Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
No bio...
User ID: 648
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Thanks. I read all your comments.
You are detecting partisanship, as well as someone who was mandated. This is a huge deal for me. I cannot thank you enough for engaging me, it's extremely difficult to find people to debunk my own thought etc. I think you make a lot of good points and it will help me moderate as I look forward to further evidence.
I think some developments are going to vindicate me in the future, and a lot of your objections are well placed to defuse my ability to make claims at this current time. Until then, I unfortunately am bubbling with some vitriol.
Opinions I cannot prove to you the way you'd like:
Covid is safer than they can possible report.
The vaccine is more dangerous than they can ever possibly report.
Maybe take a gander:
This study finds a 1 in 100,000 death rate for the vaccine.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35653-z
Thought it was interesting, if you have not yet seen. Thanks again and have a good one.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Everyone in the myocarditis study was not a young male. It just proves, that sudden death after vaccination can be downstream from the very "well understood" and "mild" myocarditis that the vaccine is associated with.
You are tricking out old Covid morbidity statistics against your best possible analysis of mRNA. For the right age group, you could see a 1 in 2,000 risk of heart damage.
Anyone who's heart stops after vaccination, could have died from the vaccine. The vaccinators did not study the vaccine long enough to even know this until part-way through the campaign, when it became "a known issue that doesn't hold up."
A lot of people had investment in mRNA stopping transmission, and that was why this rare side effect of "some heart damage to young people" was being hand waved. During the "we are getting herd immunity phase," It seemed like you would accept any risk to young patients to stop community spread. That's concept has collapsed, and you're trying to say that the vaccine is only somewhat as deadly as the disease you are actually trying to vaccinate against!
5 per 100k, 150 in 100k. Think of ALL the unreported covid cases that were mild or asymptomatic. You are showing me the best possible rate of myocarditis, and it holds up next to a disease. That's not great vaccine, even if you think an 85 year old in 2020 should have obviously received it (and then it wore off by mid 2021).
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Since you can die suddenly from dysrhythmia after vaccine induced myocarditis, we need to reevaluate where we are in this campaign. This was not known at the EUA authorization in 2020.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Also - don't forget that development of inactivated vaccines seems to have been halted in its tracks, and Covaxin rejected by the FDA because "we have vaccines already."
Of course, the market would prefer a vaccine that is 100 times safer than mRNA style, but the FDA helped embargo any protein vaccines.
I literally think the FDA blocked conventional vaccines, to make sure no "anti-vaxxer" could score a win by being hesitant until a better vaccine is available - a total cluster for people trying to paint anti-vax as anti science, if they line up to accept a conventional vaccine. Will they now? Probably not.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Fair, and yet here we are, 1/11/2023, and somehow there is disinterest in important Covaxin to increase the vaccination rate. All because they can't say "we have the real ones now."
Have you seen booster update? pitiful. This is the future for mRNA when held in a free and open market next to protein-adjuvanted vaccines.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
CDC has released a report today finding preliminary association between the Pfizer vaccine and stroke for those over 65 years of age.
Another drop in the bucket - or is the bucket spilling out the top now?
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/bivalent-boosters.html
Following the availability and use of the updated (bivalent) COVID-19 vaccines, CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), a near real-time surveillance system, met the statistical criteria to prompt additional investigation into whether there was a safety concern for ischemic stroke in people ages 65 and older who received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent.
Pfizer is associated significantly with strokes - CDC is keeping us in the dark about the exact data.
This preliminary signal has not been identified with the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent. There also may be other confounding factors contributing to the signal identified in the VSD that merit further investigation. Furthermore, it is important to note that, to date, no other safety systems have shown a similar signal and multiple subsequent analyses have not validated this signal:
They then list multiple studies that did not replicate this finding for the BIVALENT vaccine - well of course, this vaccine was testing on mice, and then deployed without long term testing. Do they have monovalent data they are not mentioning?
EDIT: Is it possible monovalent risk benefit analysis is simply using a different pathogen, and now with the advent of Omicron, this is a medical update saying this level of strokes is no longer worth the benefit vs the current pathogen? Food for thought.
