Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
No bio...
User ID: 648
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
A new New York State Covid-19 Dataset was released a few days ago. I thought it was a good opportunity to see the progress of the vaccination campaign. I think it's great data for an attack on the performative ritual of getting 'vaccinated' to encourage others to get vaccinated as well (which is what a lot of people were convinced to do). Obviously, those who got vaccinated to "protect other people" stand on shakier ground now.
First, let's establish something important. mRNA vaccines have a established, not fully understood connection to peri-myocarditis. mRNA can cause heart damage in a way that other vaccines seem to avoid. I would say this is an important explanation for the following data:
Percent of New Yorkers ages 18 and older with completed vaccine series - 85.5%
We all know how this was done. OSHA directed mandate, NYC mandate, banning people from shows, restaurants, bars until they receive an EUA injection, healthcare worker mandate, bribing people 100$ a shot. Science communication and incentives couldn't get people to take a novel vaccination method. NYS is almost 20% unionized, and the mandate was really helpful in boosting the low minority vaccination rate, since so many of those individuals work unionized, mandated jobs.
Now that these incentives are gone, let's see what the uptake is:
**Percent of all New Yorkers who are up to date - 14.1%
**
Most New Yorkers ignore CDC guidance now. Covid-19 will be gone in a few years. Covid-19 will be retired as a word for "novel entry of pathogen SARS-2," SARS-2 will be renamed HC-391237 or OC-32871 (random examples) or something, and the "covid-19 vaccine" will be rightly seen as a genetic version of a "flu shot" like intervention.
Consumers who want "flu shot" like vaccines, will eventually come to prefer conventional, protein adjuvanted vaccination methods.
Why would a 19 year old ever get an mRNA injection, when they could get a shot of Covaxin? The main purpose of the shot being to end the harassment from the public health infrastructure, and gain employment or education.
**Percent of New Yorkers ages 0-4 with completed vaccine series - 7.9%
**
This makes me think the vaccine could be seen as dangerous to parents. Keep in mind that all high-risk (on ventilator) children have probably been vaccinated, but some likely have not.
The vaccine campaign was a performance. Young healthy people were asked by the CDC to pretend that genetic Covid-19 vaccination was completely benign and well understood, with the goal of ultimately getting high-risk patients to take the higher risk vaccine.
If 20-29 year olds were allowed to say "no, that vaccine causes heart damage, obviously not worth getting," skepticism would trickle up to individuals who should arguably take advantage of the more advanced vaccination method. May the benefits outweigh the risks. No one believes in "do no harm" in the age of state-mandated genetic injections.
I am going to do my best to write a post to follow up on last week's mRNA vaccine hypothetical. Last week, the idea of 25% of the population "dying" from the vaccine would have social consequences, and people discussed. I noticed a lot of in-the-weeds back and forth on the vaccines, and luckily, a paper came out today to establish a non-hypothetical.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X22014931
I am having a lot of trouble with this. The pfizer vaccine is associated with an increase in Pulmonary Embolism, which is a blood clot in the lungs. There is severe disinterest in classifying these types of blood clots. I noticed that the scientific establishment went very far to profile "microclots" of the COVID-19 disease, but noticed that clotting incidences during Flu were never really elucidated or investigated. Science is a man made, bumbling golem. Blood clots in the lungs, according to my traditional reading of Physiology, would generally mean you can have blood clotting disorder anywhere you have blood. The Heart, The Brain, and the Lungs just have the worst, smallest pipes for these clots to be detected in.
A note about Covid being a clotty disease - covid blood clots are "amyloids" that cause "long covid" - then what are blood clots that appear during a flu sequalae? These probably have never been investigated or characterized. Covid is more clotty than flu - but are we considering that Covid causes severe sleepiness and lethargy? Do activity levels while infected affect blood clotting patterns during respiratory illness? (admittedly speculation - but have you ever taken a 16 hour plane flight? Look at this article about flu vaccines preventing blood clots, from 2008. They probably do - because all respiratory viruses increase chance of clotting? Well, that's fine, but I bet vaccines aren't supposed to cause clotting.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081109193332.htm
That's all I found. Can you help me with information on clotting from the Flu?
