2 ms·

To preempt the unevitable comments blaming COVID vaccines for this: please note that most of the sources used in the article predate the pandemic.

no-dr-onboard 3y ago
Sure, but what does that say about this article being published in 2023? A bad source is a bad source. Best case scenario, unknowingly publishing with bad sources taints the article, making the article itself unreliable. Worst case scenario, knowingly publishing with bad sources taints the _publisher_, making them unreliable.
Phil_Latio 3y ago
Your comment makes no sense. The article blames Covid for a sudden increase: > A 2022 study published in the Journal of Medical Virology found that heart attack deaths increased by 14 percent within the first year of the pandemic. So if I were to blame the 14% increase on the vaccine instead, sources predating the pandemic wouldn't matter.
- saalweachter 3y ago
  I mean, "within the first year of the pandemic" presumably means "between Jan 2020 and Jan 2021", and the vaccines didn't become widely available [to all people 16 and older] until Apr 2021, so I wouldn't blame that 14% increase on the vaccine.
  - Phil_Latio 3y ago
    I'm just saying: The original comment made it sound like (in the context of "heart attacks are rising"), as if any increase within the pandemic is already (or mostly...) covered by sources predating the pandemic and thus drawing any link to the vaccine would be invalid. These (wrong!) hand-holding statements annoy me, that's all. To the data: Not sure what period the study is about. Though it's well known, that MRNA vaccines cause heart related problems. Whether the rise in excess death of young people is caused by "long covid"-effects, and/or by the vaccine, is still an open question I guess. But it's a fact, that the pandemic has a long-term impact on peoples health and excess death: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps

no-dr-onboard 3y ago

Sure, but what does that say about this article being published in 2023? A bad source is a bad source. Best case scenario, unknowingly publishing with bad sources taints the article, making the article itself unreliable. Worst case scenario, knowingly publishing with bad sources taints the _publisher_, making them unreliable.

Phil_Latio 3y ago

Your comment makes no sense. The article blames Covid for a sudden increase: > A 2022 study published in the Journal of Medical Virology found that heart attack deaths increased by 14 percent within the first year of the pandemic. So if I were to blame the 14% increase on the vaccine instead, sources predating the pandemic wouldn't matter.

saalweachter 3y ago
I mean, "within the first year of the pandemic" presumably means "between Jan 2020 and Jan 2021", and the vaccines didn't become widely available [to all people 16 and older] until Apr 2021, so I wouldn't blame that 14% increase on the vaccine.
- Phil_Latio 3y ago
  I'm just saying: The original comment made it sound like (in the context of "heart attacks are rising"), as if any increase within the pandemic is already (or mostly...) covered by sources predating the pandemic and thus drawing any link to the vaccine would be invalid. These (wrong!) hand-holding statements annoy me, that's all. To the data: Not sure what period the study is about. Though it's well known, that MRNA vaccines cause heart related problems. Whether the rise in excess death of young people is caused by "long covid"-effects, and/or by the vaccine, is still an open question I guess. But it's a fact, that the pandemic has a long-term impact on peoples health and excess death: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps