3 ms·

Public health officials summarily denied any association early on. The only serious risk they acknowledged was propylene glycol allergy.

acdha 3y ago
Do you have any evidence to support that assertion? I first learned of the issue from the scientific community tracking the data collected by the public health community. Here’s an example of what that looked like in June 2021, covering developments in May, just 5 months after the first country in the world had approved the vaccine (UK, 2020-12): https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/myocarditis-coronavirus-vaccine https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/myocarditis-coronavirus-va... Similarly Israel’s public health agency’s report was covered in June 2021: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-sees-probable-link-between-pfizer-vaccine-small-number-myocarditis-cases-2021-06-01/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-sees-probab...
- linuxftw 3y ago
  Here's a quote from the very Reuters article you linked: > The European Medicines Agency (EMA) said last week that heart inflammation after receiving the Pfizer vaccine had been no cause for concern as such incidents were similar rate to those in the general population. The CDC and other agencies also continue to heavily downplay the risk as 'mild myocarditis.'
  - acdha 3y ago
    Yes, and that’s accurate. People have carefully monitored it, but the risk is very low and much lower than getting COVID. That doesn’t fit any definition of “ignoring” in the English dictionary just because antivaxxers would desperately love to have something they weren’t wrong about.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    "No cause for concern" and "denied any association" are not the same thing.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Both of those are 100% accurate claims. So what are you actually upset about?
  - broast 3y ago
    The risk of myocarditis may be higher for an unvaccinated person than a vaccinated person which makes the "downplaying" much more nuanced, doesn't it?

acdha 3y ago

Do you have any evidence to support that assertion? I first learned of the issue from the scientific community tracking the data collected by the public health community. Here’s an example of what that looked like in June 2021, covering developments in May, just 5 months after the first country in the world had approved the vaccine (UK, 2020-12): https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/myocarditis-coronavirus-vaccine https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/myocarditis-coronavirus-va... Similarly Israel’s public health agency’s report was covered in June 2021: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-sees-probable-link-between-pfizer-vaccine-small-number-myocarditis-cases-2021-06-01/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-sees-probab...

linuxftw 3y ago
Here's a quote from the very Reuters article you linked: > The European Medicines Agency (EMA) said last week that heart inflammation after receiving the Pfizer vaccine had been no cause for concern as such incidents were similar rate to those in the general population. The CDC and other agencies also continue to heavily downplay the risk as 'mild myocarditis.'
- acdha 3y ago
  Yes, and that’s accurate. People have carefully monitored it, but the risk is very low and much lower than getting COVID. That doesn’t fit any definition of “ignoring” in the English dictionary just because antivaxxers would desperately love to have something they weren’t wrong about.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  "No cause for concern" and "denied any association" are not the same thing.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Both of those are 100% accurate claims. So what are you actually upset about?
- broast 3y ago
  The risk of myocarditis may be higher for an unvaccinated person than a vaccinated person which makes the "downplaying" much more nuanced, doesn't it?