CDC To Meet On Rare Heart Inflammation Following COVID Vaccine (yahoo.com) 114
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced Thursday that will convene an "emergency meeting" of its advisers on June 18th to discuss rare but higher-than-expected reports of heart inflammation following doses of the mRNA-based Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. So far, the CDC has identified 226 reports that might meet the agency's "working case definition" of myocarditis and pericarditis following the shots, the agency disclosed Thursday. The vast majority have recovered, but 41 had ongoing symptoms, 15 are still hospitalized, and 3 are in the intensive care unit. The reports represent just a tiny fraction of the nearly 130 million Americans who have been fully vaccinated with either Pfizer or Moderna's doses.
"It's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison because, again, these are preliminary reports. Not all these will turn out to be true myocarditis or pericarditis reports," cautioned Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, a CDC vaccine safety official. Shimabukuro said their findings were mostly "consistent" with reports of rare cases of heart inflammation that had been studied in Israel and reported from the U.S. Department of Defense earlier this year. The CDC is working on more data and analysis on the reports ahead of the emergency meeting of its own advisers next week, he said, and also planned to analyze the risk of heart inflammation posed by catching COVID-19. The new details about myocarditis and pericarditis emerged first in presentations to a panel of independent advisers for the Food and Drug Administration, who are meeting Thursday to discuss how the regulator should approach emergency use authorization for using COVID-19 vaccines in younger children.
"It's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison because, again, these are preliminary reports. Not all these will turn out to be true myocarditis or pericarditis reports," cautioned Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, a CDC vaccine safety official. Shimabukuro said their findings were mostly "consistent" with reports of rare cases of heart inflammation that had been studied in Israel and reported from the U.S. Department of Defense earlier this year. The CDC is working on more data and analysis on the reports ahead of the emergency meeting of its own advisers next week, he said, and also planned to analyze the risk of heart inflammation posed by catching COVID-19. The new details about myocarditis and pericarditis emerged first in presentations to a panel of independent advisers for the Food and Drug Administration, who are meeting Thursday to discuss how the regulator should approach emergency use authorization for using COVID-19 vaccines in younger children.
Lung scarring (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Lung scarring (Score:5, Interesting)
Covid-19 also causes pericarditis in a small number of the people infected.
The problem with the data is that we have no ways of knowing how many of those people had been exposed to coronavirus in the weeks before getting the vaccine, or were people who had the long-term covid-19 problem.
Here is a case of someone for whom pericarditis was the only symptom of infection.
https://casereports.bmj.com/co... [bmj.com]
Re:Lung scarring (Score:5, Interesting)
Pericarditis or worse. I have a friend who had to have open heart surgery and then died almost a year later. Covid ate his heart. He was young too.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
That data isnâ(TM)t conclusive. If you follow the methodology on some of those studies, you could equally conclude COVID causes smoking, diabetes and morbid obesity. Healthy people who get COVID or the vaccine donâ(TM)t get those things.
Definitely false, at least for COVID, can't comment about the vaccine but I strongly suspect it doesn't apply there. There are multiple cases of people who were perfectly healthy that ended up with severe pulmonary fibrosis, requiring a lung transplant, solely because of COVID. If the patient wasn't otherwise healthy before getting COVID, odds are super high that they wouldn't have even been eligible for transplant anyways as they likely would not even survive the surgery.
Here's a case of a firefighter in p
Re: (Score:1)
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... [mediabiasfactcheck.com]
seems to like them
Azfamily.com is the joint website for KTVK and KPHO television stations based in Phoenix, Arizona. The website covers local news, sports, weather, entertainment, crime and TV programming information.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180 (2020)
Overall, we rate azfamily.com Least Biased based on balanced story selection and minimal editorializing. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean
Re: (Score:1)
Anecdotes aren't scientific proof of anything. There are super-healthy firefighters and special ops soldiers falling dead of coronary and lung disease all the time. I had a family member like that, died at the age of 30 due to an unknown and underlying heart condition, super-fit, was just sitting in the sun one afternoon and dropped dead.
You don't need an underlying heart condition... (Score:2)
Any serious disturbance of the immune system homeostasis may result with a secondary streptococcal infection of the heart muscle - i.e. inflammation of the heart muscle.