No change in vaccination practice is recommended.
This contradicts what Paul Offit's opinion is, which was posted in the NEJM. Paul Offit believes we should not give bivalent boosters to young healthy patients.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2215780
It would be much more shocking to announce a chance to the vaccine campaign, than to keep the current inertia the same. I think we are seeing a communication strategy developing to deliver the population into accepting yearly mRNA vaccines - instead, they will be directed to other worthwhile candidates for vaccination - IF pharma companies can even deliver those.
In my eyes: mRNA vaccines are dangerous, so you need to determine how dangerous the pathogen presenting is. I see a great use case for mRNA developing for Airborne Ebola Zaire strains (90% mortality) or other disease of similar magnitude. Simply put: your vaccine should not significantly increase cardiovascular risk. It should be absolutely negligible. 1 in a million, whereas these vaccines might be 1 in 100,000.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Why? This seems to me like you picked "an order of magnitude safer than what it allegedly is" and if the alleged rate of danger were different, you would have picked a different goal.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35653-z
Here's one estimate. I would never base policy on one study, usually that's something the CDC would do.
I find these numbers to be particularly confusing in light of how dangerous COVID itself is. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02867-1/fulltext#seccestitle140 says that at age 65, the IFR for COVID is about 1.7%
This is data from a year ago. We are talking about how the bivalent booster is associated with ischemic strokes, especially held against the risk of omicron.
And according to https://www.cdc.gov/stroke/facts.htm, the baseline rate of ischemic stroke in the US is slightly over 2 per 1,000 people, again much higher than the alleged risk of the vaccine.
Let's stick to relative risk? This is not useful.
Driving is dangerous.
Agreed. But we have to go places, like schools, small business, and our places of worship. So no one proposes stopping driving. I'm proposing stopping the EUA novel biotechnology vaccination campaign.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
I am much more worried about real, physiological implications of nanoparticle technology uptake. Not simple safety standard concerns (those already seem tattered).
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Yes, they say it's unlikely - but it's possible. SO now that we've established, it is unlikely, but possible that the vaccine can cause harm (which is occult and being undetected in other countries - if this possibility fleshes out).
No change in vaccination practice is recommended
The vaccination process will still be based heavily on a paradigm that humans MUST avoid circulating respiratory pathogens, yet if they must get infect, their best course of action is to take EUA vaccine (of which options are limited and you still cannot acquire an FDA approved and labelled vial of vaccine), at any age. They have said, the possibly the vaccine has a problem is not worth their time changing their public health campaign goal.
The evidence they cite is:
They do not submit any evidence regarding the monovalent vaccine. Yet the bivalent has the same synthetic mRNA transcripts as monovalent. Do we even know if bivalent mRNA is transcribed as a single strand, or seperated into two seperate mRNA molecules?
Not seeing any reason to get vaccinated for omicron, at almost any age or health, with an mRNA vaccine. We need a diversity of vaccines in this country, since efficacy is going to eventually drop for each mRNA boost.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
It's an EUA vaccine approved for an emergency. I think if you want to say "legitimately safe vaccine," it would be easier if Pfizer or Moderna could actually distribute an FDA approved and LABELLED as approved "Comirnaty" or "Spikevax" vial of vaccine.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Well, let's say you did not want to take the vaccine, and you were mandated to take it. You could choose either J&J, mRNA, Novavax, or even fly overseas to get Covaxin. You may begin debating at that point.
mRNA vs. Other vaccines is a very difficult topic, because defanging a countries ability to give mandated vaccines is bad, but mandating vaccines that are bad isn't good. In fact, perhaps extreme caution should be taken based on the prior.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Agreed. I personally have a high esteem for many people on both sides of the issue - that's what makes this query so incisive and important.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
1 in one million, compared to 1 in 100,000, in our current data collection environment, is a good signal to keep track of if you are considering your options to receive a covid-19 vaccine. Perhaps you can take J&J, Novavax, or Covaxin and maintain protection against SARS-2.
