Live data from Hacker News

Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

jamanetwork.com

231–240 of 360 posts

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you get decades? That study says 200 days.

You really aren’t going to know how this MRNA in egg and sperm cells are going to affect offspring until you have offspring to observe. Effects like wolbachia could take multiple generations to observe.

mRNA can't cause wolbachia. Wolbachia is a bacterium that actually lives inside cells and gets transmitted through eggs to offspring. it's a persistent organism that reproduces. There's not a way for mRNA to grow bacteria.

mRNA is just a molecule that breaks down, and the mRNA in these vaccines is extremely fragile and temporary. Once injected it enters whatever cells are nearby (muscle cells)and ribosomes read it to produce the inert spike protein. The mRNA itself is gone within hours. Your cells have enzymes specifically designed to break down RNA because cells naturally produce and dispose of mRNA constantly as part of normal function.

The mRNA in vaccines never enters the cell nucleus where DNA is stored, so it can't integrate into your genome or affect reproductive cells in that way. And it doesn't replicate itself either.

And millions of babies have been born to vaccinated parents by now. If the effects you are talking about were even possible they would definitely have shown up by now.

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If COVID vaccines reduces COVID deaths by 100% and increase everything else by 0.01%… But you already agreed this is not the case, in your comment: > If you look at Table 2, you can see that the vaccinated group is less mortality in all diseases.

GP is saying that indicates there is some other factor involved in reducing all-cause mortality, since it is probably reasonable to believe the mRNA vaccines were not improving mortality rates of other diseases, and that therefore the sampling of these populations is not random. See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46164643

> It is probably reasonable to believe the mRNA vaccines were not improving mortality rates of other diseases,

By now, this is not a reasonable belief. We know that COVID can cause cardiovascular damage, kidney injury, diabetes, neurological problems, and systemic inflammation, all of which increase mortality risk from other causes. It only makes sense that preventing or reducing the severity of COVID infection prevents those downstream complications and reduces all-cause mortality.

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is that expert finding published? As far as I have read about the ACIP decisions they didn't actually provide any real data to support this conclusion.

The FDA memo citing 10 vaccine-caused myocarditis deaths in kids came _after_ the Sept. 2025 ACIP vote. ACIP had already dropped routine vaccination for healthy kids 6 mo-17 yr and moved everyone under 65 to "shared decision-making" (high-risk only) [1] The detailed FDA analysis still isn't public. That's exactly why we should demand it instead of dismissing the claim. Blame NYTimes for leaking the internal memo. In…

> Blame NYTimes for leaking the internal memo.

Blame them for what, exactly?

We have no information about how highly motivated anti-vaxxers in positions of power over the FDA arrived at this conclusion except "the team has performed an initial analysis"[1]. That's literally it. Your claim that "FDA career scientists" conducted the follow-up can't even be based on this flimsy a statement. Moreover, these deaths have already been investigated by FDA career scientists and found these conclusions unwarranted.

Prasad spends the rest of the memo politically grandstanding (including claiming it was the FDA commissioner that was the hero here, forcing this issue, not FDA career scientists) and dismissing any objections to very obvious arguments against his claim (that have been made and published multiple times over the past five years) without any evidence, while providing no evidence of his own, in a memo addressing FDA career scientists.

Seriously, everyone should go read his memo. It's basically just a shitty antivax substack post, yet will apparently be FDA policy going forward. Another win for meritocracy.

> The detailed FDA analysis still isn't public. That's exactly why we should demand it instead of dismissing the claim.

The only "claim" here just sounds more official because RFKjr got a bunch of his best antivax buddies to be in charge of the FDA (same with the ACIP). There's no way to even consider it without evidence, so there's nothing to dismiss. Come back when you have something real.

[1] https://www.biocentury.com/article/657740

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#234
post #31

I found the intro very confusing, tbh. Particularly the "no increased risk of all-cause mortality". I mean, if we assume the vaccines worked, we'd certainly expect a decreased risk of all-case mortality (because "all-case mortality" certainly includes "covid mortality"). Reading "no increase" seems to imply "it doesn't change anything". Yeah, technically, the sentence does not say that ("no increase" can mean "no dec…

> "no increased risk of all-cause mortality"

My take is not quite as charitable as most of the comments, although my objection only barely applies to this particular paper. Biomedical research has long tradition of a very specific type of analysis: hypothesis testing. Roughly speaking, you make a hypothesis and test your data for compatibility with the hypothesis. In this paper, the authors are comparing two hypotheses: (a) there is an increased risk of all-cause mortality or (b) the increase in risk is zero or negative [0]. And the statement you’re quoting from the conclusion section sure sounds like it’s saying that the authors found that the data was consistent with (b) but not with (a).

Researchers love this. There are lots of papers with fancy-named tests with which one can do this analysis. Regulators often demand it.

And it produces papers that are correct in a fairly literal sense but miss the point entirely. For example, “we found no evidence that vaccines increase the risk of autism”. I, too, can look under my bed or study four people and find no evidence of anything at all about vaccines and autism, and I would be more or less justified in making that claim.

And because of this, you need to read papers very carefully to see what you can actually conclude. “No evidence” means a lot more in a large (“high powered”) study than in a small, weak study.

The right way to do this is something like “we looked at such-and-such data and found, with 95% confidence, that the increase in risk of X is that :)

Fortunately, this particular paper has the silly throwaway starting you’re complaining about in a few places but is otherwise mostly on the right track. Quoting from the Results section:

> Vaccinated individuals had a 74% lower risk of death from severe COVID-19 (weighted hazard ratio [wHR], 0.26 [95% CI, 0.22-0.30]) and a 25% lower risk of all-cause mortality (wHR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.75-0.76]), with a similar association observed when excluding severe COVID-19 death. Sensitivity analysis revealed that vaccinated individuals consistently had a lower risk of death, regardless of the cause.

