Are you willing to get the Covid vaccine when offered? (6 Viewers)

[sammymvpknight]

https://www.thecardiologyadvisor.com/home/topics/acs/acute-coronary-syndrome-acs-biomarkers-mrna-covid19-vaccine/

The risk of developing acute coronary syndrome (ACS) significantly increased in patients after receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, according to a report presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2021, held from November 13 to 15, 2021.

The study included 566 men and women (1:1) aged 28-97 years, who were patients in a preventive cardiology practice. All patients received a new PULS Cardiac Test 2-10 weeks after their second COVID-19 vaccine. This test result was compared with a PULS score from 3-5 months prevaccination. The PULS Cardiac Test measures multiple protein biomarkers, including hepatocyte growth factor [HGF], soluble Fas, and IL-16, and uses the results to calculate a 5-year risk score for new ACS. The PULS score increases with above-normal elevation. All participants received this test every 3-6 months for 8 years.

Beware that it’s not actually a published journal article. It’s a non-peer reviewed conference abstract. There is a single author, which is very unusual in medical academics. The author honestly, looks questionable. He certainly looks like a naturopath…which is fine, but it brings up concern over bias considering that he’s essentially on an island without a co-writer and without peer-review. Boy…the abstract is a mess. I read medical journal articles just about daily, and the abstract would have immediately raised red flags that there was poor editing and very likely not published in a legit journal.

The COVID vaccine is likely pro-inflammatory. I don’t think that many dispute that. After all it is provoking a powerful immune response and some level of side effects are common. But so what if this marker is transiently elevated after the vaccine? That does not necessarily mean that those patients had worse outcomes. So I don’t agree with CardiologyAdvisors interpretation. The website is written anonymously…it can be someone with literally no education summarizing the conference abstract. Also, there was no mention of actual COVID patients in their cohort. Did they also have elevated markers, and how did they compare to those just receiving the vaccine? And again…was there any impact on morbidity and mortality? That’s ultimately what matters. Pretty weak.

 

[Eeyore]

Booster has me feeling pretty much like the second dose, but on a delayed time table. Woke up this morning, felt great, went to work, and then around 11:00 the fever, chills, headache, etc. hit.

My condolences to your family for their loss.

 

[Eeyore]

I got my Moderna booster on Saturday and just had 72 hours of hell. My temp got up to 103.3 and I couldn't get it down below 100. I used tylenol and advil. Also, extreme fatigue, horrible aches and pains, headache and nausea. Also, a lovey swollen and very painful lymph node in my armpit.
After the first dose, I had no reaction. After the 2nd dose, I had about 12 hours of feeling ill. They were all Moderna. I will not be taking another booster.

You ded

 

[St. Chris]

My wife and I had our boosters Friday. She has had fever and fatigue since then. I have had no reaction at all. My arm isn't even sore. She just told me she is starting to feel better, so if what she had is all, then not too bad. (All our shots have been Pfizer)

 

[DaveXA]

Beware that it’s not actually a published journal article. It’s a non-peer reviewed conference abstract. There is a single author, which is very unusual in medical academics. The author honestly, looks questionable. He certainly looks like a naturopath…which is fine, but it brings up concern over bias considering that he’s essentially on an island without a co-writer and without peer-review. Boy…the abstract is a mess. I read medical journal articles just about daily, and the abstract would have immediately raised red flags that there was poor editing and very likely not published in a legit journal.

The COVID vaccine is likely pro-inflammatory. I don’t think that many dispute that. After all it is provoking a powerful immune response and some level of side effects are common. But so what if this marker is transiently elevated after the vaccine? That does not necessarily mean that those patients had worse outcomes. So I don’t agree with CardiologyAdvisors interpretation. The website is written anonymously…it can be someone with literally no education summarizing the conference abstract. Also, there was no mention of actual COVID patients in their cohort. Did they also have elevated markers, and how did they compare to those just receiving the vaccine? And against…was their really any impact on morbidity and mortality? Pretty weak.

Nice post. Thanks for explaining.

 

[Doug B]

For me, at this point ... ANYTHING anti-vax is highly suspect regardless of credentials, methodology, publisher, etc.

I believe that hucksters (yes, even credentialed one) have learned to game the medical research/pre-print/publication system to disseminate legit-looking study abstracts, articles, and links so that it looks like vaccine research is a 50-50 call at every turn and that pretty much any point of view can be supported.

No sir. Not falling for it.

 

[rail]

Got my 7 y.o. her first shot last weekend. Got my Moderna booster yesterday morning. Feeling run down, a little achy, and mild fever.

 

[jahsoul357]

For me, at this point ... ANYTHING anti-vax is highly suspect regardless of credentials, methodology, publisher, etc.

I believe that hucksters (yes, even credentialed one) have learned to game the medical research/pre-print/publication system to disseminate legit-looking study abstracts, articles, and links so that it looks like vaccine research is a 50-50 call at every turn and that pretty much any point of view can be supported.

No sir. Not falling for it.

