Serious question in good faith: what was the deal with the “calamari” (clots?) the anti-vax crowd kept talking about being found in the veins/arteries of folks who took the Covid vaccine?
Seems to have been a legitimate, very rare, side effect
https://www.flinders.edu.au/research/articles/covid-vaccine-...
A lot of drugs have this test, particularly drugs that should be injected in fat or muscle.
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/should-you-be-worried-abo...
https://www.ejinme.com/article/S0953-6205(20)30349-6/fulltex...
https://ashpublications.org/blood/article/140/Supplement%201...
"The deal" is the clot issue was a problem for Astrazeneca. Astrazeneca is not an mRNA vaccine. It came out first, and was offered to a lot of people - until the clots started showing up.
Australia's response (where I live) was to withdraw the Astrazeneca vaccine and go into lockdown instead. They exited lockdown once a safe replacement vaccine was manufactured and could be mass administered, which happened many months later. The safe replacements were predominantly mRNA vaccines.
From memory the final statistics were Astrazeneca, which was only available for a month or two killed 1 in every 1 million doses, the mRNA replacements which now have been used for years have caused about 1 death for every 55 million doses. You wouldn't want to be the unlucky 1 in 55 million, but you would not want to miss out on taking the mRNA vaccines either - they saved 1000's of lives.
In the high risk groups, Astrazeneca turned out to be worth its risks in over-60s in Australia, but killed more people than it saved in the lower risk groups. But Australia was among the best countries to manage the COVID pandemic. In countries like Mexico where the death rates from COVID were far higher, taking Astrazeneca increased your chances of surviving the pandemic, despite the higher complication rate.
The meme that mRNA causes clots seems to be remarkably common, despite being wrong. It is why to this day many people are vaccine hesitant. It's unfortunate. I think the underlying cause of the large number of people with clots was the mass roll out of Astrazeneca as soon as it passed testing. Normally the take up of a new medicine is gradual. The high prices of the early batches mean they are only given to people who stand to benefit most. The less common side effects are caught in that phase. The phase didn't happen for Astrazeneca.
The common argument made is that the vaccine saved more lives than they took, but this is pretty fucked up IMO. It's the trolley problem IRL - if you force someone to get a vaccine and they die as a result, you are responsible for their death. Also, the manufacturers can never be held responsible, because they have legal immunity for the COVID vaccines.
I can absolutely empathize though. It really is fucked up to experience it in the extreme. Usually the trade-offs are much more minor or have a big time delay or are more abstract.
The statistics on men under 25 are still horrific and suggest this was in fact the latter category: atrocity masquerading behind that euphemism.
After more than eight billion doses of the vaccine, about twenty deaths were causally linked to the vaccine. Five times as many people die every day from traffic in the US alone, many of them children.
What about gun ownership? How many people does that "kill for the common good"?
And by that measure, isn't not vaccinating people an even bigger atrocity? Aren't you also arguing to kill people "for the common good" by not mandating vaccination?
That aside, they also command you to own both a car and a gun?
This argument also applies to you: by your logic, vaccine mandates are perfectly fine because you can leave the country.
> That aside, they also command you to own both a car and a gun?
The problem isn't me owning a car and gun, the problem is obviously everybody else. I'm rather unlikely to drive into myself while driving my own car.
Second up, I'm confused by your use of "mandate" and how your government mandates you to remain in that country.
> by your logic, vaccine mandates are perfectly fine because you can leave the country.
Not by my logic, nor that of Dana Scott, Christopher Strachey , Alonzo Church or others.
> I'm rather unlikely to drive into myself while driving my own car.
You can drive into a wall or off a cliff, and yes, injured by own car (or tractor) is an actual not infrequent injury.
I never said that. I said that government inaction is also a mandate; look at the context for my comment.
If you're arguing that leaving the country makes government action (or inaction) acceptable, then by your own logic, all government action (or inaction) is acceptable, which supports my point: vaccine mandates are fine, because by your own logic, if you disagree with them, you can leave the country.
