Comments
LouieMumford t1_j054dtd wrote
You get my daily free “wholesome” award because dammit facts are wholesome. But I wanted to say I appreciate this. Contextualization, rather than censorship, is the right way to deal with this stuff and I appreciate it.
UniversalMomentum t1_j06qe9h wrote
I disagree you should not mass distribue false information. It's just another form of fraud like posting fake stats on consumer electronics or bait and switch pricing.
If we had true freedom of speech fraud and threats would be legal cuz they are just harmless words, but the reality is that words are not always harmless when they are meant to mislead or threaten.
We don't need so much freedom of speech or press that fraud is legal and that’s the direction we’ve been going recently.
Idixal t1_j06zjy8 wrote
The difficult thing with making misleading information illegal is- who decides what’s true? In this case it’s pretty simple with scientific consensus pointing towards the most obvious truth, but there are plenty of cases where the truth is not known.
The challenge is that if the government decides what is true, then the government has the ability to decide what is and isn’t legal to say, and that is simply the total death of free speech.
All said, I wish we could do something about people who maliciously distribute misinformation. It’s really frustrating knowing that a lot of lawmakers knowingly mislead people during the pandemic, leading to many more deaths than were necessary.
LordArgon t1_j09nsnb wrote
The ONLY rational answer is that there should be a confidence level based on global expert opinion and what’s allowed should be a function of that confidence and the potential damage of being wrong. In the case of something like COVID, that’s synthesizing opinions based on the WHO as well as the public health departments of most major nations. In areas where they don’t clearly agree, you have to have to give more leeway than in areas where they do.
No, it’s not perfect but no perfect system exists and unfettered misinformation is demonstrably worse than relying on expert opinion. What you need to watch out for is corruption but that’s literally always a risk in any system. And if you’re going to claim corruption, then you’d better be willing to go to court with specific actionable evidence.
10takeWonder t1_j0743ph wrote
this isn't false information though? a real study (that op didn't read) that op thought would back up their anti vax point, but the contents of the study do not actually do that... as explained in this comment thread.
StealthTomato t1_j08sk79 wrote
You can create false narratives out of true information. Repeatedly posting information that looks like it implies the vaccine is dangerous is a deliberate attempt to sow a false narrative.
sschepis t1_j08bsvu wrote
What you are suggesting is that as humans we are incapable of processing information or making a determination as to what information might be harmful or not, and need to centralize this responsibility to protect people.
Yet, restriction of speech always leads to restriction of thought. The ability to think freely is fundamentally associated with the abilityt to talk freely.
Legislating what needs to ultimately become something we all do by virtue of being adults will always fail , and will always be abused by those in power because it does nothing to educate the individual relative their personal responsibilities as an individual to function properly in the world.
We deal with this with proactive education - we teach our kids to think properly, first of all. None of what is happening now should be a surprise, considering our politicians have been undermining and defunding our educational system.
Reacting out of fear is neither justified nor effective - and in itself shows a profound failure of our educational system
[deleted] t1_j078to0 wrote
[removed]
smucek007 t1_j05ynz5 wrote
yes, censorship only gives importance to something unimportant
[deleted] t1_j06w4s4 wrote
[removed]
FS_Slacker t1_j050ggc wrote
Not to mention that the authors themselves are acknowledging endpoint bias.
mind_the_umlaut t1_j04zczy wrote
Thank you for your careful reading !
[deleted] t1_j053v65 wrote
[removed]
garlic_warner t1_j0513j8 wrote
Take my award. This is the kind of stuff that needs to be done, shit down the misinformation.
[deleted] t1_j053slj wrote
[removed]
peterdent234 t1_j0564wl wrote
Like any good study, the authors acknowledge it’s limitations.