I.e. Myocarditis.
I've had that twice.
Once due to influenza resulting in a high fever, as a teenager.
The night of the fever I could barely catch my breath to speak and in the morning mom had to take me by the hand to the local health center which was literally down the road from us.
Ended up in the hospital for couple of weeks as doctors kept
Did they cut corners? (Score:1, Troll)
Re: Did they cut corners? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: Did they cut corners? (Score:5, Informative)
I can't speak to the vaccine review process, but this is completely false for the drug review process. I would in the drug research sphere (I'm in IT, but I have been in it for over 20 years so I know how it works) and you are 100% incorrect. Phase 1 trials are conducted on healthy people. These are usually first in man studies looking for any side effects from the drug, so they want healthy people who are not on other medication. It then goes on to phase 2 trials, which are designed to see if the drug works. So if it is a high blood pressure drug, it is given to people with high blood pressure to see if the drug actually works and does what they want it to. These people are often on other medications. There is not a requirement they not be on other medications unless they know of negative interactions or the other drugs also may do something similar to the drug they are testing (which means the results could be skewed). Then the drug goes onto phase 3 trials which compare the drug to other drugs used for the same thing to see if the new drug performs better.
So as you can see, no, drugs are not "only ever tested on otherwise healthy people who aren't taking other medications or have other pre-existing health conditions". It is true they cannot test the interaction witha ll other drugs or conditions, since that would be practically impossible, but the idea that drugs are not tested on people with any other conditions is completely wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no. But for rare side-effects, there is only "phase 4" testing, i.e. you vaccinate the target population and check what happens. The numbers from the article are too low to be found in any systematic test, simple statistics already gives you that. Nobody can run a drug test on about 10M people and that is what you would need here.
Re:Did they cut corners? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think so; typically medicines are always updated post approval when they're in the open market and new side effects are found because realistically if you're talking about a 1 in 500,000 issue the ability to even get 500,000 test subjects for most medicines is flat out impossible because a lot of the time you're talking about medicines for conditions that there just aren't even that many people suffering from it at any given time. The only reason it's making headlines this time is because we're talking about medicines that everyone is getting, so those rare case are, in absolute numbers, more obvious.
If you have a vaccine for something that isn't given as broadly, it's possible you'd simply never see such rare outcomes even though they're theoretically possible. So this isn't really a function of lack of testing prior to release as it is business as usual making headlines because it's relevant to everyone. If for example rabies, or Japanese encephalitis vaccines had side effects like this you wouldn't expect the UK's medicines regulator to even notice because the rarity with which those vaccines are given out in the UK is small, but that doesn't mean that rare side effects not found during testing like this aren't a possibility.
IMO it's only really an issue when for example as with the AZ vaccine the British government tried to bury it out of nationalist pride - first by saying it wasn't a real issue and Europe as just bitter about Brexit, then lying and saying it's only a 1 in 1 million chance, before finally admitting a few weeks back it's a 1 in 60,000 chance of getting a blood clot and effectively, in real terms, phasing out the AZ vaccine in the UK because no one else after that point is now getting it in the UK other than for second doses.
So all we're really doing here is seeing everything happen at high speed - whereas with many vaccines or medicines it might take many years before millions of people are treated with them for enough cases of a rare side effect to be noticed, here we're just seeing it in a much shorter time frame - that's not because rushing it has made things less safe, it's just made issues that are typically noticed over years or even decades in classically vetted medicines get noticed within months instead because of the sheer numbers involved.
Re: (Score:1)
> Sure but that's a function of what people like Trump have done to politics
Wait, now we're blaming Trump for making politics political?
Time to close up shop... I've literally seen it all.
Re:Did they cut corners? (Score:5, Insightful)
The parent isn't blaming Trump and those of his ilk for making politics "political". He/She is blaming them for making politics a completely toxic winner take all game where those you disagree with are enemies. Trump didn't start this trend (arguably it goes back to the 1960s), but he did accelerate it.
Politics can be about thoughtful compromise, but that requires a certain kind of politician, one who is in very short supply in the current political climate in the US.
Re: (Score:1)
It's really not our ex-president (who lost .. and lost and lost.. he's really one of the biggets losers ever).
