Because if no covid/vaccine is showing a much higher or similar delta as covid/*, that would be pretty worrisome. I think that seems to be missing in the given study.

“In participants that had COVID-19 and were tested one week after symptoms developed, antibody tests detected only 27% to 41% of infections. In week 2 after first symptoms, 64% to 79% of infections were detected, rising to 78% to 88% in week 3. Tests that specifically detected IgG or IgM antibodies were the most accurate and, when testing people from 21 days after first symptoms, they detected 93% of people with COVID-19. Tests gave false positive results for 1% of those without COVID-19.”

https://www.cochrane.org/CD013652/INFECTN_what-diagnostic-ac...

Funny we didn't see 30 years old drop dead in Wuhan.

Were you there long enough to have conclusive statistical significant observations?

Perhaps you have access to some trove of reliable trustworthy epidemiological data from Wuhan guaranteed untainted by party hands that you can share and provenance?

Sitting at home and working all day is really bad for your health, especially if you do it on/off for two years.

The group in question - 25-44 year olds - are primary members of the workforce, and most likely saw their work shift to WFH for extended periods of time. Anecdotally, all the people who worked from home within my circle struggled a lot with inactivity and weight gain, coupled with poor diets.

I don't believe that any one has. I think that's a boogeyman conspiracy theorists tell each other "The possible risks from vaccines are forbidden from being considered or talked about!". It's attractive to conspiracy minded people to have information that "they" don't want you know about it, but it just isn't real. Wild speculation without evidence intended to spread fear and vaccine hesitancy is what gets suppressed, and for good reason.

Meanwhile researchers are carefully keeping an eye on emerging evidence even when it's only preliminary (https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001051) and the mass media, even the left leaning media, has zero problems reporting on what the research we have shows (https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/moderna-shot-may-ca...).

What we know is that covid infection itself increases the risk of heart problems in everyone and that not taking the vaccine increases the odds of death, severe illness, and overwhelmed hospitals, along with disruptions in society and the economy. Right now, all the evidence we have says getting a covid vaccine is the smart choice, but nobody actually thinks that there's zero chance of unexpected side effects of these vaccines and nobody is ignoring that possibility or forbidding people "asking questions". Spreading lies and FUD on the other hand isn't and shouldn't be well received.

Blood clots have gone up significantly for younger people in last two years. Is that due to covid or due to vaccination? We can't answer this simple enough question because we refuse to collect data. This is directly from my hematologist btw who is an expert in blood clots at a famous hospital. That itself suggests either bias or complacency to me.

Would you be against data collection? It's not implying anything.

What is your evidence that there is zero data being collected on this? What is your evidence that we refuse to collect this data?

I can prove that the issue is being considered along with every other side effect experienced by people taking these vaccines. Research on the subject already exists, how is that possible if no one is collecting data? VAERS continues to collect data on the side effects experienced by people who have taken the vaccine, which is then being evaluated by researchers. What evidence you do you have that this isn't happening?

2. Where is this data? If it's being collected, we should be able to see it or clear conclusions from it? It's a very simple data set too. I have not seen any clear national level data or any discussion around it for vaccination status/blood clots in any media.

In research: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35582622/

In media: https://nypost.com/2022/05/05/fda-restricts-jjs-covid-19-vac...

I'll be generous and suggest that your doctor misunderstood your question. VAERS is a nationwide data collection program being used to collect evidence for the adverse effects of these vaccines, including heart problems and blood clots. Your doctor is certainly aware of this program and if they are dealing with covid patients they are most likely involved in collecting and sharing their own observations and data as well.

> blood clots became a concern starting in April 2021, when the government put a pause on the J&J shot after six women who received it developed rare blood clots—and one died. All of these cases were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), a national early reporting warning system to detect safety problems with U.S.-licensed vaccines. (https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/coronavirus-vaccine-blood-...)

Data on the problems the vaccines might be causing is continuously being collected and evaluated. Researchers all over the globe are exchanging data on every facet of this novel virus and the new vaccines we've developed. The possible risks of these vaccines are not being ignored and research is not forbidden. If people are telling you otherwise, you might want to ask them to clarity their position or you may want to reevaluate where you've been getting your information.

Generously we may call this an oversight that so many in front line medical believe there is no collection method. Negatively, it provides plausible deniability to high minded academics while the process is intentionally shortcutted at the ground level in a massive fraud and cover up.

For myself, I've personally seen this lack of reporting for years, even before COVID, by nurses and doctors at various hospitals. There is a very pervasive attitude of, the vaccines are safe therefore your problem immediately following is total coincidence and we will report nothing.

