I have two boys, one under 5, the other under 10. I am trying to get good data to determine if vaccination is risky or not.
Recently a relative sent me a story about MIS-C, which seems to be new. But trying to get good data on other things like myocarditis risk/rates is like sorting for a needle in a scrapyard.
Does anyone have any good data, preferably raw statistics on this?
Thank you in advance!
Rather than giving you a list of work that you may suspect of being curated, I will show you how to quickly find what you're looking for.
One of the great things about the National Library of Medicine is that a human looks at each and every paper and assigns standardized semantic tags to it. These are called "MeSH terms" and you can filter the entire library by them.
You mentioned interest in myocarditis, and the following would be an appropriate search query in pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov for this topic:
myocarditis[mh] AND vaccines[majr] AND COVID
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=myocarditis%5Bmh%5D+AN...
The "mh" selects articles that were tagged with that MeSH term. The "majr" selects articles that were tagged with that MeSH term and were mainly about that term. In this case, the structured query drills down from thousands of potential results to 61 results, which is manageable to triage manually.
Edit: Here's how you can figure out wish MeSH terms exist: https://meshb.nlm.nih.gov/search
If, of course, you have the domain knowledge required to do so.
Is your prior on 'I will not make a significant analytic error' higher than 'the FDA analyzed the available data correctly'?
I think this is the bigger issue. Most people I know who say, "I'll do my own research" are the same people who asked me what kind of computer to buy. And they know a lot more about technology than medicine. But its they don't trust the government.
One huge problem with COVID has been the emergence of essentially propaganda pieces masquerading as detailed, rigorous analysis. These give people a false sense of confidence- "Hey I've done my research!" when in reality you can google for 20 minutes and come up with impressive looking links for whatever view you are already predisposed to believe.
I'm sure these existed before, but COVID has taken things to another level.
And they lack the expertise regardless, and they can't gain the expertise without schooling and professional experience. We are dependant on others, whether we like it or not.
> the emergence of essentially propaganda pieces masquerading as detailed, rigorous analysis
> I'm sure these existed before, but COVID has taken things to another level.
I don't know that it's another level. The long, incredibly detailed dives into one issue or another have been around for decades.
This is essentially what I expected when the pandemic started. We created a monster of misinformation and disinformation, the 'post-truth' society; the consequences are obviously and completely predictable.
Similar as to the other posted said - this type of fiction writing has existed before COVID. It's just that now you're all reading the same statistical fiction.
Essentially - one genre of statistical fiction got popular. Whereas before everyone was reading different genres.
(I really wonder at the effort spent on this...)
I mean, unless it's your profession, you're not. At best, you're reading an article (with summarized data that you hope was aggregated correctly) in a journal. To the best of my knowledge, the raw datasets that those are based on are rarely shared.
My prior is "public health is top priority for the powers that be and my individual health is not". Throughout this pandemic this has been demonstrated repeatedly.
Therefore when authorities insist that I do something, I have to try to look up stats for my age group and category and do my best to interpret that correctly as a layman, because authorities might be asking me to do something that is safer for the general public at my expense as an individual.
For me it was the opposite. Back in Sept/October govt was telling people "no need to get a booster; it's fine" and then "get it after 6 months only" while reading about the Israel experience would have told you that it was safe and prudent to just get it after 5mo
However, for 16-40, Patone, et al[1] estimates that myocarditis incidence is around 2/mil for AstraZeneca, 1/mil for Pfizer per does, and 6/mil for Moderna first dose, 10/mil for the second, compared to 40/mil for an active infection.
Singer, el al[2] (pre-print) states that males < 20 are roughly 6x less likely to develop myocarditis from vaccination compared to an infection.
The AMA[3] also has some info on both myocarditis and MIS-C. 95% of those who developed MIS-C were unvaccinated, and up to 40% required some sort of respiratory or cardiovascular life support (compare to 0% of those vaccinated). Also states ages 12-15 appear less likely to develop myocarditis than the 16 - ~40 range.
Everything I've read so far is that myocarditis from vaccination usually resolves fairly quickly.
-----
[1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0.pdf
[2]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.23.21260998v...
[3]: https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/population-care/unv...
I'll note that in general, I have seen studies indicating that the risk of both MIS-C (linked in GP) and long-covid[1][2] are decreased when comparing vaccinated/unvaccinated post active infection. I've also seen reports that those unvaccinated who experience long-covid sometimes see reduced / cleared symptoms after subsequent vaccination.[3] We also know that antibody titer levels seem to be correlated with a reduction in infection, which is why when those begin to fall off we see more breakthrough infections. And finally we know that building long term T and B cells tends to see a quicker, more effective immune response, both of which should be created post-vaccination.
Given that, I would speculate that vaccination is likely to reduce overall proliferation of cell infection (including directly infecting cardiac tissue via the ACE2 receptors) via having more free-floating antibodies in your system, and is likely to reduce the overall immune-mediated inflammatory response to the virus as it can respond more quickly before the virus has had a chance to proliferate as much. Both of these (reduced inflammation, reduced cell infection) should reduce the risk of myocarditis as a result of infection. And I would speculate that that tracks with other observed reduction of symptoms of infection (MIS-C, long-covid).
