How my ivermectin research led to Twitter death threats | Hacker News Reader

How my ivermectin research led to Twitter death threats

theguardian.com

75 pointsshaicoleman144 comments

Certain drugs now, specifically hydroxycholorquin, ivermectin, and the vaccines, now have teams. One negative effect of this is that researchers are highly disincentivized from researching them once they have been picked up by a team, given the consequences of publishing results one team or the other doesn't like. The net effect is not just the manifested stuff like that in the article, but more importantly a chilling effect where only researchers who have an axe to grind take on the subject, resulting in bias and a feedback loop where distrust grows and polarization around the drug's efficacy continues.

It'd be fascinating if it wasn't so depressing.

As an ex-scientist, I’m sad to say this is true of most research. It starts in grad school- your research is most likely going to advance an agenda set by your professor. Then when you apply for a post-doc your network consists of collaborators who think like your professor and are more familiar with your work. Same thing with applying for a tenure-track position. In my sub-field I could tell what line of thought a paper was going to advance just by reading the list of schools that the authors came from.

The idea of the pioneering research who establishes a reputation through novel work and rigorous experiments is mostly a myth. You advance when your peers like your work, which creates all the wrong incentives.

I'm sure you are right, but it would seem to me that those agendas are usually so much insider baseball that it doesn't really harm the public.

Usually isn't much good if you let something like thalidomide slip through.

The less than stellar public policies that have come to us as a result of circle jerks within the fields of sociology and criminal justice (and others) are probably better examples.

Better but less obvious.

That's the thing when people say "Trust the science." Yes, the scientific method is absolutely the best way to advance human knowledge. However, like any process mediated by humans its administration is fallible.

When I say "trust the science" I mean that almost nobody but the actual scientists has a chance to provide actual counter arguments, so unless you hold a PhD in the field, you better believe the majority opinion. Generally people who don't "trust the science" get their information from social media, not by studying the actual papers and finding flaws.

Not as depressing, as this thread being currently flagged on HN...

You speak of "teams" in a way that implies there are two sides equally unbased, equally mindlessly driven just by team mentality. In this misguided rhetoric, you equate all the scientists driven by data at one side, with the snake oil salesmen driven by whatever on the other; as if both sides were equally wrong for defending their position. The thing is, when we didn't know if those drugs worked or not, all scientists were jumping at the chance of studding them, after all, there is a lot of clout to be have by finding a cure, there were no teams. But after the results came out and certain drugs have shown to not have a significant effect, then the serious scientists moved own (or wanted to move on), but formation of the "team snake oil" to go against the data means that scientists have to keep repeating themselves debunking things that we already know don't work.

As they used to say in the USSR: "Our brave scouts thwarted cowardly enemy spies". If you were on the other team then your designation of "data driven scientists" and "snake oil salesmen" had been opposite and you would be as sure in your point of view as you are now.

Everything America touches it divides into two. The reason is the country is not a democracy, it's not controlled by its own people. The only way their leaders are able to keep up this whole charade going is by diving everything into 2 teams. Now the ruling class and it's owners can steal without fear and the people have stupid 2 team games to play. This moronic behavior here is a byproduct of the degeneration of everything being a team thing in the US. It's so toxic and exhausting.

Bush : You are either with us, or against us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_are_either_with_us,_or_aga...

The "ruling class" really doesn't have to do anything to keep this aspect of media culture going. If American national politics suddenly became more fair and representative I would argue the same problems would persist. The American people love this shit.

>The American people love this shit.

Bingo. We're in the Attitude Era of US politics. Twitter and Facebook have allowed combative politics to break even further through the fourth wall and allow your average American to participate in the scrum.

How would the Ruthless Aggression Era of US politics look?

If one team paid lip service to not stealing, then that means the other one is the real rulers, progressing policy at their own pace.

The article starts off with the claim that Ivermectine is a new drug.

From Wikipedia : Merck began marketing ivermectin as a veterinary antiparasitic in 1981

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#History

s/new drug/new treatment for SARS-CoV-2/g

that would make more sense.

I suspect an editor without sufficient medical knowledge might have made the reverse of that edit to tighten up the first sentence.

Maybe a drug new to their team?