Given it's existence for years and the lack of general training in this regard I can't help but lose trust in the entirety of the system as, at best, extremely dysfunctional.

Because there exists a backend and reporting system that is extolled for it's beauty and elegance doesn't mean the users reporting front end issues are wrong. And such front end issues prevent all the data from getting to that backend and thus the reports are inaccurate.

For the system to function properly every step must operate well. Not just the ones you might like best. Otherwise it is broken. It only takes one bad line of code to break a system.

Ignoring user reports of it's brokenness is so common because those users have effectively worn out their welcome with the constant complaints.

There are better ways than blame the user though :P

At this point a couple years later, I wonder if continuation of the emergency use authorization can really be justified, or if it continues because it allows the medical establishment to not be liable for realized risks.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Use_Authorization#Us...

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas...

Scroll down this URL and read some of the EUAs. https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-...

"On October 19, 2022, having concluded that revising this EUA is appropriate to protect the public health or safety under section 564(g)(2) of the Act, FDA is reissuing the September 12, 2022 letter of authorization in its entirety to authorize the use of Novavax COVID‑19 Vaccine"

Here is my central issue: I still can't find basic cohort level information about blood clot incidences at the cohort level: covid/vaccinated/not vaccinated. I think this is pretty basic stuff. Since you seem to be knee or chest deep into this, any idea why this information is so hard to find? It's a pretty obvious question that I think someone like you would be curious too I assume?

I remember the study you provided. It was from the early days. What happened since then? Millions of people have been vaccinated repeatedly in the US itself, so where is the follow up for clots and other issues?

My cousin who works with a healthcare provider mentioned casually to me that health insurance claims around blood clots have gone up rapidly in the last 2 years. I am all for believing its purely covid related, but why not just dispel any myth and release the cohort information as I mentioned above. It's pretty basic stuff as a data scientist myself.

There is a bit of "trust me bro" vibe going on around any kind of large scale cohort analysis for vaccines that makes me very uncomfortable.

If I am completely misguided about my last sentence, would love to see concrete numbers at a population scale (from a credible source), not just a study among some participants. It would be make me pretty happy to see real population level vaccine cohort data, which so far seems to have been evasive for me (any my doctors).

----

Independently, I am going to share something else. My doc was VERY uncomfortable even implying that vaccine could be a possible culprit behind my issues, even though there was such a clear temporal link and I'm young/healthy otherwise. I guess there is a lot of pressure on docs to not be considered Anti Vax or even have their credibility be tarnished. But I think you can see how that can bias data and reporting one way or the other.

The CDC continuously updates its surveillance of the vaccine via VAERS. Via VAERS, if any of those early warning signals reached significant levels, they would follow up with deeper studies. To date, that is not the case.

There are many questions worth asking yourself before you attribute your health issue to a vaccine:

Did I ever get COVID-19?

The risk of blood clots increases for at least 6 months after the virus.

Regardless of current fitness, have I ever had years of sedentary employment?

A computer heavy job (for instance coding) or lifestyle (say, one where you write long replies online or play videogames often) can be a major cause of cardiovascular issues for years.

Will another answer than the one you’re searching for satisfy you? Or is this truly a search for confirmation?

Nobody is saying that a link between your clots and the vaccine is impossible. They are gently reminding you that a massive body of evidence suggests it is as likely as a forest fire being caused by rain.

If all this data is so well connected, how come my heamtologist has no clue about this? He is a pretty senior doctor.

If data is being collected, how come my doctor didn't report this potentially adverse event?

If people are being careful about this, why did the doctor outright reject any connection between vaccination and clots, even if they happened next to each other. How is that scientific if you reject observations that don't meet your theories.

I'll believe it when I see an actual study or data on this topic. The lack of transparency around vaccinated cohorts is very evident.

If you disagree strongly, I'd love for you to link me to anything. Just saying "trust me" isn't very scientific.

It sounds like you’re requesting a study that nobody will conduct. Conducting a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated cohort study on blood clots before VAERS identifies blood clots as a statistically significant potential adverse effect is like conducting a study on why it’s raining when there’s not a cloud in the sky. VAERS identified ischemic stroke as a potential risk for those over 65. That was ultimately rejected as a risk by subsequent study(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/bi...). The effect of getting COVID-19 on the same cohort is well established. You can’t Google “ischemic stroke covid” without running into a handful of studies.

