Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
No bio...
User ID: 648
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
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
Um no.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36436002/
Here's a scientific paper showing there is a special link between mRNA and sudden death. Why would the right not be interested in the counternarrative developing? It's a smoking gun.
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
Understood - I felt like it was wrong. I was blocked by aaa, I'm assuming because it was inconvenient to his argument or annoying.
I still find it odd that people skip over like this study doesn't exist, as it keep bubbling into all these tertiary debates about the possibility of vaccine sudden death.
Feels like an influx of a persuasion hit the board. Which I welcome, frankly.
Stopping immediately.
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
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
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.
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
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
Fair. But during a period of intense censorship, a diffuse cloth of similar anecdotes and experiences actually ended up with some evidence and studies to confirm. Take the myocarditis risk, as well as possible sudden death from myocarditis, being proved experimentally. (check my post history if you interested in link)
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-updates-new-yorkers-states-progress-combating-covid-19-467
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.
More options
Context Copy link