Again, speculation on my part; I would definitely want to see studies to confirm or refute that.
-----
[1]: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
[2]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.05.22268800v...
However, _in my opinion_ with how infectious omicron is, it is likely inevitable that everyone will eventually be exposed. The literature (linked in my GP) currently seems to indicate that vaccines have a lower risk of myocarditis than an active SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most literature that I've seen (so far) indicates that occurrences of post-vaccination myocarditis tends to be rare, and not life-threatening, and the patients tend to recover quickly.[1]
-----
[1]: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.0...
https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/uk-now-reports-myoca...
based on this Nature paper
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0.pdf
"Yes, sorry to break it to you, vaccines can have risks of myocarditis EXCEEDING risks of myocarditis from infection. Pls stop saying otherwise."
Of 3 482 295 individuals vaccinated with BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), 48 developed myocarditis or myopericarditis within 28 days from the vaccination date compared with unvaccinated individuals (adjusted hazard ratio 1.34 (95% confidence interval 0.90 to 2.00); absolute rate 1.4 per 100 000 vaccinated individuals within 28 days of vaccination (95% confidence interval 1.0 to 1.8)). -https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068665
Among more than 2.5 million vaccinated HCO members who were 16 years of age or older, 54 cases met the criteria for myocarditis. The estimated incidence per 100,000 persons who had received at least one dose of vaccine was 2.13 cases (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.56 to 2.70). The highest incidence of myocarditis (10.69 cases per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 6.93 to 14.46) was reported in male patients between the ages of 16 and 29 years. A total of 76% of cases of myocarditis were described as mild and 22% as intermediate; 1 case was associated with cardiogenic shock. After a median follow-up of 83 days after the onset of myocarditis, 1 patient had been readmitted to the hospital, and 1 had died of an unknown cause after discharge. -https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737
So vaccine-related myopericarditis looks rare and mild. Effectively, and possibly literally, no one dies as a result. I actually ended up with a probable case after my second dose, but it was extremely mild (no functional impairment, just periodic discomfort for some months). I suspect most cases are something similar- not fun, but not spooky. I'm not a doctor nor do I have any relevant specialty, but I'm reasonably sure that reducing incidence of MIS-C or other rare severe outcomes of covid is a net win in younger people.
Assuming that's right (perhaps someone more knowledgeable can provide a source), this seems to imply that vaccination reduces the risk of developing myocarditis by 4x, assuming everyone will eventually be infected.
I'm also curious what effect age has on the risk in both cases, ie. if the same ratio holds for young people.
Conclusions: Myocarditis (or pericarditis or myopericarditis) from primary COVID19 infection occurred at a rate as high as 450 per million in young males. Young males infected with the virus are up 6 times more likely to develop myocarditis as those who have received the vaccine.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34341797/
Not sure about ratio age dependency. My prior would be that it is similar, since I don't have any reason to suspect otherwise. Still not a doctor or biologist though :P
https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/uk-now-reports-myoca...
Males under 40 roughly have the highest risk from multiple Moderna doses, followed by infection, followed by two Astra doses, followed by two Pfizer doses. I expect two COVID infections would increase the risk like it seems to do with the vaccines.
- I thought the risk from getting an infection would be much higher than any vaccine combination (but here multiple Moderna doses seems to increase the risk even more)
- again, if this is true it still validates the rest of my reasoning: except for multiple doses of Moderna any other combination of mainstream vaccines seems to be safer than actually getting the infection
(I note that there is a lot of uncertainty which is why I use "seems to be" instead of "is".)
Then the relevant metric should be infection vs vaccine+infection, given that natural immunity is better than vaccine-conferred immunity (which seems very bad with Omicron)
Anecdotally, every doctor I know has gotten their own children vaccinated as soon as it was available (or enrolled them in clinical trials, to get it earlier).
Here are CDC submitted reports of myo/pericarditis seen so far broken out by age:
https://openvaers.com/covid-data/myo-pericarditis
So take from that what you will. And if this is your first time encountering VAERS, the reports actually submitted are estimated to be between 1 and 10% of total adverse effects experienced.
If you're into reading studies, here are some that are largely unknown:
https://www.rwmalonemd.com/heart-blood-clotting
Good luck!
VAERS is an open database, it can be easily submitted to by anyone, it's not a good source of truth and may contain statistical bias.
Parent's ARE vaccinating their children, millions of kids age 5-11 have had the vaccine: https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/vaccine-trac... Depending on the state, the total % vaccinated in that age group varies between ~20-50%.
This is 100% true, but it leaves out some context.
Prior to covid, it was thought that vaccine side effects were statistically underreported by a significant amount in VAERS. For the signal we are seeing in VAERS to be totally spurious seems highly unlikely, given this fact. It's also worth noting that effects which have a significant time-delay are unlikely to be captured.