If you are unable to see VAERS and the early warning apparatus for what it is, nothing will help you.

And no, nobody is publishing raw data for underpowered minds to wildly misinterpret and recast into a HIPAA violating database match.

You keep referring to things as “not scientific” but it’s you. If anyone here is saying “trust me bro” it’s the guy pitting his anecdote against millions of reports into VAERS, a body of data which contradicts the notion that clotting is even in the ballpark.

Looking at general condition of healthcare systems around the world, I would never put 100% confidence into what one or a few doctors say. They are just people with ordinary motivations and beliefs, not always committed to stay informed about the progress in their fields, not always having time etc. Their observation probably comes not from reading scientific papers, but from experience of working with the healthcare system bureaucracy that may distribute information or collect data, or may not. This won't be any evidence of nothing happening.

I accept that taking medicine, any medicine, imposes risk for adverse events. What's crazy to me is we just underwent widespread inoculation of a brand new type of vaccine technology that has never been used in humans before, meant to inoculate us against a disease that never existed before, and it _feels_ like the powers that be just don't want to ask certain questions.

Let's say the vaccine is great, it causes no one harm (this is true if no vaccine, but I pose it for the sake of argument). It would still increase confidence and dispel paranoia if it and its possible harms were studied in a much more direct way than having to look at secondary metrics, like voluntary vaers data, all cause mortality, this state vs that state, etc, when the confounding factors make it impossible to be certain of anything.

COVID was never very dangerous for young people. Many didn't even want to take the vaccine. Even if the patient wasn't blinded, why couldn't we have at least kept control groups and monitored them and been fully transparent about the outcomes?

For me I can't help but conclude that an agenda was pushed here; I think it was well intentioned. The people pushing it may have even been right, but I'll never be able to trust them like I did before.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/

We assumed that the vaccine doses are low enough to not cause any unacceptable health risks, but after finding these vaccines do cause cardiac complications, particularly in youth, we are hesitant to consider that these vaccines may in fact do more harm than good in some cases.

Personally I would speculate the much larger "part of the issue" was that there was never any real need to seek authorization for mRNA vaccines in the US before COVID19, as alternatives for their targets existed. I would also speculate cardiovascular issues in mRNA COVID19 vaccines (which are real certainly) have something to do with spikey proteins in your bloodstream, and one can imagine what a more prevalent spikey virus might do to the same person. But I am not a doctor or medical researcher, just some guy on the internet who reads things; so I would not really put any stock into my speculations.

edit: my point is: it's good to be skeptical of things. Yes. It's not good to share inaccurate information, as the post above yours did.

All COVID vaccines deliver spike proteins into your bloodstream, but not all of them substantially raise the risk of Myocarditis.

> ...and one can imagine what a more prevalent spikey virus might do to the same person.

Imagination is not enough, we're going to need some hard data. COVID vaccines don't prevent infection. Is there a net risk reduction? This is further complicated by underestimating the number of COVID infections. Many studies presume to have found a higher risk of Myocarditis with COVID infection, but these cases tend to be biased towards health care settings. For comparison, the difference between infection fatality rate and case fatality rate may be an order of magnitude. In this study, COVID was not associated with an increased risk of Myocarditis in the unvaccinated:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/

Yes and I literally agree with you in my post. The problem is, as you admit, that data exists to point toward either conclusion; then you immediately speculate that the difference must be because:

> these cases tend to be biased towards health care settings

Also, if a large study measured no effect, there likely is no effect, even if troves of smaller studies disagree. Publication bias.

Why is this a criterium we should pay attention to? If you never roll anything out, you'll never have data about a roll out. So instead we do studies and statistical analyses. Are you aware of any studies that "normal"/previous vaccines had to go through, which mRNA COVID vaccines did not? If so, could you please share them?

There's no controlled experiment to suggest that mRNA vaccines provide a survival advantage to a healthy individual. The brief RCTs certainly don't support it. The increased cardiac risk, small as it may be, may well put the vaccine into negative benefit territory for some, but we'll probably never know for sure, because none of our data is robust enough to draw such conclusions.

This conflates 'approved' with the ongoing emergency use authorization. Long term studies will help determine if it can be approved for normal use and effectiveness is part of that determination.

This vax technology is super impressive and promising. I would like to see it succeed, hopefully in a way that some of the loss in public trust can be restored.

If you're referring to mRNA vaccines here, then this simply isn't true. They had been used in humans before. For example they were given to humans in trials of a rabies vaccine in 2013. (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w)

mRNA vaccines are a recent and evolving tool, but not something that is untested or has never been used before.

