Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank(medrxiv.org)
medrxiv.org
Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.11.21258690v1
211 comments
I wish I could get people that are avoiding the COVID vaccine “because we don’t know what the long term effects are” to realize that we have real data showing that there are long term effects from getting full blown COVID. You don’t want a tiny piece of mRNA but you want the whole organism reproducing in your body? The whole genome and all the proteins made?
Yeah. I had complete loss of smell and taste, which came back about 90% over the next six weeks. It was fine for a month and then it went wonky. Probably 30% of my "scent spectrum" has now been replaced with the same burnt meat smell/taste. Everything from chocolate to feces to hamburgers now has the same core odor.
It really, really sucks.
It really, really sucks.
Don't lose hope. I got in October, similar effects, and I've been recovering a lot of my smell and taste, veery slowly and in "bursts".
Nowadays I'm almost fully ok, the only smells I haven't recovered are body odor (which I can smell, it's just really different) and feces and trash, which for some reason smell in a very particular sweet way, kinda like rotten meat.
That last one, for some reason, seems to be really common, since several friends that also lost smell have had the same exact change.
Nowadays I'm almost fully ok, the only smells I haven't recovered are body odor (which I can smell, it's just really different) and feces and trash, which for some reason smell in a very particular sweet way, kinda like rotten meat.
That last one, for some reason, seems to be really common, since several friends that also lost smell have had the same exact change.
Yeah, the first time I recovered my smell feces took the longest to come back. Since I already recovered and didn't catch covid again, I can't help but think my current problem arises from some kind of incorrect healing. Like a nerve pathway is connecting to the wrong thing somehow.
This is probably the first time I read about these side effects. Are you certain it's your perception that has changed (ie. neurological changes), as opposed to the actual smell? I would not be surprised at all if Covid has an impact on the gut flora.
According to a Harvard article I read, it's caused by damage to the sensors in the nose, rather than brain damage. I have the problem myself and it's definitely not changes to the smells themselves.
The effect isn't unique to covid-19 either. I heard from several people when that 2017 flu went around that they had the same issue. One of them was complaining for over a year until smell/taste finally got better/normal again.
(Not trying to downplay covid-19. Just pointing out that it's not an unknown side effect from this type of disease)
(Not trying to downplay covid-19. Just pointing out that it's not an unknown side effect from this type of disease)
Wow, very similar experience here, except the sweetness I smell isn't likable to rotten meet, but rather sort of like aging strawberries/fruit. I smell this semi-sweet fruit-like smell particularly strongly with anything alcoholic, including hand sanitizer. I had covid anosmia for about 6 weeks during December-January '20, but this sweet smelling parosmia has only been around the last 2 months or so. Such a mystery to me.
Yup, now that you mention it, aging strawberries is a nice description. Funny that it's universal.
I wonder if we have special "wiring" for enhancing human-produced smells? Kinda like how the brain is capable of distinguishing human faces by small details that we don't see that well for other species.
I do miss those odors, to be honest...
I wonder if we have special "wiring" for enhancing human-produced smells? Kinda like how the brain is capable of distinguishing human faces by small details that we don't see that well for other species.
I do miss those odors, to be honest...
Interesting! Yes, I believe there's a genetic component here to how covid impacts sense of smell/taste long-term.
What I'm just surprised by is how my smell totally recovered after 6 weeks, but then months later this semi-sweet aging strawberries smell kicked in (with many things, but mainly ethanol-containing products). My covid experience itself thankfully was fairly benign too.
If my olfactory neurons repaired themselves, then what triggered disrepair months later?
To be clear, I've been on the keto diet since January, and that definitely can produce fruity alcohol breath as a natural byproduct, so when I ran this concern with my GP, they said it's very likely not covid, and more likely my diet. But that didn't quite sit well with me, and now that you and others on here mention your experience, I'm more convinced this is some kind of odd post-covid long-term effect. TBD!
What I'm just surprised by is how my smell totally recovered after 6 weeks, but then months later this semi-sweet aging strawberries smell kicked in (with many things, but mainly ethanol-containing products). My covid experience itself thankfully was fairly benign too.
If my olfactory neurons repaired themselves, then what triggered disrepair months later?
To be clear, I've been on the keto diet since January, and that definitely can produce fruity alcohol breath as a natural byproduct, so when I ran this concern with my GP, they said it's very likely not covid, and more likely my diet. But that didn't quite sit well with me, and now that you and others on here mention your experience, I'm more convinced this is some kind of odd post-covid long-term effect. TBD!
My cousin (20s) lost his sense of taste and hasn't recovered it months later. Son (teen) lost his for a week then recovered it. Reports however that he has pernanently lost his sense of thurst. Ymmv.
> Reports however that he has pernanently lost his sense of thurst.
Wow that is weird, hadn’t heard of that one yet, and seems kind of dangerous. Is he taking extra precautions to stay hydrated?
Wow that is weird, hadn’t heard of that one yet, and seems kind of dangerous. Is he taking extra precautions to stay hydrated?
I heard on a cooking podcast (probably this episode of cooking issues[1]) that smell training has helped some people with anosmia. I have no idea if it helps with loss of smell related to covid. Have any of you tried it?
Here's an example (no affiliation, just the ones with the best SEO, I am not a doctor): https://abscent.org/learn-us/smell-training
[1] https://heritageradionetwork.org/episode/live-datta-lab-feat...
Here's an example (no affiliation, just the ones with the best SEO, I am not a doctor): https://abscent.org/learn-us/smell-training
[1] https://heritageradionetwork.org/episode/live-datta-lab-feat...
Did getting vaccinated change anything ? I've heard that vaccinations helped people with long COVID.
Hope you recover fully.
Edit: since someone asked for citations, here is a CNN link
https://us.cnn.com/2021/04/03/health/long-haulers-vaccine-we...
I follow the "This week in virology" podcast and they have discussed this extensively as well. Dr Daniel Griffin, cited in the CNN article is a weekly contributor on this podcast, and has mentioned the effect in question multiple times.
Hope you recover fully.
Edit: since someone asked for citations, here is a CNN link
https://us.cnn.com/2021/04/03/health/long-haulers-vaccine-we...
I follow the "This week in virology" podcast and they have discussed this extensively as well. Dr Daniel Griffin, cited in the CNN article is a weekly contributor on this podcast, and has mentioned the effect in question multiple times.
Fatigue and rapid heartbeat being cured by a vaccine sounds like psychosomatic long COVID. This is a hot button topic that few professionals will bother examining in a critical fashion.
Loss of sense of smell is not psychosomatic. Unfortunately, viral infections can cause sometimes permanent loss.
Loss of sense of smell is not psychosomatic. Unfortunately, viral infections can cause sometimes permanent loss.
Unfortunately not. The change in smell happened a few days before my first shot. That's lucky though, as there's no telling what I'd believe if I'd been fine and then thought the shot ruined my taste.
please stop with comments starting with 'i've heard that' - there is enough misinformation already.
Please. add. citations.
Please. add. citations.
They're literally asking for someone to weigh in with first-hand experience on something they heard but are not sure about. It's a valid question that I would also like to hear about.
Citations are more relevant for when people are making a claim than for when they are investigating a claim.
Citations are more relevant for when people are making a claim than for when they are investigating a claim.
Unfortunately the vaccine helps only in about 20% of the cases.
My social media manager had the exact same reaction. She says it’s getting better very slowly - she can still only stomach eating rice and bread, though. Everything else makes her throw up immediately.
Who are you that you can't operate social media yourself?
How old are you? Were you completely healthy before?
30. Overweight but no actual medical problems. Not prescribed any medications. Not a drug, cigarette, or alcohol user.
I don't mean be invidious, but being overweight is an actual medical problem, one that's been strongly linked[1][2][3] with susceptibility and severity of the disease.
I can't recommend reading the World Obesity Atlas pdf enough as it provides possible explanations for the disparities in cases and deaths we've seen in different societies.
[1] https://www.worldobesity.org/resources/resource-library/covi...
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/excess-weight-and...
[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32788355/
I can't recommend reading the World Obesity Atlas pdf enough as it provides possible explanations for the disparities in cases and deaths we've seen in different societies.
[1] https://www.worldobesity.org/resources/resource-library/covi...
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/excess-weight-and...
[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32788355/
Lol at parent comment being downvoted - being overweight is absolutely a medical problem, people need to stop normalising it.
My 21-yo daughter was previously completely healthy and fit, and she has now experienced a year of long covid. Already skinny, she lost 16 pounds because food didn't register as food (messed up smell and taste) and she couldn't choke it down. She had a couple of weeks where she could tolerate almost no foods but almonds and miso soup. So much fatigue last summer that she couldn't even sit up for very long. New and persistent depression, sensitivity to noise. Please don't try to minimize this illness by blaming it on people's existing health conditions.
I'm not blaming. I'm trying to gather data because I'm having a serious problem with trust.
There are valid concerns and a difficult risk benefit analysis for some cohorts, I think. What are your thoughts on this? Put yourself in her shoes:
"I held off on a COVID vaccine because I wanted to wait for data with positive signals for both pregnancy in the short term and long-run fertility. I’m trying to get pregnant, and those are the two things I care about most.
Vaccine data is so politicized that it’s actually somewhat difficult to find full studies, results discussions or data sets as a layman, because every search term redirects you to “yes, get vaccinated right now, your concerns are merely ignorance”
The other study that concerns me shows that the vaccine’s lipid nanoparticles— which carry the RNA instructions for the spike protein — move beyond the deltoid muscle they’re injected into and accumulate in other tissues, and seem to accumulate in ovarian tissue preferentially.
That study looked at a very small sample, but given what we think we know about the spike protein — it likely causes some degree of tissue damage on its own, independent of the virus — it’s something that definitely demands further study
Anyway, I feel like I need to come clean at this point. For a long time I was avoiding the vaccine because I wanted to hold out for more data. Now I’m actively choosing not to get it because what I’ve seen is providing the opposite of a positive safety signal for my purposes.
It’s really important that I clarify I’m not at a high risk of exposure. I generally don’t work or even socialize outside my home. Lockdown life frankly doesn’t look that different from my preferred lifestyle. If I were a high exposure risk I would think about this differently
I’m in the process of getting a prescription for prophylactic ivermectin, which has also become extremely politicized — to the point of becoming a censored topic on some platforms. I’m not giving advice, here. I’m not making broader efficacy claims. I’m just trying to be honest
COVID is no joke. You do not want to get COVID. “Long COVID” symptoms should concern you even if you don’t think an infection would kill you. But the vaccines are very new and skipped a great deal of otherwise required safety testing, and some of this data is really worrisome."
https://mobile.twitter.com/webdevMason/status/14056498962128...