I still think this study serves as motivation to continue the investigation. There’s something to be said about a concentration of T cells in your heart. They don’t just show up there randomly. The spike protein could be settling in the heart. Or like the study mentions, it could be something associated with the mRNA technology. Due diligence should be done to make the vaccine as safe as possible. You can’t ignore the presence of serious adverse effects and draw it up to “well it helps a lot of people, but not everyone. We can just stop here”
Also reading this as a parent of a new born I would be extremely cautious of vaccinating an infant. The article acknowledges myocarditis as a cause of 1-14% of SIDS cases. Idk the exact research of infant mortality due to COVID-19, but even without any direct proof that the vaccine causes myocarditis, I’d be wary. More research is definitely needed.
apathetic_panda t1_j05x9dq wrote
>They don’t just show up there randomly. The spike protein could be settling in the heart. Or like the study mentions, it could be something associated with the mRNA technology. Due diligence should be done to make the vaccine as safe as possible. You can’t ignore the presence of serious adverse effects and draw it up to “well it helps a lot of people, but not everyone. We can just stop here”
Well, isn't that what we needed with cross-comparative studies against vaccines not using the mRNA platform seeing as most of world isn't going to get that
You're not going to stock the Pfizer covid vaccine in Africa, and it isn't made in China.
These studies are dumb because the focus is 0.1% of the wealthiest society on the planet.
robx909 t1_j05goza wrote
Ur a public service thank u
Sweet-Emu6376 t1_j09hogv wrote
At least for me it all boils down to your first point:
> Point #1: Myocarditis is worse when you are unvaccinated. Vaccination is better
People forget when a doctor recommends a medicine, it's not because it's 100% safe with no side effects. It's because any known side effects are less severe and common than whatever it is that it is treating.
Swierky_ t1_j08edzu wrote
Can we stop with the “misinformation” buzzword? It’s a peer reviewed study. Just because someone has a history of something doesn’t make the study any less valid.
Citing everything you disagree with as misinformation is what’s actual harmful to real science.
CatOfGrey t1_j08zsaw wrote
Please read my comment. I explicitly chose language that identified precisely what I was concerned about.
The misinformation is not literally this study. It's a pattern of a user cherry-picking studies with headlines that can be construed as anti-vaxx.
So to clear up confusion, I quoted points from the study that made it clear that this was not, in fact, an anti-vaxx study.
[deleted] t1_j06pt3z wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j071apv wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j07gqia wrote
[removed]
HaydenCQ521 t1_j07oeg2 wrote
Thank you for this!
[deleted] t1_j08fhtr wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j052mjh wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j0534vp wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j05f935 wrote
[removed]
Theuniguy t1_j05r9lt wrote
Yesssss look into their history and expose the heretic! He'll yea! Great job!
Davividdik696 t1_j05ryly wrote
Doesn't mean we should discount this study. Use it's data in the context of what is generally known about the vaccine.
dgeating t1_j06qzgn wrote
This is a legitimate publishing company. His past posts have nothing to do with the validity or lack there of regarding this current article. Zealots gonna zealot though.
AcrimoniousPizazz t1_j06u4yn wrote
Even if you ignore the first paragraph about the poster's history, the other two points highlighted in this comment are important for context. Yes there is a risk, but the risk associated with infection is greater, and more studies are needed to establish causation. A "zealot" would be unlikely to highlight either of those points; this smacks of someone who just wants people to have the right takeaways from the study.
Goleeb t1_j0927ju wrote
>This is a legitimate publishing company.
Just because the publishing company is legitimate doesn't inform on the legitimacy of the study.
​
>His past posts have nothing to do with the validity or lack there of regarding this current article.
No but it informs what kind of things they will post. We wont see any positive studies, and only those that are negative. They are also more likely to post flawed studies. So you should look at any studies posted by them with extreme skepticism.
Walterwayne t1_j051qpn wrote
Because you can’t make real conclusions without lots of repeatable studies
Spiritual_Asparagus2 t1_j0540e2 wrote
All of you 100% ANTi-vax / 100% PRO-vax are equally annoying.. stop it and stop spreading misinformation
I enjoy reading clinical trial reports and published studies and those weren’t the major point of this publication. You’re just as guilty at OP if they are posting misinformation. This is not a misinformation post this is a published paper.
Both of your points were a single sentence each in the whole paper.
The whole paper was about the autopsy’s of multiple individuals where no other cause of death (pathological or otherwise) could be identified other than myocarditis within 20 days of vaccination.
The paper goes on to say there is a strong link that there could potentially be factors at play such as autoimmunity or genetics that could predispose people to experiencing these RARE events resulting in death due to vaccine, but more studies and screening need to take place first. !!Again, rare is emphasized!!
It has already been acknowledge by the medical community that Covid vaccines AND Covid have a small chance of causing myocarditis which can be treated. Yes the paper said unvaccinated individual are more likely to experience myocarditis, true, but you left a whole lot more out of the article.
CatOfGrey t1_j0556cz wrote
> Again, rare is emphasized!!
Missed by OP.
> but you left a whole lot more out of the article.
So did OP, and they have a long history of posting these types of studies in manners and places where they are likely to be misinterpreted. Thus, I suggest misinformation here.
[deleted] t1_j04wt1e wrote
[removed]
Jealous-Pop-8997 t1_j053ro2 wrote
It’s not this simple because depending on a person’s state of health they may be at an extremely low risk of myocarditis should they get Covid and in these cases the myocarditis risk for those individuals is higher with the vaccine than with Covid
CatOfGrey t1_j055d3s wrote
Thus, the quote that I call Point #1.
OP is posting in places and ways that suggest otherwise, which is why I claim misinformation.
Jealous-Pop-8997 t1_j0579dw wrote
Yes I was responding to point number one. Some individuals are actually at greater risk of myocarditis from the vaccine as what you’ve referred to are broad population averages. Another part of the issue is how since the causality between the vaccine and myocarditis isn’t recognized how the data is skewed or we could say that conclusions are tailored/shoehorned to meet the hypotheses
ADDeviant-again t1_j05bca0 wrote
Link a study.
Causality has been widely recognized, which is one reason we know incidence to be so low.
Where are you getting this idea that your personal risks of a COVID infection being so mild, that your risk is greater from the vaccine? That sounds like more of the fuzzy math I keep hearing (and debunking) being used to pretend that COVID only affects sick people and old people....blah, blah.
Jealous-Pop-8997 t1_j05boen wrote
I had Covid already and I am going based on data that also accounts for cardio metabolic health and nutrient deficiencies or lack thereof rather than just age BMI gender and other diseases etc.
CatOfGrey t1_j057l18 wrote
>Yes I was responding to point number one. Some individuals are actually at greater risk of myocarditis from the vaccine as what you’ve referred to are broad population averages.
An item worth studying. A question for doctors, perhaps. Given the overwhelming data, not something that should impact a person's decision whether or not to get vaccinated.
Jealous-Pop-8997 t1_j058svt wrote
Well the fact that the overwhelming data shows that the vaccine poses more risk to me personally than the infection, this should inform my decision whether or not to get vaccinated
CatOfGrey t1_j05ftsz wrote
What is your basis in the data?
arealdoctor25 t1_j05kh6m wrote
There is no basis. There is no data. He is speculating that off of either his pure ignorance, or misrepresented data from sources with ulterior motives. There are no studies showing folks have a higher risk of myocarditis from vaccine compared to infection, in any populations
JaelPendragon t1_j076xcr wrote
You have no data, stop lying and get properly educated on the subject
ADDeviant-again t1_j05af1b wrote
This is almost complete nonsense. The only thing I can come up to give your post a sliver of possible accuracy, IF WE REACH, is a previous extreme allergic reaction to one of the OTHER vaccine ingredients (besides the RNA), which are common in other vaccines, and other injectable medications.
Can you name any other chronic condition or "state of health" where data even remotely suggests an active COVID infection is statistically (or otherwise, hell) SAFER than a vaccination?
Can you show me that study? Not some random one-off case that cannot be proven, or that you heard about this one time from this guy. Data?
Jealous-Pop-8997 t1_j05bdi5 wrote
Risk assessment should be individualized not based on broad averages for a population. For example let’s say a study came out showing that the general population ate too little protein and the average person needs to increase their protein. Perhaps I as an individual eat too much protein. Why would my recommendation be affected by a broad average for a population?