> and it _feels_ like the powers that be just don't want to ask certain questions.

Is it worth asking yourself why it feels that way when readily available evidence shows otherwise?

> It would still increase confidence and dispel paranoia if it and its possible harms were studied in a much more direct way than having to look at secondary metrics, like voluntary vaers data,

Not all the research looking into the safety of these vaccines is dependent on VAERS data. Research on the safety of these vaccines has been going on starting long before they were ever used on a human, and even before the release of covid vaccines trials with controls and monitoring were done to look for safety issues. The very article we're commenting under is about research that didn't depend on voluntary vaers data or all cause mortality stats. This is how science detects problems with medications and vaccines. By doing research and trials for years, then following all of the data we have available to reach the most likely conclusions.

> COVID was never very dangerous for young people.

That is very much unclear. The fact remains that we're still learning about the risk that getting infected has on everyone, young and old alike. This takes time. We already have evidence to suggest there may be long term or even permanent damage from prior infection even in cases where the symptoms were mild or even undetected.

Lots of people didn't want the vaccine, but there were many many reasons for that and not all of them held up to facts and reason. At least here in the US, people were strongly encouraged to take it, but ultimately still had the choice and there are many who are not vaccinated to this day. According to the best data we have right now, it appears that those people are dying and getting seriously ill at a rate not seen in the vaccinated population.

> For me I can't help but conclude that an agenda was pushed here;

this is very broad, and speculative, but I'm inclined to agree with you. I think that agenda was most likely promoting what the best information we have the time indicated was the best available tools we had at the time to combat a new virus that devastated our economy and our way to life. Of course governments and those in power wanted people to take them. Wouldn't they all be hoping it would help things return to normal as quickly as possible?

> The people pushing it may have even been right, but I'll never be able to trust them like I did before.

This I also agree with although probably for different reasons. I've lost a great deal of faith in the CDC to be honest with the public and in our government to make sure that the American people are well cared for in times of crisis.

It may still turn out that the vaccines were a terrible mistake and that everyone who took it will suddenly drop dead in 20 years time, but today there's no evidence to suggest that might be the case. I try to make the best choices I can with the information I have currently available. I accept that I may have screwed myself, but I'm putting my money on avoiding getting infected at all if I can avoid it, and using the best medications and vaccines available to minimize the harm that an infection would cause me if I fail at that.

The problem with this whole situation is we were/are in inherently uncharted waters here. I suspect people above a certain age or in certain circumstances should be vaccinated and probably get boosted at some frequency and people below a certain age who are otherwise healthy do not receive enough of a benefit for this to be a blanket recommendation. I am confident that the benefit to the patient and others (vis a vis transmission) is too low to mandate vaccination for young people.

What has happened is the authorities and public health officials generally marched out there in a very authoritative and confident way, asserted things they could not assert, and then mandated censorship and vaccination in a very cavalier way. There's been a lot of lying, or more charitably, just getting ahead of their skis and asserting things as truth that were just unknowable. This puts everyone in a situation of having to evaluate a lot of murky data on their own.

I was a microbiology major in college long enough to have taken immunology, virology, etc courses. I'm not totally ill-equipped, but I have no interest or frankly time and ability to read and digest these studies and make the best possible decisions for myself. Lacking some central authority I can trust now, I don't think I have a choice though.

I very much hope mRNA vaccines turn out to be revolutionary. There's a lot of promise there, and maybe we've even realized it. If there are issues, maybe they are minor and can be resolved, but the damage to public trust is almost irreparable.

Was that determined by a blood test for developed antibodies, or by swabbing around and amplifying whatever was picked up?

Do note that VAERS registers any adverse effect post-vaccination, someone dying from a bullet wound is registered in VAERS as a post-vaccination adverse effect. I've seen a lot of people reading into VAERS as causation.

Don't bother doing full statistical analyses with VAERS, dig around on PubMed and you'll find some. Either way, excess deaths are getting a lot of attention so expect more analyses to pop up in the coming months.

--

Edited out some confusing phrasing.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/...

You can look at countries with young populations with low rates of vaccination before the first infection, say South Africa.

The data points to it being due to covid.

> That itself suggests either bias or complacency to me. > Would you be against data collection? It's not implying anything.

The data is being collected. In countries like the UK and Israel where government knows the vaccination status of 100% of the population, you can do very precise studies.

You ARE implying something.

