Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

You ever notice how the title is designed to create as much argument as possible while still being technically correct? I hate what science journalism has turned into.

Here is the paragraph describing the results of the study:

>Results There were approximately 1.65 million doses of BNT162b2 administered and 77 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis among those aged 12 to 17 years, which met the inclusion criteria during the study period. Of the 77 adolescents (mean [SD] age, 15.0 [1.7] years; 63 male individuals [81.8%]), 51 (66.2%) developed myocarditis or pericarditis after dose 2 of BNT162b2. Overall, 74 individuals (96.1%) with an event were assessed in the emergency department, and 34 (44.2%) were hospitalized (median [IQR] length of stay, 1 [1-2] day). The majority of adolescents (57 [74.0%]) were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs only, and 11 (14.3%) required no treatment. The highest reported incidence was observed among male adolescents aged 16 to 17 years after dose 2 (15.7 per 100 000; 95% CI, 9.7-23.9). Among those aged 16 to 17 years, the reporting rate was highest in those with a short (ie, ≤30 days) interdose interval (21.3 per 100 000; 95% CI, 11.0-37.2).

I'm not a science journalist. I highlighted that detail because most of this information isn't new, as the authors note: "many of the cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were mild and required either no treatment or were managed conservatively with NSAIDs, similar to what has been reported in other studies."

What is actually new is the finding that many weren't hospitalized, and that those who were had a shorter duration than previously recorded: "Almost all episodes were seen in an emergency department, fewer than one-half of adolescents were admitted to hospital, and those who were hospitalized experienced a short length of stay (median duration: 1 day)."

What about the way the vaccine was administered? Aspiration supposedly prevents the rare vascular complications that can lead to myocarditis, among other issues.

is the logic that aspiration assures that the injection goes into your muscle and doesn’t hit your blood stream right away so like the immune response goes crazy in your shoulder but mellows out before spreading?

anyways i cant see how this would be reliably recorded. if a person performing the vaccine forgets to aspirate, they likely don’t remember that they forgot. if they do remember then realistically they aren’t going to report their own mistake.

if they were to report themselves, aspiration is a test to see if blood is drawn. ive aspirated thousands of times and never drew blood into the syringe. it wouldn’t be the act of aspiration, but the mitigated extremely low likelihood of hitting a blood vessel if administering into the blood stream is related to myocarditis.

[removed]

Your title makes it sound like less than half of 1.65 million people had to be hospitalized for myocarditis

[deleted]

Now they finally started to admit that it happens.

How many years before a class action?

I’m a medical doctor that’s been seeing Covid patients since the start of the pandemic and I’ve never seen any patient with any Covid vaccine-related complication.

It was on every label listing side effects...

I thought I read the risk of myocarditis was higher for people infected with the virus than those that were vaccinated, is this true?

Still wont trust it. Long term effects are unknown.

[removed]

We know covid fucks you up long term

after reading both I don't see the probem. 77 cases out of 1.65 would be rare. 34 out of 77 were hospitalized. Not even half That is exactly what the article says. I took that directly from your cut and paste.

Please explain what was wrong with the title. It just quotes the study. You may also note there were no deaths reported in the study. At least in your quote.

Aspiration is routine. It is so routine, it is automatic. Not a matter of forgetting once it becomes that routine.

Would you care to point out in the article where you saw the words that you quoted? Mild heart damage does not occur. Heart damage does not occur. Damage does not even occur. The only one of those 3 words in the story is MILD and that occurance says the cases were mild. It does not mention damage.

At what point do the effects become long term? 12.7 billion vaccinations have been given since the first given in December 2020. When do the legions start to show these long term effects?

For what? What will the class action be based on?

[removed]

It’s true. The only cases I had seen in the last 3 years were in patients with Covid.

Why not take the study title and just include more information from the abstract?

The majority of myocarditis or pericarditis events after BNT162b2 vaccination in adolescents are mild and do not require hospitalisation.

Concise, accurate, and it isn't clickbait like the title you chose.

It’s not mild heart damage, it’s mild heart inflammation. In 11 out of 77 cases, it got better with no treatment. In 57 cases it got better with over the counter NSAIDS (e.g. Advil), and in 8 cases a second medication was added to the NSAIDS. Only 2 were admitted to the ICU, one for monitoring and 1 required surgery. Out of 1,650,000 doses administered. So that’s a rate of 46 cases of inflammation per dose, or 0.000046%.

Compare that to COVID, which has a rate of 450 cases per million among adolescent males age 12-19, which is the age most likely to have heart inflammation from the vaccine (<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8328065/>). That’s not counting all the other risks, like damage to lungs and other organs, permanent loss of taste and/or smell, or or developing debilitating chronic fatigue syndrome.

