7 ms·

Why?

• jambalaya8 29d ago
  [flagged]
  • consumer451 29d ago
    > (and yes, I have a background in this) Care to share what that is exactly?
    • jambalaya8 29d ago
      [flagged]
• jimbo808 29d ago
  People were assured that COVID vaccine mRNA would disappear within days and the spike protein would short-lived. Yet Yale-led researchers later detected circulating S1 and full-length spike as late as 709 days after vaccination. They also left the public in the dark about the risk of vaccine-associated myocarditis, especially in young males, many of whom experienced permanent heart tissue damage. That is a massive gap between what the public was told and what later evidence found. If a technology makes your cells produce a biologically active protein, regulators should establish where it goes, how long it can persist, and what prolonged exposure does before mass deployment. https://news.yale.edu/2025/02/19/immune-markers-post-vaccination-syndrome-indicate-future-research-directions https://news.yale.edu/2025/02/19/immune-markers-post-vaccina... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.02.18.25322379v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.02.18.25322379v...
  • estearum 29d ago
    > They also left the public in the dark about the risk of vaccine-associated myocarditis, especially in young males, many of whom experienced permanent heart tissue damage. Not true. This was correctly disclosed in the trial results as a super super super tail risk. Once they realized that the (minuscule) risk could be even further mitigated by simply spacing out the booster schedule, they adjusted that (Feb 2022). Nobody was "left in the dark"
    • jambalaya8 29d ago
      again. over how long.
      • estearum 29d ago
        What?
        • jambalaya8 29d ago
          the risk of heart issues.
    • lern_too_spel 29d ago
      What's more, they found that myocarditis risk was higher in the unvaccinated population after infection. This information didn't get to the so-called "skeptics," who willfully ignored data that didn't fit their conspiracy theory. https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-poses-higher-risk-for-myocarditis-than-vaccines https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-...
      • jambalaya8 29d ago
        I also get a kick out of people only looking for side effects they think of as side effects, since they are what people think of as side effects for completely different types of technologies.
        • estearum 29d ago
          What?
      • Argonaut998 29d ago
        >In men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after a second dose of mRNA-1273 than after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (97 [95% CI, 91–99] versus 16 [95% CI, 12–18]). From your own study you linked. The first comment I ever posted on HN was regarding a similar study where there was no control group whatsoever for unvaccinated people. I can’t get over the sunk cost reaction to this vaccine. No one who was not immunocompromised should have ever taken it. Period. And this is just regarding your study. Remember how the AstraZeneca vaccine (it was called the “Oxford vaccine” before that bad PR) was taken off the market instantly after reports of blood clots. One can go on endlessly.
  • Arkhaine_kupo 29d ago
    > People were assured that COVID vaccine mRNA would disappear within days and the spike protein would short-lived which is still the case, even in the Yale study. > That is a massive gap between what the public was told and what later evidence found. there is an even larger gap between basic epidemiology and what the public understands. Hard science is difficult to communicate on a good day, on a global pandemic with quacks getting tons of airtime and multiple labs finding conflicting results (due to speed to publish and bad experimental parameters) I would say that was communicated by health experts was surprisingly valid and accurate.
    • jimbo808 28d ago
      “Even in the Yale study” What? The Yale study is where the almost two year figure came from. Are you just making things up? Did you read what I wrote, or anything in the study?
      • Arkhaine_kupo 28d ago
        > The Yale study is where the almost two year figure came from yes, the figure that a small sample of people had long period of protein in them. But most people they looked at had none, which was what they expected. The average time of it was not contested, the long tail was. My comment was not even that hard to read, makes me wonder what kind of other information you have misread to come to your conclusions
    • estearum 29d ago
      +1 the public health apparatuses' actual statements were impressively correct even if you don't account for the underlying uncertainty at the time. Where public health officials "failed" was not having a megaphone loud enough to drown out the game of telephone that most people (as these comment threads consistently show) were actually hearing information through. Simplest example: People will say that public health officials told them "masks don't work." But no! Only one person did, and that was USSG Jerome Adams (who wasn't credible nor a major player to begin with). What public health officials said was "we do not know if masks work," which is a more nuanced but completely accurate statement.
  • dosisking 29d ago
    [flagged]
  • jambalaya8 29d ago
    Inspired me to reread some old papers on mRNA, miRNA, siRNA, RNAi from 15+ year ago. There went the day.