It started with Mitch McConnell and the republican senate in 2007 when they told incoming VP Biden, the republicans intended to vote "no" to everything Obama proposed- even if they had proposed it themselves under bush.
McConnell and what's left of the republican party (most the sane conservatives have left now) are a real threat to our democratic republic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I agree on Gingrich and the "moral majority" (while he was the guy who was having affairs and telling his wife in her hospital bed for cancer that he wanted a divorce-- typical republican even back then) ...
Reagon was pre-modern racism and there were a lot more minorities in the republican party back then. I'm not saying they were not racists but it lacked a certain hateful quality present today because they didn't feel so threatened. Most importantly, under Reagan Republicans worked with Democrats for the
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Did they cut corners? (Score:4, Interesting)
Simply, if you test by giving it to 10,000 but the adverse event happens in 1 in 12,000, you probably won't see it. And if adverse events just end up sporadically reported, maybe or maybe not, and just go undiagnosed, who knows when you'll see it.
This is why, regardless of politics, beliefs, pro/anti-vax, etc., the only real test of what will happen to 100,000,000 people is when you give it to 100,000,000 people (and then pay very close attention). We're not firing projectiles which follow precise mathematical laws, these are living systems.
Vaccine companies are like, you want to give this to hundreds of millions of people? Fine, we want complete absence of liability. You want to advise the public that it is safe? Fine, say what you want, make sure we can never be sued, because we can't humanly know what will actually happen when you roll it out en masse. We can't and it would be irrational and unreasonable to expect that we could.
This is pure empiricism--safe vaccines are known safe because they're been out there for may years, decades even, and been given to hundreds of millions. Safe because we know from experience, not because we extrapolated from small tests and principles. Actually a lot of the scares around vaccines are from theoretical ideas, i.e. still science, just difference of opinions. ("anti-vax" plays on the notion that they're all quacks, but it is easy to pay attention and find all the ones which have impressive credentials -- it is intellectually honest to try to find the best and most qualified people on the opposing side, rather than just point to the worst).
The technology is amazing. mRNA as a platform is an amazing technology. Imagine you go to the doctor, and they diagnose something, and they just tap a few keys on the PC, and a machine prints some molecules into a solution, and they inject you right there and then--replacing pills, chemo, radiation, you name it. Totally customised health treatments which your body can manufacture itself. As they say on their website, it is an operating system with many potential apps to run on it.
But there's no magic crystal ball to substitute for real world, give it to a billion people, and wait 100 years to study the long term effects. Unless you think you're god. If you want to play god, you can say, well let's just give it to everyone--we think it'll probably be ok, based on data so far, and we can fix the bugs later.
Re: (Score:2)
A 1 in 12000 event is more likely than not to be seen in 10000 samples. (11÷12000)^10000 = ~43% chance of missing it.
Re:Did they cut corners? (Score:5, Insightful)
Very possible many are not reported (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Just wait until they find out the fatality rate of Aspirin.
Re: Did they cut corners? (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine if he found out about car accidents or lightning strikes. Get the vaccine, people.
Re:Did they cut corners? (Score:5, Informative)
Wildtype Covid has an overall Infection Fatality Rate of about 0.8% in the US (based on our age/demographics).
With the latest variants such as Delta (Indian) you're needing about 80-90% immunity to stop the spread. And that's assuming it wouldn't mutate further with that high of levels of infection.
0.008 IFR * 140 million Americans have now been fully vaccinated * 0.8 herd immunity factor * 0.9 vaccine effectiveness. = 800,000 deaths have been prevented by the vaccines.
3 people of those 140 million vaccinated Americans have gone into the ICU for treatment. 0 have died.
Even if all 3 die... even if those 3 are 1% of the actual number who developed problems in died. Even if you wildly inflated the assumptions about how many will die you're looking at 300 deaths vs 800,000 deaths.
What they're going to do is review the data and confirm that everybody receiving a vaccination is still less likely to die from the vaccine than Covid or if there are any groups they should carve out to not be recommended to receive vaccine. If it's only a problematic side effect in people with families who have a history of severe heart disease and if you're under 18 and have no risk factors for severe covid side effects they might say "Ok this 1% of the population should take the vaccine, but they should carefully monitor their condition."
Re: (Score:1)
Great post but a few small quibbles.