But just what if this turns out to be true? You would dismiss something because you yourself have an inherent bias, which in turn makes you no better than what you perceive as antivax. Seemingly, this is one topic where very few stand in the middle and just observe how this is being played out and one thing that no one mentions is both sides have legitimate points in some areas. And there are some things that are over and under reported. We are told everyday that 765K people have died in the US from COVID and everyone should get the shot to stop the spread and minimize symptoms. But then we look at the numbers from the CDC and we see that out of the 765K that has died since this has started, nearly 720K were 50 an older (just over 50K reported deaths for those 50 and under). Also 2 times as many children have died from pneumonia than COVID but we are wanting to force this on our children. There has to be a middle ground and I'm of the belief that the focus should have been on those most affected (50+ and major underlying issues) but this topic is so deep in political and sociological ilk that we probably won't know the complete truth until we get a panel of doctors and scientist from all spectrums to talk through this as opposed to standing on their sides of the fields and arguing against each other.

 

[faceman]

But just what if this turns out to be true? You would dismiss something because you yourself have an inherent bias, which in turn makes you no better than what you perceive as antivax. Seemingly, this is one topic where very few stand in the middle and just observe how this is being played out and one thing that no one mentions is both sides have legitimate points in some areas. And there are some things that are over and under reported. We are told everyday that 765K people have died in the US from COVID and everyone should get the shot to stop the spread and minimize symptoms. But then we look at the numbers from the CDC and we see that out of the 765K that has died since this has started, nearly 720K were 50 an older (just over 50K reported deaths for those 50 and under). Also 2 times as many children have died from pneumonia than COVID but we are wanting to force this on our children. There has to be a middle ground and I'm of the belief that the focus should have been on those most affected (50+ and major underlying issues) but this topic is so deep in political and sociological ilk that we probably won't know the complete truth until we get a panel of doctors and scientist from all spectrums to talk through this as opposed to standing on their sides of the fields and arguing against each other.

98% of doctors are vaccinated and practice what they preach.

 

[jahsoul357]

98% of doctors are vaccinated and practice what they preach.

In the US or globally? And what reservations would doctors who have the same level of training have to make the oppose getting vaccinated. And for proven healthy individuals under 50, what are they preaching? This is why I wish there was more research into "long COVID" for those that have such a "low" death rate.

 

[faceman]

In the US or globally? And what reservations would doctors who have the same level of training have to make the oppose getting vaccinated. And for proven healthy individuals under 50, what are they preaching? This is why I wish there was more research into "long COVID" for those that have such a "low" death rate.

In the U.S. I think all of us would like to more studies done on people who have survived the virus.

 

[sammymvpknight]

98% of doctors are vaccinated and practice what they preach.

Well…we kind of have to or we lose our jobs

 

[Saint_Ward]

But just what if this turns out to be true? You would dismiss something because you yourself have an inherent bias, which in turn makes you no better than what you perceive as antivax. Seemingly, this is one topic where very few stand in the middle and just observe how this is being played out and one thing that no one mentions is both sides have legitimate points in some areas. And there are some things that are over and under reported. We are told everyday that 765K people have died in the US from COVID and everyone should get the shot to stop the spread and minimize symptoms. But then we look at the numbers from the CDC and we see that out of the 765K that has died since this has started, nearly 720K were 50 an older (just over 50K reported deaths for those 50 and under). Also 2 times as many children have died from pneumonia than COVID but we are wanting to force this on our children. There has to be a middle ground and I'm of the belief that the focus should have been on those most affected (50+ and major underlying issues) but this topic is so deep in political and sociological ilk that we probably won't know the complete truth until we get a panel of doctors and scientist from all spectrums to talk through this as opposed to standing on their sides of the fields and arguing against each other.

Well. It depends on what it is. If it, is inflammation markers, then,.one has to ask if that alone is meaningful towards health. If it is heart damage, then I'm sure it would factor into some serious decisions about vaccinations.

I think a starting point, towards vaccines being good and safe is a reasonable starting point. It's also reasonable to start from a place of healthy skepticism on any topic, but especially those that run counter to established science, data, and overall experience.

If someone showed data that hand washing didn't do anything to prevent the spread of germs and infection, it would be reasonable to be skeptical of that. Since, it does in fact, help prevent the spread of germs and infections.

I don't think it's two sides of doctors. And that's far too simplistic of an approach to this. I'm sure there are over a dozen sub topics with various disagreements. But one would hope that rigorous data and smart experiments would drive the opinions.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Up to 10,000 active-duty Marines will not be fully vaccinated against the coronavirus when their deadline arrives in coming days, a trajectory expected to yield the U.S. military’s worst immunization rate.


While 94 percent of Marine Corps personnel have met the vaccination requirement or are on a path to do so, according to the latest official data, for the remainder it is too late to begin a regimen and complete it by the service’s Nov. 28 deadline.

Within an institution built upon the belief that orders are to be obeyed, and one that brands itself the nation’s premier crisis-response force, it is a vexing outcome.


The holdouts will join approximately 9,600 Air Force personnel who have outright refused the vaccine, did not report their status, or sought an exemption on medical or religious grounds, causing a dilemma for commanders tasked with maintaining combat-ready forces — and marking the latest showdown over President Biden’s authority to impose vaccination as a condition of continued government service.


“Marines know they’re an expeditionary force, and pride themselves on discipline and being first to fight,” said David Lapan, a retired Marine Corps officer and former communications chief for the service. Leadership, he said, should be alarmed that the Marine Corps ethos of always being ready for the next mission appears to be tarnished in this case. “Why,” Lapan asked, “did they decide not to follow a direct order?”………

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/11/21/vacine-mandate-marine-corps/

 

[Optimus Prime]

My girlfriend and I will be getting our booster next week

We both did phizer

Getting conflicting opinions on whether it’s better to get a third phizer shot or switch to moderna