4 ms·

> At a very young age, mortality from vaccine side effects (~200 to ~700 peri/myocarditis per 1M) is greater than mortality from covid itself Do you have a sou

by jalk 5y ago

> At a very young age, mortality from vaccine side effects (~200 to ~700 peri/myocarditis per 1M) is greater than mortality from covid itself Do you have a source for that number? All I have seen indicate that the cases are mild to intermediate, but no actual deaths directly linked to myocarditis.

angelzen 5y ago
Pfizer's 5-11 covid vaccine FDA application estimates a bunch of numbers that roughly match the OP numbers in Table 14, page 34. Though we should not confuse myocarditis in boys 200/M with myocarditis mortality, which is 0. And, of course, grain of salt for Pfizer estimation, probably the real numbers could be marginally worse. https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  > Post-EUA safety surveillance reports received by FDA and CDC identified increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly within 7 days following administration of the second dose of the 2-dose primary series. Reporting rates for medical chart-confirmed myocarditis and pericarditis in VAERS have been higher among males under 40 years of age than among females and older males and have been highest in males 12 through 17 years of age (~71.5 cases per million second primary series doses among males age 16-17 years and 42.6 cases per million second primary series doses among males age 12-15 years as per CDC presentation to the ACIP on August 30, 2021). * In an FDA analysis of the Optum healthcare claims database, the estimated excess risk of myocarditis/pericarditis approached 200 cases per million fully vaccinated males 16-17 years of age and 180 cases per million fully vaccinated males 12-15 years of age * .44 Although some cases of vaccine-associated myocarditis/pericarditis have required intensive care support, available data from short-term follow-up suggest that most individuals have had resolution of symptoms with conservative management. Information is not yet available about potential long-term sequelae and outcomes in affected individuals, or whether the vaccine might be associated initially with subclinical myocarditis (and if so, what are the long-term sequelae). A mechanism of action by which the vaccine could cause myocarditis and pericarditis has not been established. Myocarditis and pericarditis were added as important identified risks in the PVP and included in the Warnings sections of the vaccine Fact Sheets and Prescribing Information. The Sponsor is conducting additional post-authorization/post-marketing studies to assess known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis as well as to identify an unexpected serious risk of subclinical myocarditis. I pulled out the text from your link which is the applicable text with most apropos italicized Given what we know thus far I think it is consistent with the research to say that this is likewise, potentially caused by intravenous injection of the vaccine, rather than intramuscular as properly indicated. This is also partially caused by modern vaccine procedures which rarely involve aspiration, therefore, the medical provider has no clear indication of whether or not they are injecting into muscle or veins. As someone that considers himself vaccine-hesistant, I consider this to be a big potential victory in addressing arguably one of the most concerning side effects with mRNA based vaccines, and reducing my concern level if I am required to get the vaccine.
OrvalWintermute 5y ago
Hi The source for that is a number of studies I have read, and that is why I am using such a huge range. For example, the numbers in [1] are quite bleak from a % basis, more so than other studies. On the other hand, myo/pericarditis are known side effects of vaccination in general. In general I don't think that dissuades us, because the rates are usually low. Not in this case though. Fortunately, I believe some researchers have already identified a partial cause, that being intravenous injection of the vaccines rather than intramuscular [2], and related [3] [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34341797/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34341797/ [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34406358/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34406358/ [3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34453510/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34453510/
- mewpmewp2 5y ago
  If aspiration is such an obvious solution why isn't this information immediately broadcasted to all the doctors and nurses, as many of these are still mind boggled when you ask for aspiration?

by jalk 5y ago

angelzen 5y ago

Pfizer's 5-11 covid vaccine FDA application estimates a bunch of numbers that roughly match the OP numbers in Table 14, page 34. Though we should not confuse myocarditis in boys 200/M with myocarditis mortality, which is 0. And, of course, grain of salt for Pfizer estimation, probably the real numbers could be marginally worse. https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download

OrvalWintermute 5y ago
> Post-EUA safety surveillance reports received by FDA and CDC identified increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly within 7 days following administration of the second dose of the 2-dose primary series. Reporting rates for medical chart-confirmed myocarditis and pericarditis in VAERS have been higher among males under 40 years of age than among females and older males and have been highest in males 12 through 17 years of age (~71.5 cases per million second primary series doses among males age 16-17 years and 42.6 cases per million second primary series doses among males age 12-15 years as per CDC presentation to the ACIP on August 30, 2021). * In an FDA analysis of the Optum healthcare claims database, the estimated excess risk of myocarditis/pericarditis approached 200 cases per million fully vaccinated males 16-17 years of age and 180 cases per million fully vaccinated males 12-15 years of age * .44 Although some cases of vaccine-associated myocarditis/pericarditis have required intensive care support, available data from short-term follow-up suggest that most individuals have had resolution of symptoms with conservative management. Information is not yet available about potential long-term sequelae and outcomes in affected individuals, or whether the vaccine might be associated initially with subclinical myocarditis (and if so, what are the long-term sequelae). A mechanism of action by which the vaccine could cause myocarditis and pericarditis has not been established. Myocarditis and pericarditis were added as important identified risks in the PVP and included in the Warnings sections of the vaccine Fact Sheets and Prescribing Information. The Sponsor is conducting additional post-authorization/post-marketing studies to assess known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis as well as to identify an unexpected serious risk of subclinical myocarditis. I pulled out the text from your link which is the applicable text with most apropos italicized Given what we know thus far I think it is consistent with the research to say that this is likewise, potentially caused by intravenous injection of the vaccine, rather than intramuscular as properly indicated. This is also partially caused by modern vaccine procedures which rarely involve aspiration, therefore, the medical provider has no clear indication of whether or not they are injecting into muscle or veins. As someone that considers himself vaccine-hesistant, I consider this to be a big potential victory in addressing arguably one of the most concerning side effects with mRNA based vaccines, and reducing my concern level if I am required to get the vaccine.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago

Hi The source for that is a number of studies I have read, and that is why I am using such a huge range. For example, the numbers in [1] are quite bleak from a % basis, more so than other studies. On the other hand, myo/pericarditis are known side effects of vaccination in general. In general I don't think that dissuades us, because the rates are usually low. Not in this case though. Fortunately, I believe some researchers have already identified a partial cause, that being intravenous injection of the vaccines rather than intramuscular [2], and related [3] [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34341797/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34341797/ [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34406358/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34406358/ [3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34453510/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34453510/

mewpmewp2 5y ago
If aspiration is such an obvious solution why isn't this information immediately broadcasted to all the doctors and nurses, as many of these are still mind boggled when you ask for aspiration?