4 ms·

The last paragraph in the article literally indicates there is no causal relationship or proof of any direct link between the vaccination and myocarditis. > "F

The last paragraph in the article literally indicates there is no causal relationship or proof of any direct link between the vaccination and myocarditis. > "Finally, we cannot provide a definitive functional proof or a direct causal link between vaccination and myocarditis."

jamespo 4y ago
Very few of the instant commenters read the study first it seems.
- ada1981 4y ago
  Haters will say it’s GPT-3ed.
DeusExMachina 4y ago
It states that they cannot provide a definitive proof or a causal link, not that there isn't one.
- giarc 4y ago
  As we say in epidemiology (and other fields), absence of evidence, isn't evidence of absence.
  - ngvrnd 4y ago
    but it is somewhat suggestive of absence.
    - SoftTalker 4y ago
      No, it really doesn't suggest anything either way.
nulld3v 4y ago
The study does suggest there might be a causal relationship. It is not able to provide definitive proof however.
hammock 4y ago
The study also states: > In general, a causal link between myocarditis and anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is supported by several considerations: (A) a close temporal relation to vaccination; all cases were found dead within one week after vaccination, (B) absence of any other significant pre-existing heart disease, especially ischaemic heart disease or cardiomyopathy, (C) negative testing for potential myocarditis-causing infectious agents, (D) presence of a peculiar CD4 predominant T-cell infiltrate, suggesting an immune mediated mechanism
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > In general, a causal link between myocarditis and anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is supported by several considerations: (A) a close temporal relation to vaccination; all cases were found dead within one week after vaccination... > Standardized autopsies were performed on 25 persons who had died unexpectedly and within 20 days after anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. This is a weird way of demonstrating a link. They picked them specifically for that, it can't be evidence of something. If they selected 25 people who died of myocarditis regardless of vaccination status or recency, and all 25 turned out to have been recently vaccinated, that would be scary data.
  - cool_dude85 4y ago
    >This is a weird way of demonstrating a link. They picked them specifically for that, it can't be evidence of something. If they selected 25 people who died of myocarditis regardless of vaccination status or recency, and all 25 turned out to have been recently vaccinated, that would be scary data. It's perfectly valid as an idea, although a lot of statistical work would need to be done to show that it wasn't just happenstance and/or rule out other causes. But a link, sure. Consider a depoliticized example: you do 30 autopsies on people who had recently been to a particular location, let's say a certain grocery store in town. Enough people go to this grocery store that it's not uncommon for way more than 30 recent visitors to be dead unexpectedly by random chance. Further, let's say in the general population, a tiny fraction of people die of a certain food-borne illness. You have a pretty good guess what that fraction is. You do these autopsies and you find that 5 of the people died of this food-borne illness. Much higher than the proportion in the population. Now, you have a lot of additional work to do before you prove that something at the store is causing high rates of the illness: check on comorbidities, other correlated factors, plenty still to be done. But, have you established a potential link? Sure. And you picked them specifically because they died after going to this store. Also, your idea can work too, also with appropriate statistical work, experimental design, all that. Yours is perhaps a bit better suited to answering a question like: of those who die of myocarditis, what proportion have been recently vaccinated? While a proper study the way the authors did is more like: of those who are recently vaccinated and die unexpectedly, what proportion have myocarditis? Both are valid questions and both certainly get at aspects of the link between the vaccine and myocarditis.