There has been some debate about the "naturalistic fallacy" in arguing that a Covid-19 infection can be characterized as less risky than receiving a Covid-19 vaccination. I keep encountering ostensibly "pro-vax" individuals who are claiming that getting myocarditis from the vaccine is a no brainer, if you are protected against myocarditis from Coronavirus. However, we have no clear mechanisms here, except we saw autopsy results in Germany that prove there can be sudden death after vaccination from the myocarditis related arryhthmia/dysrhythmia. This type of myocarditis is not proving to be common at all with Covid-19 reinfections - I understand that for your first encounter with the virus, your odds profile is completely different. If you already had Covid-19, you have natural immunity. Any further mRNA vaccination is offering a risk without a benefit, now that your immune naivety is broken. If we had more traditional vaccines, perhaps an increased rate of myocarditis or blood clots near the lungs will be decreased, for a similar benefit. Why can't this be broached? Covaxin exists but was rejected by the FDA. The public health monolith seemed to block the chance to be "anti-vax" and win by scoring protection from the virus without being subject to a genetic-based biotechnology
We keep getting dragged down by considering every SARS-2 infection as potentially lethal, when this was really never true. I believe this has created a pervasive "magical model" of viruses where the virus touches one of your cells, and suddenly has a key to every organ in your body (please rebut me). This becomes true when infection reaches a tipping point and moves further than your lungs, but Omicron, combined with the fact that so many people have Natural and Artificial (oh sorry 2019 term - vaccine induced) Immunity, the virus is being kept very mild, and I am highly suspicious of anyone who presents a sequalae based on unique characteristics of SARS-2, when it infects your upper respiratory tract, like the hundreds and thousands of respiratory virus strains that were ostensibly new, and passed through us dozens of times. The true nature of the human ecology and it's interaction with reparatory viruses, since the group Mammalia existed, suddenly seems like a especially dangerous aberration in our times (edit note - typo and word change for group).
It seems "pro-vax" are using some type of time fallacy that hasn't updated. What human is encountering SARS-2 with a naïve immune system in 2023? Why would you take a vaccine that can be compared to the risk getting your first exposure to a new group of coronaviruses in 2023? Then arguments can hit "we didn't know at the time," but this is extremely unsatisfying to people who had these exact suspicions during the vaccine drive, and got sick very early during the "it's just a flu" media push of Feb. 2020 (I was of course, masking in Feb. 2020, sigh).
Am I outing myself as a desperate Mottian by being so befuddled by the seeming lack of interest in a new type of vaccine that can cause heart damage at comparable rates to a novel coronavirus infection. Imagine updated IFRs if you include the recirculating infections going around now.
Please come debate. I noticed more "pro-vax" on this board than usual - I'm ready for you. Let's be clear.
mRNA seems to be the problem. Check the wikipedia article for "solid lipid nanoparticle." Kind of short. A few years of science (okay, I know the line was "decades," which is not impressive compared to centuries of other vaccines). mRNA spreads throughout your body via your blood stream, and this is a technology flaw in the mRNA platform.
J&J, while still newer, did not show any concerning safety signals, and was eventually pulled because it cannot be updated efficiently, and humans become tolerant to the vectors. Or, J&J caused blood clots, killed people, and was pulled/discouraged to direct people to 'safer' mRNA vaccines. I would get more viral vectors, but probably only if I was going somewhere exotic and expected an encounter with a pathogen of special interest to me. J&J platform was also a human virus and will be treated by your immune system as a virus. You, and your mammalian ancestors have naturalistically encountered viruses since the beginning. This is not a fallacy!
Novavax - this one does not rely on stable lipid nanoparticles, but involves a novel nanoparticle that helps arrange spike protein to look more like a "virus." This is important.
Covaxin - the FDA rejected this vaccine because the one's we had were so safe. This was the exact moment I sunk permenantly into my rabbit hole. The FDA and other public health stakeholders created some type of technology embargo against a traditional Covid vaccination methods. The reasons could be many, and I think are becoming deeply cultural, and I'm excited for the conversation we're about to have. Based on centuries old concepts of presenting antigens 'as they are' (insert latin term) rather than conjuring them at the ribosome in the cell, which has been of interest for less than a median human lifetime in the USA.