I eat a low carb diet and I am in great cardio metabolic health and I get plenty of exercise and have no nutrient deficiencies. The general population is at high risk with Covid because this does not describe them and high carb, seed oils is the popular diet. Most don’t get sufficient cardio exercise and have a few deficiencies.
My personal risk of complications with the vaccine is much higher whereas for some individuals the risk is higher with infection
[deleted] t1_j08kz9u wrote
[removed]
LouieMumford t1_j05536k wrote
This makes no sense. They would be at a low risk relative to Covid exposure. But the point is risk post exposure vs post vaccine. The study shows that risk is worse post Covid exposure vs vaccine exposure. Given the ubiquity of Covid exposure at this point one would have to do a risk analysis and would inevitably find that the vaccine is objectively safer than unvaccinated exposure to the virus. Your comment makes no sense.
primal_screame t1_j05733h wrote
Is there any data that shows myocarditis risk after Covid exposure if you have already been vaccinated? If there is, then it would make sense there would be an additive effect of myocarditis cases from the vaccine plus myocarditis cases from catching Covid after being vaccinated. Either way, the numbers are pretty small on all the scenarios, I was just curious if there was data for that combination.
Explorer456 t1_j05aits wrote
I think that assessing the occurrence of myocarditis in individuals who are vaccinated post COVID infection is important future research, if none is present. The possibility of there being an additive effect would likely be determined by the cause of myocarditis post infection/vaccination.
“It is under debate whether myocarditis in COVID-19 is primarily caused by the viral infection or whether it occurs secondary as a consequence of the host´s immune response, in particular by T-lymphocyte-mediated cytotoxicity or as a consequence of the cytokine storm observed during COVID-19 [25]”
The authors note that the cause of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection is up for debate. If it is related to “T-lymphocyte-mediated cytotoxicity” I am inclined to believe that there wouldn’t be an additive effect of vaccine + infection. My logic, albeit with minimal knowledge in virology, is that by have t cells created by the vaccine would be present prior to the virus. Thus able to respond prior to extensive cell infection and reduce the “T-lymphocyte-mediated cytotoxicity.”
Again, my logic my be flawed due to a misunderstanding or missing knowledge. I am open to corrections/reading to help guide me.
primal_screame t1_j05bqi5 wrote
That makes total sense if that is the mechanism. I was trying to think if the mechanism is the same, why wouldn’t it be equal between vaccine and infection. If there was data on the combination, it might give better clarity on if it’s the same mechanism.
Jealous-Pop-8997 t1_j056dur wrote
You are definitely confused but it does make sense. Yes, the comparison being made is myocarditis risk between Covid-19 exposure and vaccination. These risks are weighed or averaged for the general population.
Many individuals are at such a low risk of a severe covid case that they are more likely to get myocarditis resulting from vaccination
JaelPendragon t1_j0774zc wrote
And yet you provide no proof of your baseless claim. Go get educated on the subject before spreading antivax propaganda and misinformation
Bryan_Waters t1_j056jai wrote
Not sure if OP was involved in conducting the study, but I’m curious why they decided to fix the tissue in 4% neutral buffered formalin and not 10% which is typically standard practice. Underfixation of tissue can lead to false negative staining in IHC, so sort of curious what the rationale was behind that decision.
Skylark7 t1_j05drzm wrote
I've seen standard histology fixation solution referred to as 4% because it's ~4% w/v of formaldehyde. The 10% is v/v.
clayeos t1_j070jzt wrote
I wish I was more smarter like you guys :/
StateOfContusion t1_j07fgse wrote
Not necessarily smarter, just better educated in their fields.
I'm going to hire an electrician to replace my breaker panel. Is he smarter than me? In his field of expertise, 100% he is. Could I learn it if I dedicated 5 years or so? Absolutely.
Just don't ask me to learn and understand quantum mechanics. That's probably outside of my realm.
clayeos t1_j07t2hu wrote
This is very true. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Gwtheyrn t1_j08c437 wrote
Anyone who says they understand quantum mechanics doesn't.