> In early 2021, my research team was analysing a new drug called ivermectin

Similar to me saying, my team started using a new framework called React

EDIT: missed my comparison

Ivermectin was discovered in the '70s. A more accurate comparison: my team started using a new language called SQL.

"My team started using a new programming language called B."

That doesn't work to my ear.

I made it difficult to take the article seriously, with such an egregious error upfront.

I interpreted it as new to them. Similar to how someone will buy a used car and say "I bought a new car". In the context, "new" means "new to me".

Ivermectin isn't new. But using it to treat a coronavirus is.

> But using it to treat a coronavirus is.

No.

Ivermectin was identified as a broad antiviral a long time ago.

A large number of papers started to emerge on Ivermectin's applicability to a number of viral infections appeared at least as early as 2012. I'm sure there must be more earlier, it is just that my search skills are bad.

There were also patents around some of these applications.

Please, do your research before you make incorrect blanket statements.

That seems like an .. extreme reaction.

He means a new drug (against covid).

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

You are quoting the guidelines, and your quote is in the section of guidelines for comments.

Are you really suggesting that we shouldn't assume good faith of the article author because it's not in the guidelines? The results aren't pretty as we can see. When you read an article you as a reader have an obligation to try and read the article the way the author meant it imo.

I didn't assume anything, I just pointed out what in my opinion is a flaw. And subsequently I point out that the 'assume good faith' guideline in the HN guidelines is for comments, not articles.

Would it be wise to always assume good faith in articles? I don't think so.

Finally I expect better from a newspaper as the Guardian.

It was clear to me that this was about covid. The same problem happens here as well, "Would it be wise to always assume good faith in articles? I don't think so." This is not the spirit of my comment and it's assuming bad faith.

That it is clear to you doesn't mean it is not a flaw in the article and more importantly : it might not be clear to everybody.

You are trying to drag morality into this where I just pointed out a flaw.

This is so depressing. I have been wondering what makes some people so motivated to push Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, because for the life of me I just couldn't imagine that some people could care so much, but then it slowly dawned on me that some people have financial interests in fake cures like this, and there is only popular attention for one or two at a time. So these "superstar" meds become memes that are intentionally spread by seriously craven people as part of a pump-and-dump scheme. This is truly destructive, selfish behavior. It's not just a pump-and-dump scheme where investors--who have chosen to expose themselves to risk by buying in--lose money. This is a pump and dump scheme costing thousands of lives.

The death threats and abuse on top of that...It's just so demoralizing to live in this atmosphere. If we had a functioning justice system it would find these people and charge them with fraud.

> If we had a functioning justice system it would find these people and charge them with fraud.

The people who are making these threats feel as though they are being persecuted by a media-corporate-legal complex that is out to get them. The more you attempt to penalize these individuals for their beliefs, the more radicalized they will become.

I'm not talking about the people spreading memes, they are just pawns. I am talking about people who own huge amounts of stock and actively trying to personally financially benefit from creating and spreading misinformation. Quadruple bad if those people are in positions of power, like politicians, doctors, or the drug companies themselves.

But that's just it: there aren't very many influencers telling people to take ivermectin. There were some official endorsements for HCQ, but ivermectin has largely been a grassroots response to people feeling as though they're not being included in the political process. Figures on the right have been telling people to take "Donald Trump's vaccine". The influencers who have discussed ivermectin, like Joe Rogan, only did so after it was already popularized.

The counterpoint to this is that they're not going to be deradicalized at this point, and that the only other option is to prevent the ideology from spreading

The feeling of persecution is literally what's driving it though, and they're not entirely wrong if the focus is "containment".

The problem with crazy people is that their entire world passes through their crazy distortion field. So even attempts to help them look threatening.

Does this now suddenly mean we stop enforcing the law (against financial fraud) because it might hurt their feelings?

This is dysfunction. What can we do if we're not allowed to present facts and evidence because it might trigger people? We end up walking on eggshells while the crazies take over.

> This is dysfunction. What can we do if we're not allowed to present facts and evidence because it might trigger people? We end up walking on eggshells while the crazies take over.

It's not that simple: you can't just label an entire political faction as crazy. The left also holds viewpoints that moderates think are absolutely bonkers (which specific viewpoints I can't even say without risking a flamewar on HN), but we've been taught to be respectful of other people's opinions.

> you can't just label an entire political faction as crazy.

I didn't say that. It was a general statement about crazy people. Everyone has their own distortion fields; they are myriad and contradictory and situational. Please don't start with this left/right splitting and victimization stuff. There's a ton of shit I won't say on HN because it doesn't go over well. It's not a left/right thing, believe me.

> you can't just label an entire political faction as crazy.

What would you say if - hypothetically - an entire political faction went crazy? There are examples from history.

Yes, but the evidence thus far is that deplatforming is pretty effective, especially in the short term— which matters for time-sensitive things like getting everyone vaccinated:

- https://www.niemanlab.org/2021/06/deplatforming-works-this-n...

- https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-...

- https://theconversation.com/does-deplatforming-work-to-curb-...

>So these "superstar" meds become memes that are intentionally spread by seriously craven people as part of a pump-and-dump scheme.

I don't even think it's that deep. These medications are just memes to fuel a shallow grift. It gives them something to talk about in between pushing for donations, that's all.

I would certainly understand that argument if the individuals involved benefited financially from HCQ or ivemectin being used. It seems these are generic drugs however with relatively low margins so that line of thinking isn't very convincing.

Both of these drugs are generic. There’s no more financial incentive to push these than to push Aspirin or Advil.

I believe the financial incentive is not in selling the drug itself, but more in the social media clout and general influencer money.

I've yet to see an instagram model 'influencer' doing a pose and advertising ivermectin.

Not all influencers are models... I believe there is money to be had peddling all sorts of misinformation. People who get caught up in this stuff are targeted for all sorts of stuff.

Even for generic drugs there are a limited number of manufacturers and distributors, and there are lots of shady operators making money off of whatever "cure" is being promoted this week.

If Ivermectin ever were proven to be effective at preventing or treating COVID, literally every major pharma company in the world would look into producing it en masse.

> There’s no more financial incentive to push these than to push Aspirin or Advil.

lol

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/ivermectin-demand-dri...

> The website advertises consultations for $90 and fills prescriptions through Ravkoo Pharmacy, an online pharmacy that America’s Frontline Doctors advertises as “partners,” who provide “the option to have that prescription delivered right to your door, the same day.” On a SpeakWithAnMD.com intake form viewed by NBC News, prospective patients are asked, “What medication do you prefer?” The user is then presented with three options: “Ivermectin,” “Hydroxychloroquine” or “Not sure.”

There is a financial incentive, maybe not for the manufacturer but certainly for the people involved in schemes like these:

https://theintercept.com/2021/09/28/covid-telehealth-hydroxy...

Shouldn't more treatment options be a good thing? I can never understand this logic.

> Shouldn't more treatment options be a good thing?

If they work - if they are safe and effective for the given disease, then yes.

If.

It's not a treatment option, that's the problem; it's being presented as if it was.

No.

Here, eat this rock. That's be $500. Look at that, another treatment option.

Critical thinking is important in medicine. You can't just trust any yahoo with medical advice.

Science hasn't established them as actual treatment options. The ivmmeta.com study shows that one horse oil pill doesn't always improve the prognosis.

Enjoy your horse paste if you think that is more effective than a vaccine that has been administered 6.5 Billion times and it has a proven very high efficacy.

> I have been wondering what makes some people so motivated to push Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, because for the life of me I just couldn't imagine that some people could care so much, but then it slowly dawned on me that some people have financial interests in fake cures like this

We have no idea if Ivermectin works. The randomized trials are ongoing.

It would be great if it works. Fantastic. We should all hope that it does. If we're asking questions, let's ask this: why are people so eager to leap to the conclusion that it doesn't work?

I don't think it's money. As others have said there's not enough money in it. My guesses are the following.

Survivorship and confirmation bias. If a thousand doctors try it out then a few of them will statistically see incredible results. They will then be "on board", confirm amongst each other, and be skeptical any data that shows otherwise.

Plain bias. Just being anti-vax and jumping onto anything that avoids vaccination. Or being anti-government and jumping onto anything that is opposite of what CDC promotes. Or being among the anti-science variant of religious and jumping onto anything that shows religion over science.