So in essence, rather than ask you what you think a 54% increase in Pulmonary Embolism incidence after Pfizer vaccination, I am broaching a large anti-mRNA topic, and throwing down. I have placed plenty claims that I expect to be rebutted. If I have seemed at all to sneer or to be uncharitable, I apologize, and would be happy to reword. I wanted to put forward a spirited defense of "anti-mRNA vaxxery", not denigrate anyone on the other side.
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.
I work at a very left wing college - you get inundated with messages supporting exclusively democratic positions. I agree with some, disagree with others, but overall abhor the general tone from my employer, as anyone should.
I'm wondering what the message will be if AA is overturned. They will need to comment AND change practices, which is very different from low-hanging fruit of virtue signaling (aside - I have to refrain from using the term "low-hanging fruit" at this institution).
I think their justification for race-based admission and discrimination against certain groups will be heavily weighted with critical theory - the "disadvantaging whites & Asians is equitable" approach.
At the end of the day, potential ending of AA opens a huge breach in the DEI. Will they circumvent it? Will there be 'sanctuary colleges' where admissions is allowed to be race-based?
My guess is yes, this will heat the culture war. We will be shown unequal outcome statistics, and hear discussion about the 'racism' of this Supreme Court decision, and resulting 'inequity' that comes from the boost in technical 'equality'. I do not believe I am being uncharitable in this description.
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
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
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36436002/
Check out this study - you can do an autopsy and link sudden death to mRNA myocarditis. This should help you understand a bit more why such a rare risk is worth your time.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36436002/
Why are hearts found with heart damage in cadavers? Why is it not plausible that this is a actual issue?
The online right is, alternatively, demonstrating the exact appropriate amount of interest you'd expect, countering the efforts of a public health campaign to minimize this information.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
While it may not be appropriate to call it astroturfing, I wanted to point out that it is uncommon to see a detailed pro-vax analysis on the motte. It uses very quick "off lamps" that are supported by fact checking / expert trust / credentialling institutions.
Rather than say AstroTurf, I'd say there is a peppering of shallow, short cut arguments that never develop fully into an authentic, organic long form idea.
Agreed, I will be much more careful to use a short cut like that, and avoid needless linking to an outgroup that's not the main topic of my concern.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
This is not the right take.
You should be much more concerned about the size, shape, and ability to move through your body compartments with a Vaccine, than with a virus entering your mucosa.
The virus, if anything, is very limited by ACE2 receptors, whereas the lipid nature of the mRNA droplet allows it to merge into literally any cell and make it into an antigen producing cell. Much more than ACE2
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
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36436002/
Take a look at this autospy report. If you can find bodies that have died after vaccination, you can propose that people are dying after vaccination, from the vaccination. I find it bewildering that people are uninterested in the long view of isolated cases of heart damage, and a novel biotechnology vaccine (that could be substituted for a conventional vaccine at that!).
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
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
I would take another look at the study. There was cellular evidence that these cadavers could have had a dysrhythmia from the mRNA associated lymphocyte aggregation in the myocardial tissue. Not causal but pretty convincing.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Any procedure is a minor procedure if its not being done on you. Ibuprofen CANNOT cause you to show ECG changes and have your heart puke out troponin
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
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36436002/
I am spamming this and I apologize to anyone who's mad about this. We can find evidence of special heart damage from the mRNA vaccine from autopsies. We have the FDA announcing a possible association with PE and Pfizer. This nurse could simply think "I've seen a slide of someone's damaged heart after vaccination, maybe it's connected." and all of a sudden you accuse them of a crime of logic.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36436002/
I mean, in many ways, people keep proving that a safe and effective vaccine is actually dangerous in ways comparable to a "dangerous" infectious disease!
Why are autopsies finding out that the heart is participating in the vaccination process! We should see lymphocytes in the muscle of the deltoid, not the heart.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
I can't lead you further to water than this. I have evidence that there is a virus recirculating, not circulating for the first time. The same way vaccine reduces myocarditis, so will infection with natural immunity. Except the vaccine also causes myocarditis: thus our impasse.
