Hacker News Reader

Comment by mlyle | Hacker News Reader

> instead of staying at the injection site.

We've known that forever. There's been studies done with luciferase to see where the mRNA triggers protein production in small animals.

We know that a big portion of the activity is in the liver, distant from the IM injection site (a lot of the activity is at the site, too).

e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4624045/

"When mRNA-LNPs were injected intramuscularly and intratracheally, similar to intravenous and intraperitoneal deliveries, a large portion of the luciferase activity was detectable in the liver, demonstrating systemic spread of the nanoparticles."

View on HN

Yes, and people like Bret Weinstein say this is a massive problem and why there’s heart inflammation, if the mrna enters heart muscle your immune system might well attack it, the problem is - heart muscle does not get remade.

The problem with this is that there's simpler explanations. Myocarditis is more frequent with C19 infection than vaccination, so it seems spike protein circulating is "enough".

Also this study didn't find significant uptake of mRNA in the heart (though it did find notable uptake in the lungs).

The Mycocarditis line is not true - it highly depends on gender and age. Repeating that its more frequent for infection outright is wrong, it is only in certain sub-populations (female, older).

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA....

See tables 3 and 4.

Moderna does seem to have an effect in the direction you name; the Pfizer vaccine seems to have a lower risk than infection in all categories. Overall, the myocarditis risk is lower with vaccination than infection with both Moderna and Pfizer, but it may not be in some subpopulations with Moderna.

I think the data still supports what I said, even in that article, but also if you want to be really accurate you'd need a meta review of a variety of articles I've read now in detail, and my general intuition is its clear that < ~30yr old men are higher risk.

It’s such a dumb topic too - because when you focus solely on the myocarditis risk stratification between Covid and the vaccine, you lose sight of all of the other morbidities that come with Covid. It’s like that video making the rounds right now where Bill Maher is trumpeting that the infection provides as strong protection against severe disease compared to the vaccine. Cool! Not actually surprising but kind of misses the obvious point that it involves you getting Covid, a serious, highly transmissible disease, when you could get the same protection without the illness.. I guess you could use the evidence to adjust guidance on vaccine schedule but protection still wanes over time so..

It's dumb to dismiss it.

Finland, Denmark and Sweden recommend against getting vaccination for young men as they have almost no risk with Covid outside of extreme co-morbidities.

They didn't actually do that - and you should change your media diet if you sincerely believe that they did.

Denmark is probably the most stark -- after they had >80% uptake in their initial vaccination drive and then Omicron proved to be less dangerous, they no longer recommend boosters for under 50s unless you have risk factors.

Sweden still recommends 3 doses for everyone over the age of 18 (https://www.krisinformation.se/en/hazards-and-risks/disaster....) They no longer recommend that all children receive the vaccine but that's a much more neutral stance than "recommend against getting it".

And Finland still recommends the vaccine for everyone, almost regardless of age (https://thl.fi/en/web/infectious-diseases-and-vaccinations/w...)

You may be confusing their recommendations with their preference of the Pfizer over the Moderna vaccine in men?

So they did stop recommending it? Tbh I’m not tracking every countries exact status and don’t need to to make the point, in fact your citations only strengthen it.

There’s are a whole list of countries that have backed off recommending vaccines for the young and that alone is enough to disprove your attempt to dismiss a very, very important topic.

By doing so you potentially have moral responsibility to men who may be missing out on critical info that could save their lives. The data supports it and the fact that many very pro vaccine countries are now stepping back their recommendation is a massive positive indicator that it’s worth discussing.

I don’t have to prove beyond a doubt it’s unsafe, just that there’s gray area. You meanwhile called any gray area dumb, and therefore need to prove beyond a doubt that it has clear benefit to young men. It doesn’t.

And yes the banning of Moderna is a huge, massive piece data because we know it’s much worse re: Myocarditis. So we basically know for a fact it’s a bad trade off for young men. Pfizer would require your own research but again it’s not clear it’s even neutral. So why argue it’s dumb to even discus? This is the sort of weird argumentation I’ve seen throughout the pandemic where it’s like a religion that can’t ever admit faults lest it all come apart. You can admit there were mistakes and are flaws, it’s ok, it doesn’t ruin your belief system at all.

Denmark suggests 2 doses for all over 18.

Finland and Sweden suggest 3 doses for everybody over 18; Finland recommends vaccine for everyone.

None recommend against vaccine in children.

This is very, very, very far from "recommend against getting vaccination for young men" which is simply wrong (uninformed or bad faith?) They all recommend young men get vaccinated.

First off, over 18 isn't really youth anymore so changing goalposts.

Why are you saying false things? They categorically don't recommend young anyone to be vaccinated.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-limit-childrens...

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-decides-against-...

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

I was very careful to say they withdrew recommending it, which is true.

Now the interesting convo is why they did that, which you seem to be keen to avoid.

---

Not to mention its easy to bring in tons more data to show it's worth a discussion. Whether countries recommend for/against is weak, but still here a strong signal because these countries have been very pro-vaccine and naturally will avoid admitting things to protect themselves, so any admission is big.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19vaccin...

---

The realest question here is why? Why try and cordon this scientific discussion away as off-limits when it's clearly an evolving and unsettled story. I'm so curious to figure out exactly what's going on and follow the research. Just feels strange to come in blasting saying you know the truth and this topic is settled when it clearly isn't. Why?

> I was very careful to say they withdrew recommending it, which is true.

You know we can all see the chain of comments here, right?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34886149

> Finland, Denmark and Sweden recommend against getting vaccination for young men

"Withdrew recommending" is them reverting to a neutral stance -- "recommended against" is very much not neutral - and it's still wrong in either case because 2/3 countries you listed still recommend for vaccinating all young men.

It's so tiringly frustrating to discuss any of this with antivaxxers. Your language is so imprecise and sloppy that it's impossible to have anything resembling a productive conversation. I provided links to the actual policies published by the actual countries here and your response is just spamming with vaguely related news articles and insinuations instead of a moment's reflection that maybe, just maybe, your confidence in your understanding of any of this is misplaced.

Avoid using "anti-vaxx" to describe everyone that disagrees with exactly your opinions, it really hurts your argument.

Try defending your point rather than name calling.

I will agree my "against" wording was a bit strong but I corrected it in the last reply anyway, so again this isn't a gotcha. But I'm very much closer to truth than saying they are still recommending it, you changed the denominator to over-18.

Withdrawing a recommendation is recommending against of course - if someone says they recommend to do something, they say they DON'T recommend to do it, and I told you "the government is no longer recommending youth take it based on efficacy and Myocarditis risks" who would you think that statement more supports in this thread? My arguments or yours? It's very clear.

It's also the strongest we could reasonably expect as governments are very conservative and self-interested.

Every article linked is relevant.

Meanwhile you are doing exactly what you want to do - distract from the fact that this is a real issue by trying to bury the conversation behind a bunch of sequiturs about pedantism, language, name calling, exasperation, etc.

“Men” implies age of adulthood, or close, to me. Young men are dudes from, say, 16 to 27.

I'm not sure if you're arguing in bad faith or are simply confused about the facts.

Bret Weinstein is an obvious grifter

Reply on news.ycombinator.com