Says all I need to know about your perspective on this issue. There are some well established & respected scientists who fall into this group but calling them names completely invalidates their analysis</sarc>

Opinion dismissed.

It's sensible to argue against or ignore an opinion you disagree with. It's not sensible to dismiss facts presented because the person presenting them holds an opinion you disagree with, or even to ignore them because of indications of bias. Suspected bias is a reason for caution, not for the outright rejection or avoidance of facts.

If someone can't argue against the evidence presented, I suppose it may make them feel more comfortable to simply dismiss it by using any excuse they can find, but I encourage people to embrace any cognitive dissonance they might be feeling. That feeling of discomfort is often our brain trying tell us that something is wrong with our worldview or at the very least that our currently held position is worth reexamining.

Funny that Youtube systematically removes any video that suggests that, even when backed by actual publications. When the action is widely visible in front of you, is that still a conspiracy or are you just blind?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB80U-FSieI

Why would you even make a claim that like? This took literally seconds to disprove. That video has been up for over a year! Youtube does not "remove any video" that talks about possible health risks being caused by vaccines. It probably does remove videos that are spreading lies and FUD though, even if those videos also happen to mention things that are also backed by "actual publications"

Not that what youtube removes is any indication of some big conspiracy anyway. Youtube removes a lot of things it shouldn't. Frankly, google isn't very good at moderation on their platform and there is plenty of evidence for that.

Where are these actual publications coming from if it's forbidden to consider or talk about?

Unless you believe that all those censored, shadow-banned and deplatformed people are just the conspiracy nuts with lies and fake data?

It'd be impossible to make that claim. I couldn't possibly be aware of all of the people who have been censored/shadow-banned/deplatformed for talking about the risks of vaccinations, but I do suspect that the vast majority of them really were (intentionally or otherwise) spreading FUD and disinformation, making claims not supposed by evidence, and misrepresenting facts. Why would I think that? Here's my reasoning:

Is it possible that in some situations social media platforms have been too heavy handed? I'm sure of it.

Does the likely existence of inappropriate actions taken by social media companies mean that the "government and co" (whatever that's supposed to be) is involved in a conspiracy to silence everyone who dares to mention that there are or could be risks? No, it doesn't.

Does it mean that researchers aren't allowed to look into the risks of the vaccines and that no data about those risks has been being collected and studied? No, it doesn't.

Does it mean that mass media refuses to inform the public about any possible risks? No, it doesn't.

Are there many many examples of people talking about the health risks of the vaccines on social media, in mass media, and in the literature without being censored and is that information easily found and accessible? Yes, there are and yes it is.

That tells me that if there is some global conspiracy to silence such talk, that it isn't doing a very good job. When countless people are talking about those risks, researching those risks, collecting data on those risks, and reporting those risks to the public, and they've been doing it in plain sight for years without being censored, it's then pretty unlikely that there's some hidden conspiracy to make sure those risks are never expressed or explored.

https://amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/dec/14/editorial-t...

You further had the suppression of the Hunter biden laptop in DMs and tweets, because government entities stated it was Russian disinformation, while after the convenient time of election cycle, they admit it’s real. What’s the consequence of the intelligence community signing a document stating that it was truly some subversion campaign by Russia, when it was actually a lie to get social media companies to remove politically damning evidence?

https://nypost.com/2022/11/21/cbs-confirms-hunter-biden-lapt...

I fully hear the balanced argument you’re proposing, and to some extent agree, but both sides currently have different sets of blinders on as to what’s reality, and that to me is a scary scenario

Even in the case of twitter. Here: https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1536697529454272512

There's a tweet about the risks of covid vaccinations. If the government, twitter, or both were censoring discussion of the risks of covid vaccinations how does that exist? How do the countless other uncensored and easily searchable posts that do the same thing exist?

Isn't it more likely that if a post about the risks of covid vaccinations does get removed that it's for a reason other than because of an attempt to hide information about, and prevent discussion of, the risks of covid vaccinations?

Who do you think is telling people they can't talk about the risks? We're doing it. It's talked about all the time everywhere. It's researched every day. The media reports on it to the public. Nobody thinks that there aren't any risks. Whatever oppression exists in the world, "preventing people from talking about or learning about the risks of covid vaccines" is not an example of it.

Clearly everyone wasn't being banned, some things were being allowed, but personally I think the conversation was being steered/herded in a way that made one particular point of view more prominent and minimised exposure to alternatives.

For example, I was banned from Reddit world news for simply sharing a science.org article about some of the potential vaccination side effects:

https://www.science.org/content/article/rare-cases-coronavir...