(1/2)
Yes. Let's begin. I apologize for my lack of formatting, you're right, it was meandering.
Be careful drawing facile conclusions from large correlational studies like this. And not to be a paternalistic douchebag (feel free to ignore if you know better) but you might find it helpful to skim the discussion of a paper if you aren't familiar with the field to at least get a feel for the limitations or alternative explanations of the study.
Yes, there is a complete heterogeneity of the population at this point. I understand the point, and I appreciate you walking through more of the PE risk benefit. I am relatively familiar but didn't enter the weeds. I agree this is a correlational study. I am aware of the authors explanations and limitation.
They are forced to use historical data.
They are forced to use the worst possible CFRs when we had the least tests available and the fewest eyes on the spread, compared to a disinterested, uninformed group of clinicians who would have been responsible or detecting vaccine side effects. We need pathophysiological studies and autopsies - once again extreme lack of interest in autopsy for vaccine recipients. The data is muddled, so we need firm exploration into underlying mechanisms and gaps in our understanding of mRNA vaccines.
Let's look at other studies that show problems with mRNA. I can't link them to PE myself, you need to take your pathophysiology knowledge with you into this exploration.
There is a suspicious group of studies that cast extreme doubt on the basic functioning of the mRNA vaccine as an antigen producing unit that remains in the deltoid.
Usually sudden death after vaccination would be related to anaphylaxis due to an allergy to some vaccine component, whereas the myocarditis takes a few days to develop.
First, in my healthcare facility, Anaphylaxis was less than double the increase from traditional vaccines. I would say mRNA performed very well in the realm of anaphylaxis (remember, allergic reaction 2 body systems and life threatening). I have suspicion that mRNA is responsible for allergic generation issues (e.g. anecdotal bilateral hives after vaccination) but I have no evidence. I just know that mRNA spreads its antigen creating goodness throughout the body, at a frightenly common rate. If you see sudden death as a possibility of anaphylaxis, you may be mistaken in some ways.
I am surprised you are unfamiliar with https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36436002/, Autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination.
Note lymphocytic infiltration of cardiac myocytes (I won't even continue on with the arrhythmogenic implications of this permeant heart damage, a.k.a. died suddenly). Yes, vaccines are supposed to enter your lymph and lymph node, but your lipid nanoparticle has different pharmacokinetics, and seems to pass the lymph nodes and enter your blood stream, whereas my J&J virus does not. This is a huge win for me, over your choice of vaccine. Let's see - deltoid goes to lymph vessel, lymph vessels carry mRNA to lymph node, some of the trillions of mRNA baubles awash past the lymph nodes and get dumped into venous circulation (right before entering the Right Atrium of the heart). This is all done before even getting a pass at the liver.
Yes, I think a bad football tackle can exacerbate the exact underlying pathology that was discovered in the German Pathology Autopsy reports. Entirely plausible.
J&J has a form of tropism to enter cells, wheras mRNA is enclosed in a non-tropic lipid droplet that can fuse with the phospholipid bilayer of much more than just a muscle cell. Lymph vessels are a one way valve that do not require deposition of mRNA payload to enter lymph circulation (then subsequence blood stream circulation.
Did you know the lymph is responsible for distributing dietary lipids to your blood stream? Are you concerned that you took a novel lipid and entered it into the system that transports macronutrients? The early applications of lipid nanoparticles were as oral form blood pressure medication. Why? The lipid nanoparticle is great as distributed systemic effectors. Your vaccine distributed mRNA as if it was a beta blocker.
The mRNA vaccine is found in breast milk: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2796427. mRNA enters the blood stream at a rate higher than other vaccines.
Spike protein is in blood stream of myocarditis patients. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36597886/
I don't think spike protein is the issue, but the signal that the antigen is in the blood stream. What exact tissue was the antigen created? Probably not exclusively in the deltoid myocytes.
There's plenty of papers: Here's a review that will have a summary and a couple dozen primary references if you're interested. Many primary papers investigating the mechanisms as well.