> You can drive into a wall or off a cliff, and yes, injured by own car (or tractor) is an actual not infrequent injury.
You're missing the point I'm making, which is that not driving a car does not mean I won't get run over by other people, which is the actual point I brought up.
To be honest, I'm not quite sure why you're responding to me, since you don't seem to be arguing against anything I actually said?
If you can’t admit you’re killing people you absolutely lack the ethics to compel actions for others, as in your case here.
COVID vaccines and their mandates absolutely did kill people — and you can believe that is justified, but if you cannot admit the fact, it’s a clear indication you’re not behaving ethically.
Yes they didn't want the hospitals to get full. That's when the younger healthy people who would have recovered can't get the medical care they need to survive.
You had to have spent covid in a pretty sad friendless hole not to know friends or family who ended up in hospital during the peaks.
I am unsure what fallacy this is, but it is pretty offensive.
I don't think this is correct. If you remove the people with comorbidities, the risk for healthy young people was minuscule, there's way other issues you should concern yourself with at that point, rather than dying from COVID.
Vaccinating young people with something that had the potential of side effects was just dumb, either way you look at it. I'm honestly baffled it was accepted. It seems to be the product of mass hysteria, sustained by greed for profits.
Arguably so was the risk from the vaccine.
About 17400 people under 20 died of covid. According to this paper https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8875435/ all the people who died from side effects of the covid vaccine were over 22 (its possible that is not exhaustive, but i can't seem to find any examples of confirmed deaths related to the vaccine for children. If there are any i think its likely the number is in the single digits).
So even if the risk of death from covid in kids is small, its still probably at least 1000 times higher than the risk from the vaccine, and possibly much higher.
> something that had the potential of side effects
Literally everything has potential side effects. Clean drinking water? Has side effects (e.g. less vitamin b12 from poop). All choices have consequences.
Does no one remember? I can't be the only one...
> falling to the ground
Someone fainting at the sight of a needle (or the injection), is not something i, or most people, would consider a dangerous side effect.
I misread what you said, as well.
Every death is a tragedy. Harm to one person is not fungible with benefit to another. You can't subtract one from five to get four net lives saved, but you can say that five is more than one. If someone pulls the lever then they have murdered one person and saved five. If someone wants to pull it and I stop them, haven't I murdered five people and saved one?
It's also somewhat irrelevant since the vaccines do not prevent transmission. At best they lower the chance to some degree and now you're in the weeds of trying to measure something that's too multivariate to measure.
"Living one's normal life" seems to unreasonably privilege the status quo. I am sure many drunk drivers also felt they were simply living their normal lives, before drunk driving was illegal. The definition of "normal life" changed because it needed to. When there's a global pandemic on, it needs to include vaccinations.
"Herd immunity is too multivariate to measure" seems like a very strong claim. Do you have a source for that?
Some people don't agree they should be called "vaccine", in the traditional sense.
https://x.com/coenvermeeren/status/1537751313932599296
There's also a "Fact Check" article from Routers that says it is a "false allegation that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are a form of gene therapy":
https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/bayer-executives-...
But the same article has the following quote from the above video, from Bayer's executive Stefan Oelrich:
> “Ultimately the mRNA vaccines are an example for that cell and gene therapy. I always like to say, if we had surveyed two years ago in the public, ‘would you be willing to take gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body?,’ we would have probably had a 95% refusal rate. I think this pandemic has also opened many people’s eyes to innovation in the way that was maybe not possible before.”
So it seems Bayer (or at least, Stefan Oelrich from Bayer), indeed classifies the mRNA vaccines as gene therapy.
Why wasn't that other person vaccinated?
For those people, it's the group that protects them. But of course you always have selfish people that only care about themselves. It was nice to see the amount of selfish people was pretty low in my region, and we got about a 80% vaccination rate.
I'm willing to bet that in the next 20 years, some kid in the western world will suffer the consequences of polio, because of the anti-vax lunatics.
There is remedy against vaccine harm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compen...