It's not particularly these people's "fault" that they're behaving how they do. It's just human nature.

There are others that I think are doing it primarily for notoriety. Joe Rogan, Simone Gold, etc. But the thing is, the people enamored with the anti-science or anti-vax or anti-government schtick are going to find someone to champion their cause, and once you start down that path it's hard to turn back.

> I have been wondering what makes some people so motivated to push Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, because for the life of me I just couldn't imagine that some people could care so much

They care so much for exactly the same reasons you expressed in your post: because they think this is costing thousands of lives, and they have little trust in institutions that typically study these, and often for good reasons.

The same financial incentives that drive some fraudsters to push "fake treatments" are even greater in pharma where literally billions of dollars are on the line, which is why people's skepticism of pharma is so significant.

You see how much symmetry there is in how you're thinking about this and how the people on the other side are thinking about this. The only way to come to a common understanding is to agree on who can ascertain the truth on these questions, and so the loss of institutional trust is the real problem here.

Journalists these days are viewed as partisan hacks, and science journalism has been almost universally terrible for decades now anyway, so arguably people have no reason to trust journalists.

Scientists are much better on factual questions generally, but even here the replication crisis has shown that up to 50% of published results can't be replicated [1], so a coin flip would be equally likely to ascertain the truth on any new question. Fixing this has only just begun and the remedies will take years to be adopted everywhere.

This reckoning has been a long time coming, but people are so caught up in their partisan politicking they're missing the forest for the trees and putting the blame in all the wrong places.

[1] Edit: 50% in medicine, it's even worse in other disciplines like social sciences.

I hate how much Ivermectin has been politicised.

They could rather study a country like india where some states prescribed Ivermectin and other state didnt and see what the results were like.

4.5 Millions deaths looking at the excess deaths. And this was until a while ago, now that figure is probably much higher. What more proof than this do you need?

Studies have shown that COVID-19 has similar mechanisms of action as parasitic infections that target red blood cells. That's why Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine (drugs for parasitic diseases, such as malaria, a red-blood cell parasite) have shown success in clinical trials and in vitro studies. That's also why sweet wormwood (Artemisia annua, plant species used for malaria, and the plant that Artemisinin, winner of the nobel peace prize in 2015 is derived from) has been found in laboratory settings to be effective against COVID-19. And why alkoloids from cryptolepis (another anti-malarial herb) are also being researched by various countries and researchers. Vaccines and potential treatments are not mutually exclusive. If you have the biological background like I do then looking up the studies should be a piece of cake. Downvote if you like. Since this is such a polarized topic, I really don't want to spend the energy to share all the studies if people don't have an open mind. But do your own research, the studies are there.

This comment does not seem at all relevant to the article

"But do your own research, the studies are there."

A large clinical trial from June 2020 has shown no clinical benefit to hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients with COVID-19

No clinical benefit from use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: https://www.recoverytrial.net/news/statement-from-the-chief-...

From the above:

> A total of 1542 patients were randomised to hydroxychloroquine and compared with 3132 patients randomised to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality (25.7% hydroxychloroquine vs. 23.5% usual care; hazard ratio 1.11 [95% confidence interval 0.98-1.26]; p=0.10). There was also no evidence of beneficial effects on hospital stay duration or other outcomes.

> These data convincingly rule out any meaningful mortality benefit of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

I don't think you understand how science works. One study does not prove or disprove a hypothesis, especially on a highly politicized topic. Also, I made a general statement about parasitics being effective against covid because of similar mechanisms of action. I did not make a distinction on early disease very late-stage disease, including hospitalization, so I don't understand why you think that study disproves anything I said about general effectiveness.

To give you an example, here is one systematic review of hydroxychloroquine effectiveness with covid: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33042552/

Again, one study does not prove or disprove a hypothesis, but cherry-picking one study as evidence that my argument is wrong is certainly not how science works. However, it is interesting that hydroxychloroquine has been shown to work better in non-hospitalized or pre-hospitalized patients, which makes sense given covid's mechanism of action. The anti-parasitics essentially protect the red blood cells from infection, so I wouldn't be surprised if that is the reason why they may work better in non-hospitalized patients.

