[quenix]

What data have you "observed"? I should also note that I take issue with the word "observed" here. A phenomenon as large as world-scale inoculation calls for large-scale statistical analysis rather than your anecdotal "observation".

What are the many questions that you have?

[mewpmewp2]

Indeed, and I feel "large-scale statistical analysis" is one of the things we are lacking.

More research into VAERS data and also Europe's adverse events reporting tool. There's so many more reports there compared to other vaccines, it seems quite scary to me. It's not scientific evidence, but to me it still seems alarming enough, and it's hard for me to think what other thing except the vaccine itself could've caused that many reports.

What are the exact odds of getting e.g. heart related issues like Myocarditis?

Considering my demographics (28y male), fit, healthy what are the chances for me to get long lasting issues either affecting mental or physical performance?

I don't believe for instance that Myocarditis is 1 out of 100,000. There's anecdotal stories of couples getting these adverse effects together. See "danielshep60". I don't believe he's lying either, considering he's shown all paperwork, medications etc, he also said, after he and his partner both got diagnosed, he called around his social circle to see if anyone else was experiencing chest pains, which his cousin did and he urged him to go check it out, and also got diagnosed with Myocarditis. There may be a lot of undiagnosed Myocarditis going on as well.

Then besides heart issues, what is being more frequently reported by vaccine long haulers, is 1) fatigue and 2) brain fog.

So now I'm worried about both mental performance, as my work requires mental performance, and physical performance since I do sports.

There's no good way to link fatigue and brain fog back to vaccines, so how could I know what is the frequency of those?

Then of course I did research into how runners have been faring after vaccination. I searched reddit.com/r/running, for posts. There's 50/50 whether vaccine had any effect at all, or some people couldn't run for the following 1 to 7 days which is fine, but I'd say around 1:15 - 1:30 ratio of commenters said even after many months they were still unable to run even a mile, although previously they were able to run 5-10km+.

Then I'm concerned about how the trials were made. For example with Pfizer, just recently coming out the report about data integrity in BMJ, and also trial participants in some cases being excluded when they had adverse effects, AND the way they seemingly were letting people report side effects in an app where they did it after a week and there were only pre-determined side effects available to select from and no free-form text. If you wanted to report something else you had to contact them, and in some cases it seems these contacts were ignored and not reported in the final study.

There's many more concern for me from vaccines, but I'll just stop now, because the biggest argument against those is that "covid is probably worse, so just take the risk with vaccine, or alternative is worse".

So my current strategy is to stay at home, and I believe by doing this I have 1% or less chance to contract covid within the following year. Maybe during that time things, data clears up, or there's better solutions available to either covid or to any damage vaccines may cause.

By that I'm avoiding potential unknowns about both covid19, and the vaccine. Also I'm keeping my R very low, even if I was to get covid19, I would not be likely to spread it since I spend my time at home with no people around, except for some edge cases. If everyone behaved like me I believe the virus would die out.

I have gone over many studies about both Covid19, and vaccines. I believe if you are frequently in contact with people and/or in risk group you probably should take the vaccine to reduce chance of hospitalisation and deaths, but I don't think it's calculated decision for me, personally. I definitely don't want to get Covid19 and I believe it can cause a lot of long term damage + unknown damage, but so can the vaccine, albeit very likely to a lesser extent.

Also vaccine effect will wade in 6 months and it doesn't seem like it would protect breakthrough infections that could also cause long term damage, so then you may have done already vaccinations multiple times and also still get the infection which would again increase chances of total long term damage.

[quenix]

Well, it is nice that you actually put out your thoughts in a structured manner. Many would not have taken the time.

1. VAERS data & co.

This is the biggest vaccination campaign in history. 7.25 billion doses have been administered to date. It also happens to be underway under a sociopolitical and technological climate which promotes superfast information sharing where misinformation can spread extremely fast. It is undeniable that much of this misinformation has concerned the vaccine.