This was passed in response to claims against DPT vaccine and manufacturers stopping production of the said vaccine. Lawmakers feared loss of herd immunity and passed the law. Now vaccine skeptics say this is not enough and claim inability to sue the company directly as an issue - but what they really want is enforce their minority view on the majority by suing companies and ensuring no one has access to vaccines - tyranny of the minority.
My friend who was diagnosed, by multiple doctors in two hospitals with Myocarditis caused by the vaccine has yet to receive any money. It ruined his career.
"Tyranny of the minority" doesn't remotely apply here. No one has the authority to sacrifice one group of citizens to save another group of citizens.
This is trying to play both sides. Appeal to emotion without having a rational thought process. Something bad happening is unfortunate and life changing. Then turning around and saying hundred grand isn’t life changing money for people.
What exactly is your remedy here - should people be not asked to provide proof for the harm and paid 10s of millions for every case? People have been asked proof for lesser things and paid even lesser for much bigger harm.
> My friend who was diagnosed, by multiple doctors in two hospitals with Myocarditis caused by the vaccine has yet to receive any money. It ruined his career.
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence of systematic wrongdoing. At least I wouldn’t expect to see on HN but here we are.
The Norwegian country-wide study is evidence enough.
Unvaccinated occurance was 200 per 100k [1].
[0] https://www.oslo-universitetssykehus.no/en/departments/hjert...
But the people with more money can buy more ads just like Google can stomp out any competitor, because they control the data channel.
It's a logical problem. Should we start requiring a license to hold an opinion about research? Who would we trust to govern that licensing process?
It's not really so simple as finding a source to back your claim. You need to be able to defend your interpretation of that source.
Bottom line "safety" is subjective. That's the critical argument. Compared to what is it safe?
Vaccine with a guarantee of infection, maybe the vaccine is safer.
Vaccinating everyone? Well, we didn't really study that. How do you study people in larger numbers with a guarantee that they don't get infected?
They didn't. They just assume everyone is infected and that number makes the research look valid and safe.
In fact, it's not.
The average person is more likely to have negative outcomes from vaccine than natural infection combined with non-infection.
So is it safe for someone who won't be infected at all? What about for someone that won't exhibit symptoms?
No. It's far less safe for those people.
300x-30,000x less safe. Depends on your estimation of asymptomatic and uninfected subjects in the real world.
It's more safe for someone in their 70s, with cancer, or whatever. Fine. But say that clearly. Don't try to bury that in summaries that obfuscate what you really studied.
Doing so destroys trust in science.
Not advocating for or against this vaccine platform, though. I'm advocating for laws about what meets and doesn't meet scientific rigor, as are most scientists right now.
A large portion of society can't be counted because they are asymptomatic. How do you find them to count them? In fact that's nearly everyone. And for those people the vaccine increases their risk by 4/100,000. (More harm than good.)
Let me know if I've misunderstood.
[0] https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/12/myocarditis-v...
>Are you saying that asymptomatic people don't have myocarditis risk?
No.
If you can't find a link to the court case on this, let me know. I'll find it for you.
Are you referring to this [0]? It was solved years ago.
The study I posted in this thread that you're posting in is a peer-reviewed retrospective cohort study out of Spain. What is wrong with it?
[0] https://www.denvergazette.com/2022/01/07/judge-scraps-75-yea...
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/fda-must-disclose-m...
So, at least until then they continued to hide them.
Do you have a link to the documents, or any subsequent meta study?
And then we still need to resolve the issue of peer review.
Is that making more sense?
In part though, you are right to be noticing that the Pfizer study and the Stanford study disagree on the risk profile.
Why might that be?
Well, for one thing, if you look up the peer reviewers for the Pfizer study, it's the same list of names as the ones that performed the research, and each one of them is a Pfizer employee. Unsurprisingly, the lower risk profile was found in a study conducted by the same drug company that stands to profit from a lower risk profile. And it's not peer reviewed. Typically we rely on peer reviewed research in the world of science and medicine. Without it, it becomes very difficult to differentiate a science article from advertising, and pseudoscience.