But...I don't have time to do a meta-analysis for people that aren't open to finding the truth, regardless of what political agenda the truth may support or not support.

Good luck to everyone so invested in proving or disproving each other's arguments. I've wasted enough time - now back to my work.

The current knowledge, around Ivermectin, and possible benefits in the treatment of COVID-19 is that this peer reviewed, meta statistical study, published on a respected journal found slightly positive effects:

"Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines"

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/...

Conclusions:

"Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."

However as this article mentions:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-s...

One large part of the meta analysis and the list of studies included, had also the Elgazzar study and this was one of the discredited studies. It is also claimed, as the Elgazzar study was so large, and massively positive, it would skew the evidence in favor of ivermectin. As far as I know, so far these statements were made by respected practitioners, but no statistical peer reviewed meta-studies to support their claims have been published until now.

I would wait for the results of the highly respected, Oxford led, Principle study:

https://www.principletrial.org/

https://www.principletrial.org/news/ivermectin-to-be-investi...

So far there were able to conclusively confirm the asthma drug budesonide shortens recovery time in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 :

https://www.principletrial.org/news/asthma-drug-budesonide-s...

They were also able to dismiss Azithromycin, Colchicine and Doxycycline as having no helpful effect.

https://www.principletrial.org/results

There is plenty of appalling behavior to fuel keyboard warriors, on both sides. The BBC and CNN have not behaved much better:

https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1448478540685463552

Totally agree, as someone very pro-vax, that news outlets are blowing it in terms of how they report things. The whole "99% of deaths are now unvaccinated" (with tiny subtitle "since January" -- when the biggest spike took place and hardly anyone was vaccinated) is misleading too. Granted, even Fox displayed that statistic.

I wish they would just present raw numbers of X vs Y without trying to push a view (even if it's a view I agree with). But, that doesn't generate the clicks they need to fund themselves. And of course, "lies, damn lies, and statistics", IDK whether there's a way to present data completely neutrally, but they could at least try.

Why is this post flagged?

New medical information in the article: zero. Ivermectin as cure for covid: flamebait. Twitter death threats: flamebait. Both together: thermonuclear flamewar.

What I find stunning is that for some reason that I cannot fathom, other than my assumption that people feel a political loyalty that blinds them...

Some people now feel that taking livestock deworming pills is safer than being vaccinated. As if a vaccine is inherently dangerous and that taking a horse pill is safe.

News flash:

* Taking random animal medicine in any form is inherently risky.

* Overdosing on pills designed to deliver medicine to 1000 lbs animals is unreasonably likely

* Tampering with over the counter horse medicine is trivial compared to a medically controlled injection. Remember the Tylenol scare?

* A bad pill can kill you just as dead as a bad injection.

* The US already has required shots. You have almost certainly received them. Diabetics likely take shots 3 or 4 times a day.

* There is far more actual research on taking covid shots than taking horse medicine. Other than we know horse medicine overdoses are up 250% this year "for some reason".

To those who simply can't get over the political nature of being vaccinated, I ask

Would you serve your kids cat food because Tucker Carlson questioned if the food provided by school meal programs was safe because it came from 'the government'?

because that is essentially what you are doing now if you take livestock medicine rather than be vaccinated.

To those who can't get past the notion of doing something you simply don't want to do, I recommend that you reflect on what the term "Patriot" means at its core.

Is a patriot one who is willing to do something they potentially don't want to do in order to protect the people or is a patriot only someone willing to protect their own interests?

Sometimes I think people in America confuse liberty with anarchy and patriotism with political loyalty. You say that lockdowns and masks are BS. Well, then here is a way to minimize them. Get vaccinated.

I think the FDA sums it up nicely:

"You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it,"

I find that when people characterize a widespread anti-parasitic medication, used in humans for over 30 years, as a "horse de-wormer", that I have a great difficulty in believing they have anything meaningful to add to the debate.

The morons of a certain political faction are actually taking horse dewormer. Stop lying please.

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...

Can one get a legit prescription for Ivermectin to treat parasites in humans? Absolutely! Is Covid a parasite though?