IMO that should have been the headline. The latter sentence there is giving some indication that the result is robust and that the researchers didn’t flub it or get unlucky in quality of their data.

P.S. The fact that the vaccines seemed to reduce the risk is death from causes other than severe covid is interesting. I wonder how much is reducing death from complications of COVID other than “severe covid”, how much is behavioral changes (vaccinated whole socializing more and leaving their houses more), and how much is bizarre off-target effects of the mRNA vaccines. Here’s an example of a surprising off-target benefit that no one understands well:

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/mrna-vaccines-and-...

[0] I think. I didn’t reread it enough times to rule out the other common test: is the data consistent with the hypothesis that the risk didn’t change at all, which is also sadly common. But I’m moderately sure I’m right in the context of this paper.

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#235
post #5

Unfortunately, I don't think any additional evidence will convince vaccine skeptics of the safety of mRNA vaccines

Unfortunately, this is an observational study and when you get to the confounding part, they kind of shrug their shoulders and say “well, we included a bunch of covariates that should reduce make the bias go away”, but there’s no causal diagram so we have no idea how they reasoned about this. If you’ve read even something layman friendly like Pearl’s Book of Why you should be feeling nervous about this.

I did read the book, and the takeaway is that causal disentaglement is hard and a high bar, with even the causal link between cigarette smoking an cancer hard to "prove" until recently

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, one of the only things that is proven to convince vaccine skeptics is when someone from their community dies of a preventable illness. This is a great book on this topic: https://www.amazon.com/Anti-vaxxers-How-Challenge-Misinforme...

It seems like even that's not good enough. I have a few skeptics in my family and have had family members die from covid.

For example:

Parents of Texas child who died of measles stand by decision to not vaccinate

https://abc13.com/post/texas-measles-death-parents-child-die...

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Assume you're right: VAERS is useless for causality… Don't assume. https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html "When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established." > What possible benefits does RFK Jr. get from dramatically restricting a vaccine using data he knows is meaningless and will be shredded in 24 hours by every fact-ch…

Duh. VAERS guide says raw reports dont 100% prove causality. Nobody claims they do. That's why FDA's OBPV did the follow-up review of those 96 child deaths and concluded >10 were causal from vaccine myocarditis. They could've just said "VAERS proves nothing" and left the recommendation unchanged. Instead they wrote it up, leaked it early, and invited the exact scrutiny you're giving it now. If the conclusion was fake…

> That's why FDA's OBPV did the follow-up review of those 96 child deaths and concluded >10 were causal from vaccine myocarditis.

We don't actually know who at the OBPV did the review (Prasad only referred to the results coming from "the team") and the causal ranking they used included any case where causality was subjectively rated between "certain" and "possible/likely".

We also know that two orders of magnitude more children died from covid than that, and we have strong studies suggesting that myocarditis from covid is both more common and more severe than the observed cases tied to the covid vaccines, two inconvenient stances that Prasad waves away as insufficiently studied, even as he bases his entire position on a subjective review of something by someone, and doesn't bother filling in those blanks.

> If the conclusion was fake or flimsy, this blows up in their face and RFK looks like a clown

He beclowns himself all the time. He himself walked back the Tylenol claim after convincing Trump to talk about it so publicly and standing by him while he did it. Clearly he's not bothered by it.

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#238
post #5

Unfortunately, I don't think any additional evidence will convince vaccine skeptics of the safety of mRNA vaccines

Unfortunately, one of the only things that is proven to convince vaccine skeptics is when someone from their community dies of a preventable illness. This is a great book on this topic: https://www.amazon.com/Anti-vaxxers-How-Challenge-Misinforme...

Also, what's the overlap here between people who believe a) the unborn have a "right to life" (or forced birth as some others call it, where the parent has no choice but to take the pregnancy to term and give birth), and b) those who think the parents have every right to decide not to vaccinate their children? If you believe (a), shouldn't you believe (not b)? And if you believe (b), shouldn't you believe (not a)?

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#239

Am I right in reading "Figure. Estimation of All-Cause Mortality at 4 Years in Vaccinated Compared With Unvaccinated Individuals Using Weighted Cox Models: Main and Stratified Analyses" to show that vaccines were more beneficial to the 18-29 age group than any older group? Isn't that unexpected?

This isn't an RCT and COVID mortality is no longer high, so the effect on all-cause mortality is almost entirely confounders. So that result just means people 18-29 who chose to get the COVID vaccine have other characteristics that result in the much lower mortality from non-COVID causes.

I'm not sure why. The top causes for that age group are usually non-medical, accident, suicide, or homicide. We might speculate those would anticorrelate more strongly with the prudence that leads people to get the vaccine than unavoidable medical causes, but looking at the V, W, X, and Y causes from Table 2 that doesn't seem to be true. I guess it could be true but only for the 18-29 group (and if it's not then what causes are responsible?), since they don't break that down by age.

The "problem" is that vaccine recipients are so much healthier overall than non-recipients that the vaccine would have to be spectacularly unsafe to offset that. So this analysis doesn't actually tell us much, but it's consistent with all other evidence that the vaccine is safe.

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#240
post #225

I've been using this prompt on articles that generate debate. Like microservices, or jwt's. It brings up some interesting points for this article... Look at this article and point out any wording that seems meant to push a certain viewpoint. Note anything important the author leaves out, downplays, or overstates, including numbers that seem cherry-picked or lack context. Clearly separate basic facts from opinions or…

Who would win, the combined efforts of the best scientists in the field, or innuendo from a fancy markov model? You could at least paste the points here.

For me, it’s a way to break down and analyze articles more critically, not to pick a side.
Post reply on HN