"I held off on a COVID vaccine because I wanted to wait for data with positive signals for both pregnancy in the short term and long-run fertility. I’m trying to get pregnant, and those are the two things I care about most.
Vaccine data is so politicized that it’s actually somewhat difficult to find full studies, results discussions or data sets as a layman, because every search term redirects you to “yes, get vaccinated right now, your concerns are merely ignorance”
The other study that concerns me shows that the vaccine’s lipid nanoparticles— which carry the RNA instructions for the spike protein — move beyond the deltoid muscle they’re injected into and accumulate in other tissues, and seem to accumulate in ovarian tissue preferentially.
That study looked at a very small sample, but given what we think we know about the spike protein — it likely causes some degree of tissue damage on its own, independent of the virus — it’s something that definitely demands further study
Anyway, I feel like I need to come clean at this point. For a long time I was avoiding the vaccine because I wanted to hold out for more data. Now I’m actively choosing not to get it because what I’ve seen is providing the opposite of a positive safety signal for my purposes.
It’s really important that I clarify I’m not at a high risk of exposure. I generally don’t work or even socialize outside my home. Lockdown life frankly doesn’t look that different from my preferred lifestyle. If I were a high exposure risk I would think about this differently
I’m in the process of getting a prescription for prophylactic ivermectin, which has also become extremely politicized — to the point of becoming a censored topic on some platforms. I’m not giving advice, here. I’m not making broader efficacy claims. I’m just trying to be honest
COVID is no joke. You do not want to get COVID. “Long COVID” symptoms should concern you even if you don’t think an infection would kill you. But the vaccines are very new and skipped a great deal of otherwise required safety testing, and some of this data is really worrisome."
https://mobile.twitter.com/webdevMason/status/14056498962128...
The vaccines did not skip any safety tests, they just compressed the schedule because millions of people were dying of a preventable disease.
At this point hundreds of millions of people have taken the various vaccines. There clearly are no major short or medium term effects (other than the reported, rare side effects).
Also you can literally read all the documents provided to the FDA concerning the efficacy and safety of the vaccines. There isn't a giant conspiracy, all the original studies and data are in the open.
At this point hundreds of millions of people have taken the various vaccines. There clearly are no major short or medium term effects (other than the reported, rare side effects).
Also you can literally read all the documents provided to the FDA concerning the efficacy and safety of the vaccines. There isn't a giant conspiracy, all the original studies and data are in the open.
The parent never mentioned a conspiracy. They did mention running into a lot of glibly dismissive dead ends researching their concerns.
I don't think their decision is unreasonable. I'm personally not looking at the same factors, and think of covid vaccination differently. I'm guessing you do, also. I personally don't see a problem with that. Who am I to tell force someone else to my way of thinking?
I don't think their decision is unreasonable. I'm personally not looking at the same factors, and think of covid vaccination differently. I'm guessing you do, also. I personally don't see a problem with that. Who am I to tell force someone else to my way of thinking?
The OP said it was hard to find the data and documents. I searched for “fda vaccine pfizer documents” and the 2nd link is the FDA page with every document and study that was reviewed for approval.
The information is not hard to find. Yes, there are a lot of pro-vaccine resources and anti-vaccine resources as well, but it’s obviously not hard to find the source materials.
The information is not hard to find. Yes, there are a lot of pro-vaccine resources and anti-vaccine resources as well, but it’s obviously not hard to find the source materials.
That philosophy is fine when the resulting issues only harm the person taking that attitude, herd immunity, viral mutation due to more hosts, and a plethora of other reasons don't allow us to take the live and let live attitude about vaccinations this time around.
But it's still a heavy thing to force other people into something. We live in quasi-democracies and a significant percentage of people feel differently than you do. There's also a significant percentage of people, me included, who are willing to respect that people have different understandings of the risks.
Lots of things harm us as a group, and we accept them. We don't, and can't, aim for zero risk.
Lots of things harm us as a group, and we accept them. We don't, and can't, aim for zero risk.
I'll be getting downvoted but it doesn't matter: it's you. You and people like you are the reason I'm not getting vaccinated. I'm from a time when having and exercising autonomy over what one does or does not with their own body was something celebrated, however now society has normalized insulting and bullying people for making their own choices.
I will not tolerate a society that does this, fortunately I'm in a position to hurt it by simply not getting vaccinated. I have no doubts that it's perfectly safe and I'd be fine, with the bonus of being more protected.
So yes. You are the reason I'm doing my part to ensure we'll never achieve herd immunity. Good job.
I will not tolerate a society that does this, fortunately I'm in a position to hurt it by simply not getting vaccinated. I have no doubts that it's perfectly safe and I'd be fine, with the bonus of being more protected.
So yes. You are the reason I'm doing my part to ensure we'll never achieve herd immunity. Good job.
> I will not tolerate a society that does this, fortunately I'm in a position to hurt it by simply not getting vaccinated.
Don't think of it as hurting a society that upsets you, think of it as hurting the individual people who get a serious disease through no fault of their own and suffer and die from it. It's very unlikely you'll hurt any of the people who have upset you - they are probably all well vaccinated.
There are all sorts of actions you could take to promote bodily autonomy, and I'd support them, but if you're really choosing to do this one out of spite because some small section of society has offended you, then I would encourage you to find a different way to express your distress.
> So yes. You are the reason I'm doing my part to ensure we'll never achieve herd immunity. Good job.
Along with your old fashioned view on bodily autonomy, I'd suggest you take a old fashioned view on personal responsibility too and try to avoid blaming others for a choice that you are making.
Don't think of it as hurting a society that upsets you, think of it as hurting the individual people who get a serious disease through no fault of their own and suffer and die from it. It's very unlikely you'll hurt any of the people who have upset you - they are probably all well vaccinated.
There are all sorts of actions you could take to promote bodily autonomy, and I'd support them, but if you're really choosing to do this one out of spite because some small section of society has offended you, then I would encourage you to find a different way to express your distress.
> So yes. You are the reason I'm doing my part to ensure we'll never achieve herd immunity. Good job.
Along with your old fashioned view on bodily autonomy, I'd suggest you take a old fashioned view on personal responsibility too and try to avoid blaming others for a choice that you are making.
No offense but those are pretty weak arguments. I'm not looking to hurt specific individuals, but rather society as a whole; large social phenomena aren't the fault of any individual (although granted some specific individuals may carry a lot of fault, given their positions, Trump and other far-right high-profile individuals such as Orban or Bolsonaro being a prime example of that but that's not what we're discussing here).
Two outcomes: either my not taking the vaccine has no impact on society as a whole so it doesn't matter, or it helps having a negative impact in society as a whole and therefore it also directly or indirectly hurts the groups who upset me (be it via further restrictions, health or economic downturns), in which case I feel vindicated. Most importantly: in both cases my actions spite those who would pressure me into doing it which by itself is a good enough outcome for me.
That last argument goes both ways: people who feel it's acceptable to bully me out of my autonomy should take personal responsibility for the choice they are making, so dismissing that argument is effortless on my part.
edit: I should point out that for very personal reasons I won't be getting in to, autonomy over the self is something that I hold very close to my heart.
Two outcomes: either my not taking the vaccine has no impact on society as a whole so it doesn't matter, or it helps having a negative impact in society as a whole and therefore it also directly or indirectly hurts the groups who upset me (be it via further restrictions, health or economic downturns), in which case I feel vindicated. Most importantly: in both cases my actions spite those who would pressure me into doing it which by itself is a good enough outcome for me.
That last argument goes both ways: people who feel it's acceptable to bully me out of my autonomy should take personal responsibility for the choice they are making, so dismissing that argument is effortless on my part.
edit: I should point out that for very personal reasons I won't be getting in to, autonomy over the self is something that I hold very close to my heart.
> I'm not looking to hurt specific individuals, but rather society as a whole
I phrased it that way because I worry that in seeking to spite society as a whole you're missing the fact that you'll likely hurt specific individuals. Most of whom have nothing to do with the reasons you want to spite society.
> in both cases my actions spite those who would pressure me
They really don't. The people your actions (and public support of them) will most likely contribute towards hurting (and possibly killing) are those who are sick in other ways, or those who hold similar views to yourself.
If you live in a democracy, there are much better, well tested ways for you to promote bodily autonomy without deliberately taking actions most likely to harm people you agree with or the sick and weak. I'd love to see the cause of bodily autonomy promoted in ways I could respect, but this action won't help with that.
> people who feel it's acceptable to bully me out of my autonomy should take personal responsibility for the choice they are making, so dismissing that argument is effortless on my part.
Well, I think it's a poor dismissal. If people are bullying you, then they need to be responsible for their bullying, not for what you do in reaction to it. If you're really insisting on people being responsible for other peoples reactions, then don't you worry what you'll be responsible for when people react to your behavior?
It's my opinion that allowing yourself to be so affected by other people's views (whether it's towards spite or compliance) is fundamentally a less good way to live than deciding what you think is right and living according to that.
I do understand the extreme self-hurting aversive reaction to behavior you don't like (and there are places for it), but the internet has made that kind of attitude dangerous - you'll find bullies on every side of every topic, and to let which bullies your filter bubble rubbed you against dictate your behavior in serious ways is to cede way too much of your precious autonomy.
I phrased it that way because I worry that in seeking to spite society as a whole you're missing the fact that you'll likely hurt specific individuals. Most of whom have nothing to do with the reasons you want to spite society.
> in both cases my actions spite those who would pressure me
They really don't. The people your actions (and public support of them) will most likely contribute towards hurting (and possibly killing) are those who are sick in other ways, or those who hold similar views to yourself.
If you live in a democracy, there are much better, well tested ways for you to promote bodily autonomy without deliberately taking actions most likely to harm people you agree with or the sick and weak. I'd love to see the cause of bodily autonomy promoted in ways I could respect, but this action won't help with that.
> people who feel it's acceptable to bully me out of my autonomy should take personal responsibility for the choice they are making, so dismissing that argument is effortless on my part.
Well, I think it's a poor dismissal. If people are bullying you, then they need to be responsible for their bullying, not for what you do in reaction to it. If you're really insisting on people being responsible for other peoples reactions, then don't you worry what you'll be responsible for when people react to your behavior?
It's my opinion that allowing yourself to be so affected by other people's views (whether it's towards spite or compliance) is fundamentally a less good way to live than deciding what you think is right and living according to that.