Where do you believe that the average person is getting their over the shelf Ivermectin from?

Do you have an alternate hypothesis for Ivermectin shortages for livestock at feed stores or the sudden increase in calls to poison control and hospitals for Ivermectin overdosing?

Why would the CDC issue a warning specifically about consuming livestock medicine if it was a minor isolated occurrence?

Is there any large scale clinical study (that has not been retracted yet for data manipulation) let's say with more than 1000 participants that clearly shows any benefit to taking Ivermectin for Covid? I'll give you a hint, the answer is no.

The largest double blind placebo controlled experiment for Covid Ivermectin (3,500 people) (https://www.togethertrial.com/trial-specifications) clearly states: Ivermectin : Trial Stopped for futility

Just to be clear, I am not opposed to you or anyone else taking Ivermectin. Whatever floats your boat.

What I am opposed to is someone laboring under the misconception that taking Ivermectin is a replacement for being vaccinated, wearing a mask, or taking any real precautions against spreading Covid.

Death threats are stupid, but is it any wonder people have started to trust research less, after studies like this had to be retracted? https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

Moreover, 50% of published results in the medical field can't be replicated, and recent studies of non-replicable results show they spread faster and are cited more than robust results. Science incentives are all kinds of messed up right now, so it's no wonder people's trust in science is pretty low.

If there are serious problems with Ivermectin clinical trials, this kind of fraud would have more consequences for treating people with parasitic infections than it does for whether it is used in some covid treatment protocols around the world. Between this Guardian article and the Nature article on the harassment of scientists, it sounds like a co-ordinated narrative shift to provoke public feelings of anxiety. Arguing about dumb things neutralizes people from engaging on the important ones, and co-ordinated histrionic appeals to safety are a standard playbook distraction.

Surely this politically neutral civilian scientist was harassed by the unvaccinated, the kind of people who are why we also need to end online anonymity, as people with "civil liberties" objections are mostly a violent mob, and vaccine passports are really about protecting society from the violence of the uneducated./s

If that bit of sarcasm seems uncharitable, it is for the sake of brevity. We're at the stage where mandates and resistance to them are colliding, and the tactics employed to push through policies that exploit the pandemic are going to include disingenuous agitprop in outlets like the Guardian, and apparently, Nature. The only effective response to that kind of bullshit is truth, and the most effective vessel for truth is humor because it's an honest signal.

Didn’t get past, “my research team was analysing a new drug called ivermectin.”

I’m not a believer in ivermectin, not non-believer either, but that’s just factually incorrect. It’s not new, it’s been around for ages.

The recent piece in the bbc which “debunked” ivermectin was also a lot of dishonesty and non-science.

As someone who is inclined to think it’s efficacy as a Covid treatment is unproven, what am I to conclude from repeated attempts to dissuade the public and medical establishment from using it, when these attempts are dishonest and built upon lies or rhetorical trickery? The more lies I read which are aimed against ivermectin the more I think it must be effective or why would so many people be lying to say it’s not.

It’s staggering they think the public are so stupid but maybe they’re right. Even Sam Harris, a pretty bright guy, got suckered in by the bbc piece. There was no underlying research, nothing published, not even a preprint. Just the words of a Twitter sleuth who is still in college, but bbc printed it and smart people like Sam Harris jumped on it because it fit their beliefs.

AFAIK Sam Harris was always considered the weakest of the four horsemen.

The threats are awful. They should not happen. But it's practically a matter of physics that they're going to happen under the circumstances.

The circumstances are most likely something like this: the danger of the virus is being overhyped, the dangers of the vaccines are being downplayed, the efficacy of repurposed cheap old drugs including ivermectin is being suppressed for the sake of profits.

The result is, healthy young people who almost certainly cannot benefit from taking the vaccine are being pressured to take it, suffering extreme adverse side effects, and being told that they're just psych cases (suffering from anxiety or something similar)

Here's one example of thousands: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aebtcTi7EaA Healthy young guy, professional athlete, took the vaccine when there was no need for him to. Now he suffers from excruciating pain, has to flop out of bed in the morning to try to gain mobility, almost passes out when he stands up, etc.