Thank you. Looks like the etiology of blood clots from Covid related PE would be different from an mRNA related PE, so we need to be especially suspicious of the signal that the mRNA vaccines could cause a PE. Especially since historical data has to be used due to lack of long term safety monitoring before mass vaccination. If severe flu can cause PE, I'm extremely unmoved by severe covid causing PE. Viral pneumonia sucks and too bad antibodies can't hover inside of your parenchyma and actually generate a sterilizing immunity.
Since I will not be getting Covid Viral Pneumonia, I am very interested in the chance that this "routine medical procedure" can cause PE.
The last time I looked into myocarditis it was vanishingly rare, a tiny number of deaths were attributable to it and those individuals seemed to have many other medical conditions.
the authors report zero deaths associated with vaccine-induced myocarditis
This is a horrible sign for your data, since I've seen the slides of lymphocyte aggregation in the deltoid of a cadaver, as well as in the heart of a cadaver after vaccination. What do you think of this discrepancy? This is an 11 month old reddit post, the autopsies were not completed then. I think it makes your data look unusable. As a counter to the redditor - maybe this is CIA propaganda to make the vaccine seem safe, to counter Russians propaganda to make you think the vaccine can kill you (which the Germans actually proved was true). This was all in the reddit post you linked to - not an unrelated sneer.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.13947
Yeah admitted self own, this is the Prasad paper, which paints a stratified risk that is not vanishingly rare. I'm not pushing this more than my above point.
As well say this for tetanus, flu, rabies or any of the other viruses we need boosters for. Immunity wanes particularly quickly for respiratory viruses. Note also that the Moderna booster is a half dose, so modulo some weird memory effects likely has lower rates of adverse events.
Come on. None of those vaccines involve mRNA lipid nanoparticles. Getting boosted with mRNA to seek antibody titers is aboslutely not the same thing as getting a tetanus booster in 10 years.
I mean this is a very very polite way - how did you find your way to the Motte? You started strong, but these are common misdirections on the exact argument - mRNA is a special novel biotechnology, stop mentioning vaccines that the market overwhelmingly accepted, and has centuries of application in the exact antigen deliver method (protein adjuvant). Have you ever mix and matched a measles vaccines in a year? Even when no data existed on it? Pfizer admitted you should not mix and match Comirnaty because of lack of data, you can only mix and match the EUA product. Which is...something...
I don't think we know the risk of myocarditis after reinfection; it's almost certainly lower, but I could only find two case reports so it's difficult to draw any conclusions or calculate the relative benefit of vaccination. Moreover, tens of thousands of elderly patients die of flu every year, and I can guarantee you that they aren't immunologically naive. Natural immunity isn't a silver bullet.
Okay, you agree with me, its certainty lower. Yes, I think it would be nice to distribute vaccines to elderly patients who are vulnerable. Is this why the FDA is vaccinating pediatrics? This is just a vacuous talking point. You just called Covid a flu. Why would you get the experimental nanoparticle for "just a flu bro."
I'm not sure I understand your point here.
It was not really for you. You seem to get it.
That being said, we've been infected by influenza for at least 1,500 years and it's still a major public health concern. A truly protective vaccine would be a major coup, and investing resources in these problems is worthwhile even if lockdowns and mask mandates are not.
Yes, more evidence that the entry of a novel, circulating respiratory pathogen into the population that targets elderly and vulnerable is entirely normal, see the Russian Flu in the 1800s. What's not normal, is becoming a fanatic for biotechnology.
The calculus for the vaccines was just much better early in the pandemic.
The calculus was "seek herd immunity." This involved minimizing the collapsed efficacy of the vaccine mid-distribution. Once again, you love comparing every known vaccine dose to every known covid case, when we absolutely know there is more infection than can be reported into the data. Then "severe disease and death."
My calculus is: the vaccine leaks into your bloodstream, and seeking protection from severe disease and death from one respiratory pathogen with a vaccine that leaks into your bloodstream is not advisable.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Novavax is a novel virus-like particle. I personally would much prefer Novavax over mRNA, and probably over adenovirus vectors.
I just don't like the threat of heart problems that mRNA presents. Such a large, dark downside to the products, to remodel your heart.
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
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.
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
Pfizer is associated significantly with strokes - CDC is keeping us in the dark about the exact data.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link