The IFR of 0.008 is the figure for males 20-24 and females 25-29.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2020... [acsh.org]
For both genders, the mean is over 1.0 starting at age 60, over 1.6 starting at age 70, and over 8.0 starting at age 80.
The age demographics of the 140 million is *seriously* skewed to the older side and the IFR is much higher in that group. The people skipping vaccination tend to be younger.
From a set of four surveys done of 1000 people by VeryWellHealth:
"Who Are the Young
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. You have your head up your backside. The only reason side-effects this rare are found at all is because they are looking very, very carefully. Also, these are already upper estimates and it is quite possible it will turn out these are direct COVID effects and not from the vaccination, for example or are due to other effects.
So, yes, they did cut corners. It is called "risk management" (look it up) and it means if you can stop people from dying or getting crippled on mass scale, you accept more problem
Maybe you're right (Score:3)
You might be right. Let's take a look at this.
We have 200 people who *might* have had one these conditions, maybe.
That might be a higher rate than the 1200 or unvaccinated people who had the same condition.
We want to know is this:
Of the 900 million vaccinated people, did 200 have this condition? If so, that's 0.000022% (With 0.0000% dying from it).
If 0.000022% of vaccinated people got it, is that higher than the percentage of unvaccinated people?
You think they should have run a trial to find out, right?
In o
Re: (Score:2)
With 50,000 people in the phase 2 and 3 trials, you know the know the risk is in the 0.0x% range. In other words, less than COVID.
Re: (Score:3)
Quite the opposite in fact. The overwhelming majority of drugs during the approval process suffer from a lack of people with whom they can test drugs. These COVID drugs have been better tested with a larger pool of participants than normal.
You're seeing more rare cases due to the sheer number of people receiving the vaccine. You don't typically get 100million sample of people getting a cancer drug.
This pandemic was a once in a lifetime occurrence and drug reviews should go back to the original process.
They used the original process. All of it. 100% of the trials and testing phases all drugs go through was appli
Aw Crap (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What? You mean they all are still alive? Darwin must be on a sit-down strike.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Can't wait to hear Fox's serious scary music and tone for this story.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh noes!!!! "The" science is turning against me, and threatening to disrupt my ideological posturing, fear-inspired, virtue signalling comfort zone. Whaa!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However the idea ðY' f injecting infants with covid vaccines is simply insane.
I have not heard of anyone suggesting that. It has only just been approved for kids as young as 12 the last I heard.
So, got any more lies to spread?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
"moderation abuse" meaning, in this case, "moderation I don't agree with".
Sounds familiar ?
I bet you're one of those assholes who keep trolling and flamebathing this site with their anonymous coward posts and make us waste our modpoints trying to make this site a little less of the dumpster fire it has become because of morally corrupt losers like you.
Re: (Score:3)
What are you owed an apology for? The quoted material was not your post.
I may as well demand an apology from you. I placed three early teenagers into the Pfizer trial for COVID-19 vaccines myself. You've adopted a position that labels me "simply insane." Be a man and do it. I am waiting.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so you draw the line at infants. Toddlers, children, tweens, and everyone else under 18, you don't care about.
Well we've established that someone is fake, but it's not me.
Well that's not happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Attorney overlord, OKing big tech's invasion of your life one step at a time and giving them the exclusive rights to do it too.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/w... [google.com] I want you to apologize to me. I will wait. Be a man and do it. I am waiting.
No! You are full of something warm and brown trying to equate a trial with, widespread vaccination. As was implied.
Re: (Score:2)
Conservative nut cases like Naomi Wolf [bbc.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
This cracks me up the shifting alliances of the culture war. 20 years ago Naomi Wolf would have been considered left wing. But she's not fully supportive of trans causes so now the far left hates her which would put her in the strange bedfellows category with some conservatives. She's also a dipshit who knows nothing about science so she has crackpot ideas about the vaccine, which puts her further in that camp.
Who would have thought 30 years ago it would be cats and dogs and feminists and right wingnuts lov
Re: (Score:3)
Wolf's last attempted book [bbc.com] was pretty solidly left-wing in substance. And thoroughly wrong, but isn't it the thought that counts?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That or what's defined as left wing or right wing seems to change from person to person, or from decade to decade. Back in the 90's, freedom of speech was a left wing thing, whereas today it's a right wing thing.