Bakemono30 t1_j08qbjd wrote
I don't understand quantum mechanics
timsterri t1_j092a7c wrote
Unfortunately, it doesn’t work in reverse.
Bakemono30 t1_j092fb9 wrote
Mechanics Quantum understand don't I?
garbage-pale-kid t1_j090pvi wrote
I tend to trust people more when they say "I get the gist of it".
Gwtheyrn t1_j09og8p wrote
Yeah, I understand some concepts about "this is the way things are."in rough, layman's terms, but not the how's and whys.
SolarOrbiter60 t1_j09iy5f wrote
And don’t get me started on String Theory!
nsfbr11 t1_j0960k8 wrote
Just not true. What is true is that quantum mechanics has limits.
[deleted] t1_j09fq02 wrote
[deleted]
zeroxtrange t1_j07xp9v wrote
outside your realm...I get it! Good one!
Baseball_bossman t1_j09111q wrote
“ If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.” - Richard P. Fleynmen
AspiringChildProdigy t1_j09hyrr wrote
I understand ^(that) quantum mechanics ^(is well outside my wheelhouse).
popejubal t1_j09jebm wrote
I read all of these comments and I’m fairly certain that most of what I read was definitely words. That’s about as far as I got.
Otherwise-Ad4895 t1_j078o5i wrote
Dont trip, it's just jargon. Look up words you don't understand. Repeat forever.
clayeos t1_j07azv7 wrote
Wow thanks man! You’re a nice person.
carybditty t1_j09mou2 wrote
That actually works really well
Skylark7 t1_j0826t3 wrote
It just means we've had the misfortune to be in a lab reeking of formalin. You're not missing out on anything meaningful or fun. :-)
And as other folks have said, it's just jargon. The first person said the heart tissue may not have been preserved in a standard way and that could impact the results. I'm pointing out that there are some less-common ways to describe the chemical used to preserve the tissue. We don't know which is right, whether they did something unusual or used very unusual language.
clayeos t1_j08clz1 wrote
You guys are all so nice! Thank you! Honestly you guys have made my day.
thetransportedman t1_j08sjlk wrote
This is why it’s standard practice to have scientists very similar to your work be the ones reviewing your papers for submission. It’s minutiae you wouldn’t know unless you also do the same type of protocol. You’ll notice it in grad school journal clubs. The best critique are people doing similar things while others who are equally talented can only ask bigger picture questions
sjk4x4 t1_j09efgd wrote
I dated a woman for a while that had a p.h.d. She used it working for a college to translate papers written by faculty into language they could use to teach to students.
SteadmanDillard t1_j09g3z4 wrote
Encyclopedic
Blah-squared t1_j09bzwc wrote
Idiot… it’s not “more smarter”…
It’s ”smarterer”…
popformulas t1_j08yetm wrote
Hey pal, it’s just me and you over here with cheetoh fingers
LilyGreen347 t1_j0989yo wrote
The hardest thing to teach is the desire to learn. Everything else just takes time and patience.
shelleyflower77 t1_j08086w wrote
I was going to say the same until I read the comment below. Thanks.
Bryan_Waters t1_j05ffrq wrote
That’s interesting, is this outside of the US? I’ve never seen it indicated this way in a Pathology report or in a lab SOP, in or out of the US.
chem199 t1_j07gixn wrote
It is German, not sure if that changes anything.
Skylark7 t1_j07guqx wrote
I've seen it in papers from people fixing tissue culture cells or animal tissues. Also I don't think fixation in 4% v/v would even crosslink well enough to section and stain. Their photomicrographs looked pretty typical for FFPE.
ducklingsaver t1_j06pdwh wrote
Most likely an error in methods reporting. I’m guessing some mixup since most labs I know will either use 10% NBF or 4% PFA for human tissue. Either way, the example photos do not appear under fixed.
[deleted] t1_j091n81 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j0591pz wrote
[removed]
CatOfGrey t1_j04ujph wrote
OP has a history of posting covid/vaccine misinformation on Reddit. This is likely part of their attempt to criticize the vaccine with studies that don't really make any real conclusions about the vaccine.