krona 4y ago
The causal link (direct or otherwise, does it really matter to most people) between vaccination and myocarditis has been established elsewhere and acknowledged by the CDC.
phkahler 4y ago
But in the intro: >> Thus, myocarditis can be a potentially lethal complication following mRNA-based anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. I would assume that means there is something going on. To your point, medical researchers are IMHO kind of bad at accepting reality if they don't have a complete understanding. So if data show death by specific cause after vaccination, they will reject that conclusion if there is no proven mechanism for it. Rather than critique the study, they simply demand more information than anyone has.
layman51 4y ago
That's not what it says. I will give you an example. Before the 1980s or so when the first serious studies on second-hand smoke exposure were conducted, anybody could have also written that "we cannot provide a definitive causal link between second-hand smoke and lung cancer." Today, it is common sense.
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  No, it's not common sense. It's science, proven over decades and presented to people in an understandable way so that were willing to adopt it as a belief they hold. Common sense nonsense: You can fall off the edge of the world You should put ice on burns We only use 10% of our brain
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
It's also important to note that although they looked at 35 autopsies for people who died in the period after vaccination, only 4 of them had signs of myocarditis. 10 of them had very clearly unrelated causes of death (e.g. pre-existing conditions, easily identifiable external causes). I don't think people realize just how frequent death, including unexplained death, can be when you're looking at population-level sample sizes: > In four patients who received a mRNA vaccination, we identified acute (epi-)myocarditis without detection of another significant disease or health constellation that may have caused an unexpected death. They found some interesting clues that suggest it might be related to accidental intravascular injection: > Interestingly, we recorded inflammatory foci predominantly in the right heart, which may suggest a gradual blood-stream derived dilution effect and based on this finding it is at least tempting to speculate that inadvertent intravascular vaccine injection may be contributive.
jerkstate 4y ago
But we know for certain that they were all very safe drivers /s
- manwe150 4y ago
  Just curious, but are you referring to the recent Canadian study that showed people who self-selected for vaccination may also be associated with being safer drivers? https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(22)00822-1/fulltext https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(22)00822-1/fulltex...
  - sfusato 4y ago
    There's a good take on this study here: https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/the-unvaccinated-had-more-car-crashes https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/the-unvaccinated-had-more-...
    - puffoflogic 4y ago
      TL;DR: The study is fraudulent as it didn't normalize for distance or time driving, which has a extremely strong correlation to traffic fatalities. What the study actually found is that the unvaccinated drive more, and reporting it the other way was intentional fraud.
      - lmm 4y ago
        Driving more is the risky behaviour.
colechristensen 4y ago
"we cannot provide" is very different from "there is no" It is extremely important, the distinction between these two. Claiming something doesn't exist requires careful extensive statistics, this study didn't do that, they're saying it out loud.