All this is to say: yes the data are noisy, but we'd need to erase/explain away the numbers by at least an order of magnitude to erase the spike we are seeing, and that seems like a tall order.
That's fairly easy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion
We're relying on proven liars to get our health information? These are our CHILDREN for God's sake.
I'll go ahead and list the whoppers from the mayo clinic site:
- A COVID-19 vaccine can prevent kids from getting and spreading the COVID-19 virus.
The vaccines in no way, shape or form prevent someone from getting or spreading COVID-19
- COVID-19 vaccines have not been linked to infertility or miscarriage.
Miscarriage data: https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/foia-docs-reveal-pfizer-sh...
- These vaccines were approved quickly because the red tape was cut — not corners.
Please see the story of Pfizer whistle-blower Brook Jackson
- In the U.S., the delta (B.1.617.2) variant is now the most common COVID-19 variant.
Omicron is over 95% of cases. Why would they conceal that? Ahh, because the FAQ question was "Do COVID-19 vaccines protect against the variants?" You'd have to admit the vaccines do next to nothing versus Omicron unless you have had a booster in the last 10 weeks.
One more thing to consider is that the virus is also able to cause myocarditis, especially if you don't rest long enough even if feeling fine. In fact, the virus can potentially cause additional complications even with mild symptoms. There are also things we don't really understand yet with post-viral syndromes which affects many people (disclaimer: Epstein-Barr / Mono messed me up, personally).
This isn't unique to SARS-CoV-2 either, it's a more general viral infection thing and can happen just as well with influenza. With Omicron, it's also very likely that people will get it sooner or later - vaccinated or not.
Granted, most myocarditis goes unnoticed and recovers very well with a bit of rest.
Since it was approved for children by the FDA I assume they did rigourous testing
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#covidnet-hospitali...
Plus AIUI Omicron has demonstrated recombinant replication, which means we're playing a flu-like cat and mouse game with the vaccines. Nobody in their right mind would argue we have any hope of effectively vaccinating everyone against influenza.
https://virological.org/t/omicron-is-a-multiply-recombinant-...
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2787944
Would you like me to wipe your ass next as well?
such lunacy
Couldn't that be applied to deaths from other diseases? Why wouldn't all influenza deaths be considered one event by this standard?
There have been six of them in the last 140 years with respect to influenza. The Spanish Flu pandemic killed 675k (in the USA, like 50 mil worldwide or something wild like that.)
If you're so sure, name one.
Civil war was less than a million, by the way.
* Heart disease: 696,962
* Cancer: 602,350
* COVID-19: 350,831
* Accidents (unintentional injuries): 200,955
* Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 160,264
* Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 152,657
* Alzheimer’s disease: 134,242
* Diabetes: 102,188
* Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,544
* Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 52,547
I mean there are massive institutes, companies, and laboratories engaged in research on both these topics, tons of fund-raising, campaigns to improve diet and exercise, shockingly expensive treatments and so on. Other than all of that, yes, nobody bats an eye.
Reminder that the two most senior FDA vaccine oversight officials resigned in protest before the age 5-11 EUA was approved.
Reminder that the previous FDA commissioner currently sits on Pfizer's board.
Reminder that regulatory capture of the FCC, SEC, and other govt. agencies is popularly accepted as fact, but somehow the FDA is immune to that criticism.
Overall, Pfizer has been approved in 137 countries and Modern in 85.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-decides-against-...
> “I am pleased that Pfizer’s vaccine has undergone a critical phase with FDA approval,” said Health Minister Yuli Edelstein on Friday, just after the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted in support of the agency granting Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), which paved the way for the vaccine’s approval. “This is a huge message for Israeli citizens as well.” He said that he instructed his ministry’s staff to review the approval and submit their recommendations in the coming days so that vaccinations could start before the end of the month.
This was all fast-tracked with countries wanting to get in line for doses, remember?
Thinking-in-reverse, if the FDA flagged/rejected the approval, how many western countries do you think would have approved it within the same timeframe?
I wouldn't make this assumption, especially in light of the the conditions under which it was approved (extreme political pressure, rushed/bleeding edge data, etc.) It's probably fine, but my kids aren't going to be first in line because they are in the control group (https://xkcd.com/2576/).
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jcvi-update-on-ad...
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-...
Unless your children have special circumstances, the answer is to vaccinate.
The risk rates for myocarditis 1) extremely low to be caused by the vaccine 2) lower than the risk of P(Myocarditis | COVID)*P(COVID). That is, the risk of catching COVID AND developing Myocarditis is higher than developing it from the vaccine.
This comment is saying that vaccinated people are more likely to die than the unvaccinated. Sounds like a lie, but nope! It’s true. Why? The unvaccinated population is much, much younger and healthier than the vaccinated. 95% of the above-80 cohort is vaccinated. Essentially nobody under 5 is. This is called a confounding variable, and is used to spread fake news.
That's definitely not what I was saying. I'm curious which part have you that impression?