They tested people treated at a small collection of hospitals (the cohort).

And, you have made several other mistakes aside from that.

The 2020 studies are all retracted. They were over-spinning the centrifuges, I think by a factor of 10 or 100 maybe? They got insanely high positive numbers and the guidance was all updated to correct for that. You can ask an LLM to help you find the CDC publications on that. Don't use those numbers.

Additionally, even if your interpretation was accurate, it would fly in the face of thousands of other studies, just like the one I posted earlier in the thread.

Make sure your beliefs are based on peer reviewed research, that is not retracted, has been established long enough to withstand challenges from the scientific community, and that you're interpreting it honestly, using the established academic criteria for the scientific method and publication standards. Be careful to check the definition words that you're not familiar with, and even ones that you think you're familiar with. They might have a different meaning when used in a scientific context.

Out of curiosity, are you a journalist, college educated? I'm trying to understand where science has failed here. I would like our institutions to produce adults that can identify sound research and draw logical conclusions. There are some basic methods for doing that. I don't mean any offense by that. I'm just trying to understand what's broken. And more to the point, whether or not you are actually interested in science or you're just trying to prove that the media knows more than the scientists. Or maybe you just can't believe that journalists lie about what scientists say.

Is the media in the business of selling truth for profit, even if it means they won't profit? Do you believe that enough to take drugs that legally restrict you from taking legal action against the manufacturer when you're injured? (See CARES act)

Is your motivation to continue discussion political? Or scientific? If it's scientific, let's stick to the facts and follow the science. Don't try to make the science say what you want. You'll find that doesn't work in the broader forum.

5% of symptomatic COVID cases. So now you have to compare that to only people with injuries from the vaccine.

Otherwise you're comparing apples to oranges.

If you want to compare people who got the vaccine to people who didn't, then you need to include ALL people who didn't. Not just the ones who were symptomatic.

And no, you can't include those people who had previous symptoms in the "everyone" group. Obviously those people are way more likely to return for treatment than the average Joe. They are skewing the sample because they are immediately nearly 100% likely to return for treatment. That is not representative of a random sample of people in the general population.

The question was about the general population, and they didn't sample the general population. They sampled people who come to the hospital. That is, only people with symptoms of some sort or another that are bad enough to warrant a journey to get treatment.

So all you can conclude is that people who come to the hospital have a higher frequency of heart conditions. And even that claim is not firmly established by the data, it's just a sensible inference. We expect that people who need treatment are more likely to seek treatment than those that don't need it. But there are countless counter examples there too. Hypochondria, etc.

No doubt if we had the data we'd find more problems there.

Wu's statement is fine, because again, it's not ALL people with COVID. His statement holds for people seeking treatment with COVID which is what they sampled.

Wu has no clue how many people have COVID asymptomatically and how to separate them from people without COVID altogether, and makes no claim about that.

You're simply making a claim that isn't in the research. Vaccination for people without COVID or with asymptomatic COVID is not researched or compared here.

This research, if you want to use it for a comparison, is for vaccination of people already coming to a hospital with symptoms of some kind.

EDIT: forgot to mention this was during a pandemic, so you might see significantly lower numbers for heart conditions if the study was repeated today. And it might be the case that during the pandemic it would have been a good idea to vaccinate everyone coming to a hospital from a statistical standpoint. But an even better take would be to identify what was common amongst the group with bad outcomes and vaccinate them, more specifically.

Regardless, nothing here implies better outcomes for everyone. It's not claimed by and it's not inferable from the research. And certainly not when there is a bunch of research showing contrary results to this study an example of which I linked earlier.

I could definitely and more rightfully accuse you now. Right? Good faith and all that?

Honest take, you're angry that you didn't know that the FDA relied on research that wasn't peer reviewed, that they are still hiding the results from that study (ongoing lawsuits), and that your news channel lied to you. But you're directing that anger at me because that's hard to swallow and, well, that same news channel told you that I'm a bad person if I know more about science than their editors who went to a trade school for marketing and graphic design.

It's insane what's happening.

You're convinced so much that your first reaction (read above) was to claim that the research didn't say anything close to what I'm saying.

But it's the exact opposite, isn't it? It doesn't say anything close to what you thought it says.

I think many of us are in a place where editors at a media and marketing company command many people's religious belief so much that we can't even read research without stopping in the middle to go "Aha! I knew it. You're a bad guy for being a scientist!"

And that's really what I am trying to say. Science is not that.

Think about it.

There indeed are plenty of studies linked. I'm not ignoring them, I'm using them to point out that they don't carry the implications necessary to recommend vaccination for everyone.

To make the claim that the vaccine LOWERED incidence of myocarditis even for those without covid, counter to so much other research (e.g. [0]), we would like to see that the study excludes people with a history of myocarditis.

Including them is cheating, quite simply.

Regardless, even if we did go with this Spanish study, you still can't say that a 5% chance of infection is worse. You can say that a 5% of symptomatic infection is worse. There isn't any study in the thread that includes asymptomatic infection, which we know is MOST infection.

So at least so far, I don't see that you have the math to back what appears to be an unscientific claim.

And when faced with the counter research below [0], defining the mechanism of action, we should assume that the risks are a valid concern. You can't just sweep them under the rug.

Most people who tested positive had no symptoms. Most people who didn't get tested also had no symptoms but were likely infected. All of those people shouldn't take on additional risk in their own self interest. At best you can claim that they should take on the risk to try to achieve herd immunity so as to protect others. And actually I'm not sure that we have the data to determine that either.

[0] https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/12/myocarditis-v...

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/fda-must-disclose-m...

So, at least until then they continued to hide them.

Do you have a link to the documents, or any subsequent meta study?

And then we still need to resolve the issue of peer review.

