4 ms·

This is a problem with a lot of science reporting. Things get filtered through so many reports that it is tough to know what they mean anymore. The 10% number

by slg 6y ago

This is a problem with a lot of science reporting. Things get filtered through so many reports that it is tough to know what they mean anymore. The 10% number in your report references another report which references this report [1]. Here is part of the abstract: >The incidence of viral myocarditis was studied prospectively at the Central Military Hospital 1 in Finland in connection with an A1 virus influenza epidemic in Jan. 1978. Of 104 conscripts taken consecutively to hospital because of a sudden respiratory infection, 41 had serologically confirmed influenza A, 37 were serologically negative, while in 26 it was not possible to carry out complete virological analyses. Six of the serologically confirmed influenza patients had acute myocarditis on the basis of serial electrocardiographic ST segment and/or T wave changes, unresponsive to beta-blockade. The incidence of the influenza A myocarditis was thus 9% of the 67 verified and suspected cases of influenza taken together. So 6 people of the 67 people who went to a single Finnish Hospital in 1978 with influenza had myocarditis. Through a game of telephone that becomes "myocardial involvement in seasonal influenza infection has been reported in up to 10% of cases" which clearly isn't the conclusion of the original study. The original sample is tiny and it is already measuring from a population of people who were sick enough to go to the hospital. 30-35% would be a hugely alarming number, especially among 18-23 year old Division 1 athletes. It would be difficult to find a healthier population of people. [1] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7368969/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7368969/

timr 6y ago
While what you say is true, you should be sure to apply the same standard of evidence to the claims made here. As the currently top comment is pointing out, the "30-35%" is based on, essentially, rumor. They haven't given MRIs to every Division I athlete. Some unknown number of people had MRIs, and 30% of those had myocarditis. Was this a representative sample? We have no way of knowing. But here's a scary article, regardless.
- slg 6y ago
  I read the top comment which I thought hit that point strong enough that I didn't need to mention it, but yes the 30-35% number is nowhere close to definitive either. After seeing your comment and rereading my post I edited the 2nd to last sentence in my comment from "30-35% is a hugely alarming number" to "30-35% would be a hugely alarming number" due to the uncertainty.
  - timr 6y ago
    Fair. I couldn't tell which point you were trying to convey with the original wording.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
Thanks for doing the leg work. That's why I threw a question on the end - figured it would generate discussion more than anything. And I totally agree with your conclusion. It's an alarming figure and if further numbers prove to be similar, it shows just how worse this is than the aforementioned flu.

by slg 6y ago

timr 6y ago

While what you say is true, you should be sure to apply the same standard of evidence to the claims made here. As the currently top comment is pointing out, the "30-35%" is based on, essentially, rumor. They haven't given MRIs to every Division I athlete. Some unknown number of people had MRIs, and 30% of those had myocarditis. Was this a representative sample? We have no way of knowing. But here's a scary article, regardless.

slg 6y ago
I read the top comment which I thought hit that point strong enough that I didn't need to mention it, but yes the 30-35% number is nowhere close to definitive either. After seeing your comment and rereading my post I edited the 2nd to last sentence in my comment from "30-35% is a hugely alarming number" to "30-35% would be a hugely alarming number" due to the uncertainty.
- timr 6y ago
  Fair. I couldn't tell which point you were trying to convey with the original wording.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

SketchySeaBeast 6y ago

Thanks for doing the leg work. That's why I threw a question on the end - figured it would generate discussion more than anything. And I totally agree with your conclusion. It's an alarming figure and if further numbers prove to be similar, it shows just how worse this is than the aforementioned flu.