I do understand the extreme self-hurting aversive reaction to behavior you don't like (and there are places for it), but the internet has made that kind of attitude dangerous - you'll find bullies on every side of every topic, and to let which bullies your filter bubble rubbed you against dictate your behavior in serious ways is to cede way too much of your precious autonomy.
Steps were not skipped, but they are left incomplete. None of the vaccines have left Phase 3 yet, have they? Also it’s really hard to be confident in the data collected about vaccine safety as there is a social stigma associated with claiming that you have a negative effect from the vaccine.
Is there? Everybody I've met talked about how the 2nd shot knocked them out for a few days at least.
From my POV there is a heavy stigma associated with anti-vaccine activists downplaying and disbelieving the very real stats about covid sicknesses and deaths.
From my POV there is a heavy stigma associated with anti-vaccine activists downplaying and disbelieving the very real stats about covid sicknesses and deaths.
It's semantics at the end of the day. Less tests were done overall in accordance with a prepared in advance plan to rapidly deploy a vaccine in the case of a global pandemic. More risk was taken for more reward. It's questionable if more risk was even taken at all given the unknowns of COVID itself.
At this point the COVID vaccines are among the most "tested" medicines in history just on merit of their huge scale deployment, with them only truly lacking much insight into what happens after 2 years, which is something we hardly know about COVID itself.
At this point the COVID vaccines are among the most "tested" medicines in history just on merit of their huge scale deployment, with them only truly lacking much insight into what happens after 2 years, which is something we hardly know about COVID itself.
You're right in a way but I think these people are still a tad wrong. It's not that everyone deny there can be side effects, on pregnancy or otherwise. It's that if nobody does the sacrifice, and everybody has his little thing he wants to protect (you want to get pregnant, I want to keep on working, my wife wants to be there for our kid, our parents have diabetes, etc etc) then nobody gets the vaccine.
Get it, whatever it cost you, because it's your duty.
Get it, whatever it cost you, because it's your duty.
I was also on the fence about vaccine, but what made me take is realization that there isn't only side effects of vaccine, but also side effects of catching covid. Media made us obsessed about deaths, but majority of people survive and among of them small portion get side effects. From what I remember it was about 1 every 10 people that had some kind of issue that lasted after recovering.
Even the blood clots that were found with AZ and J&J are happening with the virus itself at higher rate.
So it's just a simply choosing lesser risk.
Even the blood clots that were found with AZ and J&J are happening with the virus itself at higher rate.
So it's just a simply choosing lesser risk.
If the risk of (serious) DVT is lower with the vaccine, why did Norway come to the opposite conclusion and ban AZ?
Because the whole pandemic became politicized, and majority decisions are actually driven by politics. The countries are going against the narrative that they are purposefully trying to kill people with vaccines as a method of population control.
There was also heavy disinformation campaign against AZ because AZ was the only non-profit vaccine made and its presence was standing in the way of Sputnik V being introduced into EU[1]. J&J has similar issues and it wasn't affected as much. Pfizer[2][3] was also targeted similarly, but the problem was that not much could be found on mRNA vaccines. I guess the worst one was some inflammation of hart in young people that resolves on its own.
[1] https://www.biospace.com/article/russia-sees-opportunity-in-...
[2] https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-pfizer-covid-disinformation-s...
[3] https://www.euronews.com/2021/04/29/eu-slams-russia-and-chin...
There was also heavy disinformation campaign against AZ because AZ was the only non-profit vaccine made and its presence was standing in the way of Sputnik V being introduced into EU[1]. J&J has similar issues and it wasn't affected as much. Pfizer[2][3] was also targeted similarly, but the problem was that not much could be found on mRNA vaccines. I guess the worst one was some inflammation of hart in young people that resolves on its own.
[1] https://www.biospace.com/article/russia-sees-opportunity-in-...
[2] https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-pfizer-covid-disinformation-s...
[3] https://www.euronews.com/2021/04/29/eu-slams-russia-and-chin...
I don't think so, because the Norwegian government made that decision based on a risk/reward analysis by their own public health institute. COVID deaths in the female under 40 group are group are exceedingly rare, likely more so than (lethal) DVT in the vaccinated. It wasn't necessarily a popular decision.
The "Russian disinformation" argument doesn't really work either, because Russia targeted mRNA vaccines specifically. The Sputnik vaccine (in theory) has the same problem as the AZ and J&J vaccines, also being based on viral vectors.
The "Russian disinformation" argument doesn't really work either, because Russia targeted mRNA vaccines specifically. The Sputnik vaccine (in theory) has the same problem as the AZ and J&J vaccines, also being based on viral vectors.
I haven't found it exceedingly hard to find data supportive or critical of vaccination despite the fact that the pro-vaxxers feel morally entitled and even obligated to censor the planet. Where there isn't censorship there is forced editorialization or often both. Such things aren't unusual though and I predicted it before it happened based on the known correlation between disease outbreaks and authoritarianism. Mind that you have to know how to FIND uncensored communities of anti-vax cranks who will gladly shove the most plausible theories they can devise in your face.
The fact that the lab leak hypothesis stopped being a heterodoxy despite long being censored by big social media networks by non-medical professionals pretending that by citing politifact they were proxy medical professionals was shrugged off and censorship didn't even pause. Negative feedback has no effect on the strategy even when it reveals a stunning lack of expertise on the part of the censors. We even saw papers like WaPo just quietly retroactively correcting headlines and continuing to dish out Pinocchio ratings.
I don't find the data to convince me of the anti-vax argument at all, save for potential arguments that there might be an angle to freeride at least short term off other people mitigating covid through vaccination and non-vaccination measures.
The fact that the lab leak hypothesis stopped being a heterodoxy despite long being censored by big social media networks by non-medical professionals pretending that by citing politifact they were proxy medical professionals was shrugged off and censorship didn't even pause. Negative feedback has no effect on the strategy even when it reveals a stunning lack of expertise on the part of the censors. We even saw papers like WaPo just quietly retroactively correcting headlines and continuing to dish out Pinocchio ratings.
I don't find the data to convince me of the anti-vax argument at all, save for potential arguments that there might be an angle to freeride at least short term off other people mitigating covid through vaccination and non-vaccination measures.
> data is worrisome
I'd love to learn more about this but run into the walls your described about everyone dismissing your worries. Where is this data?
I'd love to learn more about this but run into the walls your described about everyone dismissing your worries. Where is this data?
> The other study that concerns me shows that the vaccine’s lipid nanoparticles— which carry the RNA instructions for the spike protein — move beyond the deltoid muscle they’re injected into and accumulate in other tissues, and seem to accumulate in ovarian tissue preferentially.
This is really nasty, I'm inhaling litres of it per year while vaping.
This is really nasty, I'm inhaling litres of it per year while vaping.
Yeah this one has perticularly irked me we have data on the vaccines dating back almost as far as data on COVID. There is less overall cases and less overall time so there are more unknowns but there isn't also the same phenomenon we see of "COVID long haulers" amongst vaccine recipients. So far we have MORE evidence of spooky but speculative long term effects for COVID itself.
The only argument that has made sense to me is the Freerider argument, or "both COVID and the vaccine have unknown effects so I will try to avoid both" because COVID cases are currently so low particularly when bolstered with "I'm open to taking the vaccine especially if cases go up but want to delay for more data for now". I'm sceptical it's going to be possible for anybody but a marginal minority to be a Freerider who doesn't vaccinate/distance/wear PPE long term because R0=5.7 in Wuhan during the initial outbreak so it seems like it takes mass scale efforts to reduce transmission no matter how one goes about it.
The only argument that has made sense to me is the Freerider argument, or "both COVID and the vaccine have unknown effects so I will try to avoid both" because COVID cases are currently so low particularly when bolstered with "I'm open to taking the vaccine especially if cases go up but want to delay for more data for now". I'm sceptical it's going to be possible for anybody but a marginal minority to be a Freerider who doesn't vaccinate/distance/wear PPE long term because R0=5.7 in Wuhan during the initial outbreak so it seems like it takes mass scale efforts to reduce transmission no matter how one goes about it.
If you find yourself saying or thinking "It's so simple why don't people understand" with regard to a political or social issue, there's a good chance you don't fully understand the issue.
What is the percentage of people who suffered any long term brain effects?
And did they do the same study against people who got the flu and other diseases?
And did they do the same study against people who got the flu and other diseases?
They looked at longitudinal data from people before and after COVID. Most of these people had the flu before, none had COVID because it didn't exist in humans then.
There is no way to run the exact same study (UK biobank) on people who got the flu.
> And did they do the same study against people who got the flu and other diseases?
Does this matter?
Does this matter?
Would be interesting to know. If you're alarmist about COVID affecting brain tissue long term and we have protections against other diseases that also have long term effects on brain tissues, it reasons to me that you should also be as adamant if not more for protecting against those diseases.
There's a lot of funding studying COVID, for good reasons. Why not use those findings to further other areas as well? We now have some interesting comparisons to look at. Might be even more good reasons to promote getting your annual flu shot.
There's a lot of funding studying COVID, for good reasons. Why not use those findings to further other areas as well? We now have some interesting comparisons to look at. Might be even more good reasons to promote getting your annual flu shot.
> Does this matter?
Who knows? Maybe there's a ton of viral infections out there that cause some form of brain damage and get no attention at all. Attention bias at play.
Who knows? Maybe there's a ton of viral infections out there that cause some form of brain damage and get no attention at all. Attention bias at play.
I would try to avoid the flu more if I had an idea of how much brain damage it could cause. I understand the comparison to the flu is a touchy subject, but the question can still be asked from a standpoint of curiosity. Is this disease showing completely new symptoms for a viral infection, or have we been over analyzing any little details that are not so uncommon? Does it matter? I certainly would like to know the answer.
There does seem to be some indication of brain effects in the flu. https://www.newsweek.com/does-flu-affect-your-mind-bad-memor...
The flu causes myocarditis in a similar way that COVID has been reported to cause in children. Having a comparison of rates of issues would be useful so as to figure out if it’s important or not.
The same goes for this reported brain issue. If it is a real issue, comparing against other known issues will tell us how dangerous it is.
The same goes for this reported brain issue. If it is a real issue, comparing against other known issues will tell us how dangerous it is.
> Does this matter?
If we believe in science, probably.
If we believe in science, probably.
I think it's reasonable to do a personal assessment of the risk. Yes, COVID can have very negative short and long term effects. BUT, what are an individuals chance of getting COVID? Quite a bit less than 100%.
That's not the same math as the vaccine.
I think this depends a lot on the time scales you are looking at. COVID isn’t going to go anywhere once the pandemic is declared over. The chance of you getting it at some point is very high.