1. First, the placebo data comes from an article that doesn't meet several academic standards for peer reviewed research.

The researchers were the reviewers and they all work at Pfizer. So, peer review was not done at all.

AND the results were not published for us to see. So we have to take their word for it that they performed any research whatsoever.

So, you're comparing peer reviewed research on MMR and 30 years of CDC data on MMR, to the unrelated placebo rate reported in a paper on mRNA vaccination that wasn't even peer reviewed.

Can we agree that peer reviewed research is a more preferrable source for information?

2. We're comparing apples to oranges. MMR is around 10% rate for mild reactions. Around one third of the 27% reported for Pfizer's mRNA COVID vaccine. And that's still lower than the reported placebo rate. We need to be careful which symptoms count as reactions to placebo since that differs between studies.

So, COVID vaccine is 3x more likely to cause an adverse reaction when we generally include all mild reactions like fever, even where mild fever is a desirable outcome for MMR but not for COVID vaccine.

We'd need to look at more severe outcomes for COVID vaccine to compare with the severe outcomes for MMR if you want to get to the 300x numbers.

But let's cut to the chase, is 3x more dangerous enough to say that it might not be for everyone? I sure think so.

I don't honestly know why this is so difficult for humans to just do on our own, but alas...

Your premise is that COVID infection at just 5% is incredibly dangerous. But you can't actually say that without first knowing how many people were actually infected and asymptomatic. And you don't know that.

For all we know, everyone was infected, and infection is nearly harmless. Or it could be that it's way less contagious than that, and extremely deadly. You simply don't know. You'd need to make wild guesses without evidence.

We're supposed to be doing science, right? Seems to me your premise is the one that's unrealistic. Mine is firmly grounded in evidence that we DO have. Not guesses and doomsday religion.

If you can't find a link to the court case on this, let me know. I'll find it for you.

Is that making more sense?

In part though, you are right to be noticing that the Pfizer study and the Stanford study disagree on the risk profile.

Why might that be?

Well, for one thing, if you look up the peer reviewers for the Pfizer study, it's the same list of names as the ones that performed the research, and each one of them is a Pfizer employee. Unsurprisingly, the lower risk profile was found in a study conducted by the same drug company that stands to profit from a lower risk profile. And it's not peer reviewed. Typically we rely on peer reviewed research in the world of science and medicine. Without it, it becomes very difficult to differentiate a science article from advertising, and pseudoscience.

Conversely the Stanford study was done by various researchers from various schools with no conflict of interest and no apparent profit from Pfizer, as best I can tell. And as we'd expect, they found not only a causal link, not only a higher incidence rate, but also the mechanism of action that drives it.

This might simply revive a platform that no longer exists. It might not be about paying creators or collecting ad revenue. It's peer to peer, after all.

And for clarity sake, it's way more people than just the military. Many cities and counties had mandates, including NYC. Everyone in nearly the entire health industry across the country. Many restaurant workers. A bunch of banks and many, many other companies in various industries had mandates just because their leadership was political or used it as a way to reduce labor without penalty. A lot of people were forced.

I don't think it's fair to try to minimize that. It's a major point of ongoing political contention and its among the many reasons why many people stopped voting left (including me).

[0] https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/12/myocarditis-v...

>Are you saying that asymptomatic people don't have myocarditis risk?

No.

But the people with more money can buy more ads just like Google can stomp out any competitor, because they control the data channel.

It's a logical problem. Should we start requiring a license to hold an opinion about research? Who would we trust to govern that licensing process?

It's not really so simple as finding a source to back your claim. You need to be able to defend your interpretation of that source.

Bottom line "safety" is subjective. That's the critical argument. Compared to what is it safe?

Vaccine with a guarantee of infection, maybe the vaccine is safer.

Vaccinating everyone? Well, we didn't really study that. How do you study people in larger numbers with a guarantee that they don't get infected?

They didn't. They just assume everyone is infected and that number makes the research look valid and safe.

In fact, it's not.

The average person is more likely to have negative outcomes from vaccine than natural infection combined with non-infection.

So is it safe for someone who won't be infected at all? What about for someone that won't exhibit symptoms?

No. It's far less safe for those people.

300x-30,000x less safe. Depends on your estimation of asymptomatic and uninfected subjects in the real world.

It's more safe for someone in their 70s, with cancer, or whatever. Fine. But say that clearly. Don't try to bury that in summaries that obfuscate what you really studied.

Doing so destroys trust in science.

Not advocating for or against this vaccine platform, though. I'm advocating for laws about what meets and doesn't meet scientific rigor, as are most scientists right now.

A large portion of society can't be counted because they are asymptomatic. How do you find them to count them? In fact that's nearly everyone. And for those people the vaccine increases their risk by 4/100,000. (More harm than good.)

Let me know if I've misunderstood.

No you wouldn't. You've established a subjective measure to the discussion by which you can refuse to acknowledge any example provided.

How about Biden leaving a bunch of equipment in Afghanistan so his weapons manufacturing buddies could get new manufacturing contracts?

How about Biden using the EPA to shut down eco friendly products in favor of his buddies' company's spill remediation that doesn't work nearly as well?

Oh well, those individually aren't "to the same degree" even if there are many more of them that cumulatively add up to a greater degree.

There are countless examples of this, as lots of others have pointed out to you across this thread. You're just choosing to walk them all back into a corner of "but it's not as bad because ."

Your opinion as given is entirely based around Trump, not government.

It's simple fanaticism. You've chosen a football team. Nothing will convince you that their quarterback sucks because he was just having a bad day every game of the season.

You can quickly stop doing this. Go research the counterpoints and see if you aren't being selective. It will require some honesty with yourself to do so. Most people find that very difficult.