Here's another example, a guy reporting 25,000 comments about adverse reactions in Israel. This used to be on YouTube, but it was censored there. https://odysee.com/@TheInformer:1/avibarak:1

Here's a doctor in California writing to the FDA and CDC about personally seeing far too many adverse reactions for the official numbers to be correct. https://www.sirillp.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Letter-Re...

Slides from a recent presentation on safety signals from VAERS: https://www.skirsch.com/covid/All.pdf

I could go on and on. The point is, people are seeing that things do not add up. The things they're personally seeing and hearing are not matching what they see from the MSM. Nobody likes being lied to. Nobody likes being stonewalled when people are dying. That's where the resentment and anger comes from that fuels the threats. Again, the threats are wrong. But what does any cornered animal eventually do?

> The point is, people are seeing that things do not add up.

That's because they are ridiculous. Side effects from the vaccine are caused by the body's immune response, because the vaccine literally only contains code for the spike protein. Guess what happens when you actually get infected with the live virus? An immune response.

It's about 99.9% likely that the people who had such adverse reactions to the vaccine would have had as bad (or worse!) reactions to being infected with COVID. Not to mention the actual damage caused by the virus!

The basic fact escaping them has turned this into a giant theatrical production in service of political ends....like everything these days.

> the vaccine literally only contains code for the spike protein

Then does that mean that the spike protein RNA is itself capable of causing adverse reactions? The J&J vaccine is associated with an increased risk of TTS. If that vaccine "literally only contains code for the spike protein" then what else could cause it?

(the rest of your comment is spot-on, I just don't get what's going on with this specific part)

The spike protein cannot self-replicate because it is not complete enough, so it can't create a runaway infection. There is only so much mRNA coding for so many copies of that protein, and that mRNA is quickly broken down. I am not a molecular biologist, but I believe the spike protein is not complete enough to actually even penetrate cells, so I don't think it can even cause any kind of cell damage.

Right, I'm not saying (nor do I believe) that the spike-protein can self-replicate - but that's not the way that an alien substance can damage the body. Again, it's all fine and dandy to say what cannot happen, but you still haven't explained what could then be causing the blood clots.

> Side effects from the vaccine are caused by the body's immune response

Here's another reason side effects could happen: https://odysee.com/@breadcrumbs.2.satori:2/Dr-Sucharit-Bhakd... i.e., spike proteins emerging from normally smooth blood cells, protruding out into the vessels, causing clotting. This idea has apparently been vindicated by D-dimer tests.

That Patricia Lee letter is all kinds of shady. What vaccine were the patients given, and how soon before their symptoms? She only waited 7 days between sending a letter to the CDC and getting a law firm who specialized in anti-vaxx causes? Some of the details were changed to protect PII? But we should just trust you? Ok.

A whole lot of Americans took the vaccine in a very short time frame. Some people are going to get sick soon after. And of course in every single case, family members will be sure it was caused by the vaccine, because that's how the human brain works.

6.6B doses of vaccine have been given out worldwide. If side-effects like those were at all common it would come out, and they would have come out during the clinical trials.

> If side-effects like those were at all common it would come out

What do you think of slide 11 from https://www.skirsch.com/covid/All.pdf ? VAERS is known to be vastly underreported. Kirsch calculates using various conservative methods that the underreporting factor for the COVID vaccines may be about 41.

But everyone hates guesswork like that, for good reason. VAERS is undoubtedly very noisy. So what do you think of slide 27 from that same presentation, in which Peter Schirmacher says 30-40% of the 40 people he autopsied died of the vaccine? https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/wissenschaft-heidelberg-c...

VAERS data has been massively misconstrued and reported completely out of context by anti-vaxxers with an agenda and often profit motive for doing so. Here's a good thread about VAERS data and how it's being misused: https://twitter.com/dhmontgomery/status/1432419761703596033

All VAERS does is say a person got sick or died after taking a vaccine. It's unverified. It doesn't say if the person was already sick. It doesn't try to ascribe cause. From their own definition: "information on unverified reports of adverse events (illnesses, health problems and/or symptoms) following immunization with US-licensed vaccines." When 200M people get a vaccine, there are going to be some coincidences.