[deleted]
This WP article mentions cases where the "COVID long haulers" have the aftereffects go away after the vaccine, which we don't know why yet, exactly.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/long-haul-covid-vaccin...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/long-haul-covid-vaccin...
But the virus is “all natural”!
You can trust Mother Nature more than a bunch of creepy pharma-scientists. Didn’t you see Godzilla?
You can trust Mother Nature more than a bunch of creepy pharma-scientists. Didn’t you see Godzilla?
[deleted]
Maybe they are waiting for a study on “Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 Vaccination...”
loceng(2)
The difference being, if you choose to get vaccinated, it’s 100% chance that you get mRNA. If you did not get Covid so far, the chances are going down you ever will.
In many countries, the number of people getting the vaccine has plateaued, and at a fairly low level. Combine that with loosening policies, lower precautions, and more transmissible variants (like the Delta variant), and I think a lot of unvaccinated people may be at higher risk of catching it then they expect.
Once the pandemic phase is over, it'll be yet another endemic disease, meaning that as time goes anyone's chance of getting it tends towards 100%.
Flu is endemic. Many people have never had it. The idea that 100% of people will get not only COVID but the exact strain that exists today does not seem well supported, especially as governments are already making noises about variants and booster shots.
> we have real data showing that there are long term effects from getting full blown COVID.
As in, 90% (probably more because asymptomatic people are never tested) of people actually have no symptoms at all and seem to go along fine with it? Or are you talking about something else?
As in, 90% (probably more because asymptomatic people are never tested) of people actually have no symptoms at all and seem to go along fine with it? Or are you talking about something else?
Study suggests the "90% who are fine" may not all be fine.
> Our general approach in this study was therefore as follows: (i) utilise brain imaging data from 782 participants who have visited the UKB imaging centres for two scanning sessions, on average 3 years apart, with 394 of these having contracted COVID-19 in between their two scans;
Have they established with certainty that in the control group there were no-one with COVID19 infection in the first place?
Have they established with certainty that in the control group there were no-one with COVID19 infection in the first place?
Having a few false negatives in the control group shouldn't really matter since that would only make the groups more similar and hide any differences that exist rather than hallucinating ones that don't.
Agree completely. That said, ideally I don't want either. Since a lot of people wanted to get vaccinated immediately, I can avoid that and the virus with very high probability. If needed, I'll take v3 or so of the mRNA vaccine.
If many people do what you are doing, some percentage can get the virus and allow it to mutate further, reducing the vaccine efficiency, putting others to risk.
Prisoner's dilemma at play.
meta edit: I don't like your post becoming completely gray and therefore up-voted you. It's a view that many people hold and it needs to be answered not by screaming "down-vote the selfish!" but rather with good arguments.
Prisoner's dilemma at play.
meta edit: I don't like your post becoming completely gray and therefore up-voted you. It's a view that many people hold and it needs to be answered not by screaming "down-vote the selfish!" but rather with good arguments.
Oh 100%. It's a selfish play I admit. But if there's greater than zero risk of any long-term unknown effects from a vaccine, the number of people already vaccinated means the expected value is probably negative for anyone who hasn't been vaccinated yet.
Ignoring the blatant disregard for the safety of others, your calculations are off the mark.
The Delta variant is the only one you should be concerned about from here on. And a single dose of vaccine only provides minimal protection against it.
For your scheme to be safe, you would need about 80% of people around you to have 2+ doses of a high-efficacy vaccine, and ideally all with Pfizer over Astra, given their relative efficacy.
There's a greater than zero risk you're going about this wrong and will end up catching a new variant. Vaccination works, if you ACTUALLY GET THE SHOTS.
Cheers
The Delta variant is the only one you should be concerned about from here on. And a single dose of vaccine only provides minimal protection against it.
For your scheme to be safe, you would need about 80% of people around you to have 2+ doses of a high-efficacy vaccine, and ideally all with Pfizer over Astra, given their relative efficacy.
There's a greater than zero risk you're going about this wrong and will end up catching a new variant. Vaccination works, if you ACTUALLY GET THE SHOTS.
Cheers
There seems to be a sizeable number of people who don't want to vaccinate, plus children under 12 won't be, and also the pandemic will survive in developing countries and travelers coming from them for a while.
So I think the risk of getting infected in fall may well be significant enough to make taking the vaccine a good decision.
Plus of course by vaccinating you no longer need to worry about minimizing infection risk, you don't need to get fake certificates to access things that are restricted to vaccinated people, you are free to travel to developing countries without risk.
Also if you don't vaccinate now and the pandemic somehow has a resurgence you will have to rush to vaccinate then and stay at least month in full isolation while others who are vaccinated are freely going to events instead of doing the isolation now that events haven't fully resumed yet.
So I think the risk of getting infected in fall may well be significant enough to make taking the vaccine a good decision.
Plus of course by vaccinating you no longer need to worry about minimizing infection risk, you don't need to get fake certificates to access things that are restricted to vaccinated people, you are free to travel to developing countries without risk.
Also if you don't vaccinate now and the pandemic somehow has a resurgence you will have to rush to vaccinate then and stay at least month in full isolation while others who are vaccinated are freely going to events instead of doing the isolation now that events haven't fully resumed yet.
Vaccination has its risks too. Long-term pain in the vaccinated shoulder, that will eventually spread to the other arm (due to sudden overuse), will not make you enjoy your life either.
Having to test regularly may be less of a bother in life, if you lose this stupid vaccination lottery..., if you want to play on the convenience note.
Having to test regularly may be less of a bother in life, if you lose this stupid vaccination lottery..., if you want to play on the convenience note.
Realistically, there's basically no chance of vaccinating enough people fast enough on a global scale to stop the virus mutating further and reducing the vaccine efficacy, probably not even of reducing the odds of it that much, and it's not even clear that the countries with the best vaccine rollouts will manage to stop it spreading at this point. And that's despite vaccination on an unprecedented speed and scale for a disease this new, using technology that didn't even exist a few years ago.
Your very high probability rides on the virus dying down. Which will happen after enough people get vaccinated to bring Reff < 1. Which with the original variant required 50% of the population and probably only adults counted. With the newest variant, that threshold grows to about 80% and probably needs to involve children. The longer we wait, the higher the chance it will never die down.
People who have got Covid are also immune - there is a paper published in Nature which showed that even people who had mild cases of Covid have long-term (possibly) lifetime Covid immunity.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4
Except that Covid isn't just one disease, and immunity is a moving target. If you got the original variant back in February 2020, that may or may not protect you from a new variant with new mechanisms for evading/suppressing immune response.
I’m not sure which child to respond to, so responding here.
I’m pretty well aligned with this and I’m not sure why it’s getting the downvotes.
COVID has never been communicated to me as something serious for my age group. Maybe I’m misinformed, but I’ve never feared getting COVID. I was _terrified_ of needing hospital care _during a hockey stick_.
COVID was communicated to me as a hospital killer. I was terrified I’d have a bad time and not get the care I needed or, worse, steal care from someone else in a zero-sum game. And it wasn’t just COVID during that window. If we “hockey sticked” and exceeded hospital capacity, any care I needed (heart problems, broken bones, different virus, etc.) would all be wrapped up in the same zero-sum game.
I quarantined for months, then socially distanced, and now I’m pretty much back to life as normal. What changed for me: my perceived risk of my local hospitals getting knocked over by COVID is now close to zero. In my eyes we’ve weathered the storm.
Am I missing something?
I’m pretty well aligned with this and I’m not sure why it’s getting the downvotes.
COVID has never been communicated to me as something serious for my age group. Maybe I’m misinformed, but I’ve never feared getting COVID. I was _terrified_ of needing hospital care _during a hockey stick_.
COVID was communicated to me as a hospital killer. I was terrified I’d have a bad time and not get the care I needed or, worse, steal care from someone else in a zero-sum game. And it wasn’t just COVID during that window. If we “hockey sticked” and exceeded hospital capacity, any care I needed (heart problems, broken bones, different virus, etc.) would all be wrapped up in the same zero-sum game.
I quarantined for months, then socially distanced, and now I’m pretty much back to life as normal. What changed for me: my perceived risk of my local hospitals getting knocked over by COVID is now close to zero. In my eyes we’ve weathered the storm.
Am I missing something?
Long covid. I'm 28, fit and healthy, and I had covid that wasn't bad enough to require hospital treatment, but left with me with fatigue, shortness of breath and heart arrythmias that are only just improving 12 months later and are still not back to full fitness.
I am 42, fairly fit and healthy too, and I still suffer from minor heart arrhythmia and an occasional fatigue 6 months after contracting a mild case of covid.
Several folks at my gym have said similar. They’re still at 80% capacity after 6+ months of contracting COVID, and are in their 20s and 30s. Sorry this is happening to you…
Thanks for your kindness. I am slowly coming back. Let us hope that none of those aftereffects are permanent.
Being a part of a chain of transmission that kills someone, when you could have instead been the person who broke the chain and saved a life?
Are you advocating for full population vaccination of all contagious diseases with mortality rates (that have vaccines) or is there something special about COVID?
I'm introducing into your narrative a notion of morality in addition to your narrative (and the siblings narrative) of whether covid vaccination is in your self-interest.
It’s not purely self interest. If you note, my comment says my “or worse” outcome is that I steal hospital care from _someone else_ in a zero-sum game. I’m asking what is special about _this_ virus beyond being a “hospital killer.”
I don’t believe COVID has a monopoly on your narrative (chain of transmission leading to death). I’m asking if I should be special casing COVID, or treating it like any other virus.
I don’t believe COVID has a monopoly on your narrative (chain of transmission leading to death). I’m asking if I should be special casing COVID, or treating it like any other virus.
On a per-vaccine basis, you could consider the advice of doctors and health professionals, plus the moral implications you're comfortable with, and balance those against self-interest.
You've asked "what am I missing?" and from your narrative I'm asking if you're missing the morality.
You've asked "what am I missing?" and from your narrative I'm asking if you're missing the morality.
This is where I’m at too. I think we are on the same page, but saying it out loud to give you a chance to correct me.
I live in a community that hasn’t taken COVID seriously. Any chain of transmission I carry on would likely be “fungible” in my mind - If it wasn’t me, it would be someone else.
Strong anti-quarantine, anti-mask, anti-short-time-to-market-vaccine.
But mixed in are a lot of _strong_ pro-vaccine folks who collectively have offset the need for masks to keep the hospitals from falling over. They’ve carried the torch of public good in my mind. They’ve offset the primary risk of this pandemic.