Re: (Score:3)
whereas today it's a right wing thing.
LOL. You kill me.
If you think one side favors freedom of speech more than the other, you're a fucking idiot, full stop.
Republicans today, like Democrats of yesterday favor free speech where it suits them, and are against it where it does not.
Not to worry (Score:5, Informative)
Pericarditis and myocarditis can become serious if not treated, but for most people it takes a whole lot of ignoring chest and breathing pains for a long time to get to that point. In general, you take some medication to reduce the inflammation, the causes subside, the inflammation goes away, and you get better. Most cases are mild, and definitely way better than dying of COVID or infecting someone else. Getting the vaccine is still worth if even if you get the inflammation.
Note: I am not a doctor.
Re: (Score:1)
Getting the vaccine is still worth if even if you get the inflammation.
This cannot be stressed enough. As I said way back even when the vaccine was still in trials: In the next year I'm going to get either the vaccine or the virus. I prefer the vaccine. I prefer it because even before it was approved for emergency use, the evidence from the trials was that your outcome post-vaccine was likely to be vastly better than your outcome post-infection. The vaccine gave me something like a 24 hour flu with a
Re: (Score:2)
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Vaccines have always had the occasional unexpected effect, so the fact that there are so few is great. The US has a fund specifically for helping harmed by vaccine side effects, so it's not like this is a new phenomena. I'm glad to see that instead of dismissing these cases that they are using them to learn more about how the human body functions.
Vaccines side-effects suck but a world without vaccines if far worse.
I had both a TIA and mild Myocarditis from it (Score:3, Informative)
I had to go to the ER on the 13th day after my Moderna vaccine because I suddenly lost half of my field of vision while I was at work and became very disoriented as a result. Full body MRI showed tiny clots spread throughout my body and a slightly inflamed heart.
Still beats the shit out of dying from covid, or never being able to take a full breath again...
Re:I had both a TIA and mild Myocarditis from it (Score:5, Interesting)
I had both myocarditis and lingering pericarditis from SARS-CoV-2. It took over 6 months for the pericarditis and other major symptoms to go away, 3 months of which was me sitting around because my doctor couldn't possibly believe I got the virus. Finally a cardiologist put me on a healthy dose of ibprofen and that put me on a path to success. I'm still feeling "weird" but back up to 90%+ (no more fatigue, no more random chest pains, numbness.. still some weird breathing issues but i'm blowing 99% of my lung capacity so chalking it up as weird ongoing effect)
I see a few things coming out of this:
- having the virus is bad, i would gladly take the vaccine if it means never getting sars-cov-2 again (read: booster shots)
- NO ONE is talking about natural immunity and that if you had a moderate case of covid (like mine) and recovered without any immune system deficiencies then you likely have just as robust of an immune response as those vaccinated.
- the novanax vaccine is literally the spike protein. it IS the same protein that infects you in the wild, it just encapsulates nothing. So when it splits on connecting to an ACE2 receptor there are no demon N proteins that persist in your body
- why would i take a vaccine today when literally the vaccine does the same thing as an infection? i don't get a flu shot after i come down with the flu... (inb4 iTs JuSt ThE fLu)
- why is no one talking about how truly evil the N protein is. a very real reason why natural infections are way worse than the vaccine side effects
- your body does not produce neutralizing antibodies for the N protein, ergo neither can a vaccine (without toxic lipid formulas to coax a meager immune response).
- the vaccine stops the spike protein which is the primary vector of infection. stop the spike protein, you stop the N protein (assuming the N protein doesn't actually have herpes-like tendencies to go into lurking in your body). you should definitely get vaccinated.
- the delta variants have even more evasive N proteins
- where is the data that shows SARS1/MERS patients who were (or were not) infected by SARS-COV-2?
- vitamins and supplements will only provide marginal protection from this virus. surprisingly, prozac inhibits SARS-COV-2 growth and acts as a prophylactic. ivermectin stops SARS-CoV-2 as well.
medical journals for all of the above exist, but the media is silent about it... seems like the old adage of never let a good crisis go to waste is still alive and well (oh you forgot about the $7T of money printing we did, didn't you)
Re: (Score:2)
I have heard about some of these in the media. However the mass market media doesn't cover this because it's not so profitable and it turns off the audience that just wants a quick sound bite. Luckily, the media is at least saying that having some side effects from a vaccine is a better result than getting covid itself.