They also don't read the studies they post, so I am going to highlight a couple of comments from the study, to put the emphasis out there.
Point #1: Myocarditis is worse when you are unvaccinated. Vaccination is better
> The reported incidence of (epi-)myocarditis after vaccination is low and the risks of hospitalization and death associated with COVID-19 are stated to be greater than the recorded risk associated with COVID-19 vaccination [29]. Importantly, infectious agents may also cause lymphocytic myocarditis with a similar immunophenotype, thus meticulous molecular analyses is required in all cases of potentially vaccination-associated myocarditis.
Point #2: This study has nothing to say about vaccines 'causing' these events.
> Finally, we cannot provide a definitive functional proof or a direct causal link between vaccination and myocarditis. Further studies and extended registry are needed to identify persons at risk for this potentially fatal AEFI and may be aided by detailed clinical, serological, and molecular analyses which were beyond the scope of this study. Considering that this fatal adverse event may affect healthy individuals, such registry and surveillance programs may improve early diagnosis, close monitoring, and treatment.
Skylark7 t1_j05hw3z wrote
This isn't misinformation. It's a peer reviewed study looking at fatal myocarditis associated with (but not necessarily caused by) covid vaccination. This sub isn't exactly the place to rally anti-vax support.
Trying to characterize vaccine-induced myocarditis so it can be detected and treated effectively is important, as with any other severe vaccine side effect like GBS or anaphylaxis. It's very rare - maybe 1 in 25,000 and most cases resolve - but still well worth trying to understand.
CatOfGrey t1_j05luu9 wrote
> This isn't misinformation. It's a peer reviewed study looking at fatal myocarditis associated with (but not necessarily caused by) covid vaccination. This sub isn't exactly the place to rally anti-vax support.
You are correct, which is why I focused on emphasizing the key points I did, rather than rely only on the headline, which appears to be a strategy OP uses to spread unnecessary fear about the vaccine.
Anotherherolost t1_j06nuz7 wrote
What should the title have been?
Skylark7 t1_j07kdzj wrote
How is OP using a "strategy" when the headline is the exact title of the journal article? If you take exception to how the authors titled their manuscript that's got nothing to do with OP.
CatOfGrey t1_j07l5l3 wrote
Selecting articles with titles that discuss vaccine side effects, then emphasizing the title instead of the content of the study.
Thus, I quoted specific parts of the study for clarification.
I take issue to this article being misused.
Skylark7 t1_j081cqi wrote
So you are ascribing nefarious motives to only this one post of a journal title and article link and not the remaining thousands of identically formatted posts. It seems you're the one with the agenda.
CatOfGrey t1_j0827hk wrote
The answer to your question is in my main post. Please read my comments before responding.
My agenda is providing quotes from the research to help better distribute information.
mikeoxwells2 t1_j0563pa wrote
Thanx for the TLDR.
smucek007 t1_j05z081 wrote
it is better to get vaccine Nx than to get sick with covid Nx, both leave similar immunity but vaccine has far less documented consequences
spX_psyborg t1_j054bky wrote
Source is not misinformation. SpringerLink offers electronic and printed literature from Springer-Verlag, a preeminent scientific publisher with a reputation for excellence spanning more than 150 years. It also offers the work of a growing roster of publishers, including Urban and Vogel, Steinkopff, and Birkhäuser.
Just read the literature and it explains what the study entailed.
Fact is a percentage, albeit small, with no other underlying conditions developed myocarditis shorty after receiving the vaccine. Others did not. The vaccine isn't good for everybody. That's all this is saying.
CatOfGrey t1_j054vz4 wrote
OP's post is part of a larger pattern of misinformation.
It's why I quoted directly from the source, to clarify the difference between how this post is perceived, and what it actually says.
hangryhyax t1_j056j2m wrote
No, this is saying that there is an incredibly low risk of myocarditis following vaccination, but that a COVID infection is still significantly worse. OP knows that 90% people of Redditors will only read the headline and go “There, see… vaccine bad!”
That last part is the “misinformation, and it can be considered such because OP has a history of doing such things.
