7 ms·
Check out this Kaiser Permanente Northwest study which points out the flaw in the "first 1-7 days" logic: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pds.5439
by busymom0 4y ago
Check out this Kaiser Permanente Northwest study which points out the flaw in the "first 1-7 days" logic:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pds.5439 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pds.5439
> The encounter methodology identified 14 distinct patients who met the confirmed or probable CDC case definition for acute myocarditis or pericarditis with an onset within 21 days of receipt of COVID-19 vaccination. When we extended the search for relevant diagnoses to 30 days since vaccination, we identified two additional patients (for a total of 16 patients) who met the case definition for acute myocarditis or pericarditis, but those patients had been misdiagnosed at the time of their original presentation. Three of these patients had an ICD-10-CM code of I51.4 “Myocarditis, Unspecified;” that code was omitted by the VSD algorithm (in the late fall of 2021). The VSD methodology identified 11 patients who met the CDC case definition for acute myocarditis or pericarditis. Seven (64%) of the 11 patients had initial care for myopericarditis outside of a KPNW facility and their diagnosis could not be ascertained by the VSD methodology until claims were submitted (median delay of 33 days; range of 12–195 days). Among those who received a second dose of vaccine (n = 146 785), we estimated a risk as 95.4 cases of myopericarditis per million second doses administered (95% CI, 52.1–160.0).
One of the author also did a podcast where she pointed out how the way some insurance claims (especially those from outside facility) works is that it takes a few weeks to receive the claim and it to get registered correctly. So they often get missed in short period windows.
When they took into account the correct numbers, they found rates of 537.1 per million for MALES aged 18-24.
Here in Ontario, our government reports rates of 200.2 per million in males aged 18-24. Note that Ontario stopped giving Moderna to under 30 year olds and also made the dosing interval to be 8 weeks but our rates of myocarditis continued to climb.
> most people don’t suffer chronic forms
This is misleading. There is no such thing as mild myocarditis. Inflammation of your heart muscle has to be taken seriously, even if you end up in the hospital for a couple days, that's not the end of inflammation because it leads to scarring and permanent damage. Heart is the only organ that's going to keep you alive the longest and any damage to the heart has to be taken seriously especially if you are balancing it with a condition that in itself is very low risk to youth.
Around 88% of the cases occur in males and up to 96% of the cases are hospitalized. Requires no exercise for 6 months and 6 month follow up Cardiac MRI still shows damage:
https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(22)00282-7/fulltext https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(22)00282-7/fulltext
And since the COVID vaccine doesn't prevent infection, you may end up compounding the risk if you get myocarditis first from the vaccine and then again from infection.
The largest study on this topic has been of 23.1 million residents across four Scandinavian countries — Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. They found that:
> in young men 16 to 24 years of age, the risk for myocarditis after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 infection.
> "We show that the risk of myocarditis after COVID infection is lower in younger people and higher in older people, but the opposite is true after COVID vaccination, where the risk of myocarditis is higher in younger people and lower in older people"
> "In the group at highest risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination — young men aged 16 to 24 — the Pfizer vaccine shows a five times higher risk of myocarditis versus the unvaccinated cohort, while the Moderna vaccine shows a 15 times higher risk"
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/972453 https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/972453
Actual study:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2791253 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/...
This finding from Scandinavian countries also seems to match the update to the Nature study which found the risk of myocarditis in under-40 males to be greater from the vaccine than from COVID. Discussed here few months ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29697780 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29697780
- justinjlynn 4y agoI'm impressed by the number of specific studies and writings you've gathered which happen support your conclusion. Tell me, what evidence and studies have you collected and evaluated which do not support it?
- suture 4y agoThis comes across a bit disingenuous. Do you have evidence to the contrary? If so why not state what it is or that such evidence exists? I believe the Earth is spheroidal in shape and also haven’t collected evidence that supports it being flat. It’s not reasonable, in general, to look up the pros/cons of each belief. In the present case are you suggesting that people are cherry picking the studies to conform to a preconceived belief?
- justinjlynn 4y agoYes, to your questions; however, do note that I am not the one publishing this unsatisfactory metastudy. As such the burden is on the publisher to produce something of value by looking up the pros and cons and comparing the two. Otherwise, anyone could just punch up google, print out the results for "flat earth" and claim to have done research which says you should believe it. Obviously, that's not the case.
- suture 4y agoThis is not an academic forum and so the standards are a bit relaxed. Typically people post their beliefs along with a snippet of the reasons for said beliefs. Then others who disagree sometime respond by presenting contrary evidence. No one has a burden as such. We are not academicians beholden to standards of thoroughness. My suggestion is that had you responded by stating that there are contrary studies and that those studies are better then your post would have been a lot clearer. At least it would have put the idea that the evidence presented was suspect into my mind. As it is it came across as unclear who has the stronger position objectively speaking.