Re:I had both a TIA and mild Myocarditis from it (Score:4, Informative)
- NO ONE is talking about natural immunity and that if you had a moderate case of covid (like mine) and recovered without any immune system deficiencies then you likely have just as robust of an immune response as those vaccinated.
I am not sure that's true. People can have Covid and not generate a long lasting immune response. At this point it's not clear why.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Some people in the long covid community have reported good results with Ivermectin.
We are finally getting some real studies showing it has a statistically significant effect on covid-19 severity in general.
It's a cheap anti-parasitic drug with few side effects. I had it for a parasitic worm situation from an Ultimate Frisbee field back in the mid 1980s. The whackjobs grabbed onto it right after HCQ but it looks like it does work (not a miracle cure but it works).
Re: (Score:2)
I thought only Astra was a blood clotting one. Did you end up with any long term side effects?
Re: (Score:2)
Blood clots have been observed with the real virus, and with all the credible vaccines reported so far. Real Covid-19 fared the worst, Astra caused quite a few blood clots, but still nothing very high, and the rest of the vaccines had even lower incidence levels.
I hate help thanks to the anti vaxxers (Score:5, Insightful)
For the record side effects from the covid vaccines have been less than the side effects from the flu vaccines. But to hear the anti vaxx crowd talk it you think we just lost 100 million people to vaccination. Meanwhile all it takes to stop vaccination rates is to put a little bit of doubt in people's minds. Of course all this slows down the economy from opening back up, which just happens to be convenient for the party that's no longer in power. Since people tend to blame whoever's in the white house with such things. Funny how Tucker Carlson keeps pushing increasingly extreme anti-vax talking points on his show...
Re: (Score:2)
We're forced to follow every single potential side effect or issue it might possibly crop up even in a very very small subset of the population.
Exactly. This is also why we're keeping on top of mutations. This virus and vaccine has had a level of scrutiny that I don't think has ever been seen before.
But with every one of these the crops up you then have to combat massive amounts of misinformation about it.
Where the fuck are the people always bitching about the MSM?? Here! This story that's literally gotten almost two full hours on a cable network so far about something that's still an incredibly rare thing! Here guys always bitching about the MSM! This is what you should all be going after!
Re: (Score:2)
We have a population that strives to be ignorant. It doesn't matter if they're educated or not, it just is so much easier to repeat silly talking points than to actually think. So we have idiots here on slashdot convinced that every single word in every sentence from mainstream media is a lie, when clearly they seem to be smart enough to figure out how to get on slashdot in the first place. The idea is absurd that because main stream media sometimes has a bias or sometimes distorts things that we must se
I don't think they do (Score:3)
Right now right wing media dominates our country. The 3 biggest news networks (Fox, OAN & Newmax) are all right wing. All of talk radio is right wing. Even Most local stations have become right wing thanks to one company, Sinclair media, being allowed to buy 60%+ of them.
And the right w
Re: (Score:2)
I can't stand Tucker Carlson. Every video I see of him is just him asking question
You're missing my point (Score:3)
Now I've got to be an arm chair epidemiologist in order to debunk a constant stream of anti-vaxx lies. If I and others like me don't the lies spread unch
Re: (Score:2)
But, if it does occur in a small specific subset of the population this is good to know. The risk may be higher in that subset and so another vaccine might be advised.
It's really only of use to doctors (Score:3)
Like I told the other guy, the problem is that we're all forced to focus on every little thing, and worse the anti-vaxx capitalize on every little thing to undermine confidence (and to sell their supplements, books and seminars, go look up hbomberguy's recent youtube video on the origins of anti vaxx, it's all a scam to ma
Re: (Score:3)
One of the "doctors" that the anti-vax community loves to prop up is Andrew Wakefield. He's the one with the famous study "proving" that vaccines cause autism. (A study that was later not only debunked and retracted, but proven to be fraudulent.) What most people don't realize is that Wakefield wasn't trying to stop MMR vaccinations. He just had his own MMR vaccination that he wanted to sell. His pitch was
Re: (Score:2)
For the record side effects from the covid vaccines have been less than the side effects from the flu vaccines
two things
citation needed, as no one truly knows all of the recorded side effects from the covid vaccines except the manufacturers. and they are not being as forthcoming as you think (have they ever?)
