Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
No bio...
User ID: 648
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
I'm not so sure there's no way to enforce - couldn't non-compliance end up in lawsuits? I agree, but there will be SOME ability to prevent it after a decision against AA.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
If I tell one student they have stumbled upon "low hanging fruit" when they have a decent response, but I do not say the same to another student, I have created an inequality in speech, a possible microaggression. If they are different races - which race should I be using "picking fruit off tree" metaphors, and which ones would that be offensive towards? I cannot remember where this was presented to me, maybe just a twitter hot take.
This is what microaggressions are purported to be from what I understand. They can be very flexible, which I think we all know..
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.
(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.
(2/2)
How do you think conventional vaccines make it to your lymph nodes? Both mRNA and conventional vaccines transit from the site of vaccination to your lymphoid organs via blood/lymph.
Again, lymph vessels are more like one way valves. Yes, mRNA "pre-vaccine," and conventional "already-completed and molecularly confirmed" vaccine, are moved into your blood stream. Why are you bragging that unconverted genetic material gets a lift in the blood stream? That is aboslutley not the goal here. Lymphatic absorption is what we're dealing with.
The centuries of science around conventional vaccines in the ages before we knew what B/T cells were probably don't count for much, and I doubt the live cowpox vaccines that you'd prefer had fantastic safety profiles.
Extremely anachronistic view of medical science. Dodges the gap in genomics that these vaccines depend on. Thinking now of the 2060 version of us looking at the first generation lipid nanoparticle mRNA that people took. Talk about prototype!
It was pulled because both the safety profile and efficacy were worse. And of course it's a fallacy, on par with people have always dumped raw sewage in the Thames and cholera is just a fact of life. There's strong data that the mRNA-vaccines are safer and better than J&J or other non-mRNA vaccines developed abroad, unless you put a huge premium on living 'naturally.'
The efficacy collapsed just like the mRNA vaccines, this is why you're on dose number 5, and defending data from dose number 3. You have introduced an entirely new set of dynamics to your immune system, one that those who receive conventional vaccines will not be exposed to. You have RNA transfective particles leaking into your blood stream, while I do not. Guess the fallacy does much better with actually winnable man made advancements in public health.
I'm out of characters, but note that antigens are also 'conjured' at the ribosome with your viral vectors, and the other vaccines you refere
My final statement: mRNA leaks into blood stream, J&J does not. This is a problem beyond the normal vein of risk-benefit analysis. This is malfunction analysis.
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
I agree. We cannot pull any amazing anti-mRNA vax narratives from this, but we can agree that discovering unexpected changes in the antibody profile is of interest. My first thought was literally, excuse my levity, that this is "cringe."
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
My eyes on this for sure. It makes sense that a vaccine vector that can enter the blood stream and deploy (mRNA nanolipid) is acting like an allergy shot.
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
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
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
Also, we have tons and tons of data on "coronaviruses", and SARS 2 is one of those. mRNA nanolipid particle injections? Less experience, to say the least.
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/
So the vaccine can make you die in a special way due to lymphocytes in your heart - but the idea that Damar did not have any type of underlying structural sensitivity to a tackle is completely debunked...I do not think so.
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
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.
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
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
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
There is no experimental research finding heart damage in cadavers after receiving ibuprofen. Only mRNA. Not terrifying to me.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Yes, the evidence is the nature of how effective natural immunity is compared to the vaccine induced immunity, which wanes. You will receive the protection of the vaccine, and more, if you get natural immunity, therefore your next encounter will have a reduced magnitude compared than if you had just the vaccine alone.
I feel like you're fishing for exact, quantitative data - I need you to be patient as data about our current times is collected. I'll have evidence to back up thr natural immunity claim in the future, just like we saw develop in 2020-2022. This is a developing emergency, that the vaccine has had some malfunction / additional risks of heart problems that are only being discovered recently. I wish I had the long term data of our developing vaccine emergency NOW, but that's simply not an option. I'm happy you agree with my overall hypothesis though.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
https://youtube.com/watch?v=j_DdSMn55cA&ab_channel=Dr.JohnCampbell
Here's Mr. Campbells exploration. If you're looking for more.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
That hardly explains why the same lymphocytes at the deltoid vaccine site were found in the cardiac tissue. It was a specific immune related reaction.
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.
More options
Context Copy link