3 ms·

And the lipid nanoparticle based Covid prevention shots caused myocarditis in some younger males, so earlier incidence of cardiovascular complications vs. the

And the lipid nanoparticle based Covid prevention shots caused myocarditis in some younger males, so earlier incidence of cardiovascular complications vs. the present (when most people especially younger healthy males are choosing not to take updated boosters) would correlate with that as well.

clanky 1y ago
The one Thai prospective study that I saw on this subject (the only one I ever found which measured biomarkers of heart damage like troponin before and after injection, which is utterly shameful), estimated a rate of heart damage in adolescent males in the range of 1-3%. So even that would be nowhere near enough to reach the 1/5 number.
- cjbgkagh 1y ago
  I got pericarditis bad enough that I thought it was going to kill me but not bad enough to show up in any test. Thankfully the cardiologist accepted my description of what I felt and prescribed me colchicine which worked. I guess it would be called subclinical pericarditis and it would be good to have some stats on how often that happens.
- notmyjob 1y ago
  I suspect many people commit the grave sin of mixing data sources to derive percentages, which seems almost impossible not to do in this case. I also strongly suspect that rates of infection (the denominator in question) were inflated to some extent during the pandemic as insurers and hmo were incentivized to detect covid even when it may not have been the primary reason for presenting. There were also disincentives or at least a lack of incentive to detect teratogenic effects of the lipid nanoparticle based preventative, and unfortunately likely personal biases as the preventative was highly politicized. But I’m not thinking about it much deeper than that, so you may be right.
  - Llamamoe 1y ago
    The reported rates might have been inflated compared to what people presented with, but wastewater tracking and excess death measures all suggest that as a whole, infections were severely under-counted, possibly by a factor of up to over 2x. Majority of the studies on myocarditis after vaccination found very low rates, with close to zero moderate to serious cases, and a full return to baseline of whatever the metrics studied were, I don't remember.
    - notmyjob 1y ago
      So if we were undercounting the denominator and over-counting the numerator (long covid) that would support my initial conjecture right?
Llamamoe 1y ago
They did but if you go through the actual studies, the incidence of myocarditis was low, and almost all cases were non-serious, with no measured long-term impacts. Further, the studies on long COVID incidence in vaccinated vs unvaccinated people suggested that the rates in vaccinated individuals were lower, though iirc it was only by something like a third or half. (among people who were symptomatic, at least, the total protective effect was likely greater)

clanky 1y ago

The one Thai prospective study that I saw on this subject (the only one I ever found which measured biomarkers of heart damage like troponin before and after injection, which is utterly shameful), estimated a rate of heart damage in adolescent males in the range of 1-3%. So even that would be nowhere near enough to reach the 1/5 number.

cjbgkagh 1y ago
I got pericarditis bad enough that I thought it was going to kill me but not bad enough to show up in any test. Thankfully the cardiologist accepted my description of what I felt and prescribed me colchicine which worked. I guess it would be called subclinical pericarditis and it would be good to have some stats on how often that happens.
notmyjob 1y ago
I suspect many people commit the grave sin of mixing data sources to derive percentages, which seems almost impossible not to do in this case. I also strongly suspect that rates of infection (the denominator in question) were inflated to some extent during the pandemic as insurers and hmo were incentivized to detect covid even when it may not have been the primary reason for presenting. There were also disincentives or at least a lack of incentive to detect teratogenic effects of the lipid nanoparticle based preventative, and unfortunately likely personal biases as the preventative was highly politicized. But I’m not thinking about it much deeper than that, so you may be right.
- Llamamoe 1y ago
  The reported rates might have been inflated compared to what people presented with, but wastewater tracking and excess death measures all suggest that as a whole, infections were severely under-counted, possibly by a factor of up to over 2x. Majority of the studies on myocarditis after vaccination found very low rates, with close to zero moderate to serious cases, and a full return to baseline of whatever the metrics studied were, I don't remember.
  - notmyjob 1y ago
    So if we were undercounting the denominator and over-counting the numerator (long covid) that would support my initial conjecture right?

Llamamoe 1y ago

They did but if you go through the actual studies, the incidence of myocarditis was low, and almost all cases were non-serious, with no measured long-term impacts. Further, the studies on long COVID incidence in vaccinated vs unvaccinated people suggested that the rates in vaccinated individuals were lower, though iirc it was only by something like a third or half. (among people who were symptomatic, at least, the total protective effect was likely greater)