[deleted] t1_j056ysl wrote
[removed]
ADDeviant-again t1_j05cqe4 wrote
That has always been a fact, but it is clearly not what is being represented here.
The article concludes that, while myocarditis is possible from vaccine, COVID infection is far worse oth in severity and incidence. OP waves the paper and screams "They lied! The vaccine causes myocarditis! Says so right here!!" Figuratively, of course, but check his post history......
So, no, that is NOT "all this is saying."
CatOfGrey t1_j05mqa6 wrote
You are correct on face value. But the context is different.
OP is posting a lot of material with titles that intend to create a narrative of vaccine danger that does not actually exist in the publications.
> The vaccine isn't good for everybody. That's all this is saying.
This is written weakly. Your writing suggests, to be literal "The vaccine is bad for some people." That is deceptively alarmist.
A better description might be "The vaccine is good for everybody, except for very few with specific health issues." I don't mean to be pedantic, but my point is that the data on vaccine outcomes is much more overwhelming than "It's not good for everybody".
[deleted] t1_j054u01 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j05nn2s wrote
[removed]
mind_the_umlaut t1_j04z8q3 wrote
Risk of myocarditis from any type sars-co-v vaccine is low (their own conclusion). Many of their 25 subjects (small sample size) had additional complications present like COPD. A laborious study, with the conclusion of 'it's good to know'. Non-significant results won't change any behavior or medical protocols.
Jusstonemore t1_j05nzir wrote
I hate to break it to you but this is most of the literature that’s published (and posted on this sub)
Xenine123 t1_j089zic wrote
Yeah but this isn’t double plus good
HotShowersPA t1_j0577tq wrote
There are some people interpretation of these small numbers (literally a handful at 5) with myo/epicarditis on autopsy and no other cause of death as this is a huge problem with covid vaccines. When the actual incidence is exceedingly low. Please be aware of such publications and how they can be misinterpreted and made to seem to be a major issue when in fact it is very rare (albeit important to those few who get myocarditis).
rhodysailor t1_j058q4a wrote
right? because wouldn't this potentially falsely blame the COVID vaccine? Just because they got the vaccine and then died later does not mean THAT was the reason they died. I have to read the whole study though, the headline is concerning.
rdizzy1223 t1_j062ub3 wrote
Especially considering the hypocrisy of the anti-vaxxers as most of them were constantly going around stating that people were dying "with covid" and not "from covid". You could just as easily say the same thing about all possible vaccine related deaths.
Cbaumle t1_j08px9b wrote
From the conclusion: "Finally, we cannot provide a definitive functional proof or a direct causal link between vaccination and myocarditis."
Jandals_McFlurry t1_j05p6a2 wrote
covid viral infection makes it 10x more likely to develop myocarditis/pericarditis. Theres an inoperable fact. These jerkoffs just never quit. Anything for their gotcha Dunning Kruger blended with cognitive dissonance moment.
SizzleEbacon t1_j08oujs wrote
One of the more hilarious fields of study is trying to find negative health conditions related to getting the Covid vaccine.
carybditty t1_j09o9xc wrote
I’d suggest anyone interested in seeing fallacious logic, look at some of the op’s other posts. It’s interesting
AutoModerator t1_j04r3g2 wrote
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.
[deleted] t1_j05oimk wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j066cir wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j06m0ry wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0749ff wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j087qpc wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j087rbe wrote
[removed]
first__citizen t1_j0892wu wrote
>> Importantly, infectious agents may also cause lymphocytic myocarditis with a similar immunophenotype, thus meticulous molecular analyses is required in all cases of potentially vaccination-associated myocarditis.
[deleted] t1_j08jjs3 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j08l5u3 wrote
[removed]
RaziLaufeia t1_j08yrvw wrote
The title on this post is not good. Stop being confusing, I shouldn't have to Google terms to understand something that's supposed to catch my attention
[deleted] t1_j08zwo1 wrote
[removed]
Delicious_Towel5246 t1_j09a624 wrote
It's fascinating to watch this new tech in medicine. 20 + yrs ago while taking care of my dad with parkinsons, his science magazine had the article about the gene splicing and what it could mean. His hope was to cure parkinsons, which is now on the horizon. With this knowledge, the nuances of how things really work will be fascinating to watch.
mental-floss t1_j0bfw84 wrote
There’s too many big words and I haven’t had my coffee yet.