jamespo 4y ago

Very few of the instant commenters read the study first it seems.

ada1981 4y ago
Haters will say it’s GPT-3ed.

DeusExMachina 4y ago

It states that they cannot provide a definitive proof or a causal link, not that there isn't one.

giarc 4y ago
As we say in epidemiology (and other fields), absence of evidence, isn't evidence of absence.
- ngvrnd 4y ago
  but it is somewhat suggestive of absence.
  - SoftTalker 4y ago
    No, it really doesn't suggest anything either way.

nulld3v 4y ago

The study does suggest there might be a causal relationship. It is not able to provide definitive proof however.

hammock 4y ago

The study also states: > In general, a causal link between myocarditis and anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is supported by several considerations: (A) a close temporal relation to vaccination; all cases were found dead within one week after vaccination, (B) absence of any other significant pre-existing heart disease, especially ischaemic heart disease or cardiomyopathy, (C) negative testing for potential myocarditis-causing infectious agents, (D) presence of a peculiar CD4 predominant T-cell infiltrate, suggesting an immune mediated mechanism

ceejayoz 4y ago
> In general, a causal link between myocarditis and anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is supported by several considerations: (A) a close temporal relation to vaccination; all cases were found dead within one week after vaccination... > Standardized autopsies were performed on 25 persons who had died unexpectedly and within 20 days after anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. This is a weird way of demonstrating a link. They picked them specifically for that, it can't be evidence of something. If they selected 25 people who died of myocarditis regardless of vaccination status or recency, and all 25 turned out to have been recently vaccinated, that would be scary data.
- cool_dude85 4y ago
  >This is a weird way of demonstrating a link. They picked them specifically for that, it can't be evidence of something. If they selected 25 people who died of myocarditis regardless of vaccination status or recency, and all 25 turned out to have been recently vaccinated, that would be scary data. It's perfectly valid as an idea, although a lot of statistical work would need to be done to show that it wasn't just happenstance and/or rule out other causes. But a link, sure. Consider a depoliticized example: you do 30 autopsies on people who had recently been to a particular location, let's say a certain grocery store in town. Enough people go to this grocery store that it's not uncommon for way more than 30 recent visitors to be dead unexpectedly by random chance. Further, let's say in the general population, a tiny fraction of people die of a certain food-borne illness. You have a pretty good guess what that fraction is. You do these autopsies and you find that 5 of the people died of this food-borne illness. Much higher than the proportion in the population. Now, you have a lot of additional work to do before you prove that something at the store is causing high rates of the illness: check on comorbidities, other correlated factors, plenty still to be done. But, have you established a potential link? Sure. And you picked them specifically because they died after going to this store. Also, your idea can work too, also with appropriate statistical work, experimental design, all that. Yours is perhaps a bit better suited to answering a question like: of those who die of myocarditis, what proportion have been recently vaccinated? While a proper study the way the authors did is more like: of those who are recently vaccinated and die unexpectedly, what proportion have myocarditis? Both are valid questions and both certainly get at aspects of the link between the vaccine and myocarditis.

krona 4y ago

The causal link (direct or otherwise, does it really matter to most people) between vaccination and myocarditis has been established elsewhere and acknowledged by the CDC.

phkahler 4y ago

But in the intro: >> Thus, myocarditis can be a potentially lethal complication following mRNA-based anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. I would assume that means there is something going on. To your point, medical researchers are IMHO kind of bad at accepting reality if they don't have a complete understanding. So if data show death by specific cause after vaccination, they will reject that conclusion if there is no proven mechanism for it. Rather than critique the study, they simply demand more information than anyone has.

layman51 4y ago

That's not what it says. I will give you an example. Before the 1980s or so when the first serious studies on second-hand smoke exposure were conducted, anybody could have also written that "we cannot provide a definitive causal link between second-hand smoke and lung cancer." Today, it is common sense.

ROTMetro 4y ago
No, it's not common sense. It's science, proven over decades and presented to people in an understandable way so that were willing to adopt it as a belief they hold. Common sense nonsense: You can fall off the edge of the world You should put ice on burns We only use 10% of our brain

PragmaticPulp 4y ago

It's also important to note that although they looked at 35 autopsies for people who died in the period after vaccination, only 4 of them had signs of myocarditis. 10 of them had very clearly unrelated causes of death (e.g. pre-existing conditions, easily identifiable external causes). I don't think people realize just how frequent death, including unexplained death, can be when you're looking at population-level sample sizes: > In four patients who received a mRNA vaccination, we identified acute (epi-)myocarditis without detection of another significant disease or health constellation that may have caused an unexpected death. They found some interesting clues that suggest it might be related to accidental intravascular injection: > Interestingly, we recorded inflammatory foci predominantly in the right heart, which may suggest a gradual blood-stream derived dilution effect and based on this finding it is at least tempting to speculate that inadvertent intravascular vaccine injection may be contributive.

jerkstate 4y ago

But we know for certain that they were all very safe drivers /s

manwe150 4y ago
Just curious, but are you referring to the recent Canadian study that showed people who self-selected for vaccination may also be associated with being safer drivers? https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(22)00822-1/fulltext https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(22)00822-1/fulltex...
- sfusato 4y ago
  There's a good take on this study here: https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/the-unvaccinated-had-more-car-crashes https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/the-unvaccinated-had-more-...
  - puffoflogic 4y ago
    TL;DR: The study is fraudulent as it didn't normalize for distance or time driving, which has a extremely strong correlation to traffic fatalities. What the study actually found is that the unvaccinated drive more, and reporting it the other way was intentional fraud.
    - lmm 4y ago
      Driving more is the risky behaviour.

colechristensen 4y ago

"we cannot provide" is very different from "there is no" It is extremely important, the distinction between these two. Claiming something doesn't exist requires careful extensive statistics, this study didn't do that, they're saying it out loud.