I’m on the fence and it feels like my decision isn’t consequential beyond personal risk and daily interactions (friends/family). If I transmit, I feel like it would be in a hurd where transmission was likely anyways and I was a randomly selected path vs an amplifier.
I wore a mask to offset risk of transmission to keep hospitals online. But injecting myself with a novel vaccine… I feel like I’m better off rolling the dice on contracting COVID and re-rolling to get side effects, vs rolling the dice once for the vaccine.
My choice has been reduced to a personal choice. It’s the same choice I make when I travel for the holidays. Example: I get the flu vaccine when I go see elderly or young family members. But right now I don’t feel it’s a moral imperative for COVID where, if I pass on a vaccine, I’m a horrible person who doesn’t care about my fellow man.
Does that make sense or am I off base?
I live in a community that hasn’t taken COVID seriously. Any chain of transmission I carry on would likely be “fungible” in my mind - If it wasn’t me, it would be someone else.
Strong anti-quarantine, anti-mask, anti-short-time-to-market-vaccine.
But mixed in are a lot of _strong_ pro-vaccine folks who collectively have offset the need for masks to keep the hospitals from falling over. They’ve carried the torch of public good in my mind. They’ve offset the primary risk of this pandemic.
I’m on the fence and it feels like my decision isn’t consequential beyond personal risk and daily interactions (friends/family). If I transmit, I feel like it would be in a hurd where transmission was likely anyways and I was a randomly selected path vs an amplifier.
I wore a mask to offset risk of transmission to keep hospitals online. But injecting myself with a novel vaccine… I feel like I’m better off rolling the dice on contracting COVID and re-rolling to get side effects, vs rolling the dice once for the vaccine.
My choice has been reduced to a personal choice. It’s the same choice I make when I travel for the holidays. Example: I get the flu vaccine when I go see elderly or young family members. But right now I don’t feel it’s a moral imperative for COVID where, if I pass on a vaccine, I’m a horrible person who doesn’t care about my fellow man.
Does that make sense or am I off base?
[deleted]
Most of the arguments against accepting an mRNA shot read as “too new, do not want” to me. What are the specific long-term side effects that one should be aware of when accepting an mRNA shot?
It’s more the effects of free circulating spike protein in the bloodstream than mRNA triggering ribosomes.
> It’s more the effects of free circulating spike protein in the bloodstream than mRNA triggering ribosomes.
The mRNA vaccines are designed to express the spike protein in a membrane-bound form; very little is found floating free. See https://www.deplatformdisease.com/blog/spike-protein-circula....
Additionally, the mRNA vaccines express a modified spike protein that is stabilized in its "prefusion" state (as seen on the virus itself before it binds with a cell), and the resulting complex seems to have somewhat fewer effects even when it does interact with a cell.
The mRNA vaccines are designed to express the spike protein in a membrane-bound form; very little is found floating free. See https://www.deplatformdisease.com/blog/spike-protein-circula....
Additionally, the mRNA vaccines express a modified spike protein that is stabilized in its "prefusion" state (as seen on the virus itself before it binds with a cell), and the resulting complex seems to have somewhat fewer effects even when it does interact with a cell.
And cytotoxicity - with the second shot, the body will have cytotoxic T cells which could target some of the transfected cells.
But, why not to be worried:
- It's a normal process and most cells will be replaced.
- The effects would be tiny, especially compared to an infection with the real thing. If this was causing widespread issues, we would know by now.
- All studies done so far indicate that only a very small amount will enter systemic circulation.
It's a classic risk tradeoff, and the risks of taking the vaccine are much smaller than the risk of getting the real infection (billions of viruses replicating vs. one-time dose, real spike protein vs. stabilized spike protein).
But, why not to be worried:
- It's a normal process and most cells will be replaced.
- The effects would be tiny, especially compared to an infection with the real thing. If this was causing widespread issues, we would know by now.
- All studies done so far indicate that only a very small amount will enter systemic circulation.
It's a classic risk tradeoff, and the risks of taking the vaccine are much smaller than the risk of getting the real infection (billions of viruses replicating vs. one-time dose, real spike protein vs. stabilized spike protein).
I don't understand what you are saying.
What is the significance of either of those?
What is the significance of either of those?
This + side-effects not going away as advertised. Finding some longer term side effect studies is not that easy in general search engine, due to slew of regurgitated basic information about side effects.
Would be nice to have some data, instead of a ton of articles that say the same old "most symptoms go away within a few days". How does one decide whether to vaccinate or not based on such information? What is most? What is few days?
Some side effects are extremely common, like shoulder pain. Acceptable if it goes away in a week, let's say. But if there's a risk I'll have it for 3 months or forever, I'd like to know how common is that to make a calculated risk assessment. < 1% probably acceptable. >2-3% probably not.
And this will only be more apparent with time and more studies. The study I managed to find tracked people only for 8 days, had a nice graph of symptoms fading away with time. Mind calming exponential decay. :) Good, but 5% still had some symptoms at day 8. How many do have them at day 60?
I don't understand why such information has to be so hard to find for normal people, who don't spend days searching around on google scholar.
Would be nice to have some data, instead of a ton of articles that say the same old "most symptoms go away within a few days". How does one decide whether to vaccinate or not based on such information? What is most? What is few days?
Some side effects are extremely common, like shoulder pain. Acceptable if it goes away in a week, let's say. But if there's a risk I'll have it for 3 months or forever, I'd like to know how common is that to make a calculated risk assessment. < 1% probably acceptable. >2-3% probably not.
And this will only be more apparent with time and more studies. The study I managed to find tracked people only for 8 days, had a nice graph of symptoms fading away with time. Mind calming exponential decay. :) Good, but 5% still had some symptoms at day 8. How many do have them at day 60?
I don't understand why such information has to be so hard to find for normal people, who don't spend days searching around on google scholar.
As someone not getting the vaccine. I'll explain my reasoning. At this point, the odds of getting COVID are small. And much better treatments are around the corner. Thus a 1% mortality rate for the elderly, with multiple co-morbidities, will be even lower for someone my age should I get it at some point. Vaccines introduce a foreign substance 100% of the time into your body, sometimes have side effects. I won't even date girls that got the vaccine, until more is known about long term effects. I'm worried about possibility of birth defects should a pregnancy occur.
> until more is known about long term effects
I'm curious about this line of reasoning. We've been testing mRNA treatments for other diseases for about 25 years now. The approach was abandoned for gene therapy because the effects weren't long lasting. We have follow up data on people who participated in those studies, and to my knowledge there aren't any documented negative long term effects. We know what the vaccine encodes, a spike protein, which is produced for a few weeks and the the mRNA wears out and is cleaned up by the cells. The proteins also don't persist in the body for very long. The other ingredients in the vaccine aren't anything special.
History also demonstrated that negative vaccine reactions typically happen quickly, and not years down the line.
With all of that in mind, why would one be concerned with long term effects? Is there something I'm missing? Is the position one of maximalist caution? If so, are you applying that to other areas of your life?
I'm curious about this line of reasoning. We've been testing mRNA treatments for other diseases for about 25 years now. The approach was abandoned for gene therapy because the effects weren't long lasting. We have follow up data on people who participated in those studies, and to my knowledge there aren't any documented negative long term effects. We know what the vaccine encodes, a spike protein, which is produced for a few weeks and the the mRNA wears out and is cleaned up by the cells. The proteins also don't persist in the body for very long. The other ingredients in the vaccine aren't anything special.
History also demonstrated that negative vaccine reactions typically happen quickly, and not years down the line.
With all of that in mind, why would one be concerned with long term effects? Is there something I'm missing? Is the position one of maximalist caution? If so, are you applying that to other areas of your life?
Not caution. Willingness to accept death should it come. I'm part of the natural world, and viruses are a natural way that keep population in balance. All these vaccines are keeping more kindling for a bigger fire down humanity's timeline.
I would probably reconsider if the odds where much worse than 1%.
This doesn't make a lot of logical sense to me.
> natural way that keep population in balance
This is essentially a faith based belief, and not something rooted in personal risk as you previously mentioned.
> All these vaccines are keeping more kindling for a bigger fire down humanity's timeline.
Viral infections don't just kill you or you'll be fine. There are expensive (to society) effects of lots of people having diminished physical and cognitive capacity after infection. More over, by not being vaccinated you are imposing extra risk on anyone you contact who is unlucky enough to be in the narrow slice of people who are vaccinated but still susceptible to infection.
I don't see how you can argue from a perspective of unknown vaccine risk and some sort of concept of needing a virus to kill "excess population." That just seems perverse to me.
> natural way that keep population in balance
This is essentially a faith based belief, and not something rooted in personal risk as you previously mentioned.
> All these vaccines are keeping more kindling for a bigger fire down humanity's timeline.
Viral infections don't just kill you or you'll be fine. There are expensive (to society) effects of lots of people having diminished physical and cognitive capacity after infection. More over, by not being vaccinated you are imposing extra risk on anyone you contact who is unlucky enough to be in the narrow slice of people who are vaccinated but still susceptible to infection.
I don't see how you can argue from a perspective of unknown vaccine risk and some sort of concept of needing a virus to kill "excess population." That just seems perverse to me.
I don't need the virus to kill anyone. Its part of the natural world. Viruses are literarily part of our genetic code, and may have helped to evolve the placenta. We have evolved along side of them. They're not there to only harm us, they also benefit us.
It doesn't matter what I think anyway.
There's a limit to how much armour you can wear. There's always a cost.
And lets say each vaccine harms you just a tiny bit, which they clearly do. How much is the accumulated damage from all the vaccines we currently take or will need to take into humanity's future vs a naturally evolved immunity.
There's a limit to how much armour you can wear. There's always a cost.
And lets say each vaccine harms you just a tiny bit, which they clearly do. How much is the accumulated damage from all the vaccines we currently take or will need to take into humanity's future vs a naturally evolved immunity.
> And lets say each vaccine harms you just a tiny bit, which they clearly do
I don’t think this is supported by evidence at all.
I don’t think this is supported by evidence at all.
I have scarring from a TB vaccine on my arm the size of a dime. It's certainly not without effect to have an strong immune response to a foreign substance in your body. I'm not even going to mention the preservatives and other substances they put in them.
The strongest hunch that something is off with an animal population, is a low fertility rate. You have negative, declining reproductive rate hovering around 1.6
The strongest hunch that something is off with an animal population, is a low fertility rate. You have negative, declining reproductive rate hovering around 1.6
> I have scarring from a TB vaccine on my arm the size of a dime.
