9 ms·

> If that's ineffective I think... You had the wrong expectations? it was said to "stop the spread" and "prevent infection", both it did not live up to. there

by cies 2y ago

> If that's ineffective I think... You had the wrong expectations? it was said to "stop the spread" and "prevent infection", both it did not live up to. there are many, here's one study from Basel: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978 discussed by someone that discusses these things more often here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd_RTf_ForA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd_RTf_ForA

stnmtn 2y ago
Doesn't your link say that it was transient and temporary?
- cies 2y ago
  fixed my post. tnx
  - stnmtn 2y ago
    Doesn't your link also say this? "No definitive case of myocarditis was found. However, the two participants (both women) with vaccine-associated myocardialinjury and chest pain met the Brighton Collaboration case defini-tion Level 2, indicating probable myocarditis in those patients (0.3%[95% CI 0.1–0.9%])" So 2 of the participants had a .3% possibility?
    - leereeves 2y ago
      0.3% is the percentage of participants, not the confidence in the diagnosis. Every result reported in the paper follows that same pattern: "[N] participants had [result] ([% of participants], [95% confidence interval])".
      - cies 2y ago
        0.3% is a lot for a medicine to be called safe.
        stnmtn 2y ago
        What do you think a safe threshold should be? And note that your own link said that the .3% of participants were those that could possibly show signs of myocarditis, they didn't actually contract that disease. So what does your paper show that is damning evidence to you?
      - stnmtn 2y ago
        I guess what I am asking you is what is the most important figure in that paper, as I read it and I'm no scientific expert but it made me come away more confident in the efficacy and safety of the vaccines. What am I missing that you are finding?
        leereeves 2y ago
        I'm not the person who posted the paper.
piva00 2y ago
Here's a meta analysis from 2023 about the effectiveness of the vaccine with around ~3 million subjects from the different studies: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1113156/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.... A meta analysis about the vaccines' safety record with around ~99 million subjects over different analysed studies: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X24001270 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X2... The conclusion from the article you shared also says the resulting myocarditis doesn't seem to be alarming: > mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated myocardial injury was more common than previously thought, being mild and transient More common than previously thought doesn't equate to your claim of "myocarditis through the roof". As much as I liked to watch Dr. John Campbell in the beginning of the pandemic I verge on trusting more meta analysis covering dozens to hundreds of studies than a single person reviewing a few studies. If a slight increase in transient myocarditis gives me a huge boost in immune response against COVID I will take the transient myocarditis 100% of the time (which I had as a side-effect of the vaccine, got no complications from that after being assessed).

by cies 2y ago

stnmtn 2y ago

Doesn't your link say that it was transient and temporary?

cies 2y ago
fixed my post. tnx
- stnmtn 2y ago
  Doesn't your link also say this? "No definitive case of myocarditis was found. However, the two participants (both women) with vaccine-associated myocardialinjury and chest pain met the Brighton Collaboration case defini-tion Level 2, indicating probable myocarditis in those patients (0.3%[95% CI 0.1–0.9%])" So 2 of the participants had a .3% possibility?
  - leereeves 2y ago
    0.3% is the percentage of participants, not the confidence in the diagnosis. Every result reported in the paper follows that same pattern: "[N] participants had [result] ([% of participants], [95% confidence interval])".
    - cies 2y ago
      0.3% is a lot for a medicine to be called safe.
      - stnmtn 2y ago
        What do you think a safe threshold should be? And note that your own link said that the .3% of participants were those that could possibly show signs of myocarditis, they didn't actually contract that disease. So what does your paper show that is damning evidence to you?
    - stnmtn 2y ago
      I guess what I am asking you is what is the most important figure in that paper, as I read it and I'm no scientific expert but it made me come away more confident in the efficacy and safety of the vaccines. What am I missing that you are finding?
      - leereeves 2y ago
        I'm not the person who posted the paper.

piva00 2y ago

Here's a meta analysis from 2023 about the effectiveness of the vaccine with around ~3 million subjects from the different studies: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1113156/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.... A meta analysis about the vaccines' safety record with around ~99 million subjects over different analysed studies: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X24001270 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X2... The conclusion from the article you shared also says the resulting myocarditis doesn't seem to be alarming: > mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated myocardial injury was more common than previously thought, being mild and transient More common than previously thought doesn't equate to your claim of "myocarditis through the roof". As much as I liked to watch Dr. John Campbell in the beginning of the pandemic I verge on trusting more meta analysis covering dozens to hundreds of studies than a single person reviewing a few studies. If a slight increase in transient myocarditis gives me a huge boost in immune response against COVID I will take the transient myocarditis 100% of the time (which I had as a side-effect of the vaccine, got no complications from that after being assessed).