “because we don’t know what the long term effects are” to realize that we have real data showing that there are long term effects from getting full blown COVID. You don’t want a tiny piece of mRNA but you want the whole organism reproducing in your body? The whole genome and all the proteins made?

The difference being, if you choose to get vaccinated, it’s 100% chance that you get mRNA. If you did not get Covid so far, the chances are going down you ever will.

In many countries, the number of people getting the vaccine has plateaued, and at a fairly low level. Combine that with loosening policies, lower precautions, and more transmissible variants (like the Delta variant), and I think a lot of unvaccinated people may be at higher risk of catching it then they expect.

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#133

Post by [deleted] »

bavent wrote: post #20
namelessone wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and I won't bother linking to resources related to Ivermectin I'm not informed enough to comment on the content of your post, but this is a horrible way to start a productive discussion.

They aren’t trying to start a productive discussion. Anti-vaxxers don’t approach debates in good faith. They tend to drop long-winded comments that vaguely link together different conspiracies and anecdotal bits of “evidence” but then never cite sources and never back up their claims when pushed.

[deleted]

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#134

Post by mikem170 »

peter422 wrote: post #122
throwkeep wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are valid concerns and a difficult risk benefit analysis for some cohorts, I think. What are your thoughts on this? Put yourself in her shoes: "I held off on a COVID vaccine because I wanted to wait for data with positive signals for both pregnancy in the short term and long-run fertility. I’m trying to get pregnant, and those are the two things I care about most. Vaccine data is so politicized that it’s actual…

The vaccines did not skip any safety tests, they just compressed the schedule because millions of people were dying of a preventable disease. At this point hundreds of millions of people have taken the various vaccines. There clearly are no major short or medium term effects (other than the reported, rare side effects). Also you can literally read all the documents provided to the FDA concerning the efficacy and safe…

The parent never mentioned a conspiracy. They did mention running into a lot of glibly dismissive dead ends researching their concerns.

I don't think their decision is unreasonable. I'm personally not looking at the same factors, and think of covid vaccination differently. I'm guessing you do, also. I personally don't see a problem with that. Who am I to tell force someone else to my way of thinking?

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#135

Post by loceng »

bavent wrote: post #20
namelessone wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and I won't bother linking to resources related to Ivermectin I'm not informed enough to comment on the content of your post, but this is a horrible way to start a productive discussion.

They aren’t trying to start a productive discussion. Anti-vaxxers don’t approach debates in good faith. They tend to drop long-winded comments that vaguely link together different conspiracies and anecdotal bits of “evidence” but then never cite sources and never back up their claims when pushed.

I'm not an antivaxxer but lazy people like you won't differentiate and don't differentiate well which is why research studies published are poorly understood and bad conclusions are perpetuated and in part why we're in this mess.

But yes, terrible way to start productive conversation but even when linking and putting the effort in the HN intellectual mob has already ideologically and shallowly investigated and come to shallow/poor conclusions and downvote and don't bother engaging further: how is someone downvoting a good beginning to a productive conversation?

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#136

Post by TaupeRanger »

pepperberg wrote: post #75
TaupeRanger wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The video you linked is removed.for violating guidelines, which I'm guessing means it had a conspiratorial slant. Discussion does not have to include unsupported or crackpot claims to be "inclusive".

Instead of looking up the original video (e.g. by using the watch id), you immediately write it off as "crackpot claims" because some unknown authority at YouTube removed it, citing broad community guidelines. Maybe we should stick to your words from 4 days ago: "Science reporting is terrible and the general education system doesn't teach rational skepticism, it teaches unconditional trust of intellectual authority."…

Statistically speaking, it is crackpot nonsense if it's removed. But if you'd like to make a specific claim I'm sure we can all tell you how wrong it is, using rational skepticism ;)

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#137

Post by dukeofdoom »

ch4s3 wrote: post #119
dukeofdoom wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not caution. Willingness to accept death should it come. I'm part of the natural world, and viruses are a natural way that keep population in balance. All these vaccines are keeping more kindling for a bigger fire down humanity's timeline. I would probably reconsider if the odds where much worse than 1%.

This doesn't make a lot of logical sense to me. > natural way that keep population in balance This is essentially a faith based belief, and not something rooted in personal risk as you previously mentioned. > All these vaccines are keeping more kindling for a bigger fire down humanity's timeline. Viral infections don't just kill you or you'll be fine. There are expensive (to society) effects of lots of people having…

I don't need the virus to kill anyone. Its part of the natural world. Viruses are literarily part of our genetic code, and may have helped to evolve the placenta. We have evolved along side of them. They're not there to only harm us, they also benefit us. It doesn't matter what I think anyway.

There's a limit to how much armour you can wear. There's always a cost.

And lets say each vaccine harms you just a tiny bit, which they clearly do. How much is the accumulated damage from all the vaccines we currently take or will need to take into humanity's future vs a naturally evolved immunity.

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#139

Post by carlmr »

LikelyClueless wrote: post #42
lima wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And did they do the same study against people who got the flu and other diseases? Does this matter?

I would try to avoid the flu more if I had an idea of how much brain damage it could cause. I understand the comparison to the flu is a touchy subject, but the question can still be asked from a standpoint of curiosity. Is this disease showing completely new symptoms for a viral infection, or have we been over analyzing any little details that are not so uncommon? Does it matter? I certainly would like to know the an…

There does seem to be some indication of brain effects in the flu. https://www.newsweek.com/does-flu-affect-your-mind-bad-memor...

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#140

Post by morsch »

causality0 wrote: post #28
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #4

I wish I could get people that are avoiding the COVID vaccine “because we don’t know what the long term effects are” to realize that we have real data showing that there are long term effects from getting full blown COVID. You don’t want a tiny piece of mRNA but you want the whole organism reproducing in your body? The whole genome and all the proteins made?

Yeah. I had complete loss of smell and taste, which came back about 90% over the next six weeks. It was fine for a month and then it went wonky. Probably 30% of my "scent spectrum" has now been replaced with the same burnt meat smell/taste. Everything from chocolate to feces to hamburgers now has the same core odor. It really, really sucks.

I heard on a cooking podcast (probably this episode of cooking issues[1]) that smell training has helped some people with anosmia. I have no idea if it helps with loss of smell related to covid. Have any of you tried it?

Here's an example (no affiliation, just the ones with the best SEO, I am not a doctor): https://abscent.org/learn-us/smell-training

[1] https://heritageradionetwork.org/episode/live-datta-lab-feat...

Post reply on HN