Combining the fact that a shit ton of people have been getting vaccinated and the current climate, is it really surprising that we see a spike in an unvetted, online side effect submission system? I mean, this would not be worrying even if this was just a large vaccination campaign. It is an enormous vaccination campaign, the biggest in history, undertaken in a climate which promotes misinformation and probably interacts with societal group psychology in complex ways (for example, are people perhaps more likely to fall prey to the placebo effect and report/over-exaggerate their S.E.s in VAERS?)

2. Myocarditis

A valid concern, but all data points to it being extremely rare as well as mild (0.0006% incidence rate?).

As well as that, recent theory suggests it may be linked to administration method (erroneous administration into vein instead of muscle) instead of the vaccine itself.

I know you said you "don't believe" the statistics, but... that's just not really how statistics works? You cite purely anecdotal evidence from your friend group to disprove large-scale international analysis. This is laughable. Incidence in your friend group means absolutely nothing in the context of an international rollout. If we're playing the anecdote game, I know hundreds of people who've gotten the vaccine, none of which have gotten myocarditis. This must mean it never occurs. Also, I really don't care about "danielshep60". Citing a random Internet user is even more ridiculous than citing your friend group or family. I don't think I even need to get into it, but even if what they are saying is true, it means nothing in the grand scale of things.

3. Fatigue & brain fog

I should start by noting that fatigue & brain fog are widely documented to be common symptoms of the long COVID syndrome, which affects old and young. Long COVID is also alarmingly common.

I'd have to see proper evidence showing a statistically relevant correlation between vaccination & long-term brain fog/fatigue.

I'm sorry to report that a subreddit does not consist of any kind of valuable correlative indicator when talking about the medical domain. There is just such a swarm of flaws in such analysis that it must be discarded entirely (biased sampling, placebo, and fabrication being the top three).

Unfortunately, many of your arguments fall back to a common faulty root: ignoring large-scale analysis and falling back to anecdotal evidence (a la Nicki Minaj "friend of cousin got swollen testicles because of the vaccine!").

As for the BMJ trial, this is an ongoing investigation and I can't really comment without more data. We will see! :)

[easymodex]

When i got vaccinated with Moderna vaccine i had weird heart flutters every 10 minutes or so (one day after 2nd dose - from noon until evening). It wasn't painful or anything but it was very weird, sometimes it felt like heart skipping a beat and sometimes like doing a double or triple beat. I did get checked out but by the time i got to the doctor the whole thing was almost over, they hooked me up to those heart monitors for 15 minutes but had no "flutters" during that time. Doc said im young and my heart is fine and that was that. Next day i had some more in the morning but everything was fine afterwards and i had no problems since. I don't know if it falls under Myocarditis or not but i'm sure noone reported it anywhere.

Either way, i'm still gonna go for the booster shot soon since i'm scared of Covid more than the vaccine, but just wanted to point out it's not so black and white, the side effects are likely under reported since the incentive is to get as many people vaccinated as possible. Doing large scale analysis on faulty data is just as accurate as anecdotal evidence.

[mewpmewp2]

Besides those symptoms, did you do any cardio or are you actively exercising, have you noticed anything then?

[easymodex]

TBH i don't really exercise actively, i'll try and see how it goes.

[mewpmewp2]

Okay, I'd be interested in an update then!

[mewpmewp2]

Thanks for your response.

> 1. VAERS data & co.

Every year, there's also very many other vaccines administered, e.g. Influenza, so the numbers aren't that off. I'm not sure about how many others besides Influenza.

See: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaccine-supply-historical.ht... https://openvaers.com/covid-data

2019 there was around 170M Influenza vaccine doses with 605 deaths. 2021 there's 430M Covid vaccine doses or 223M people with at least 1 dose and there's 18400 deaths.

Usually VAERS would be expected to be very under reported. I agree there's a lot of misinformation that's been going on, but the people who vaccinated mostly thought it was very safe so there's lower likelihood of placebo etc. Another thing is that it's not very easy to create reports in VAERS and it takes time, doctors may not always have time or believe that some death or adverse effect was linked to the vaccine in the first place.

Overall this data alone is definitely not enough to conclude for sure that covid vaccines are not safe, but at least to me it definitely throws some red flags, in combination with all the other things, there seems to be a pattern.

Your points may be valid, but I can't determine that and unless this data is properly addressed and debated over, I don't think it's safe enough. So I would urge heavier debate and analysis of this data. I think vaccine has to be proven safe rather than me having to prove that it's dangerous.

There should be enough resources to debate and analyse this properly. Same thing --- there should be more resources allocated to debating people who claim vaccines are not safe. Seemingly no debate doesn't inspire any confidence in me. There should be full time groups of people dedicated for this, not just writing articles, but doing live debates. Debate has to be proper back and forth. Not "fact checkers" which often concentrate on one single part that can be most easily argued against and leave some other parts which usually interest me the most out.

Right now there's one side that is bashing the other side, full of strawmans and ad hominem attacks. There's no proper debate going on. Why?

If these vaccines are very safe and effective and would save the world from the pandemic, I imagine it would deserve at least 10M+ to be invested into live debates. I see a lot of investing in censoring, but no debates.

2. Myocarditis

If incidence rate was 0.0006%, meaning 1 out of 1,666,666, it would be extremely rare that a couple on this earth would have both people getting this.

Even if incidence is 1 out of 100,000 like I have seen claimed by official sources multiple times, from 1 billion couples, chance of there being at least 1 couple where both individuals had this would be 10%.

I have seen multiple anecdotal reports of couples both having issues. Danielshep60 being one who has gone on video with all the evidence and stories. It's difficult to understand frequency from anecdotal reports where people alone claim they have had it, but if you consider couples it makes it possible to at least calculate how statistically rare that would have to be. So either

a) Danielshep60 must be lying. And I don't think he is based on what I've seen, I'm usually good at spotting discrepancies and lies.

b) Chance of myocarditis is far bigger than 1/100,000.

c) Something extremely, very, unlikely has happened, and all the other anecdotes are definitely lies.

I assume you would guess it's a), but I can't conclude that myself based on also other video stories I have seen, and everything seems to match.

> As well as that, recent theory suggests it may be linked to administration method (erroneous administration into vein instead of muscle) instead of the vaccine itself.

Yes, this is possible, but it also means I wouldn't get the vaccine before it's officially acknowledged that they should do aspiration and this indeed reduces chance of myocarditis occurring. In very many anecdotal reports where people have gotten myocarditis, they have felt metallic taste just 15 seconds after the vaccine, so it does seem that in their cases it probably has entered bloodstream, unless there's some better explanation.

> I know you said you "don't believe" the statistics, but... that's just not really how statistics works?

I believe "statistics", I love poker, I love numbers, I love making decisions based on probabilities, I just don't believe that numbers coming from trials are correct. For example, maybe people weren't properly checked for myocarditis, and this matches some reports from trial participants. I think statistics are great, I just don't trust that everything was done properly, and it seems BMJ confirms it at least for 1 subcontractor. Now this is not final evidence that trial data may not be correct, but it's enough for me to postpone the vaccine.

> I know hundreds of people who've gotten the vaccine, none of which have gotten myocarditis. You may very well know and this wouldn't disprove that myocarditis's frequency could be for example 1 out of 300. You would still more likely have 100 friends who never got myocarditis, but these odds are for example very worrying.

If what Danielshep60 says is true, it can be statistically proven that what numbers are coming from e.g. Pfizer's studies or some other studies are wrong, as such a combination of a couple + a relative of theirs having the diagnosis would be extremely unlikely.

Also another survey, for people who had post vaccine injury, the claim for 10% of them was that they also had a relative who had persistent adverse effects after the vaccine. If they had 10 relatives on average, it could mean incident rate to be around 1%.

> 3. Fatigue & brain fog > I should start by noting that fatigue & brain fog are widely documented to be common symptoms of the long COVID syndrome, which affects old and young. Long COVID is also alarmingly common.

Yes, totally agreed! I believe different studies say that getting long covid could be 5% to 65% chance depending on the definition and requirements for long covid. I definitely wouldn't want to get covid.

> I'm sorry to report that a subreddit does not consist of any kind of valuable correlative indicator when talking about the medical domain. There is just such a swarm of flaws in such analysis that it must be discarded entirely (biased sampling, placebo, and fabrication being the top three).

Yeah, it's impossible to determine the exact frequency, but considering everything, I see it being possible that getting covid vaccine could ruin running 1 out of 1,000 cases or more. Once again, I don't have evidence for it, but this is based on my intuition.

Yeah, will see what happens with BMJ trial.

It's definitely possible I will take this vaccine in the future, but I need more data & analysis.

Trust me, I'm not happy about spending so much time on deciding this, and I kind of wish I maybe should've just taken it in summer, so I didn't have to spend so much time and energy trying to research this. Unfortunately my research has only opened more question marks, but I'm not feeling good about taking it any longer.

[quenix]

Your points are clear and coherent.

For what it's worth, thank you for actually analysing the evidence and not blindly falling into conspiracy or groupthink against the vaccine. While I object to some of your points, your hesitation is your right. I also appreciate the fact that you're open to taking it in the future once your questions are addressed.

As someone who took both shots 6 months ago and had absolutely zero issues, if you decide to take it, I hope your journey will be the same as well!

:)

Edit: I just noticed something interesting. You said something about the fact that if the incidence rate was 1/1 million, it would be statistically unlikely for a couple to both get it. If the aspiration theory was true though, would this really be the case? It would be very likely that both partners got vaccinated by the same provider, perhaps even by the same person. That drastically increases the chance of aspiration not occurring for both people! Just an interesting observation about how the mathematical theory of statistics is not always immediately applicable to RW situations.:)

[mewpmewp2]

Thanks,

As far as I've heard/seen anecdotally about aspiration is that at least in most cases there was no aspiration. People reporting many stories where they specifically asked for aspiration to be done, and nurses very frequently said, they are not trained for that any longer. Some nurses didn't even know what it was, and some other nurse aspirated AFTER the injection. Luckily there was no blood in this case.

It would be interesting to know how many nurses will aspirate, but given what I've seen/heard, it seems like 90% or more don't. Unless again, anecdotal stories are biased and only mention it when it's not done.

If I remember correctly, the couple got vaccinated around 2 weeks apart, I don't remember if the provider was the same. But story went something like they went to the ER because of her, but he was also asked how's he feeling and I think he mentioned something about chest/shoulder pains as well, and so they both got tested at the same time and received their diagnosis on the same day.

If aspiration wasn't done just in 10% of the cases, then yeah, this could skew with data and make a couple more likely to have it if they do go get it at the same provider and person who doesn't do it.

Interestingly, there was a study 7 years ago that found out 74% of end-users aspirated,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC5333604/

I'm not sure how that compares to current circumstances 7 years later and considering there's probably a lot more activity.

EDIT: Also found this poll in Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/poll/qc1cct

This matches the idea of 90%+ did not aspirate. But very important, this is Halifax, so the percentage might vary wildly depending on the country etc.

[mewpmewp2]

Also people in this thread seem to be adamant that aspiration is definitely unnecessary https://www.reddit.com/r/halifax/comments/qc1cct/during_vacc...

If that is the case then I'd definitely like to hear their explanation for how so many who have come to Myocarditis or long term issues felt metallic taste within 15 seconds.

It's not like this would be a placebo, if so many different sources report the exact same thing?

Besides text anecdotal stories, sources for at least 2 people on video experiencing that metallic taste:

1. https://youtu.be/EcAAiM6VuJQ

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7inaTiDKaU

And if it did happen to be true that, aspiration could've saved all of those people then I'm endlessly disappointed in capabilities of our medical communities. Especially with so many reports constantly flowing in, in the similar direction.

But generally what I've been reading about aspiration now is that there are pretty convincing reasons not to do it.