Conversely the Stanford study was done by various researchers from various schools with no conflict of interest and no apparent profit from Pfizer, as best I can tell. And as we'd expect, they found not only a causal link, not only a higher incidence rate, but also the mechanism of action that drives it.
Your premise is that COVID infection at just 5% is incredibly dangerous. But you can't actually say that without first knowing how many people were actually infected and asymptomatic. And you don't know that.
For all we know, everyone was infected, and infection is nearly harmless. Or it could be that it's way less contagious than that, and extremely deadly. You simply don't know. You'd need to make wild guesses without evidence.
We're supposed to be doing science, right? Seems to me your premise is the one that's unrealistic. Mine is firmly grounded in evidence that we DO have. Not guesses and doomsday religion.
With vaccination you're at 75/100k.
Without vaccination at 0% chance of covid you're at 70/100k.
Without vaccination at 5% chance you're at 77/100k (worse than 75 here), at 10% 83, etc, etc.
> We're supposed to be doing science, right? Seems to me your premise is the one that's unrealistic. Mine is firmly grounded in evidence that we DO have. Not guesses and doomsday religion.
There are plenty of studies linked in this thread, that you're simply ignoring.
There indeed are plenty of studies linked. I'm not ignoring them, I'm using them to point out that they don't carry the implications necessary to recommend vaccination for everyone.
To make the claim that the vaccine LOWERED incidence of myocarditis even for those without covid, counter to so much other research (e.g. [0]), we would like to see that the study excludes people with a history of myocarditis.
Including them is cheating, quite simply.
Regardless, even if we did go with this Spanish study, you still can't say that a 5% chance of infection is worse. You can say that a 5% of symptomatic infection is worse. There isn't any study in the thread that includes asymptomatic infection, which we know is MOST infection.
So at least so far, I don't see that you have the math to back what appears to be an unscientific claim.
And when faced with the counter research below [0], defining the mechanism of action, we should assume that the risks are a valid concern. You can't just sweep them under the rug.
Most people who tested positive had no symptoms. Most people who didn't get tested also had no symptoms but were likely infected. All of those people shouldn't take on additional risk in their own self interest. At best you can claim that they should take on the risk to try to achieve herd immunity so as to protect others. And actually I'm not sure that we have the data to determine that either.
[0] https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/12/myocarditis-v...
If someone has a history, but suffers a new episode from covid, that is a medical event that should be counted.
> Regardless, even if we did go with this Spanish study, you still can't say that a 5% chance of infection is worse. You can say that a 5% of symptomatic infection is worse.
Yes you can. The mechanism for the side effect (as per your own source) is the same in both symptomatic and asymptomatic cases. Recipients of the vaccine do not get respiratory symptoms, and yet can contract the (very rare) side effects.
And as for your source, the author, Dr. Joseph Wu:
> “But COVID’s worse,” he added. A case of COVID-19 is about 10 times as likely to induce myocarditis as an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, Wu said. That’s in addition to all the other trouble it causes.
5% of symptomatic COVID cases. So now you have to compare that to only people with injuries from the vaccine.
Otherwise you're comparing apples to oranges.
If you want to compare people who got the vaccine to people who didn't, then you need to include ALL people who didn't. Not just the ones who were symptomatic.
And no, you can't include those people who had previous symptoms in the "everyone" group. Obviously those people are way more likely to return for treatment than the average Joe. They are skewing the sample because they are immediately nearly 100% likely to return for treatment. That is not representative of a random sample of people in the general population.
The question was about the general population, and they didn't sample the general population. They sampled people who come to the hospital. That is, only people with symptoms of some sort or another that are bad enough to warrant a journey to get treatment.
So all you can conclude is that people who come to the hospital have a higher frequency of heart conditions. And even that claim is not firmly established by the data, it's just a sensible inference. We expect that people who need treatment are more likely to seek treatment than those that don't need it. But there are countless counter examples there too. Hypochondria, etc.
