mRNA Covid Vaccines Dramatically Increase ACS Risk | Hacker News Reader

mRNA Covid Vaccines Dramatically Increase ACS Risk

ahajournals.org

11 pointshutzlibu17 comments

> This article has an expression of concern

> Soon after publication of the above abstract in Circulation, it was brought to the American Heart Association Com- mittee on Scientific Sessions Program’s attention that there are potential errors in the abstract. Specifically, there are several typographical errors, there is no data in the abstract regarding myocardial T-cell infiltration, there are no statisti- cal analyses for significance provided, and the author is not clear that only anecdotal data was used.

Other claims by this author have been called pseudoscience, so be cautious about this. From Wikipedia: "Scientists and dieticians have classified Gundry's claims about lectins as pseudoscience." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Gundry).

This is actually something I grapple with. There are plenty of examples where the field of medicine wound up being defiantly wrong and a few 'kooks' who knew better were dismissed before the field finally came around. Things like washing one's hands between patients, ulcers being caused by bacteria and not stress, and babies not being able to feel pain.

All that being said, these few examples don't mean the man is correct. Just that medicine can be defiantly wrong until proven otherwise. But that really shouldn't undermine the confidence in all aspects of modern medicine.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_babies

Have been called "pseudoscience" by a "dietitian and journalist" writing for the Washington Post, not by a scientist; that's the source Wikipedia uses to backup their "pseudoscience" claim. The article is rather short, and it seems like mainstream science doesn't discount the risk of inflammation and autoinflammation from lectins at all[0]. Whether cutting out lectins is a good diet for most people is in debate, but whether lectins can be harmful is not.

I don't find it comforting that an opinion article in a newspaper can turn into "encyclopedic truth", and then come to define a man's life even in unrelated issues.

0: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/anti-nutrients/...

I do not quite know what to make out of it, as I lack the technical competence in that area and I got the link from anti-vaxx circles, but unlike most bs from there, this seems to have more substance. It seems like a reputable journal and organisation stands behind the research. (American heart organisation)

And from what I understand, with a quite drastic conclusion:

"These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk"

So more than twice the chance of getting a heart attack, if vaccinated by mRNA? That seems significant and would make me choose a different vaccine, if true.

What I initially suspected, when I heard of heart attacks as a side effect, is that when people are scared of the vaccine(and many are) - then the stress of getting the shot might result in an actual condition. But here it seems specifically mRNA vaccines related.

So I would be thankful for more insightful comments.

> organisation stands behind the research

So much that they link their "This article has an expression of concern" at the top? https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/reader/10.1161/CIR.000000000...

See also previous discussions:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29336140

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29298178

Ah thanks, it shows this is not my area, as I understood "expression of concern" as this might be a important paper for heart related health.

Note that this is not a paper. The AHA just published all the abstracts of a recent conference. This is not my area, but in other areas the peer review of this kind of things is very weak.

I wrote a more detailed and accurate comment in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29421510

relative risk. the baseline is a tiny number and 2X a tiny number is still tiny.

But the effective risk would still be doubled?

So if I would have a (unknown) heart condition before, this would worry me. But I do not and now I do not trust the numbers anymore anyway.

Wow, how did this one get past the HN flaggers/censors?

Glad to see this didn’t get flagged like the other two submissions. I guess if you care about public health, it would be good to take this and other reasonable concerns into account when evaluating risk and benefit. I don’t see Reddit as a more legitimate authority than the AHA, but maybe I’m too old school. My concern is that if Reddit should be treated as the ultimate authority, doesn’t their karma system and notoriously biased moderation present a bit of a problem? It’s not at all transparent, not that peer reviewed journal article are a panacea.

"I don’t see Reddit as a more legitimate authority than the AHA"

Who is doing so? I just saw arguments from reddit, that seem convincing. And the AHA itself labels that paper as possible not trustworthy.

And the guy itself did actual heart surgery so it seems he is capable of something, but the other research he was doing do show some esoteric red flags for me.

He still could be right with all of it and I would like people with more expertise to take a deep look, but I would be honestly surprised now, if it holds up.

“Who is doing so?”

The other 2 submissions, which were both flagged, seemingly on the basis of Reddit’s mostly ad hominem rejection of the, by all appearances methodologically sound, report.

I’m all for peer review that includes non-peer laypeople, but I don’t think that should be Reddit’s role in our society. Reddit shouldn’t be made the final arbiter of scientific truth. Sadly, mine seems to be the less popular view on the matter.

> The other 2 submissions, which were both flagged, seemingly on the basis of Reddit’s

I suspect your mind-reading is flawed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com