Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more ceejayoz's commentslogin

> MRNA technologies are not "vaccines" per se.

Define vaccine for us.

> The results would likely have been much better had they gone with more traditional vaccine formulations.

Several non-mRNA vaccinations were produced (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novavax_COVID-19_vaccine remains available, if you want). They did not have better apparent efficacy.


> But if people died right away due to the vaccine (hypothetically), wouldn’t this design exclude those deaths?

Yes. That's what we have plenty of other studies for, including the clinical trials that led to the vaccines being approved in the first place.


I like to ask people who talk about a 1% mortality rate if they'd go to a football game in a stadium with 100k seats if 1k of those seats randomly had a small bomb attached.

Looks like they do, yes.

> A stronger association was observed among individuals aged 18 to 29 years, although the underlying reasons remain unclear and warrant further investigation.


This comment helps me understand how folks see "your taxes will go up $10k but you won't pay $20k in health insurance premiums" as a hit to the pocketbook.

They aren't lying, in the sense that "Hitler provided free food, transportation, and housing to Europe's Jews" isn't technically a lie.

They are using a technically correct piece of data to deeply mislead you. Other pieces of data readily available to us reveal the sleight of hand.


Okay, let's run a proof by contradiction.

Assume you're right: VAERS is useless for causality and the 10 deaths are not real or not proven.

What possible benefits does RFK Jr. get from dramatically restricting a vaccine using data he knows is meaningless and will be shredded in 24 hours by every fact-checker and cardiologist on HN/Twitter/younameit?

If he just wanted to scare people for no reason, the rational move is to keep repeating “VAERS proves nothing” and change zero policy. That costs nothing and keeps everyone happy. Instead he’s taking massive heat, angering the entire medical establishment, and shrinking the childhood schedule.

Inventing a fake danger out of junk data brings him zero benefit and enormous political cost. That only makes sense if the internal FDA review actually found something real and alarming.


> Assume you're right: VAERS is useless for causality…

Don't assume. https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html "When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established."

> What possible benefits does RFK Jr. get from dramatically restricting a vaccine using data he knows is meaningless and will be shredded in 24 hours by every fact-checker and cardiologist on HN/Twitter/younameit?

He gets to restrict vaccines, which is a thing he's wanted to do for decades.

(And not just COVID ones; https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cdc-acip-vaccine-panel-hepatiti... happened this morning. Or the spurious claims about Tylenol and autism.)

What about this administration makes you think they care about having their false claims "shredded in 24 hours"?


Duh. VAERS guide says raw reports dont 100% prove causality. Nobody claims they do. That's why FDA's OBPV did the follow-up review of those 96 child deaths and concluded >10 were causal from vaccine myocarditis.

They could've just said "VAERS proves nothing" and left the recommendation unchanged. Instead they wrote it up, leaked it early, and invited the exact scrutiny you're giving it now.

If the conclusion was fake or flimsy, this blows up in their face and RFK looks like a clown. They only take that risk if the OBPV analysis actually held up internally.

Edit: as for the Tylenol, see this https://x.com/HHSGov/status/1970868168995536978


> That's why FDA's OBPV did the follow-up review of those 96 child deaths and concluded >10 were causal from vaccine myocarditis.

We don't actually know who at the OBPV did the review (Prasad only referred to the results coming from "the team") and the causal ranking they used included any case where causality was subjectively rated between "certain" and "possible/likely".

We also know that two orders of magnitude more children died from covid than that, and we have strong studies suggesting that myocarditis from covid is both more common and more severe than the observed cases tied to the covid vaccines, two inconvenient stances that Prasad waves away as insufficiently studied, even as he bases his entire position on a subjective review of something by someone, and doesn't bother filling in those blanks.

> If the conclusion was fake or flimsy, this blows up in their face and RFK looks like a clown

He beclowns himself all the time. He himself walked back the Tylenol claim after convincing Trump to talk about it so publicly and standing by him while he did it. Clearly he's not bothered by it.


> That's why FDA's OBPV did the follow-up review of those 96 child deaths and concluded >10 were causal from vaccine myocarditis.

And we're back at the "Hitler provided free things to Jews" technical truth again. This is likely an accurate statement!

But it'd deeply missing important context.

> If the conclusion was fake or flimsy, this blows up in their face and RFK looks like a clown.

This is likely meaningless to the guy who leaves dead bears in Central Park. The biggest political innovation in the last 50 years or so is the discovery that you can look like a clown without much consequence.

> Edit: as for the Tylenol, see this https://x.com/HHSGov/status/1970868168995536978

I don't recommend eating poop, but that doesn't mean it causes autism.