You have been banned for posting content that downplays or mocks necessary public health measures to combat the coronavirus pandemic, such as taking vaccines or wearing masks in the comments section. Such comments violate this subreddit's rule against offensive content and reddit's guideline against harmful content:

Note that health misinformation, namely falsifiable health information that encourages or poses a significant risk of physical harm to the reader, also violates the Rule.

I can't contest this ban and it's permanent.

Censorship doesn't have to be perfect to be real and to have real effects.

And why should I believe now is any different?

I’ve already seen evidence of intentional misleading in the name of public health around Covid.

Not to mention just the incompetency of leadership.

Between incompetency and lack of integrity, I’m not very inspired to follow the leader.

You already know, because you've seen with your own eyes, that it isn't forbidden to talk about the risks of these vaccines. You're doing it right now. So are countless others and those endless examples don't all come from the lips of politicians and government workers.

We're at the point now where all the 'smart' people are saying the 'stupid' conspiracy theorists and 'anti-vaxxers' got a lucky guess or were right by coincidence, because of course such smart people couldn't be fooled or have missed the evidence. So they defend their egos.

I do wonder if the professionals that had their reputations and credibility trashed earlier on when they were 'guessing it right' or 'fluking it' will get any apologies and be allowed to serve some humble pie... I doubt it, being wrong is a powerful thing to face, especially with the righteousness that came from 'being right.'

Or any vaccine in general. The question is always do the potential risks outweigh the potential benefits.

There are folks who are allergic to the ingredients of some vaccines, so one of the side effects for them in particular is death. So they absolutely should not / cannot take one. But that doesn't necessarily me you shouldn't.

They were just introduced on a broad scale, so rushing to rule them out is only natural, as they are something it would be reasonable to suspect of causing this. You after all rule out likely suspects first.

The only thing thing besides the vaccines that come to mind having caused this is widespread lifestyle changes society wide as well as the most overwhelmingly obvious reason this trend might be happening which is that we just got hit by a major pandemic that causes heart attacks.

I’d probably start there.

We know for a fact at this point the products cause cardiovascular injury. That's not really up for debate. So now we need to understand the extent. Some of us believe it's higher impact than others. One side was caught actively suppressing information, so there's no reason to trust them.

You are presenting this as a binary option. Either the vaccines fully prevent infection & transmission, or they don't. But what if they reduce the severity of the infection, lowering the likelihood of cardiovascular injury by more than they increase it by? Suddenly your point is fully moot. And considering that there is a definitive difference in likelihood of injury/death between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated one seems much more likely to be true.

> One side was caught actively suppressing information, so there's no reason to trust them.

No matter which side people are on, they'll say this about the other side. If you're on the right you'll likely believe the left censors information on injuries. If you're on the left you'll likely believe that the right censored information on COVID mortality and dangers. What point do you think you're making with this kind of vague allegation?

I have looked at a lot of data for children and haven't seen that. It seems children's deaths are mostly unaffected from the virus. What studies have you read which show excess deaths in children?

Which age groups do you want to discuss?

You can see there. Up substantially in 2022, there is a widget at the side to add in previous years.

This study doesn't study vaccination cohorts to imply any association either way

Are you kidding? The vaccines are the most politicised issue of the last 10 years. With the left and right wing media bating their respective audiences with dehumanising terms like 'antivaxxers' and 'face-diaper people', our society became incredibly tribalised on this issue.

Whether the vaccines are or are not to blame, good luck getting any social consensus. This is akin to religion now.

This "life saving vaccines are the devil" stuff is indeed just a religion now. Isn't anti-vax generally literally correlated to geographies with more religious people anyway?

There were people who 'followed the science' on this stuff, which is more contentious on general covid policy than you might think, and then there were people who took whatever position their tribe took and threw venom and hate at the other side.

The issue is with politics and media, which you seem to agree on since you're talking about "both sides", Fauci, tribes, venom and hate etc. All of which are concepts that aren't (or shouldn't be) relevant when doing virology and other related science.

In my view this isn't science versus anti-science, it's just media (sponsored by big money) & politicians (sponsored by big money) v.s. the people.

More papers or blaming scientists isn't going to fix any of those issues.

"yes, there is a rise in heart issues in young men recently,..."

"did you check if it's not the vaccines?"