The slide you reference is a perfect example of misuse of VAERS. Of course deaths following (not necessarily because of) vaccinations are going to be higher than previous years when you're vaccinating 200 million people at once, many of them old and sick. Just use common sense. Creating a dramatic chart to compare deaths following vaccinations during a global pandemic and vaccination drive vs. previous normal years is nonsense, and just proves that the author of the slide is an extremely biased source. It's pure emotion-tugging sophistry aimed at a non-expert audience who doesn't understand the data.

Here's an actual source on the safety of the vaccine: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475

VAERS has been completely warped to fit an agenda - often promulgated at the top by snake-oil salesmen who make money from eyeballs or bogus supplements, or by state actors trying to sow discord. https://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/20110111/mmr-doctor-...

700k people, 1 in 500, are dead from covid in this country. Even if all 700 of those deaths in VAAERS were from the vaccine, and VAERS was 40x underreported, (which in no way am I conceding either) that's still several orders of magnitude less than the risk from the virus itself. And that's not even considering long covid, another item anti-vaxxers always ignore. https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/91270

Are other pathologists reporting similar findings? In the article you posted it says they don't agree with him. Why are you picking one voice out of the entire global pathology community to amplify and believe?

Personally I'd rather stick to the overwhelming consensus of the world's top scientists and virologists, and 96% of doctors, on the matter. https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-sur...

If there was really some big coverup involving life and death issues, I have faith a significant enough number of true experts would come forward to make the mainstream media, or even fox news, instead of just a few random sketchy websites.

> The result is, healthy young people who almost certainly cannot benefit from taking the vaccine are being pressured to take it, suffering extreme adverse side effects, and being told that they're just psych cases (suffering from anxiety or something similar)

The above post is the exact reason why we are never getting out of this Pandemic. Just pure misinformation being passed as facts.

Young people can die from COVID but they won't die from COVID vaccine shots. Once they are vaccinated, they are much less likely to spread COVID, which is the real reason we want the young to get vaccinated. So they can stop spreading it.

Individual cases of people having strong reactions to the COVID vaccine is expected and not harmful to the individuals. I fail to understand why anti-vaxxers keep posting this kind of information. They are just telling us what we have already been told we can expect.

Also, if you think having a strong reaction to the COVID vaccine was bad, wait until you get COVID because it just might kill you.

> Young people can die from COVID but they won't die from COVID vaccine shots.

https://www.ibtimes.sg/michigan-teen-dies-sleep-3-days-after...

If we accept that this story is not fabricated, this person was previously healthy. Myocarditis suspected. Slides 62 and 63 of https://www.skirsch.com/covid/All.pdf indicate the vaccines can cause myocarditis, especially in young men. High troponin levels is the alleged indicator, from https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2109975

Another victim, aged 18. Clotting suspected, as suggested by Sucharit Bhakdi. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/italy-halts-astrazeneca...

Another victim, aged 16. Pulmonary embolism. Does this look like a forged/noise report to you (honest question, no snark)? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E4urslGWEAM_7c3?format=jpg&name=...

Another victim, aged 15. Cardiac failure. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E0X3XuqXoAAPX2N?format=jpg&name=...

Another victim, aged 13. More heart problems. https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1505250

> Young people can die from COVID but they won't die from COVID vaccine shots. [...] Individual cases of people having strong reactions to the COVID vaccine is expected and not harmful to the individuals.

This is misinformation. The other poster already pointed out how vaccines are linked to myocarditis in young and otherwise healthy people, and a recent study pointed out that this is at least partly is linked to how the vaccines are administered (no aspiration->spike protein injected into blood vessels->heart damage).

Stop claiming that the vaccines cannot be harmful. This only reduces trust in science when evidence of harm mounts, because interventions almost always cause some kind of harm. The question is always how much harm will come from the intervention vs. the probability of getting infected and suffering complications from it. The result of this calculation is not at all obvious, and the widespread push for interventions and damn the consequences is stupid.

> Young people can die from COVID but they won't die from COVID vaccine shots.

The actual numbers seem to be that otherwise healthy teenage boys are more likely to die from the vaccine than from COVID - to be clear, both numbers are very low. Trustworthy stats are hard to come by in any case given that everyone is pushing an agenda.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com