3 ms·
Myocarditis seems to be the one you refer to? Conclusions Regarding mRNA-1273 Conclusion 3-2: The evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship betwe
by piva00 2y ago
Myocarditis seems to be the one you refer to?
Conclusions Regarding mRNA-1273
Conclusion 3-2: The evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the mRNA-1273 vaccine and Guillain-Barré syndrome.
Conclusion 3-10: The evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the mRNA-1273 vaccine and Bell's palsy.
Conclusion 5-2: The evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the mRNA-1273 vaccine and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome.
Conclusion 6-2: The evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the mRNA vaccine and myocardial infarction.
Conclusion 7-2: *The evidence establishes a causal relationship between the mRNA-1273 vaccine and myocarditis*.
Conclusion 9-2: The evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the mRNA-1273 vaccine and female infertility.
For all other possible harms studied, the conclusion was that the evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship with the mRNA-1273 vaccine.
At the same time for the myocarditis analysis it seems most other vaccines couldn't have evidence for or against it having a causal relationship:
BOX 7-1
Conclusions for Myocarditis and Pericarditis
Conclusion 7-1: The evidence establishes a causal relationship between the BNT1622 vaccine and myocarditis.
Conclusion 7-2: The evidence establishes a causal relationship between the mRNA-1273 vaccine and myocarditis.
Conclusion 7-3: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine and myocarditis.
Conclusion 7-4: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine and myocarditis.
Conclusion 7-5: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between the BNT162b2 vaccine and pericarditis without myocarditis.
Conclusion 7-6: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between the mRNA-1273 vaccine and pericarditis without myocarditis.
Conclusion 7-7: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine and pericarditis without myocarditis.
Conclusion 7-8: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine and pericarditis without myocarditis.
- deng 2y agoYes, this causal relationship with myocarditis is well known by now. However: "In a detailed analysis of nearly 43 million people, the risk of myocarditis in unvaccinated individuals after COVID-19 infection was at least 11 times higher compared to people who developed myocarditis after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine or booster dose, according to new research published today in the American Heart Association’s flagship, peer-reviewed journal Circulation." https://newsroom.heart.org/news/myocarditis-risk-significantly-higher-after-covid-19-infection-vs-after-a-covid-19-vaccine https://newsroom.heart.org/news/myocarditis-risk-significant...
- ifyoubuildit 2y agoSo this shows a short window of time where a seronaive person had higher risk of myocarditis after getting covid than if they first got the shot, right? * That population didnt exist for very long. Once the conditions became that virtually everyone had at least one shot or one infection, is there any benefit with respect to myocarditis to getting more shots? * I find it hard to trust data like this because of the immense pressure against side effects being attributed to the shots: pressure both on those impacted (for shame or disbelief or difficulty in knowing), on those doing the reporting (professional consequences, shame, disbelief), and on those in charge of administering the whole thing (monetary incentives, shame, disbelief, etc). That we see a signal at all in those conditions is frightening.
- marcinzm 2y ago> * I find it hard to trust data like this because of the immense pressure against side effects being attributed to the shots: pressure both on those impacted (for shame or disbelief or difficulty in knowing), on those doing the reporting (professional consequences, shame, disbelief), and on those in charge of administering the whole thing (monetary incentives, shame, disbelief, etc). None of those really exist at the level where these metrics are collected, and myocarditis is a general medical condition that one would get treatment for. I think it's hard for a lot of people deep into their beliefs to realize that the vast vast majority of the population just doesn't actually care. You get a vaccine. Done. If you then get sick for whatever reason you'll go to the hospital or not. Vaccine isn't even part of the thought process. Medical staff will treat you because that's what they do. Then it will go onto whatever metrics exist. Then later someone pulls the numbers together but they're not the ones collecting them. There's no grand conspiracy because people don't actually care and it doesn't impact them in any way either directly or emotionally. edit: As a movie villain once said: To you it was the most important day of your life, to them it was a Tuesday.
- ifyoubuildit 2y ago> None of those really exist at the level where these metrics are collected, and myocarditis is a general medical condition that one would get treatment for. That sounds reasonable. Although I've read that many cases of vaccine related myocarditis are sub clinical (you don't find it until you proactively look for it, which there is only so much appetite to do). > There's no grand conspiracy I think you're typecasting me to some character in your head. I'm not claiming anything about conspiracies. I am pointing at the social and professional stigma around saying anything less than positive about anything related to vaccines. Is it some grand conspiracy to say that exists? Your response is sort of proof of this: I said something less than positive about vaccines and now you think I'm a conspiracy theorist.