That isn't some systemic malady, it's a scar. I've got one from cutting myself shaving, but shaving isn't really a problem.
> You have negative, declining reproductive rate hovering around 1.6
This is clearly because people are choosing to have fewer children as they get richer. And is a bizarre point as you earlier argued that the virus killing people was good for "natural balance."
It's really hard to believe you're acting in good faith here and not just trolling.
That isn't some systemic malady, it's a scar. I've got one from cutting myself shaving, but shaving isn't really a problem.
> You have negative, declining reproductive rate hovering around 1.6
This is clearly because people are choosing to have fewer children as they get richer. And is a bizarre point as you earlier argued that the virus killing people was good for "natural balance."
It's really hard to believe you're acting in good faith here and not just trolling.
1. To be comparable, it would be more like you cut yourself shaving, and had a severe infection resulting in a permanent scar on your face the size of a dime.
Evidence is provided of adverse effects here for the US. https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html
"During this time, VAERS received 5,343 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/ad...
For Canada:
There have been a total of 7,408 reports (26.3 reports per 100,000 doses administered) up to and including June 11, 2021.
https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/
2. That's just one plausible explanation you are given without questioning. It might be true to some extent, but its not the only reason for the decline.
Western Women are not able to have children in large numbers, some are struggling to even have one and are spending thousands of dollars on IVF fertility treatments now into their 40s trying.
"About 10 percent of women (6.1 million) in the United States ages 15-44 have difficulty getting pregnant or staying pregnant, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)."
https://www.womenshealth.gov/a-z-topics/infertility#:~:text=....
Evidence is provided of adverse effects here for the US. https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html
"During this time, VAERS received 5,343 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/ad...
For Canada:
There have been a total of 7,408 reports (26.3 reports per 100,000 doses administered) up to and including June 11, 2021.
https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/
2. That's just one plausible explanation you are given without questioning. It might be true to some extent, but its not the only reason for the decline.
Western Women are not able to have children in large numbers, some are struggling to even have one and are spending thousands of dollars on IVF fertility treatments now into their 40s trying.
"About 10 percent of women (6.1 million) in the United States ages 15-44 have difficulty getting pregnant or staying pregnant, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)."
https://www.womenshealth.gov/a-z-topics/infertility#:~:text=....
This is clearly in bad faith. You've jumped for stating you own fears, to some malthusian nonsense, and now proposing that vaccines lower fertility. You're spewing conspiracy and not acting within the standards of the community. Please take this elsewhere.
You stated that there's no evidence that vaccine harm you even a tiny bit. I provided evidence from the governments own database.
But the thing is that getting vaccinated isn't just a matter of individual safety. It's a way to minimize the spread throughout the whole of society. Even if the death rate would be only 1%, it's a whole lot of unnecessary death when dealing with a large population. Not to mention all the non-lethal yet life altering conditions that may follow full blown COVID.
Regarding your naturalistic argument, I doubt that you have the same outlook when it comes to other aspects of life. There is no shortage of natural causes of death that we try to avoid in our everyday lives. Unless you are proposing that we use COVID as an opportunity to literally and explicitly cull the human population, I don't think that reasoning holds water.
Regarding your naturalistic argument, I doubt that you have the same outlook when it comes to other aspects of life. There is no shortage of natural causes of death that we try to avoid in our everyday lives. Unless you are proposing that we use COVID as an opportunity to literally and explicitly cull the human population, I don't think that reasoning holds water.
Here's an article of odds of dying from various things.
https://robertroybritt.medium.com/odds-of-dying-what-you-sho...
Car Accidents are around 1/103. I've been to India car Pollution probably kills more.
Will you give up driving to make the roads safer for others? How about just give up google, because apparently they paid for some of the GOF research labs.
https://robertroybritt.medium.com/odds-of-dying-what-you-sho...
Car Accidents are around 1/103. I've been to India car Pollution probably kills more.
Will you give up driving to make the roads safer for others? How about just give up google, because apparently they paid for some of the GOF research labs.
If you truly believe that viruses are here to keep our population in balance and we should be part of natural world, why would higher chances of dying affect your decision? Following your logic it just means that nature have much stronger reasons to decimate humanity. Shouldn’t you accept it?
The other ingredients in the vaccine aren't anything special.
Polyethylene glycol, for one, has never been used before in an approved vaccine. It is thought to be the cause of some rare anaphylactic reactions.
There are dozens of other compounds in the Pfizer vaccine; the reason for them being there and their effects are, for the most part, a trade secret.
Polyethylene glycol, for one, has never been used before in an approved vaccine. It is thought to be the cause of some rare anaphylactic reactions.
There are dozens of other compounds in the Pfizer vaccine; the reason for them being there and their effects are, for the most part, a trade secret.
It seems like the amount of PEG in the vaccine is two orders of magnitude than the levels in existing drugs[1].
[1] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/suspicions-grow-nano...
[1] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/suspicions-grow-nano...
There's even greater herd immunity for measles and co., yet there are outbreaks among unvaccinated people all the time. Perhaps those odds are not that small. COVID-19 is probably never going to go away.
And you worry about the long term side effects for the vaccine's one protein, but only focus on the treatment (and not the side effects) for the virus that has 29 of them and tries its best to multiply itself. Do you see how this line of reasoning doesn't seem to compute?
And you worry about the long term side effects for the vaccine's one protein, but only focus on the treatment (and not the side effects) for the virus that has 29 of them and tries its best to multiply itself. Do you see how this line of reasoning doesn't seem to compute?
There ultimate treatment has arrived in the form of prevention. The urgency to develop covid specific therapeutics has dissipated for the same reason "your chance of getting it is lower."
Though even that is highly dependent on where you live, who you interact with, if you travel, etc. Lots of vaccine skeptics tend to share views and group, which makes conditions ripe for mini-outbreaks.
"Other people got the vaccine so I don't have to" is logic that looks sound on the surface but I think recent skepticism has shown that enough people all playing this card has the potential for disaster/devestation that is easily avoided.
Anyhow, you should talk your physician about this stuff, who is an authority who can give you information and help diffuse worried in a meaningful way.
Though even that is highly dependent on where you live, who you interact with, if you travel, etc. Lots of vaccine skeptics tend to share views and group, which makes conditions ripe for mini-outbreaks.
"Other people got the vaccine so I don't have to" is logic that looks sound on the surface but I think recent skepticism has shown that enough people all playing this card has the potential for disaster/devestation that is easily avoided.
Anyhow, you should talk your physician about this stuff, who is an authority who can give you information and help diffuse worried in a meaningful way.
With more information coming out, and now a significant probability that the Virus was created in the lab. I am not culpable for saving humanity from the actions of rouge governments. Blame them, not me.
> At this point, the odds of getting COVID are small.
That's because the herd around you has been vaccinated. So you are OK with others getting vaccinated for your benefit but wouldn't do your part to benefit the herd. Awesome!
Maybe your post is parody. Can't really tell.
That's because the herd around you has been vaccinated. So you are OK with others getting vaccinated for your benefit but wouldn't do your part to benefit the herd. Awesome!
Maybe your post is parody. Can't really tell.
I never asked the herd to do anything, thus I am not in any way obliged to them morally. They did it for their own protection. I was willing to accept the 1% of dying, even if no one was vaccinated.
[deleted]
> So you are OK with others getting vaccinated for your benefit but wouldn't do your part to benefit the herd.
Shouldn't they be okay with getting vaccinated? They did it for their own reasons, and that's a good thing, but they're not martyrs or saints.
Shouldn't they be okay with getting vaccinated? They did it for their own reasons, and that's a good thing, but they're not martyrs or saints.
> Vaccines introduce a foreign substance 100% of the time into your body
So does the virus. And all of our data shows the virus is much, much worse.
So does the virus. And all of our data shows the virus is much, much worse.
yes, but by taking the vaccine 100% chance of doing that.
Virus, only if I get it.
You're weighing a real possibility against an unfounded one.
P(Complications|Covid) has a calculatable probability.
P(Complications|Vaccine) is not, because we don't even know if they exist. And further, we strongly suspect they don't.
In other words, I think you're trading one hand for (at best) one in the bush.
P(Complications|Covid) has a calculatable probability.
P(Complications|Vaccine) is not, because we don't even know if they exist. And further, we strongly suspect they don't.
In other words, I think you're trading one hand for (at best) one in the bush.
P(Complications|ChAdOx1) is definitely not zero, especially for people < 40 years of age.
Two of my brothers-in-law were hospitalized after receiving the vaccine.
For what?
Appreciate the candor. Agree odds are low now of getting it.
When you’re healthy you get the vaccine for others, not yourself.
Studies so far show no difference in baby outcomes.
When you’re healthy you get the vaccine for others, not yourself.
Studies so far show no difference in baby outcomes.
[deleted]
gspr(1)
> You don’t want a tiny piece of mRNA but you want the whole organism reproducing in your body?
Rather than injecting yourself with mRNA which will create long-term antibodies in your organism which will be reactivated any time something like COVID19 appears again in the nature, it's probably safer to rely on COVID19 treatments are are short lived (as in, metabolized) and reduce the viral load swiftly.
Rather than injecting yourself with mRNA which will create long-term antibodies in your organism which will be reactivated any time something like COVID19 appears again in the nature, it's probably safer to rely on COVID19 treatments are are short lived (as in, metabolized) and reduce the viral load swiftly.
mRNA is short-lived, metabolized, etc. That's exactly how Pfizer and Moderna vaccines work.
> Once the instructions (mRNA) are inside the immune cells, the cells use them to make the protein piece. After the protein piece is made, the cell breaks down the instructions and gets rid of them. [0]
You seem to be arguing against the principle of vaccination in general.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different...
> Once the instructions (mRNA) are inside the immune cells, the cells use them to make the protein piece. After the protein piece is made, the cell breaks down the instructions and gets rid of them. [0]
You seem to be arguing against the principle of vaccination in general.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different...
mRNA are short-lived but the modified spike-specific T cells T-cells they create are not.
But that's just ordinary, natural human immunity. Your body naturally produces "thing-specific T-cells" for a large number of "not self" things it has encountered throughout your life, to defend you from them.
It's part of how your body's automatic anti-virus system works. It has a very clever system, where some cells learn to recognise foreign proteins.
There is no spike protein actually in these T cells. They are just trained to recognise spike protein, waiting to mobilise quickly to pretect you from it if it's detected in future.
Why would you not want that?
Do you have some evidence that your spike-specific T cells themselves cause harm, in a way that your other thing-specific T cells do not? (It's not impossible, but seems unlikely.)