No doubt if we had the data we'd find more problems there.
Wu's statement is fine, because again, it's not ALL people with COVID. His statement holds for people seeking treatment with COVID which is what they sampled.
Wu has no clue how many people have COVID asymptomatically and how to separate them from people without COVID altogether, and makes no claim about that.
You're simply making a claim that isn't in the research. Vaccination for people without COVID or with asymptomatic COVID is not researched or compared here.
This research, if you want to use it for a comparison, is for vaccination of people already coming to a hospital with symptoms of some kind.
EDIT: forgot to mention this was during a pandemic, so you might see significantly lower numbers for heart conditions if the study was repeated today. And it might be the case that during the pandemic it would have been a good idea to vaccinate everyone coming to a hospital from a statistical standpoint. But an even better take would be to identify what was common amongst the group with bad outcomes and vaccinate them, more specifically.
Regardless, nothing here implies better outcomes for everyone. It's not claimed by and it's not inferable from the research. And certainly not when there is a bunch of research showing contrary results to this study an example of which I linked earlier.
You can absolutely track asymptomatic infections through seroprevalence studies which we have been doing since 2020.
> forgot to mention this was during a pandemic, so you might see significantly lower numbers for heart conditions if the study was repeated today.
Yeah, that's making the point for me.
They tested people treated at a small collection of hospitals (the cohort).
And, you have made several other mistakes aside from that.
The 2020 studies are all retracted. They were over-spinning the centrifuges, I think by a factor of 10 or 100 maybe? They got insanely high positive numbers and the guidance was all updated to correct for that. You can ask an LLM to help you find the CDC publications on that. Don't use those numbers.
Additionally, even if your interpretation was accurate, it would fly in the face of thousands of other studies, just like the one I posted earlier in the thread.
Make sure your beliefs are based on peer reviewed research, that is not retracted, has been established long enough to withstand challenges from the scientific community, and that you're interpreting it honestly, using the established academic criteria for the scientific method and publication standards. Be careful to check the definition words that you're not familiar with, and even ones that you think you're familiar with. They might have a different meaning when used in a scientific context.
Out of curiosity, are you a journalist, college educated? I'm trying to understand where science has failed here. I would like our institutions to produce adults that can identify sound research and draw logical conclusions. There are some basic methods for doing that. I don't mean any offense by that. I'm just trying to understand what's broken. And more to the point, whether or not you are actually interested in science or you're just trying to prove that the media knows more than the scientists. Or maybe you just can't believe that journalists lie about what scientists say.
Is the media in the business of selling truth for profit, even if it means they won't profit? Do you believe that enough to take drugs that legally restrict you from taking legal action against the manufacturer when you're injured? (See CARES act)
Is your motivation to continue discussion political? Or scientific? If it's scientific, let's stick to the facts and follow the science. Don't try to make the science say what you want. You'll find that doesn't work in the broader forum.
> They tested people treated at a small collection of hospitals (the cohort).
In epidemiology, a cohort is simply a defined group of people followed over time. In a population-based cohort study (which this is), the cohort is the entire population of the health district (over 500,000 people).
The study did not just evaluate people treated at the hospital. It used the hospitals EHR to identify the numerator (the heart inflammation cases) out of the denominator (the entire regional population).
> The 2020 studies are all retracted. They were over-spinning the centrifuges, I think by a factor of 10 or 100 maybe? They got insanely high positive numbers and the guidance was all updated to correct for that. You can ask an LLM to help you find the CDC publications on that. Don't use those numbers.
You are confusing PCR testing with serology. The "over-spinning" you are referencing relates to PCR cycle thresholds (Ct values), which are used to detect active viral RNA swabs. Seroprevalence studies—which track historic asymptomatic spread—do not look for active RNA. They test blood serum for antibodies using immunoassays (like ELISA). They do not use PCR amplification, and they are absolutely not "all retracted." They are the standard of how we track the infection rate of a population.
> Is your motivation to continue discussion political? Or scientific? If it's scientific, let's stick to the facts and follow the science. Don't try to make the science say what you want.