The IFR is lower and vaccines are not denting hospitalization or death rates as they plummet from their previous heights (mass naïve infection). Most people have had a much better inoculation than a monovalent vaccine - they've had a SARS-2 infection.
Do you plan on explaining why or are you just going to make assertions?
Well, because a stroke as a cardiovascular event, I'm interested in the dynamic between mRNA vaccination and your cardiovascular system. A stroke, downstream of pathology, will offer valuable information when it goes above the baseline.
It's entirely possible to build towns and cities that don't require you to drive literally everywhere....A minuscule improvement in civil design would save orders of magnitude more lives than eliminating all risk from vaccines, with lots of other positive side effects to boot.
Well, you are demanding rigor, and yet I feel like this is a complex claim. Even a city would involve having people driving to bring supplies and transportation towards these centers - a mandatory risk.
We should be paving our public serology with only the best, most well understood vaccines that we are capable of developing and testing and passing on in our limited lifetimes. There is a broader umbrella of rigor that I am requesting to be frank.
A lot of the rigor I'm demanding will also take time, more time than has been allotted for these Bivalent updates. The first injectable, multi-transcriptional (unknown if combined or separated) mRNA vaccine to market has shown an unexpected safety signal.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
No there's a meaningful legal, judicial, and regulatory framework surrounding those vials. And the public health vaccination campaign.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
The vaccines are dangerous precisely because we are analyzing and looking for hidden harm, after we already administered a billion doses without fully understanding the consequences and outcomes.
mRNA cardiovascular toxicity is a severe problem and if it's at all likely, the hammer should drop. This "blip" is an 18 year old about to get mandated with mRNA bivalents before going to a community college.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Your response didn't address the crux of FDA and EUA labelling. The entire power structure of our country, legal recourse and all, rests along these lines. Sorry to bring Foucault into the mix, but he's the ultimate nightmare of a public health pandemicist.
There are no data available on the interchangeability of COMIRNATY with COVID-19 vaccines from other manufacturers to complete the vaccination primary series. Individuals who have received 1 dose of COMIRNATY should receive a second dose of COMIRNATY to complete the vaccination series.
Is this not VERY different from the medical advice given to people getting the EUA? Mix and match the first vial you can even get your hands on?
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Fair, I'm not going to rip off my wallpaper over elderly and at risk people receiving bivalent vaccines - precisely because I have a calculation of their quality life years remaining, that is very different from younger healthy people.
The exact people who benefit from a covid vaccine have less quality life years to live than those who do not.
The vaccine has a novel, not totally understood method of mRNA translation, and then goes through another not completely understood process of protein folding, and then enters the immune system (not completely understood). The pharmacokinetics of the nano lipid particle are not characterized or understood. And there is a concerning signal of a blood clot appearing in patient's brains.
I am not scare mongering, I am being highly critical, since I'm not the one defending the novel RNA transfection vaccines.
When they run trials for new vaccines, they will compare them to the harms that the RNA transfection vaccines caused, and the new vaccines are going to look amazing. My guess is they will use protein-adjuvanted methods.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
People entering the medical system and producing positive incidental Covid-19 infections are already likely to be sick.
"It was based upon nearly 154,000 patients with Covid (median age 60, 90% male)"
How can this be related to a 21 year olds decision to avoid getting a mRNA vaccine, known to have cardiac side effects, when the study looks at an already unhealthy patient population?
Not even trying anymore, Mr. Topol may be right that Covid causes problems, but his whole basis reeks of damage control.
The vaccines, with their side effects, need a deadly disease to be worthwhile giving. We are riding out the last days of accepting a chance of heart damage to be immunized against a contagious disease that you get exposed to at the bar, grocery store, and in your home.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Inaccurate. If you look at the mRNA vaccines in particular, they can cause a heart condition that can cause death. Its a well recognized condition called peri-myocarditis. Are those deaths worth protection from covid? That's the argument that's falling apart right now.