"it's not the vaccines, we didn't check them at all, but we checked everything else, and it could be gas stoves, red meat and eggs, but we're not sure"

I'm vaccinated, but when I got vaccinated, we had four options here in slovenia (J&J, astrazeneca, pfeizer and moderna). Soon after, astrazeneca got cancelled due to causing heart issues in italy and some other places, so we were down to three. Then J&J killed a girl in slovenia, and we stopped using that too. Then moderna stats came out and in many northern european countries it caused a lot of heart issues with young men, and they cancelled it, and we followed... and we were left with pfeizer only.

The poster must mean 'creed' (accepted doctrine), right after '«just»'. But the context is that of distrust - in which that «'just'» is strongly unfit. Not a positive creed but a negative distrust; not an acquired notion but a founded reaction (based on the staggering amount of seen "mess").

Like a guilty. "I did not kill him,!!!"

Any fact that would lead to the conclusion that there was a deliberate campaign of organized malice by large groups of people especially in government agencies is false because the conclusion is always false. Also, obedience and compliance with government dictates is always rewarded. Any fact leading to the conclusion that that is not the case is always false.

The proper way to determine the truth is to determine first what are alway false conclusions and then rule out the facts that would lead to those conclusions regardless of the evidence.

/poe's law

I’ve had four Pfizer shots. For three shots, the side effects were mild. But after one, I had chest pains for about a week. It turns out that shot was from a batch with many cases of serious illness and several deaths reported on VAERS. The other batches had almost no reports. It could be a coincidence, but the more data they have the better.

The politicization (which has lead to a complete jam-up in the public discourse - on one side you have heavy, active censorship and on the other you have totally fabricated hysterical theories with no grounding in reality) and close integration between the manufacturers and the regulators (which is there in every industry sadly) has created an ideal environment for mundane errors in manufacturing through point-of-care administration to creep in undetected, or at least unremarked on.

To offer one example, if the person giving you the shot hits a blood vessel, the risk of a clot goes up a lot. Like many injections, it's supposed to go in to muscle tissue. How many overworked nurses are hitting deep blood vessels by accident? Even basic questions about this are not being asked in the public square, as much if not more due to the crowding out by the "they're modifying our DNA" stuff than due to tech companies indiscriminately deranking keywords that a brand wouldn't want to be associated with.

The vaccine is only a part of the virus right (the spike protein)? Yes for you it’s likely the cause, your experience regarding data collection might be anecdotal because there are growing evidence regarding myocarditis following the vaccine for example.

What is usually missed is that you and people responding like this would have been far worse with the virus alone, because you only got exposed to a fraction of it. The virus is known to cause significant cardiovascular damage (orders of magnitude more than the vaccine in healthy young adults), so it seems not that relevant to focus only on the vaccine at that point in the study.

This is not true. It might be true across all age groups and genders, but when you narrow to young men, the vaccines shows similar rates of heart issues, or much higher in the case of Moderna, than from Covid alone.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FbS_AvMaQAEiMCZ?format=jpg&name=...

https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-...

But the risk of myocarditis associated with the vaccine was lower than the risk associated with COVID-19 infection before or after vaccination – with one exception. Men under 40 who received a second dose of the Moderna vaccine had a higher risk of myocarditis following vaccination.

That risk rose with the second dose for all three vaccines studied and was highest for Moderna's, which had an additional 97 myocarditis cases per 1 million. For unvaccinated men under 40 with COVID-19, there were 16 additional myocarditis cases per million.

I had my adverse event with the second shot from the vaccine. I was scared to get the booster, eventually got COVID over a year (18 months?) since the original vaccine, so presumably it was offering no protection at that time. I got sicker with COVID. It was unpleasant, but it was 'like the flu, but different.' Very much a respiratory ailment.

My heart was not seemingly affected at all. I had an increase of 5-10 beats per minute for a day or too, which I also got with the flu. Following the vaccine I had a spike in resting hard rate north of 100 BPM almost all the time for months. I'm young, healthy, exercise a lot, etc. The period after my vaccine felt like I was in a bad way and it took a long time to recover.

I was so confident in the vaccines that I initially assumed I was developing a severe anxiety disorder. It was not good.

I can't conclude anything definitive from my anecdotal experience, but I'm not going to touch any mRNA vaccine until these cases are studied and understood.

I think you've misunderstood how the vaccines work. The protection provided by vaccines is not 100%. It doesn't necessarily give you sterilising immunity. The immunity wanes, but still gives protection against severe outcomes for a long time. You likely got a less severe bout of covid because you were vaccinated.

> I was scared to get the booster > I was so confident in the vaccines

How do you reconcile these statements?

This was before the first (two-dose) vaccine.