This is... literally what I've been doing the entire time.
Yes, and the group is defined very clearly here, as is usually the case. I appreciate that you've conceded that it does not include everyone, as we see in your next quote:
> It used the hospitals EHR to identify the numerator (the heart inflammation cases) out of the denominator (the entire regional population).
So it compared something studied in the cohort (the numerator) to something not studied and outside the cohort (the denominator). So now let's establish whether or not the denominator can be used without calling ourselves science deniers.
And as we go, let's consider that a slight adjustment to that denominator has a multiplicative impact on the result! So we really want to get that dialed otherwise our interpretation could lie very, very far from the truth.
Your next quote leads us right to the most convincing point about the denominator.
> You are confusing PCR testing with serology.
I said all methods measuring prevalence in 2020 were wrong. That doesn't imply confusion with PCR. Serology also was wrong.
Just to find something agreeable to cite, here is the CDC stating very clearly that we shouldn't use serology for this kind of decision making. [0] "Negative results do not rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or patient management decisions, including infection control decisions."
So, assuming you trust the CDC publishes good science, then you know damned well you can't trust that denominator you keep throwing around as fact. At the very least, you're in opposition to CDC guidance if you want to keep using that denominator. You're not a science denier are you?
> This is... literally what I've been doing the entire time.
Well, you may want to read back. The claim that a cohort includes everyone is not remotely in the realm of science. Neither of us can conceive of an experiment that would obtain the denominator to be used in the math above. Not as it is, and definitely not if you defined it as "everyone else." And that's been my point for the last few comments. It's an illogical, fantasy based approach to interpreting the data. You did not test everyone, and you never will for any research ever in the past or future. It's not even fathomably possible.
The denominator, implicitly, makes broad assumptions about cultural, environmental, and economic factors, and that's just the beginning. There are countless other factors that we haven't even thought of yet. So that denominator, can be seen as a wild guess at best, and at worst it's a blatant falsehood if the study was published after whatever research the CDC is relying on to tell us not to use it. And therefore, it must be considered with all of the ambiguity that it implicates, as a wild guess or a blatant falsehood.
I don't like to take things that are wild guesses and stuff them into my math. There's a special word for that, pseudoscience. I have more respect for science than to do that.
So, all things considered, I'll take your word for it that sticking to the science is literally what you've been doing. And you can literally do it better by not using wild guesses to try to make the math say what you want.
If you will use numbers that are based on measured (or even measurable!) data, I'll be more inclined to lend belief to what insight you have that's worth exploring. And I hope you will.
--
Summary: If you have an argument that makes sense, I'll gladly follow it. But you're not there yet.
Your argument is entirely based on a denominator that doesn't remotely meet what modern philosophers of science would refer to as worth believing in. It's a wild guess that the CDC says is inaccurate for weighing this kind of decision.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/covid/hcp/clinical-care/overview-testing...
Spain has a universal healthcare registry. Everyone living in that district has a medical record which can be continually tracked, which is used in this study.
The healthy people at home aren't "outside the cohort". You are arguing against a methodology you don't understand.
The CDC quote you linked tells doctors not to use antibody tests to triage acute patients because antibodies take weeks to form. It has nothing to do with retrospective seroprevalence studies, which the CDC (and WHO, and every major health organization in the world) itself uses to track population spread.
That wouldn't be scientific at all, would it?
I think you're trying to make the case that the estimates are good enough, but you haven't done a good job of substantiating that claim. You have provided no evidence other than your personal hearsay that the CDC and WHO agree on something that they never said. Go ahead and link to it if they did. I'll wait.
Separately you keep saying I misunderstand when it's clearly the opposite. Let me break it down for you clearly because, from my perspective, you are just plugging random bullshit into the wrong place in a math problem:
>The denominator is literally the exact number of registered citizens in that district. There are no guesses, "wild" or otherwise.
Right! But that's not what you're claiming. How does this tell us how many people were infected and asymptomatic? You are aware that "registered citizens in the district" is not the same is "infected people with no symptoms" right? So why are you plugging it into a math problem where "infected people with no symptoms" is the expected variable for substantiating your claim?
> Spain has a universal healthcare registry. Everyone living in that district has a medical record which can be continually tracked, which is used in this study.
Great! So tell us how many people were infected with no symptoms in 2020 so that we can make an effort to believe your claim that vaccines are less harmful than infection! It's pretty simple math, you just need the data that you claim to already have but refuse to share!
You are saying that COVID is worse than infection, so tell us when you tested people with no infection so that you can say that! When did you perform that test that you keep acting like is common sense knowledge? Why don't you just show us the number so we can stop the discussion and go home satisfied in our medical knowledge?
> The CDC quote you linked tells doctors not to use antibody tests to triage acute patients because antibodies take weeks to form.
It implies something about the data, even if you twist like you did. I personally prefer to go with the exact quote, which I gave you. But your twist on it isn't any better for your argument. It, in both cases, draws significant doubt about the accuracy of the test.
Let's pretend I have an allergy to the COVID protein. Should I use that test to make a decision about my vaccination?
I think you should go to prison if you said yes. Don't you? You'd be a murderer.
But you're going to use it to make a broader, less evidence based claim than that?
Summary: Please provide the prevalence data. A bunch of people that you didn't test, whether you call them the cohort or not, does not establish prevalence. You need to include "asymptomatic infected" numbers to make your claim. As far as we know so far, you don't have those numbers. And, the CDC and the WHO don't even claim to have them, which is why your claim sounds so implausible. I mean, unless you're at the forefront of research at the CDC or something. But I don't see that this is the case.
Also, I'm mind bogglingly curious how you think those people would be discovered to perform a test on! So let me know why you even think that's possible! It seems like common sense that it wouldn't be because they don't exactly line up for testing and treatment when they feel perfectly fine.
This study finds a mechanism of action for vaccine caused myocarditis, and rate of incidence.
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/12/myocarditis-v...
My interpretation of the Spanish study allows for both articles to be totally valid.
Your interpretation requires that you think you are smarter than one of these groups of researchers. It requires that Stanford's study is wrong.
Honestly, which is more likely?
It's okay to learn something here. You thought the denominator was people that weren't infected. You didn't think that it might be a group of 100% infected. But it could be. We simply don't know.
It's okay to not have realized that. The scientific thing to do here is learn from your mistake.
Dr Wu never claimed that he knew the actual prevalence of COVID in an asymptomatic population.
You claimed that. That's your issue. Don't blame your mistakes on others.
Maybe don't pretend to know "the consensus" of scientists when you have no training or experience in the field?
Based on the data that was available to Wu at the time, he was correct. Based on what we know now, he is very likely not correct.
For all we know, literally every single person on Earth might have been infected. If you instead counted 8 billion infections, then the outcomes for covid infection look much better than the myocarditis risks associated with the vaccine.
We just don't know. You are making a faith based claim, without evidence. Simply put.
That's the neat part, you don't have to. Vaccinated people had a prevalence rate of 5/100k. Unvaccinated AND symptomatic covid had 200/100k. Unvaccinated and asymptomatic or uninfected at 70/100k.
It doesn't matter what fraction of the unvaccinated group was asymptomatic, because the total average of the group you are advocating to stay in (70) is still 14 times higher than the group you are telling people to avoid (5).
Your math still doesn't work. What if all the people in both groups are 100% infected?
Yeah, I'll help you make your point when it's accurate. That's called science.
Just fix the problems in your argument and I'll help you make it.
-Spock, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Since there was basically a soft mandate for it, especially on top of some of the usual official red tape being cut, the manufacturers really wouldn't be the appropriate party to hold responsibility. That'd be the government.
However if we’re going to talk about moral responsibility for vaccine mandates, we also have to consider moral responsibility for non-vaccination leading to spread of a dangerous virus during a pandemic.
