4 ms·

>something like 3 excess cases per 100,000 doses That was for clinical myocarditis in the overall population, but the rate of subclinical cardiac damage among

>something like 3 excess cases per 100,000 doses That was for clinical myocarditis in the overall population, but the rate of subclinical cardiac damage among young males was significantly higher, around 1% with abnormal ECGs post vaccination: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00431-022-04786-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00431-022-04786-0 .

dingdingdang 1y ago
Exactly this - vaccinate even a small town and cardiovascular issues will start popping amongst the neighbors, there is very good reason why there has been, and is, a public backlash on the MRNA vaccine usage among those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
- uecker 1y ago
  Please do not spread misinformation. Nobody expects "cardiovascular issues" "popping amongst the neighbors" and there is no evidence supporting this.
uecker 1y ago
In the paper it says 0.1%. " Cardiac symptoms are common after the second dose of BNT162b2 vaccine, but the incidences of significant arrhythmias and myocarditis are only 0.1%." Also note: "subclinical".
- somenameforme 1y ago
  "Only"? COVID posed a negligible risk for young males without major preexisting conditions. By contrast, common cardiac symptoms paired alongside significant arrhythmia and myocarditis in 1 in 1000, disproportionately affecting young males, is huge. And I expect we will eventually come to find out that the overall (particularly longer term) side effects of these drugs have been greatly underestimated. For instance excess mortality continues to remain extremely high [1], even though it would be expected to be negative following a pandemic simply because those most affected by COVID were those already near death. Put more bluntly, disproportionately get rid of the elderly and future death rates should be lower than they would be otherwise. So why are disproportionately large numbers of people continuing to die? [1] - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores-average-baseline https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores...
  - uecker 1y ago
    You may want to look at this paper to get a better idea of risk and benefits, e.g. Fig 2 and Fig 3: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056135 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.... One also needs to understand that myocarditis is not uncommon, and especially common after viral including COVID itself. Also "subclinical" means that this includes mild cases and here the 0.1% also included arrhythmia. Looking at the other paper above, they found 1 (!) person with subclinical myocarditis while screening for it in a population of 4928. Also interesting to put this in perspective: "Underlying disease was present in 109 (2.2%) of the patients, with simple congenital heart disease in 33, mitral valve prolapses in 36, arrhythmia in 36, Kawasaki disease in 11, and previous myocarditis in 2" Your idea that excess mortality is caused by the vaccine rather than COVID itself seems far fetched to me.
    - somenameforme 1y ago
      Your own link shows 128 cases of myocarditis within 7 days of ~2m vaccinations for 12-17 year old males, against an expected rate of 0-4. That's an overall rate of 1:15,000. And that study is based entirely on people with severe enough side effects for them to end up in the hospital following vaccination and to consequently be diagnosed with myocarditis, and only within 7 days. In other words it's definitely lowballing the figure. And it's things like this that destroy trust. Because we're already speaking of an unacceptably high rate of severe side effects, based on this single one (amongst many possible), for that demographic. Typical rate of severe side effects from vaccines are in the 1:1,000,000 rate. So why was this recommended, and defacto mandated, for that age group, again? And where's the accountability for those that made this decision, and for the trials that failed to make clear such extremely high rates of side effects? I realize I'm going on a slight tangent instead of arguing my rather extreme claim. The point I'm making here is that the messaging on these vaccines has not been carried out in good faith, and that they do have clear and severe side effects that should have made them a non-starter for at least certain demographics. And as we continue to see excess mortality rates that are comparable to what it was mid-pandemic (during the lulls between spikes), the possibility of longer term side effects seems to me to be, at the minimum, viable.
Workaccount2 1y ago
The most frustrating and brain damaged part about this take is that everyone pushing it ignores that not getting vaccinated has 20x higher chance of cardiac damage from covid. It's literally people arguing not to wear seatbelts and pointing at cases were people lived because they were ejected from the car. Ignoring all the people who lived because they were wearing seatbelts. The correct framing is "How many young people didn't get myocarditis because they got the vaccine?"
- ifyoubuildit 1y ago
  It's contrived and breaks down pretty easily, but why isnt it more like this: - both wearing seatbelts and getting in an accident have a significant chance of causing x - you are almost definitely going to get in an accident - are your chances of x greater or lesser given car accident while wearing seatbelt? I think your framing is correct (though it'd be better to just say were better off in general), but I haven't seen anyone give a convincing answer to that question in favor of the shots.
  - uecker 1y ago
    Maybe this helps? https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056135 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA....
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
apical_dendrite 1y ago
Comparing these two numbers is completely wrong. The study that you cite performed an ECG on 5000 high school students after a COVID-19 vaccine and found 50 had abnormal ECG. But having an abnormal finding on an ECG doesn't actually mean that there's any underlying heart condition. I just went through this myself - I had a bunch of ECGs for a clinical trial (unrelated to any cardiac issue). One came back abnormal. Repeating the ECG in my PCP's office showed nothing. A cardiac stress test showed nothing. About 10 other ECGs for the clinical trial showed nothing. It was just an incidental finding. Saying that 1% have "cardiac damage" because there's an abnormal ECG is just completely wrong. The test has a false positive rate that's greater than 0. And 50 abnormal findings does not mean 50 cases of "cardiac damage". In fact there were 5 - 1 myocarditis and 4 arrhythmias. All of these cleared up on their own. And finally, you can't compare the two studies because they are looking at fundamentally different things. The 3 excess cases per 100,000 doses comes from looking at millions and millions of health records, so it will only show cases that were actually diagnosed in the real world. The paper you cite performed an ECG on everyone in the study - so of course they are going to find vastly more cases, because they are doing vastly more testing. But that study is not performing ECGs on anyone who gets COVID but has not been vaccinated. If you did that, you would also see myocarditis, because viral infection is the leading cause of myocarditis. You cannot conclude anything from the study that you cite about the relative cardiac risks of the vaccine - it's just not a study that's designed to do that.