Your arguments in a nutshell:

   1. Hitler gave Jews free stuff (technical truth used to mislead)
   2. Dead bear guy doesn’t care about looking like a clown
   3. Therefore the OBPV causality review must be deceptive sleight-of-hand
That's literally a conspiracy theory.

On Tylenol, FDA did add a "possible association" warning in Sept 2025 (RFK’s call), but even the new label says evidence is only _suggestive_, not proven. Poop analogy fits the anti side better: no, avoiding fever meds won't prevent autism, but it could harm pregnancies.

What exactly is the "important context"?


The sleight of hand is pretending ten kids dying of a rare vaccine side effect is at all surprising when we gave it to billions of people.

Eating pretzels has a more dangerous safety profile than that. People choke to death.


Is there a strong evidence that kids need it in the first place? A stricter protocol does not dismiss the kids, right?

> Is there a strong evidence that kids need it in the first place?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/fda-officials-have-said...

"U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data shows that since the start of the pandemic, more than 2,000 children age 18 and younger in the U.S. have died from COVID-19. Nearly 700, or about 33%, were less than 1 year old."

Given the effectiveness at preventing death, I'll happily trade 2,000 COVID deaths for 10 myocarditis deaths.


Once again, stricter protocols don't dismiss anyone, they adapt to 2025 realities: near-zero child covid deaths monthly vs. rare vax risks. Under the new FDA framework, kids aren't denied shots; they just require a doctor's consult for personalized recs. Your framing sounds like full denial, which is false and amps up the fear.

> What possible benefits does RFK Jr. get from dramatically restricting a vaccine using data he knows is meaningless and will be shredded in 24 hours by every fact-checker and cardiologist on HN/Twitter/younameit?

That's never bothered him before. Vaccines cause autism. WiFi causes DNA changes and opens up the blood-brain barrier allowing toxins into the brain. Chemtrails. HIV is not a major cause of AIDS, with lifestyle and drugs (particularly amyl nitrate) being the major causes.

> Inventing a fake danger out of junk data brings him zero benefit and enormous political cost. That only makes sense if the internal FDA review actually found something real and alarming.

Making fake dangers out of junk data is why he has political power in the first place.


You just listed a bunch of old-school RFK claims to dismiss him entirely.

That's exactly how people used to shut down anyone questioning:

- Vioxx

- lab leak

- opioids

- PFAS

...all “crazy conspiracy theories” until proven true.

I'm not saying vaccines cause autism (the evidence still doesn't). But stay skeptical, even of your own side. That's how science actually moves forward.


The point is that you were arguing the RFK Jr would not make claims unless they were supported by the evidence. The examples given show that he will in fact make such claims.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results: just because RFK Jr. has hyped weak claims before doesn't automatically make this OBPV causality review wrong.

You have no idea what a proof by contradiction is.

They claim "Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc., who had 0 deaths from COVID-19 during the "pandemic", and only had COVID-19 deaths ever recorded AFTER the experimental injections were administered."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pande... says Thailand's health ministry publicly recorded their first death in March 1, 2020. So it's transparently bullshit.


Yeah, admittedly while I like to give folks the benefit of the doubt, I assumed this wasn't coming from a place of good will.

FDA is imposing stricter vaccine protocols due to a long-term anti-vaxxer at the helm of HHS.

The guy who says HIV is caused by poppers?


I assume their point is that, ah, the opinion of someone who thinks AIDS is _caused by poppers_ on anything medical, or, indeed, probably on _anything_, may be safely discounted, on the basis that they are clearly insane.

I understand that. I'm wondering why you'd find such a shitty source even the slightest bit compelling.

I didnt find it compelling at all - I was being sarcastic. Anyone who thinks Brett Weinstein is reputable at this point is an idiot.

That's a year into its availability in France. Anyone who didn't have their first dose by then probably wasn't getting a dose.

You can see that in this chart (click the 5Y range): https://ycharts.com/indicators/france_coronavirus_full_vacci...

It's the full vaccination rate; as of Dec 1 2021 it was 69.89%. A month later (i.e. those Nov folks are getting their second dose) it's 74%; latest number on the chart is 78.44%.


> That's a year into its availability in France. Anyone who didn't have their first dose by then probably wasn't getting a dose.

You are aware of the "incentives" offered by the French govt?

Such wonderful options as the ability to go the shops without being arrested that came with, "take the mandated medicine".


That's entirely irrelevant to "what date do we pick as the cutoff for this research?"

From the chart, they picked a very reasonable spot to draw said line.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: