6 ms·

> Multiple independent studies have established clear causality for vaccine induced myocarditis. Neither of your linked articles do any such thing. They demon

> 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
  > That's not how it works. That's exactly how it works. > There is a clear casual relationship between certain COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis. No, there is not. Yet again: correlation does not equal causation. If you know of a study that actually asserts causation (and not just correlation), link it. > For example, there has never been a study which proves that smoking causes lung cancer. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3749017/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3749017/ Unlike either of the studies you linked, this one goes at great lengths to describe the myriad identified confounding variables (for which they can then be controlled) in the correlation between smoking and lung cancer, the exact mechanisms by which tobacco smoke causes lung cancer (and the exact carcinogens present in tobacco smoke), even the exact mutations in tumor-suppressing genes like p53. The studies linking mRNA vaccines to myocarditis don't come anywhere close to that level of examination. Similar deal with this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9603183/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9603183/ Consequently: > But the correlation established through observational studies is so strong that causality is clear. And that is very unlike the situation with vaccines and myocarditis, wherein the correlation is nowhere near as strong and for which the causality is nowhere near as clear. That vast difference is why - unlike either of the articles you cited - the myriad articles on the relationship between smoking and lung cancer are able to assert causation, and indeed do so. Until that changes, it is deeply irresponsible to prematurely declare the relationship between vaccines and myocarditis to be in any way "causal". It's a "maybe" at best. ---- Speaking of smoking and its deleterious effects: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20555426/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20555426/ And gender variance in high school student tobacco use - including of smoking tobacco - does exist: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth_data/tobacco_use/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/yout... How many uncontrolled-for confounding variables do I need to pull up before you're willing to admit how utterly irresponsible it is to declare from on high that the link between mRNA vaccines and myocarditis in young males is "causal"?

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
> That's not how it works. That's exactly how it works. > There is a clear casual relationship between certain COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis. No, there is not. Yet again: correlation does not equal causation. If you know of a study that actually asserts causation (and not just correlation), link it. > For example, there has never been a study which proves that smoking causes lung cancer. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3749017/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3749017/ Unlike either of the studies you linked, this one goes at great lengths to describe the myriad identified confounding variables (for which they can then be controlled) in the correlation between smoking and lung cancer, the exact mechanisms by which tobacco smoke causes lung cancer (and the exact carcinogens present in tobacco smoke), even the exact mutations in tumor-suppressing genes like p53. The studies linking mRNA vaccines to myocarditis don't come anywhere close to that level of examination. Similar deal with this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9603183/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9603183/ Consequently: > But the correlation established through observational studies is so strong that causality is clear. And that is very unlike the situation with vaccines and myocarditis, wherein the correlation is nowhere near as strong and for which the causality is nowhere near as clear. That vast difference is why - unlike either of the articles you cited - the myriad articles on the relationship between smoking and lung cancer are able to assert causation, and indeed do so. Until that changes, it is deeply irresponsible to prematurely declare the relationship between vaccines and myocarditis to be in any way "causal". It's a "maybe" at best. ---- Speaking of smoking and its deleterious effects: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20555426/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20555426/ And gender variance in high school student tobacco use - including of smoking tobacco - does exist: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth_data/tobacco_use/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/yout... How many uncontrolled-for confounding variables do I need to pull up before you're willing to admit how utterly irresponsible it is to declare from on high that the link between mRNA vaccines and myocarditis in young males is "causal"?