dingdingdang 1y ago

Exactly this - vaccinate even a small town and cardiovascular issues will start popping amongst the neighbors, there is very good reason why there has been, and is, a public backlash on the MRNA vaccine usage among those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

uecker 1y ago
Please do not spread misinformation. Nobody expects "cardiovascular issues" "popping amongst the neighbors" and there is no evidence supporting this.

uecker 1y ago

In the paper it says 0.1%. " Cardiac symptoms are common after the second dose of BNT162b2 vaccine, but the incidences of significant arrhythmias and myocarditis are only 0.1%." Also note: "subclinical".

somenameforme 1y ago
"Only"? COVID posed a negligible risk for young males without major preexisting conditions. By contrast, common cardiac symptoms paired alongside significant arrhythmia and myocarditis in 1 in 1000, disproportionately affecting young males, is huge. And I expect we will eventually come to find out that the overall (particularly longer term) side effects of these drugs have been greatly underestimated. For instance excess mortality continues to remain extremely high [1], even though it would be expected to be negative following a pandemic simply because those most affected by COVID were those already near death. Put more bluntly, disproportionately get rid of the elderly and future death rates should be lower than they would be otherwise. So why are disproportionately large numbers of people continuing to die? [1] - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores-average-baseline https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores...
- uecker 1y ago
  You may want to look at this paper to get a better idea of risk and benefits, e.g. Fig 2 and Fig 3: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056135 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.... One also needs to understand that myocarditis is not uncommon, and especially common after viral including COVID itself. Also "subclinical" means that this includes mild cases and here the 0.1% also included arrhythmia. Looking at the other paper above, they found 1 (!) person with subclinical myocarditis while screening for it in a population of 4928. Also interesting to put this in perspective: "Underlying disease was present in 109 (2.2%) of the patients, with simple congenital heart disease in 33, mitral valve prolapses in 36, arrhythmia in 36, Kawasaki disease in 11, and previous myocarditis in 2" Your idea that excess mortality is caused by the vaccine rather than COVID itself seems far fetched to me.
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    Your own link shows 128 cases of myocarditis within 7 days of ~2m vaccinations for 12-17 year old males, against an expected rate of 0-4. That's an overall rate of 1:15,000. And that study is based entirely on people with severe enough side effects for them to end up in the hospital following vaccination and to consequently be diagnosed with myocarditis, and only within 7 days. In other words it's definitely lowballing the figure. And it's things like this that destroy trust. Because we're already speaking of an unacceptably high rate of severe side effects, based on this single one (amongst many possible), for that demographic. Typical rate of severe side effects from vaccines are in the 1:1,000,000 rate. So why was this recommended, and defacto mandated, for that age group, again? And where's the accountability for those that made this decision, and for the trials that failed to make clear such extremely high rates of side effects? I realize I'm going on a slight tangent instead of arguing my rather extreme claim. The point I'm making here is that the messaging on these vaccines has not been carried out in good faith, and that they do have clear and severe side effects that should have made them a non-starter for at least certain demographics. And as we continue to see excess mortality rates that are comparable to what it was mid-pandemic (during the lulls between spikes), the possibility of longer term side effects seems to me to be, at the minimum, viable.

Workaccount2 1y ago

The most frustrating and brain damaged part about this take is that everyone pushing it ignores that not getting vaccinated has 20x higher chance of cardiac damage from covid. It's literally people arguing not to wear seatbelts and pointing at cases were people lived because they were ejected from the car. Ignoring all the people who lived because they were wearing seatbelts. The correct framing is "How many young people didn't get myocarditis because they got the vaccine?"

ifyoubuildit 1y ago
It's contrived and breaks down pretty easily, but why isnt it more like this: - both wearing seatbelts and getting in an accident have a significant chance of causing x - you are almost definitely going to get in an accident - are your chances of x greater or lesser given car accident while wearing seatbelt? I think your framing is correct (though it'd be better to just say were better off in general), but I haven't seen anyone give a convincing answer to that question in favor of the shots.
- uecker 1y ago
  Maybe this helps? https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056135 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA....
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

apical_dendrite 1y ago

Comparing these two numbers is completely wrong. The study that you cite performed an ECG on 5000 high school students after a COVID-19 vaccine and found 50 had abnormal ECG. But having an abnormal finding on an ECG doesn't actually mean that there's any underlying heart condition. I just went through this myself - I had a bunch of ECGs for a clinical trial (unrelated to any cardiac issue). One came back abnormal. Repeating the ECG in my PCP's office showed nothing. A cardiac stress test showed nothing. About 10 other ECGs for the clinical trial showed nothing. It was just an incidental finding. Saying that 1% have "cardiac damage" because there's an abnormal ECG is just completely wrong. The test has a false positive rate that's greater than 0. And 50 abnormal findings does not mean 50 cases of "cardiac damage". In fact there were 5 - 1 myocarditis and 4 arrhythmias. All of these cleared up on their own. And finally, you can't compare the two studies because they are looking at fundamentally different things. The 3 excess cases per 100,000 doses comes from looking at millions and millions of health records, so it will only show cases that were actually diagnosed in the real world. The paper you cite performed an ECG on everyone in the study - so of course they are going to find vastly more cases, because they are doing vastly more testing. But that study is not performing ECGs on anyone who gets COVID but has not been vaccinated. If you did that, you would also see myocarditis, because viral infection is the leading cause of myocarditis. You cannot conclude anything from the study that you cite about the relative cardiac risks of the vaccine - it's just not a study that's designed to do that.