also the flu vaccines have been around in various forms for 50 years. no shit covid vaccines which have WAY LESS total vaccinations have way less side effects than the flu vaccine.
sorry to be so pedantic, but it seems like you were just spewing stuff out to get to the real topic of your post, hating on fox new
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
VAERS *really* depends on the doctor. Some doctors do it, some doctors are very sloppy about it for anything non-fatal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well it's complicated there.
We *know* some drug companies have hidden inconvenient problems with drugs. That's just a matter of record.
On the other hand, it's a huge risk to do so (could destroy their company or at least cost them billions) and more often, they cancel many potential products (especially when the problems are early or severe).
Being human, they also rationalize like hell that things are "safe enough" and the problems "are overestimated and really not that bad".
As humans ourseives, we
Google is your friend (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the anti-vaxxers are actually putting out this misinformation to scare us away to prevent us from being infected by Bill Gates mind control chips that are controlled by the Jewish space laser. I mean, who in their right mind would believe such a ludicrous conspiracy theory?!
Wear a mask & get vaccinated. If you don't, you're gonna be lumped in with some pretty nutty demographics.
Re: (Score:2)
For the record side effects from the covid vaccines have been less than the side effects from the flu vaccines.
A quick search of OpenVAERS indicates that your claim is wrong. Can you provide some reference for it? I would like it to argue for covid vaccination with friends.
Search for a vaccine name containing flu in 2019 returns 12061 records and the vaccination rate in 2019/2020 season was about 50%. Search for covid in 2021 returns 283796 records and about 51% of the people are vaccinated against covid. This indicates that probability of unwanted covid vaccine side effect is about 23 times higher compared to a flu
Re: (Score:2)
People also misunderstand the VAERS system. I've heard people point to "3,000-4,000 people died after getting the COVID vaccine." That's half true. Yes, that number of people died AFTER getting the vaccine, but not necessarily BECAUSE they got the vaccine.
First of all, anything can be reported into VAERS. I could report that the vaccine turned me into the Incredible Hulk, but that wouldn't be true. A follow-up on my case would reveal that it didn't happen.
Secondly, a lot of people are getting vaccinated so
Re: (Score:1)
Cognitive bias at work (Score:2)
There are powerful cognitive biases in play here.
The first obvious one in this case is "Omission Bias". We have a tendency to be more concerned about damage caused by acts than damage caused by inaction. If people do nothing and get paricarditis from COVID and die, that's somehow less worrisome than if people take a vaccine to prevent COVID and get paricarditis and die -- and this is true even if the former case is orders of magnitude more common than the latter case. This is probably related to "Narrati
But how many.... (Score:3)
....cases of myo- or pericarditis can you expect in 130 million people in this time frame? Theyâ(TM)re not all vaccine related; canâ(TM)t be.
Beware of accidental Intra-Vascular injections... (Score:2)
If you accidentally inject these vaccines intra-vascular instead of intra-muscular, then that has serious consequences. Ask if your doctor knows about this "draw back" injection technique to guard against that, which was studied in 2006:
https://youtu.be/YqK77o_ve4g?t... [youtu.be]
Whilst you're there, subscribe to Dr. Campbell. He takes complex medical information, and makes it digestible.
Okay, how does this compare to J&J issues? (Score:2)
What's the incident rate of this in the mRNA compared to the incident rate of the blood clot issue in the J&J vaccine?
Now those are numbers I want to compare, because if it's higher, shouldn't we be shutting down the mRNA vaccines for now?
Re: (Score:2)
From memory, there were 6 cases in the Johnson & Johnson vaccine out of 6 million doses given. One or two of those cases were fatal.
This is possibly 226 cases (they need to go through them more to see if all of these cases count) out of 130 million vaccinated. Since the mRNA vaccines need two doses, that might be between 130 million and 260 million doses. Also, none of these people have died and most have recovered.
The chances of this occurring seem minute at the moment so it wouldn't require a general