Vaccines are never without risk. Neither are over the counter medications. Hell you can spontaneously develop a peanut allergy at any point in your life, but people don’t avoid peanuts because of that tiny risk. The point is that it is safer to get the vaccine than the illness.

[removed]

[deleted]

77 cases in 1.6 million people isn't going to be much different from the background incidence of myocarditis/pericarditis...

Ok, I’m not a doctor so I may indeed be misunderstanding what inflammation is. But everything I’ve read about myocarditis indicates that acute cases of mild inflammation resolve without permanent consequences for the heart. The risk of permanent damage to the heart from COVID is far higher than from a vaccine.

I seem to recall that inflammation was an immune response. Severe or prolonged inflammation can cause tissue damage, but generally, the tissue is left intact, undamaged. I could be wrong. Swelling and heat and possibly pain, but that's just the body telling you to leave it alone and not poke it while it does its work.

Out of 1.65 million people, there were less than 100 cases that escalated to the point of needing a medical diagnosis. It's possible there were more, but that's a comparable rate to, say, aspirin or ibuprofen.

Were you going to organize a class action against Bayer? Roll this lawsuit against Pfizer with everyone who's had an adverse reaction to Advil?

This is true. The incidence of any myocarditis post vaccine is in the neighborhood of 4 cases per 100,000 vaccinated individuals. The incidence for non-vaccinated individuals post covid infection is around 2-5 times higher depending on the study (i believe the range was due to exclusion factors of the study, i remember reading on that found a certain subdivision of patients had higher incidence and were excluded from subsequent studies)

Shhhh let natural selection work its magic on the next pandemic

[deleted]

Depends on age group.

[deleted]

Thanks for the clarification!

Edit: unlabeled chart presented above may not be out of 100k like the other charts in the study. So the below is likely wrong. I say likely since they did not break out the totals by dose intervals other than stating that shorter intervals resulted in higher rates.

The interesting part is that despite the hospitalization rate from vaccine myocarditis being unbelievably rare is still more than double the rate of hospitalization from infection for the same age cohort.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1122354/covid-19-us-hospital-rate-by-age/

...I mean, a quick search? Shows that you're just wrong here. If you haven't searched to double check yourself, you should do so.

I think clarification is needed. What do you mean by damage?

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Err... no?

From the article:

>>There were approximately 1.65 million doses of BNT162b2 administered and 77 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis among those aged 12 to 17 years,

That's 77 out of 1.65 million.

Your link shows 78 PER 100,000 people.

So inflammation does not always lead to fibrosis(scarification). If that were the case, inflammation due to exercise or allergies would be more than problematic. And not all people who have myocarditis or pericarditis have scar tissue. Clinicians can detect swelling around the heart, or other abnormal biochemical markers (some of which are markers you would get from exercising particularly hard).

Inflammation is response by the body for some irritant, but it does not have to lead to cell death. I guess you could say that there is a disruption of homeostasis and repair in the localized environment, but most components of cellular division also go into repair of damage from normal cellular responses, so I don’t think it’s a very meaningful distinction.

I think what they are saying is that the title could have multiple meanings.

1st meaning is accurate to the study. Halfing the patients who had myocarditis 34/77

2nd meaning is Half of the total number of study participate s went to the hospital

not accurate. I don't see how people could believe this. Then again people who don't read the study and are antivaxxers aren't the brightest people so maybe I be do believe it.

I think the title is clear enough and adds vital information.

[deleted]

Bah your partially right and im wrong. Most had two doses so its more like 800k people.

Two of the 4 charts in the study are out of 100,000 doses and two are unlabeled.(i hate unlabeled charts).

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Inflammation is a biological response of the immune system that can be triggered by a variety of factors, including pathogens, damaged cells and toxic compounds. These factors may induce acute and/or chronic inflammatory responses in the heart, pancreas, liver, kidney, lung, brain, intestinal tract and reproductive system, potentially leading to tissue damage or disease.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5805548/

Note the word, potentially. As in, not 100%.

Cytokines modulate the immune response to infection or inflammation and regulate inflammation itself via a complex network of interactions. However, excessive inflammatory cytokine production can lead to tissue damage, hemodynamic changes, organ failure, and ultimately death [59, 60].

Again, excessive inflammation 'can lead' to tissue damage. Excessive. Can lead.

[removed]

[removed]

Honestly, it feels like this statement has cause and effect reversed.

Tissue damage always has inflammation associated with it. The healing process. Tissue damage causes inflammation.

Inflammation does not always have tissue damage associated with it though. You've worded it a little poorly to make that point in the context of your other comments.

Plus, myocarditis does not always have tissue damage associated with it. Especially mild cases.

[removed]

Honestly, your comments keep disappearing now. So yeah, not going to get anywhere.