If you are going to hold one group responsible for vaccine-related deaths of mandated vaccines, you must also hold the group who refused the vaccine responsible for any deaths of other people who were infected as a result of their vaccine refusal.
Vaccine deaths were real, and very rare. COVID deaths from preventable spread were also real, and much more common. Public policy had to weigh both, not pretend either side of the risk didn’t exist.
It is one thing to make a judgement error in the heat of a crisis, it is quite another one to deny afterwards what a huge fuckup it has been.
I suppose you could also argue other categories based on higher or lower ages and who gave themselves lower chances of ever catching covid could technically also fall into that group. You could also argue moral reasons not to get the vaccine but I'd say in any situation where you still expected to get healthcare that detracted from the healthcare of others (i.e when the hospitals were at capacity and your treatment could kill another) would be morally bankrupt.
A preeminently foolish bet is to use a vaccine where you don't know anything about medium or longterm effects, for something that doesn't really affect you. If you know anything about science, you know that.
that's all nice and dandy except COVID "vaccines" (remember, they had to change vaccine definition for this very reason) did NOT STOP the spread, they were at best protecting some old people, it was completely pointless for young healthy people to risk their lives by taking them
I remember how the vaccine narration/propaganda went - it will protect you from getting infection, it will protect you from symptoms, it will protect you from getting sick, it will protect you from serious symptoms, it will protect you from hospitalization, it will protect you from death, so now basically all they can claim it will protect you from going to hell and you can go to heaven if you use them
> Vaccine deaths were real, and very rare.
so were COVID deaths in people under 50 unless you have some health condition, extremely rare for people under 20-30, yet they pushed down the throat "vaccinesd" to everyone, not just risk groups, which is why vaccine mandates/passes hurt proper useful vaccines for decades ahead
This is easy to prove. Simply find a high school biology textbook printed before Covid.
MRNA is not weakened virus, it's a spike protein in this case.
Or so that's the argument.
Inoculation is where a weakened pathogen is introduced to create immune resistance against that same pathogen (see inoculation parties).
And that is exactly what was promissed to me.
You are just full of it, that is it.
Do you see how this absolutely requires not just a lowered infection rate with lowered severity of infection? You need a less than ~10% chance of infection in the vaccinated/otherwise immune for the math to work. If the chances of infection after vaccination are still 80% then there is still a large reservoir of potential carriers and you don't have herd immunity.
For most of history what people expected out of a vaccine was immunity from infection not still getting infected but with less severity.
Herd immunity means the disease wont cause epidemic, if it comes from elsewhere. It does not mean that no single person will get the disease if he encounters it.
Notably, flu vaccine did not stopped flu entirely, is the most common yearly vaccine and I really never seen anyone claim it 100% stops flu.
Pretty much every medication can have bad interactions. There is always a "risk/reward" analysis.
But also, the vaccines linked to those kids deaths weren't the mRNA vaccines, it was the J&J vaccine which got pulled as a result.
So you are right. I shouldn't have said "nobody". But also, it's not exactly everyone.
And for clarity sake, it's way more people than just the military. Many cities and counties had mandates, including NYC. Everyone in nearly the entire health industry across the country. Many restaurant workers. A bunch of banks and many, many other companies in various industries had mandates just because their leadership was political or used it as a way to reduce labor without penalty. A lot of people were forced.
I don't think it's fair to try to minimize that. It's a major point of ongoing political contention and its among the many reasons why many people stopped voting left (including me).
You don't have to care about the people who aren't interested in science. Sure, you have to protect immunocompromised people from those people, and we can do that.
"vapor trails" - well, if helps you sleep better.
Not saying this about parent, but am absolutely saying it about the vaccine skeptic community in general.
If the barrier to asking a question is zero (i.e. someone without a high school biology education can ask a question and be listened to) but the barrier to answering any question to the community's satisfaction is high (i.e. a full study, on exactly that question, controlled for all variables, that shows a clear result) then the effort asymmetry leads to many unanswered questions.
... which the skeptic community then points to to support the belief that there are many legitimate unanswered questions.