"Lingering effects of novel viral illnesses have been well-documented" Did you mean to use the word novel? There are lingering effects possible of all viral illnesses, not just novel ones. I would not compare this to Spanish Flu, compare it to The Russian Flu/Corona of 1800s..
The idea that nascent respiratory infection would have killed someone that had a "mild" reaction to the mRNA is completely unsupported, and conveniently forgets the introduction of the novel nanolipid particle that delivered this first generation vaccine.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Good point, Sweden is doing well despite giving the mRNA vaccines. I'm happy you found a single western country that used mRNA and is not experiencing a precipitous increase in death. And they have excellent foresight to avoid giving risky vaccines to children.
I know Sweden acknowledges that the risks of the vaccines are only useful when comparing against the risks of the virus.
"Conspiracy theorists." Why are you drawing conclusion on a single countries demographics? This is not a good faith accusation to people who are worried the novel mRNA vaccine is causing unnecessary morbidity and mortality, even Sweden has decided to stop putting children at risk. Is this responsible for their better mortality statistics? Hard to tell but I know you need to update your priors here.
There is a radical difference in allowing 5 year olds, and 12 years olds, to receive nanolipid particle injections. And you failed to mention that.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
"Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the WHO Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease) and trial registries were searched up to May 2022"
This is old data now, and every single undetected case of Coronavirus during that time period was not counted into that rate. This is what all the health authorities used to make light of the heart damage that mRNA can cause, just like you are doing now. There's incidentally been hundreds of millions of natural infections since then, undetected, making the rate of myocarditis by covid essentially become asymptotic to 0 as everyone becomes naturally immune, possibly twice.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36436002/
Here's a post-mortem that shows the same WBC in your injection site, infiltrating the tissue of the heart and causing sudden death. You must not keep up with Pathology journals about people found dead after the mRNA vaccination, or they're not talked about or published in your countries.
"The relative risk (RR) for myocarditis was more than seven times higher in the infection group than in the vaccination group"
Even at best: you're telling me we are giving a vaccine that causes heart damage, only one order of magnitude less than a novel clade of beta-coronavirus that spilled out so fast we couldn't even count all the cases? And that's a good thing?
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
I want to make a separate point to bring up your blue tribe distinction.
Every time Covid-19 vaccines come up, very low level "pro-vax" discussion starts occurring. I see extremely washingtonpost or Foxnews tier discussion of these products.
If you check my post history, I have a complete throw down against the mRNA products. Currently, the pro-vax perspectives coming in this thread could have been completed by Reuters fact checks or some other political organization.
So, I offer the following:
-
Astroturfing in the provax camp is occurring on the Mott OR
-
Only less educated, less biologically inclined 'pro-vaxxers' are appearing in these threads with years old talking points and critical obfuscations of what happened during the mRNA / adenovirus vaccination campagin.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
This is not all proven - the vaccine entering body tissues because there's no known characterization of nanolipid particle pharmacokinetics is the main issue her. There's no concentrated ACE2 receptor in testicles, but the nanolipid particle will be exposed to the testicles via the blood stream (at the testicle blood barrier, which the vaccine can cross).
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
This is a strong candidate for a contributing factor to deaths. For example, I'd argue that loss of job due to a vaccine mandate will carry worse outcomes than actually receiving a vaccine, or getting Covid unvaccinated. So in a way, our own public health response could be responsible for causing harm to people
Among the 35 cases of the University of Heidelberg, autopsies revealed other causes of death (due to pre-existing illnesses) in 10 patients (Supplementary Table 1). Hence, these were excluded from further analysis. Cardiac autopsy findings consistent with (epi-)myocarditis were found in five cases of the remaining 25 bodies found unexpectedly dead at home within 20 days following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.
5/25
Well, this is not the statistical smoking gun I want per say.
So of 35 sudden deaths, 10 were other causes. And then of 25 sudden deaths, 5 were found to have thee abnormality. They were looking for sudden deaths from myocarditis and they found it.
Who knows. We basically agree in a bunch of domains, I just think it's still not possible to say this is a disproportionally unimportant issue.
More options
Context Copy link