It's part of how your body's automatic anti-virus system works. It has a very clever system, where some cells learn to recognise foreign proteins.
There is no spike protein actually in these T cells. They are just trained to recognise spike protein, waiting to mobilise quickly to pretect you from it if it's detected in future.
Why would you not want that?
Do you have some evidence that your spike-specific T cells themselves cause harm, in a way that your other thing-specific T cells do not? (It's not impossible, but seems unlikely.)
> Rather than injecting yourself with mRNA which will create long-term antibodies in your organism which will be reactivated any time something like COVID19 appears again in the nature,
That's... supposed to be bad?
That's... supposed to be bad?
What other viral diseases are easily treatable by medication as opposed to vaccination? Are there any?
Hepatitis C can be cured in most patients with a course of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi).
I’m sure most people would prefer vaccines, but herpes is a commonly medicated virus lacking in vaccination availability.
HIV is effectively treated by tri-therapies.
it took a long time for HAART to be developed though, and a lot of people died during the AZT-only era.
if I had the option of choosing an effective HIV vaccine (god if only!) and HAART, I'd definitely choose the vaccine. HAART is apparently really rough on people.. it ages you.
if I had the option of choosing an effective HIV vaccine (god if only!) and HAART, I'd definitely choose the vaccine. HAART is apparently really rough on people.. it ages you.
We also have data showing that there are negative long-term effects from getting the full-blown COVID vaccine. [0] The range of negative outcomes for just about any medical procedure range from none to death, so this should not be surprising.
One really cannot, and should not, use this kind of reasoning for what should be a private, personal matter.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/CovidVaccinated/ (Note the "I am not anti-vaccination" qualifiers in most submissions.)
One really cannot, and should not, use this kind of reasoning for what should be a private, personal matter.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/CovidVaccinated/ (Note the "I am not anti-vaccination" qualifiers in most submissions.)
"I am not anti-vax" is always the first lie we hear from every anti-vax idiot. Now that the general anti-vax position has been so thoroughly debunked everyone knows to avoid someone who is obviously displaying this particular mental illness, so they have learned to be much more circumspect about their claims and how to position their anti-vax arguments. It will usually start with a bit of sea lioning and concern trolling before they move into arguments that tend to end with 'just saying...'
Looking at the scatter plot [1] from their most statistically significant finding (parahippocampal gray matter change), the effect size is tiny, and the variance is large. Nearly half the case participants had more gray matter after getting covid.
[1] https://i.ibb.co/5YcxJHH/EDB20654-900-A-427-C-8063-B5-FA667-...
[1] https://i.ibb.co/5YcxJHH/EDB20654-900-A-427-C-8063-B5-FA667-...
So the preferred headline here would have been "covid can increase brain matter":) Although of course with that kind of stats I'd prefer no headline at all.
FWIW this thread was a good read: https://mobile.twitter.com/skepticalzebra/status/14058997241...
Apparently there are previous studies (pre-covid Era) that found similar changes in the brain associated with loss of smell.
Quoting:
> What if I told you there was also an illness in which:
> "grey matter reduction was observed in the gyrus rectus, orbitofrontal cortex, thalamus, and the insula"
> This is taken from a study on Chronic rhinosinusitis with olfactory loss
Apparently there are previous studies (pre-covid Era) that found similar changes in the brain associated with loss of smell.
Quoting:
> What if I told you there was also an illness in which:
> "grey matter reduction was observed in the gyrus rectus, orbitofrontal cortex, thalamus, and the insula"
> This is taken from a study on Chronic rhinosinusitis with olfactory loss
Call me stupid for waiting to get vaccinated... But I'm not stupid enough to base that decision on a Twitter thread.
The problem I have is that inclusive discussion is being suppressed, and I can't make a decision based on clearly biased information. ref. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY
The problem I have is that inclusive discussion is being suppressed, and I can't make a decision based on clearly biased information. ref. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY
You should not make your decisions based on social media AT ALL.
if you have questions, talk to a physician.
if you have questions, talk to a physician.
Umm, no. I wouldn’t expect an honest answer from them unless you know one personally.
They have no incentive to give you advice that even they feel is correct or safe. It isn’t their fault, however, as physicians are limited to providing you with the generally accepted standard of care. Anything that deviates from this opens them up to a malpractice lawsuit.
They have no incentive to give you advice that even they feel is correct or safe. It isn’t their fault, however, as physicians are limited to providing you with the generally accepted standard of care. Anything that deviates from this opens them up to a malpractice lawsuit.
You literally contradicted yourself. They are legally AND morally obligated to provide you with the best care society can provide.
Not only can they be sued for malpractice, but they could lose their license entirely. Losing their only means of making money sounds like strong incentive, not to mention it would require violating an oath that doctors take VERY seriously.
And for what motive?
And yes, you should know your personal/family physician well. That's the whole point. They should be able to offer you personalized, cohesive care with continuity. They should be able to advise you on your own specific condition.
If you choose to neglect their advice, do not disparage them. If your views do not reflect the best practice of medicine, that's on you. They have no incentive to injure you, and implying otherwise is extremely disingenuous.
Note, I'm not saying you can't have these views, don't just attack others baselessly in order to defend those views.
Not only can they be sued for malpractice, but they could lose their license entirely. Losing their only means of making money sounds like strong incentive, not to mention it would require violating an oath that doctors take VERY seriously.
And for what motive?
And yes, you should know your personal/family physician well. That's the whole point. They should be able to offer you personalized, cohesive care with continuity. They should be able to advise you on your own specific condition.
If you choose to neglect their advice, do not disparage them. If your views do not reflect the best practice of medicine, that's on you. They have no incentive to injure you, and implying otherwise is extremely disingenuous.
Note, I'm not saying you can't have these views, don't just attack others baselessly in order to defend those views.
Preventable medical errors are the third greatest cause of death in the United States.
Sure, the legal and moral obligation to provide care exists but it did not prevent the opioid epidemic. It turned out that systemic controls and criminal penalties were needed to prevent doctors from overprescribing certain drugs.
Doctors are generally great and don’t deserve to be disparaged, but they are humans and as fallible as the rest of us. Choosing not to trust all doctors is not rational, and adopting a “trust, but verify” approach to medical advice is rational.
Sure, the legal and moral obligation to provide care exists but it did not prevent the opioid epidemic. It turned out that systemic controls and criminal penalties were needed to prevent doctors from overprescribing certain drugs.
Doctors are generally great and don’t deserve to be disparaged, but they are humans and as fallible as the rest of us. Choosing not to trust all doctors is not rational, and adopting a “trust, but verify” approach to medical advice is rational.
I don't think you're making the case you think you're making.
Not giving people a vaccine that is known to work with very high efficacy is what we would call a "preventable medical error."
Even if something WERE to happen later down the road, it would not be called a "preventable medical error" because it's the best tool we have right now.
This is like letting your teeth rot because having a dentist drill out the cavity would "definitely remove some healthy bits," and that "we don't know where dentistry will be in 10-15 years."
Not giving people a vaccine that is known to work with very high efficacy is what we would call a "preventable medical error."
Even if something WERE to happen later down the road, it would not be called a "preventable medical error" because it's the best tool we have right now.
This is like letting your teeth rot because having a dentist drill out the cavity would "definitely remove some healthy bits," and that "we don't know where dentistry will be in 10-15 years."
I am pro-vaccines but let’s be honest, no physician has any clue how these things work or are put together, the manufacturing and QA processes involved, and so on. The lipid delivery mechanism alone is a trade secret based on cutting edge technology which has yet to be replicated outside the United States and Europe.
Asking your doctor specifics about this is like asking Geek Squad how to do kernel development. They operate in completely different knowledge domains.
Asking your doctor specifics about this is like asking Geek Squad how to do kernel development. They operate in completely different knowledge domains.
Physicians should be able to explain in more detail than necessary to the average person, not only how vaccines work, but how mrna vaccines work.
i say talk to a physician because on an internet forum, it's your word vs mine. physicians have: knowledge, a credential, and society-granted authority on the matter. what they say holds weight—a lot more weight than some stranger in passing. NOT because physicians are infallible (which would be a ridiculous claim to make for any human).
i say talk to a physician because on an internet forum, it's your word vs mine. physicians have: knowledge, a credential, and society-granted authority on the matter. what they say holds weight—a lot more weight than some stranger in passing. NOT because physicians are infallible (which would be a ridiculous claim to make for any human).
The video you linked is removed.for violating guidelines, which I'm guessing means it had a conspiratorial slant. Discussion does not have to include unsupported or crackpot claims to be "inclusive".
I am pro vaccine, but youtube moderators are not subject matter experts, they are unskilled volunteers with very simple guidelines such as (made up rule by me, I don't fully know): "remove any video discouraging people from getting vaccinated". Therefore youtube removing a specific video doesn't say anything about the quality of its content, just that some random guy thought it violated the guidelines he was given. For example, for a long while youtube banned every video talking about covid no matter the stance.
YouTube is removing things for liability reasons, that's it, because if some event that caused people to die or have long lasting health effects, would be linked to them and they would be proven they knew and did nothing they would be open to lawsuits.
Instead of looking up the original video (e.g. by using the watch id), you immediately write it off as "crackpot claims" because some unknown authority at YouTube removed it, citing broad community guidelines.
Maybe we should stick to your words from 4 days ago:
"Science reporting is terrible and the general education system doesn't teach rational skepticism, it teaches unconditional trust of intellectual authority."
Is this really a skeptical, discussion-friendly behaviour or an unconditional trust in some kind of authority?
Maybe we should stick to your words from 4 days ago:
"Science reporting is terrible and the general education system doesn't teach rational skepticism, it teaches unconditional trust of intellectual authority."
Is this really a skeptical, discussion-friendly behaviour or an unconditional trust in some kind of authority?
In my experience on forums, when someone makes a grand contrarian claim (“vaccines are risky”) and then cites a video without explaining why it is relevant or summing it up, the claims indeed have extremely high odds of being crackpot claims.
All those videos are repeating the same thing over and over, with some changes (some that are even contradicting themselves).
People who are into it they hear it so many times that it seem so obvious to them, but whenever they try to explain it to someone else themselves they are realizing they have difficulty, because everything is falling apart. They think it's because they aren't the experts so they link to videos instead. They don't realize that they have problem explaining it, because the argument is very weak, and if you think about it, it doesn't make much sense.
People who are into it they hear it so many times that it seem so obvious to them, but whenever they try to explain it to someone else themselves they are realizing they have difficulty, because everything is falling apart. They think it's because they aren't the experts so they link to videos instead. They don't realize that they have problem explaining it, because the argument is very weak, and if you think about it, it doesn't make much sense.
