5 ms·

> significantly The studies I've seen largely indicate that it's insignificantly higher, at most. > vaccine induced There are far too many confounding variab

> significantly The studies I've seen largely indicate that it's insignificantly higher, at most. > vaccine induced There are far too many confounding variables to declare with any sort of honesty that it's "vaccine induced" - even if you could prove correlation (remember: correlation != causation). For example: > young males Gender disparities exist in youth athletics participation, and student athletes are well known to be disproportionately at risk of sudden death from undiagnosed myocarditis (see https://www.dukehealth.org/blog/preventing-sudden-cardiac-arrest-young-athletes https://www.dukehealth.org/blog/preventing-sudden-cardiac-ar... as one information source which predates COVID and the vaccines thereof). Young males being more likely to participate in activities which can cause myocarditis or worsen existing myocarditis would readily explain the gender disparity, in a way that neither infection nor vaccination likely would.

nradov 4y ago
That is nonsense bordering on medical misinformation. Multiple independent studies have established clear causality for vaccine induced myocarditis. The risk is low but it absolutely exists, and the relative difference between males and females can't possibly be explained away by sports participation rates. Come on. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 https://www.news-medical.net/news/20221101/New-analysis-on-the-risk-for-myocarditis-or-pericarditis-after-mRNA-COVID-19-vaccination.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20221101/New-analysis-on-t...
- wrycoder 4y ago
  Here is an autopsy report: A Case Report: Multifocal Necrotizing Encephalitis and Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination against COVID-19 [0]. Quoting the abstract: Surprisingly, only spike protein but no nucleocapsid protein could be detected within the foci of inflammation in both the brain and the heart, particularly in the endothelial cells of small blood vessels. Since no nucleocapsid protein could be detected, the presence of spike protein must be ascribed to vaccination rather than to viral infection. [0] https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/10/10/1651 https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/10/10/1651
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    Also quoting literally the first sentence of the abstract: > The current report presents the case of a 76-year-old man with Parkinson’s disease (PD) who died three weeks after receiving his third COVID-19 vaccination. If I had a nickel for every confounding variable implied by either "76-year-old" or "Parkinson's disease" (let alone both, let alone for a sample size of 1), the Powerball jackpot would look like pocket change.
    - wrycoder 4y ago
      Yes, but you need to read the whole paper.
      - yellowapple 4y ago
        I already had, and my point still stands. It makes no effort to control for said confounding variables. It's heavily reliant on family members' subjective evaluations of health deterioration (i.e. it makes no effort to differentiate between "the patient's health started to decline immediately after the second dose" v. "the patient's health had already started declining but family members only noticed it after the second dose"). Hell, it doesn't even specify whether the cardiac events actually happened after or before the first dose; it just says it was on the "same day", which would be a pretty quick onset of symptoms. And that's just on the timeline of events. The autopsy itself only demonstrates the presence of spike proteins in the affected tissue; it does not demonstrate said presence to have caused the tissue to be affected, and it's just as likely that something else caused the inflammation (like, you know, the myriad health issues typical of elderly men) and kept the spike proteins around. Glaringly, the immunohistochemical portion of the autopsy seems to focus solely on SARS-CoV-2, and from that combined with ANE not normally being associated with PD concludes that the ANE has some relation to the presence of SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins. Such an analysis entirely ignores that ANE's causes are already known to include many other viruses, not just SARS-CoV-2. Did he test for influenza A? Influenza B? Herpes virus 6? What about genetic factors? Similar deal for myocarditis. Other viruses can cause it, like influenza (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7793451/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7793451/). That the article is silent on that possibility is a rather glaring flaw in its analysis. Variable after variable after variable after variable after variable, all entirely uncontrolled for, and I'm supposed to be convinced that this demonstrates a causal relationship?
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > Multiple independent studies have established clear causality for vaccine induced myocarditis. Neither of your linked articles do any such thing. They demonstrate and conclude correlation alone, and - again - correlation != causation. The first article you linked only assesses myocarditis diagnoses after vaccination (since that's how VAERS data works), i.e. it makes zero attempt to eliminate the possibility of myocarditis having been present before having even received the vaccine and then subsequently detected later. Again: athletes (including those of the youth variety) are already at disproportionately higher risk for myocarditis, with or without the vaccine. The second article you linked (or rather, the actual study, rather than an editorialized summary thereof) is a meta-analysis of other studies, and itself documents some pretty glaring caveats - namely, inability to control for post-vaccination infection, missing data on first v. second dose, and lack of access to the text of some of the analyzed papers. The analyzed papers all seem to have the same problem as the first one you linked: they take myocarditis diagnoses and work backwards to whether or not the patient was vaccinated, and therefore make no effort to determine whether myocarditis preceded or succeeded vaccination in the affected individuals. A more compelling test would be to check for myocarditis, then administer the vaccine, then check for myocarditis again (and repeat for subsequent doses). That still wouldn't prove causality, but it would at least actually establish (or fail to establish) that elevated myocarditis risk actually follows vaccination rather than already existing and only being detected after vaccination. If you're going to accuse me of "nonsense bordering on medical misinformation", you are encouraged to refrain from doing the same.
  - nradov 4y ago
    That's not how it works. There is a clear casual relationship between certain COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis. No one has proposed a viable alternative hypothesis. For some issues in medicine we're never practically going to have the level of evidence that you seem to be insisting upon. For example, there has never been a study which proves that smoking causes lung cancer. But the correlation established through observational studies is so strong that causality is clear.
    - yellowapple 4y ago

