This seems to becoming more and more common. I had a friend that was admitted to my hospital, he’s a young chef, after his first vaccination with chest pain. His troponin levels were elevated after his first COVID immunization
Looks like almost all of the Nordic countries are not allowing anyone under the age of 31 to receive the Moderna vaccination for this very reason.
Other countries are seeing the same side effects as well. I can’t help but feel we are going to see more and more information come out after the fact
View attachment 148321
Big adventure already said most there is to say. Over here Moderna is mostly reserved for older people here, but I can't remember exactly if this was because it showed higher efficiency there or if it was because of a 'potential 0.001% chance at maybe something happening'. We're in the luxurious position where we can essentially be vaccinesnobs and stop using vaccines even if only because there's an
appearance of side-effects simply because we have other options. My take is that the government is playing it extra safe because the main concern here is that even just rumors have the potential to undermine willingness to vaccinate, especially when the majority of people have no clue how to read or interpret medical research and the statistics behind dthem.
I'm not sure what 'more information' you're expecting when these vaccines already went through trials with around 50k test subjects before they went into circulation, and currently already millions of doses in the wild.
The only thing we're really seeing is massively lower hospitalization and death rates among vaccinated populations. The only major negative we've found out is that the effects seems to wear off over time, hence all the buzz about booster shots.
Michi already debunked the hell out of this, but I'll point two things:
1. The "Note:" disclaimer under the table. It says that this is anything reported, whether or not the reports actually meet the expected case definition.
and
2. Those rates are, based on previous reports I've read, roughly equal to the background rates of those conditions. The first report of this came out about the Astra vaccine IIRC, and it was pulled for a week or two. Thing is, the rate of the conditions that led to the pull was LESS THAN the background rate for the diseases. There were something like 7 cases out of the set of the reports, which was less than the expected 8 cases you'd have seen if you did nothing. Small sample size here applies, of course, but that's why the vaccine was put back into active service basically immediately. Precaution led to the pause, mathematics led to the unpause.
Exactly, point 2. The expected rate. I actually dug into this when it came to AstraZenica because there were some concerns about trombosis (when I was about to get my own shots). But when you actually looked into the numbers the incidence was actually lower than the expected rate among an average population. The problem is that this is a story that's hard to explain to the general population after the original story took root; essentially the reputation is 'tainted', even when this isn't necessarily justified. For this reason AstraZenica has mostly fallen out of use here, not because there's anything wrong with it, but because the main concern at this point is vaccine-acceptance; the side effects aren't the problem. But it's easier to simply switch to Pfizer to sidestep the issue.
I've been talking about fluvoxamine for months now, and it was first identified as a potential covid treatment almost a year ago. If the antivaxers were going to latch on to this, they would have already. Like I've said before, the problems with it (in the eyes of antivaxers) are:
- It's an antidepressant
- The effects are too weak
- It's accepted by the medical industry
- Their media networks aren't promoting it
Antivaxers are nearly as suspicious of psychiatric medication as they are of vaccines. It doesn't prevent infections, and only mildly decreases the risk of hospitalization. Plus the medical industry supports it. Much better to have a mythical dark horse you can imagine has any effect you want and whose existence is being suppressed by powerful elites (ivermectin), than a mediocre known-quantity with institutional support.
While I don't know the specifics about this specific thing, I think it's sometimes forgotten that many different things have been tried, and are being used to improve treatment once a case gets bad enough to reach a hospital. There isn't anything wrong with that; and it's actually showing that quite some progress has been made here, since the ratio of hospitalized to ER / deaths has improved significantly since the start of the epidemic. Most of the stuff being done never got attention since this was never a particularly controversial issue (and probably too technical for most people not employed in the treatment side).
Where it becomes problematic is when these things are proposed as an alternative to vaccines. Any improvements in treatment are great and still worthwhile to investigate, it's just completely silly to use it as an argument against the vaccines. Just like it's silly to ignore them when we do have working vaccines. As long as it works it's worthwhile to pursue and apply, and this really shouldn't be controversial.
It's just silly when it becomes an antivax argument. That's like throwing away your smoke alarms and building a campfire in your living room just because you bought this awesome new fire extinguisher....