> I was scared to get the booster

This was after the first vax (two shots) and adverse reaction.

Some other countries are collecting this data, and it's not uncommon. Prospective studies (which compare cardiovascular health measurements of a cohort pre- and post-vaccine) show a myocarditis rate of around 0.1-1% in teenagers. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36602621/ https://www.mdpi.com/2414-6366/7/8/196 . Compared to no observable increase in the rate of myocarditis from covid infection itself: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9025013/

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

All the evidence I've seen is that the adverse cardiovascular issues seen rarely as a side effect of the vaccine are a direct result of circulating coronavirus spike protein in the blood stream. You know what causes way more spike protein to circulate in the blood stream, literally by several orders of magnitude over the course of an entire infection? Getting COVID, of course.

So if you're a mountain hermit who's never going to be exposed to COVID, then you shouldn't get the vaccine. Anyone else who even occasionally goes out in society and sees people face to face benefits from it though.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/

In this study, the authors analyzed 4 time periods, the first 2 of which were before vaccines were even available. For different age groups, the increase was identified in all 4 periods:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/t...

Considering the distrust of both Pharma and government (both sides) that preceded the vaccines and the 'heart attack' issue, it is quite astonishing the level of support seen for dismissal of them possibly causing anything. And especially as they're a novel vaccine.

I don't mean to accept it's the cause here, I mean even the thought of genuinely investigating it.

If something is safe and I am confident in the safety, I will do any and all testing to prove so and request others do the same.

Obviously the timing is wrong here for a vaccine to cause things before roll out. Novel virus causing a subject heart damage is a known thing. Other interventions were bad for heart health. The states with less vaccination had more exposure to vaccine alternatives and more heart events.

The argument then becomes that pharma suspicious states just always have worse heart health. So the suspicion is overblown or heart health doesn't really matter? We just want vaccines to be better than moms cooking because we like mom more than big pharma?

https://babylonbee.com/news/experts-say-they-dont-know-what-...

Because antivaxxers don't want to have a nuanced discussion of pro and cons of any vaccine. This iteration is "mRNA is new so it's bad". But it's always been the same and ends with "vaccine is bad" for them. It's not possible to bring a reasonable discussion to someone who will happily throw out reason to accept their own preconceived conclusions.

> In my own case, I had significant cardiovascular issues at a relatively young age, 1 week after I got my booster.

Even before the vaccine, it was clear that covid triggers cardio events in some people, even young. Even three years in, it's not clear why that is. So it's plausible that a vaccine's spike protine could trigger an event, above the background level. The question then is, does the vaccine trigger cardio events at a higher or lower rate than getting covid?

This is a common viewpoint of someone who hasn't actually seen their arguments.

It started off as a more generic "we've never successfully made a vaccine against coronaviruses before, this needs more testing to be sure we don't have the same problems as those old attempts".

Then they started noticing patterns no one else was willing to address, like in 2021 countries kept having massive covid waves after reaching high vaccination rates. It was obvious they weren't doing what they were sold on, yet this never got addressed. Instead they were just called "anti-vaxxers" and ignored.

Around the same time they noticed the spike in myocarditis in young men, and only now, over a year later, are people talking about it.

They refer to research and public numbers, they use archive sites to keep things available from official websites that get deleted, and yet are constantly dismissed as "anti-vax" when they have evidence no one wants to look at and actually try to debunk. They just get ignored through ad-hominims instead.

This happened in low vaccination rate countries like Russia, South Africa, etc. So probably not due to vaccination.

> Around the same time they noticed the spike in myocarditis in young men

This was noticed with people catching covid pre-vaccines.

> they use archive sites to keep things available from official websites that get deleted,

I've seen those sites. They said "hydroxychloroquine data was being suppressed". Then they switched to "ivermectin data was being suppressed". And at the same time they were against "mandatory masking". They've always been against vaccines, mitigation, shutdowns, masks.

Basically, they were all for letting the disease run rampant.

> when they have evidence no one wants to look at ... they just get ignored through ad-hominims instead.

UFO guys have been saying the exactly the same thing for 50 years. Lol.

Would you like to try again?

Because it's a distraction from (in the deliberately misleading sense) the more relevant question: rule in or rule out the role of actual COVID-19.

> They are simply not collecting this kind of data at a large scale to draw meaningful conclusions either way because the whole vaccine discussion is so charged.

I think you partially answered your own question: if a causative link is found, they're scared about what may happen to themselves/people who pushed the vaccines, given how many people have taken them.