nradov 4y ago

That is nonsense bordering on medical misinformation. Multiple independent studies have established clear causality for vaccine induced myocarditis. The risk is low but it absolutely exists, and the relative difference between males and females can't possibly be explained away by sports participation rates. Come on. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 https://www.news-medical.net/news/20221101/New-analysis-on-the-risk-for-myocarditis-or-pericarditis-after-mRNA-COVID-19-vaccination.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20221101/New-analysis-on-t...

wrycoder 4y ago
Here is an autopsy report: A Case Report: Multifocal Necrotizing Encephalitis and Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination against COVID-19 [0]. Quoting the abstract: Surprisingly, only spike protein but no nucleocapsid protein could be detected within the foci of inflammation in both the brain and the heart, particularly in the endothelial cells of small blood vessels. Since no nucleocapsid protein could be detected, the presence of spike protein must be ascribed to vaccination rather than to viral infection. [0] https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/10/10/1651 https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/10/10/1651
- yellowapple 4y ago
  Also quoting literally the first sentence of the abstract: > The current report presents the case of a 76-year-old man with Parkinson’s disease (PD) who died three weeks after receiving his third COVID-19 vaccination. If I had a nickel for every confounding variable implied by either "76-year-old" or "Parkinson's disease" (let alone both, let alone for a sample size of 1), the Powerball jackpot would look like pocket change.
  - wrycoder 4y ago
    Yes, but you need to read the whole paper.
    - yellowapple 4y ago
      I already had, and my point still stands. It makes no effort to control for said confounding variables. It's heavily reliant on family members' subjective evaluations of health deterioration (i.e. it makes no effort to differentiate between "the patient's health started to decline immediately after the second dose" v. "the patient's health had already started declining but family members only noticed it after the second dose"). Hell, it doesn't even specify whether the cardiac events actually happened after or before the first dose; it just says it was on the "same day", which would be a pretty quick onset of symptoms. And that's just on the timeline of events. The autopsy itself only demonstrates the presence of spike proteins in the affected tissue; it does not demonstrate said presence to have caused the tissue to be affected, and it's just as likely that something else caused the inflammation (like, you know, the myriad health issues typical of elderly men) and kept the spike proteins around. Glaringly, the immunohistochemical portion of the autopsy seems to focus solely on SARS-CoV-2, and from that combined with ANE not normally being associated with PD concludes that the ANE has some relation to the presence of SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins. Such an analysis entirely ignores that ANE's causes are already known to include many other viruses, not just SARS-CoV-2. Did he test for influenza A? Influenza B? Herpes virus 6? What about genetic factors? Similar deal for myocarditis. Other viruses can cause it, like influenza (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7793451/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7793451/). That the article is silent on that possibility is a rather glaring flaw in its analysis. Variable after variable after variable after variable after variable, all entirely uncontrolled for, and I'm supposed to be convinced that this demonstrates a causal relationship?
yellowapple 4y ago
> Multiple independent studies have established clear causality for vaccine induced myocarditis. Neither of your linked articles do any such thing. They demonstrate and conclude correlation alone, and - again - correlation != causation. The first article you linked only assesses myocarditis diagnoses after vaccination (since that's how VAERS data works), i.e. it makes zero attempt to eliminate the possibility of myocarditis having been present before having even received the vaccine and then subsequently detected later. Again: athletes (including those of the youth variety) are already at disproportionately higher risk for myocarditis, with or without the vaccine. The second article you linked (or rather, the actual study, rather than an editorialized summary thereof) is a meta-analysis of other studies, and itself documents some pretty glaring caveats - namely, inability to control for post-vaccination infection, missing data on first v. second dose, and lack of access to the text of some of the analyzed papers. The analyzed papers all seem to have the same problem as the first one you linked: they take myocarditis diagnoses and work backwards to whether or not the patient was vaccinated, and therefore make no effort to determine whether myocarditis preceded or succeeded vaccination in the affected individuals. A more compelling test would be to check for myocarditis, then administer the vaccine, then check for myocarditis again (and repeat for subsequent doses). That still wouldn't prove causality, but it would at least actually establish (or fail to establish) that elevated myocarditis risk actually follows vaccination rather than already existing and only being detected after vaccination. If you're going to accuse me of "nonsense bordering on medical misinformation", you are encouraged to refrain from doing the same.
- nradov 4y ago
  That's not how it works. There is a clear casual relationship between certain COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis. No one has proposed a viable alternative hypothesis. For some issues in medicine we're never practically going to have the level of evidence that you seem to be insisting upon. For example, there has never been a study which proves that smoking causes lung cancer. But the correlation established through observational studies is so strong that causality is clear.
  - yellowapple 4y ago