TLDR please.
[deleted] t1_j0532oq wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j054s1z wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j05ak7t wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j05d7vc wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j05dbdq wrote
[removed]
Ne02126 t1_j06dbtd wrote
Nobody else got dizzy from the title?
[deleted] t1_j07cpx4 wrote
[removed]
Xenine123 t1_j08a635 wrote
Saved? Estimates are always trash, focus on who died and who hasn’t, same picture, isn’t a trash metric
pete_68 t1_j08i3p4 wrote
Actually, this kind of stuff is pretty easy to calculate with only a few simple variables. It's only slightly more complicated to calculate the confidence, which is 95% with between 3.0 & 3.4 million lives saved.
You must have failed math worse than me.
[deleted] t1_j0944s4 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j058vsu wrote
[removed]
smucek007 t1_j05yons wrote
it is impossible to find enough persons on the planet who did not have covid if one wants to be sure that myocarditis is caused by vaccine and not by the illness itself
[deleted] t1_j051z4h wrote
[removed]
MassiveSliceOfBread t1_j08poqu wrote
I think with Covid you are damned if you do vax damned if you don’t, I think Covid is just a crapshoot all around, as someone who has not got the vaccine at all, and just now getting a positive diagnosis of Covid, I can say for sure it sucks, I haven’t felt like I was near death at any point but the first two days I showed symptoms I legitimately could not move or do much of anything, the third day I was able to move around but the sore throat that was still in full swing just felt like daggers all down my throat, I am now on day 4 going into day 5 of the first start of symptoms and I feel so much better than I did days 1-3, with a strong fatigue of days 1-2 and high fever.
The scary thing is I might not even be out of the oven so to speak because they say it can take up until the second week for things to take a turn for the worst, however I’m keeping the faith alive that what I had was the omicron variant which is supposedly more mild.
Now that I’ve had Covid I would probably get vaccinated if anything like Covid should ever come around again, it was bad enough that I don’t want to suffer thru that again plus I don’t know what if any long symptoms will stick with me.
Also just an fyi I am not an antivaxxer I was just lazy and didn’t particularly care to get the vaccine because I didn’t want to go out of my way to get it done, I’m paying the price for that now but I want to make it very clear that I in no shape or way believe vaccines are the devil, because otherwise the comments on my post would probably be wishing my death or something awful like I’ve seen throughout all the years of seeing this transpire
Theuniguy t1_j05rg5g wrote
This is the type of scientific studies and comments I come here for
PlaneCockroach9611 t1_j05kf1i wrote
I totally almost had a coincidence when I read headline.
CatOfGrey t1_j04uijq wrote
OP has a history of posting covid/vaccine misinformation on Reddit. This is likely part of their attempt to criticize the vaccine with studies that don't really make any real conclusions about the vaccine.
They also don't read the studies they post, so I am going to highlight a couple of comments from the study, to put the emphasis out there.
Point #1: Myocarditis is worse when you are unvaccinated. Vaccination is better
> The reported incidence of (epi-)myocarditis after vaccination is low and the risks of hospitalization and death associated with COVID-19 are stated to be greater than the recorded risk associated with COVID-19 vaccination [29]. Importantly, infectious agents may also cause lymphocytic myocarditis with a similar immunophenotype, thus meticulous molecular analyses is required in all cases of potentially vaccination-associated myocarditis.
Point #2: This study has nothing to say about vaccines 'causing' these events.
> Finally, we cannot provide a definitive functional proof or a direct causal link between vaccination and myocarditis. Further studies and extended registry are needed to identify persons at risk for this potentially fatal AEFI and may be aided by detailed clinical, serological, and molecular analyses which were beyond the scope of this study. Considering that this fatal adverse event may affect healthy individuals, such registry and surveillance programs may improve early diagnosis, close monitoring, and treatment.