But... You're factually wrong here. And refusing to accept it for some reason. Myocarditis does not always lead to tissue damage. This is a fact. So yeah, mild inflammation and tissue damage are not the same thing. Unless you're going from tissue damage causing mild inflammation.

That's a cut or scrape, not myocarditis.

Myocarditis is the inflammation. If severe, it can cause tissue damage. Mild, does not generally cause tissue damage.

[removed]

They do tend to delete misinformation, so that tracks.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

The title is fine. The problem is when people base a conclusion from the title. If all the details we needed to draw factual and accurate conclusions were in the title, it wouldn't be called the title. It'd be called the article.

People need to read.

If only the vaccine prevented you from getting Covid.

[removed]

Aspiration wasn't done very much in the mass vaccination centers in Ireland, that was because a lot of military etc were called up on short notice to help with the rollout.

[removed]

[removed]

We don't aspirate when covid vaccinating in the Netherlands..

The originating title in JAMA is “Myocarditis or Pericarditis Events After BNT162b2 Vaccination in Individuals Aged 12 to 17 Years in Ontario, Canada”. This is a pretty standard and neutral PICO format title.

The problem is people on reddit (and elsewhere) taking that original article and translating it to focus on upping readership.

The vaccine seems to lower the chance of getting fucked up if you do get the virus, both immediately and in the long term. Plenty good enough for me.

[removed]

That said, the incidence rate for both infection and vaccine is extremely variable depending on age and gender (as this study clearly points out). This study was specifically looking at the age group that other studies showed the highest incidence levels from vaccines and some of the lowest rates from infections.

Yeah but 74 went to the emergency room, howany got it and just didn't know.

[removed]

It's not routine for most vaccinations any more (at least not in my part of Europe). It takes longer, is potentially uncomfortable for the patient, and doesn't make the "classical" vaccinations any safer. (e.g. MMR or polio boosters don't mess you up if they get into the blood stream.)

Once people figured out it was different for this one (thanks, spike protein) and the vascular complications seen in some covid infections could also happen post-vax if the spike got loose in the blood vessels, aspiration was recommended. This was some time last year, I believe.

I got the second booster just before christmas last year, at a vax center, and had to explicitly request aspiration. It's still not routine everywhere.

They don't forget, they're not trained to. With most "classical" vaccines it makes no difference. It's pretty well recorded. (There's been a podcast of one German expert on the topic, it's on youtube but it's in German obviously. He goes into detail on how myocarditis cases were seen more in patients that got the jab in a vax center, where mostly young recently-trained people worked, as opposed to resident GPs which tended to work the "old-school" way, with aspiration.)

If you're a doctor then you should be smart enough to know that a lot of these cases of myocarditis are asymptomatic in children. To make it simple for you, they aren't going to the doctors because they don't feel different. You wouldnt really be able to tell unless you did a study and recorded heart health data.

This many years in and people like you STILL don't understand how vaccines work.

Vaccines are not a shield. They are not a force field preventing anything from getting through. Vaccines teach your immune system how to fight an infection that is present.

That's the subtext of pretty much all the vaccine side effects. I don't think there has been a single side effect reported that isn't also caused, at higher rates, by infection.

If they’re asymptomatic, they’re not harmful.

[removed]

[removed]

[deleted]

The real problem is the fact that you didn't even realize the conclusion is literally baked into the title. Reading isn't the problem - your lack of comprehension is.

I'm newer to Reddit, so if that would be preferred I'll take note. I didn't want to state it as fact, rather than study finds, because this study was fairly unique when compared to previous research.

[removed]

If anyone wants to clarify a better way to write it out, I'm all ears. Newer to this platform and more familiar with Twitter (where editorialization abounds).

My thought was just that most people wouldn't get the core info out of a long JAMA article, since the unique addition of this study as it was circulated on medtwitter, was the low rate of hospitalization. So thought some editorialization was necessary.

Don't stress about it too much - the fact that you actually linked the study and not some science journalism article puts you way ahead of 99% of posts I see on this sub.

It's good to be cautious when asserting things as factual, so you could definitely add "Study finds ...", but I personally think it makes it more wordy for information that is assumed when you're linking a paper directly.

[removed]

It could have multiple meaning if you don't read the article

[removed]

[removed]

To the person who tried to snark that ibuprofen works... Yes. It reduces the symptoms and severity.

Just like the vaccine. So...

[removed]

You would not even notice. All they do is withdraw the plunger a cm or so and look for blood.

I know how aspiration works. I also saw one doc at a "vax drive" kind of thing jabbing people so quickly they literally didn't even notice what was going on, and that definitely won't work if you try and aspirate.

I say "potentially uncomfortable" because that's what the expert in the video said. I guess it's mostly uncomfortable for people with a fear of needles.