Not in this case. But the censors don't care.
Where do you see the "crackpot claims" in this situation? He/she just stated that "inclusive discussion is being suppressed", showing a recently removed YT video.
For anyone who can't take 30s to look it up: It is a discussion between 3 individuals (2 of them already fully vaccinated with Moderna) regarding the pandemic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XkRq4PaHqo
For anyone who can't take 30s to look it up: It is a discussion between 3 individuals (2 of them already fully vaccinated with Moderna) regarding the pandemic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XkRq4PaHqo
They said they’re waiting to get vaccinated. That’s what I was referring to. Then they linked a 3 hour long video without bother to write a short summary of why it might be worth our time. It diverts attention away from an argument within thread and appeals to an indigestible authority which can’t be argued against without spending three hours.
And right away there are signs of bad faith. The comment below you bills Robert Malone as “the inventor of mRNA tech”. I’m sure he had some role but there’s no wikipedia on him, and the title of inventor of mrna usually goes to Katalin Kariko.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katalin_Karikó
So either everything is a lie, or Malone’s claims are exaggerated. It seems easier to believe the latter. I searched and I cannot find a single piece evaluating Dr. Malone’s claims. Just conspiracy comments that accept him as inventor with no analysis.
I’ll admit the situation is odd. Malone is clearly real and has many old highly cited papers. What the heck happened between now and the early 2000s, and why is the press devoid of mentions?
https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=Jf1bApYAAAAJ&hl=en&...
And right away there are signs of bad faith. The comment below you bills Robert Malone as “the inventor of mRNA tech”. I’m sure he had some role but there’s no wikipedia on him, and the title of inventor of mrna usually goes to Katalin Kariko.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katalin_Karikó
So either everything is a lie, or Malone’s claims are exaggerated. It seems easier to believe the latter. I searched and I cannot find a single piece evaluating Dr. Malone’s claims. Just conspiracy comments that accept him as inventor with no analysis.
I’ll admit the situation is odd. Malone is clearly real and has many old highly cited papers. What the heck happened between now and the early 2000s, and why is the press devoid of mentions?
https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=Jf1bApYAAAAJ&hl=en&...
You're right, they should have written a short summary of the content and not make us research it ourselves.
I wouldn't use "there's no Wikipedia on him" as an argument. Karikó's entry is only 1 year old [1].
Additionally, it seems that Karikó's work acknowledges contributions from Malone [2].
Whether he's the original inventor or not, whether his claims are true or false, should be up for debate. But isn't that enough to at least tolerate his opinion on YouTube?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katalin_Karikó&of...
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000527369...
I wouldn't use "there's no Wikipedia on him" as an argument. Karikó's entry is only 1 year old [1].
Additionally, it seems that Karikó's work acknowledges contributions from Malone [2].
Whether he's the original inventor or not, whether his claims are true or false, should be up for debate. But isn't that enough to at least tolerate his opinion on YouTube?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katalin_Karikó&of...
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000527369...
And one of them is Robert Malone, who invented the mRNA tech that was used to develop the vaccines.
All they are trying to do is have a rational, inclusive discussion based on the data they have gathered, but they are not being allowed to do so.
All they are trying to do is have a rational, inclusive discussion based on the data they have gathered, but they are not being allowed to do so.
Malone seems a curious case. He clearly has many highly cited papers. But I couldn’t find a single mention of him outside anti-vaccine conspiracy sites.
Do you have any link to any coverage or him and his career? Not from himself or such sources.
Do you have any link to any coverage or him and his career? Not from himself or such sources.
Statistically speaking, it is crackpot nonsense if it's removed. But if you'd like to make a specific claim I'm sure we can all tell you how wrong it is, using rational skepticism ;)
I don't usually downvote people here at all, but that was such shoddy reasoning that I think you deserve it.
The panel had three experts on the subject, including the inventor of the mRNA technology that was used to develop these vaccines, Robert Malone.
You really fell on your sword, mister.
The panel had three experts on the subject, including the inventor of the mRNA technology that was used to develop these vaccines, Robert Malone.
You really fell on your sword, mister.
Quite the opposite - it seems you are just ready to suspend critical thinking and believe any conspiracy. No, he is not "the inventor" of "the technology". Hundreds of scientists contributed to the development and implementation of this research and the tech that made it possible. Now, please point to the RCT that shows widespread issues among vaccinated people? Hint: there aren't any. The evidence shows they are safe and effective. That's WHY we did the RCTs in the first place!
[deleted]
[deleted]
This sounds alarming:
> There is strong evidence for brain-related pathologies in COVID-19, some of which could be a consequence of viral neurotropism.
This doesn't:
> We further compared COVID-19 patients who had been hospitalised (n=15) with those who had not (n=379), and while results were not significant, we found comparatively similar findings to the COVID-19 vs control group comparison
What are the quantitative findings of "loss of grey matter"?
What mechanism/s are suspected that might be specific to COVID19?
> There is strong evidence for brain-related pathologies in COVID-19, some of which could be a consequence of viral neurotropism.
This doesn't:
> We further compared COVID-19 patients who had been hospitalised (n=15) with those who had not (n=379), and while results were not significant, we found comparatively similar findings to the COVID-19 vs control group comparison
What are the quantitative findings of "loss of grey matter"?
What mechanism/s are suspected that might be specific to COVID19?
> Here, we studied the effects of the disease in the brain using multimodal data from 782 participants from the UK Biobank COVID-19 re-imaging study, with 394 participants having tested positive for SARSCoV-2 infection between their two scans.
782 participants, 394 of which had positive tests for COVID-19, a further 15 of the 394 were hospitalized due to their symptoms.
The interpretation could be:
- lung symptoms are not correlated with brain changes
- mild infections not requiring hospitalization showed similar pathology to severe infections
> What are the quantitative findings of "loss of grey matter"?
Page 18 shows the measurements.
> What mechanism/s are suspected that might be specific to COVID19?
Page 3.
> one hypothesis is that an entry point of the virus to the central nervous system might be achieved by crossing the neural–mucosal interface in the olfactory mucosa, and progress from there onto the olfactory bulb in the brain [Meinhardt J, Radke J, Dittmayer C, et al. Olfactory transmucosal SARS-CoV-2 invasion as a port of central nervous system entry in individuals with COVID-19. Nat Neurosci 2021; 24(2): 168-75.]
782 participants, 394 of which had positive tests for COVID-19, a further 15 of the 394 were hospitalized due to their symptoms.
The interpretation could be:
- lung symptoms are not correlated with brain changes
- mild infections not requiring hospitalization showed similar pathology to severe infections
> What are the quantitative findings of "loss of grey matter"?
Page 18 shows the measurements.
> What mechanism/s are suspected that might be specific to COVID19?
Page 3.
> one hypothesis is that an entry point of the virus to the central nervous system might be achieved by crossing the neural–mucosal interface in the olfactory mucosa, and progress from there onto the olfactory bulb in the brain [Meinhardt J, Radke J, Dittmayer C, et al. Olfactory transmucosal SARS-CoV-2 invasion as a port of central nervous system entry in individuals with COVID-19. Nat Neurosci 2021; 24(2): 168-75.]
>Our findings thus consistently relate to loss of grey matter in limbic cortical areas directly linked to the primary olfactory and gustatory system.
Looks like the loss of smell is due to an impact of the virus on brain tissue. It would be interesting to check if it ever comes back to normal months/years later.
Looks like the loss of smell is due to an impact of the virus on brain tissue. It would be interesting to check if it ever comes back to normal months/years later.
Totally anecdotal, but my wife who was very ill with both covid and then long covid, only lost her smell for a day before it returned.
Another friend who had very few symptoms still has no sense of smell 9 months later - her smell can come and go, and she will also now 'miss-smell' smelling nice things as horrible and horrible as nice.
Another friend who had very few symptoms still has no sense of smell 9 months later - her smell can come and go, and she will also now 'miss-smell' smelling nice things as horrible and horrible as nice.
Kind of a tangent, but I get frustrated when researchers publicly release results when one of their groups have a ridiculously small sample size. It’s irresponsible to release results based on 15 people
The article is “published” on a preprint server and carries a suitable warning at the top. It’s preliminary, unverified and not reviewed. The target audience is other researchers, not the general public. It’s useful to publish preliminary results based on low sample sizes, it can guide future research. Basically a “hey, we found something we consider interesting, it may be worth having a better look at this.” It’s very dangerous to read too much into this, though - hence the warning at the top.
[deleted]
I thought this also - but as it turns out - you can make conclusions with really small sample sizes in medicine.
For example (this has nothing to do with the paper), if the average rate of some condition - some rare brain tumor - is 1 in 50M - and you take 200 COVID-19 patients and 4 of them have it - and they have several of these tumors - you can have high CI & Power with a low sample size.
When you're doing conversion rate optimization - it's usually just "did this person make a purchase?" And usually, your base rate is not less than 1/1000... But in medicine, there are ways to measure the severity of the symptoms and a lot of things are quite rare.
For example (this has nothing to do with the paper), if the average rate of some condition - some rare brain tumor - is 1 in 50M - and you take 200 COVID-19 patients and 4 of them have it - and they have several of these tumors - you can have high CI & Power with a low sample size.
When you're doing conversion rate optimization - it's usually just "did this person make a purchase?" And usually, your base rate is not less than 1/1000... But in medicine, there are ways to measure the severity of the symptoms and a lot of things are quite rare.
They had over 700 people total, 50% control and 50% infected; which they break down earlier in the same paragraph. The 15 people are those who are hospitalized and the abstract literally says the results from that small group aren’t significant.
Stress reduces brain volume in similar areas, this effect could just be that people got extremely stressed out from having caught the pandemic virus. I'd like to see these studies take stress into account before I believe that covid hurts your brain.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4677120/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4677120/
I'm pretty sure we had covid in March 2020, and my wife has since then been extremely tired - like needs a 2 hour nap every afternoon and in bed by 8pm - and brain foggy. She's had concussions in the past, so I haven't been sure when one brain fog ended and the other fog started, but I do wonder if it's post-covid related. I just don't know what to do about it though. Doctors are finding nothing.
[deleted]
Note there is a corrected version of this paper:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.11.21258690v...
Which includes 3 diabetes patients for comparison of hospitalised and non-hospitalised in Table figure 3.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.11.21258690v...
Which includes 3 diabetes patients for comparison of hospitalised and non-hospitalised in Table figure 3.
If person is suffering from ischemia/hypoxia due to covid, that could be the way to lose gray matter.