What I would like to know is, for young males (i.e. those who are most at risk of myocarditis after the vaccine), does the vaccine lessen cardiac risks in a subsequent infection or not?
I was fit and healthy, no smoking, no drinking, no drugs, and exercising regularly with no family history.
I never had symptoms but maybe at some point I caught covid without knowing despite going out very rarely and always observing precautions.
He's saying that he has an effect 2 months after the vaccine. Is that not also worthy of consideration, or do you include it as an epigenetic factor?
What do you think is the prevalence of something happening to someone in a pool of, let's say, 4 billion people in 4 months.
I'm sure 2 separate people had a potted plant land on their head. Is it worth considering its relation to the vaccine?
I'm not saying it can't be related to vaccines, but as an anecdote it's useless until it's shown in statistics, or proven causality by his doctors.
Well, in my mind `epigenetic = biological age * food intake`, where `food intake` is 'is he eating a consistent healthy diet, given that a typical person not eating healthy will surely says that she's eating healthy'. It's (unfortunately) enough to be >30yo, having bad genes around cholesterol handling pathways and eating a standard american diet (even without significant overweight) to be in the danger zone in terms of cardiovascular risks.
ApoB in the golden (and recent) blood test here. OP: given that you have experienced chest pains, and if it's not the case already, go have your ApoB checked and ask for statins if needed: your 60yo you will thank you.
And, in my own and non-important opinion: don't waste your time even thinking about potential link between your condition and covid/vaccine, this is a path that leads nowhere in terms of prevention of futures attacks.
Source: https://peterattiamd.com/measuring-cardiovascular-disease-ri...
What's apob?
It's certainly rare, but young fit people do have heart problems. You can't conclude that this had anything to do with the vaccine, this is not how science works. Certainly the long-term health effects of the vaccines should be studied, but bandying about these kinds of anecdotes is dangerous: it's the same kind of thing that has (wrongly!) convinced so many people that vaccines cause autism.
By the way, this is not to minimize what you went through, I cannot imagine how scary or painful it must've been. I hope you will have a strong path to recovery, and I wish you all the best.
Because the vaccinated are not immune to the virus, some of them must have gotten covid. The overall risk of this sample still falls with-in the normal range for myocarditis.
So in the end the most interesting data is still how many vaccinated get serious health problems or die versus how many unvaccinated get serious health problems or die in a time and place where both groups are likely to be exposed to the virus. If the group is large enough and randomly selected, then this should be fairly indicative. Of course, the meaning of "serious" needs to be defined and quantified.
AFAIK, myocarditis can be treated very well when its diagnosed, that alone makes the focus on it strange. Maybe the lesson to draw from the debate is that patients should be informed better so they can identify symptoms of myocarditis and seek medical help early. Just an idea...
I think most people just mean that it is now established and won't go away. That it will be a constant presence in our lives.
I believe epidemiologists also require that infection rates remain roughly constant and don't exhibit wild swings in infection numbers.
I guess we're still in an epidemic.
There is no sane universe where COVID-19 is endemic from an epidemiological standpoint.
It also doesn't imply that we should stop doing things.
I'd add that endemic also doesn't mean mild.
Essentially everyone that survives the next couple of years will catch covid.
It does?? Where does it say this?
I'm not saying your point is invalid, I'm just saying it's not addressed in the article in question. Please be more careful. It's OK to just admit you we're wrong. It's not OK to twist quotations to support your position not matter how valid or righteous you believe it to be.
What are you basing this on? There was a recent UK study (preprint, last I checked) of 40 million people that showed that the risk of myocarditis was definitively higher compared to Covid in the Moderna sample and higher (albeit statistically insignificant) in the Pfizer sampler for young men.
> So indirectly getting vaccine will lower your risk since of heart disease as everyone will eventually get covid.
This is a separate claim about the conditional probability, which I haven't seen data on. The unconditional probability does not inform the conditional probability.
Also while I'm here, here's another article discussing the topic: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2022/jan/31/joe-rogan-co...
> "First, we confirm and extend our previous findings in more than 42 million persons that the risk of hospitalization or death from myocarditis following COVID-19 infection is higher than the risk associated with vaccination in the overall population."
Quick edit: while I was skimming the paper someone else commented exactly this excerpt, hehe.
I am talking about young men. The study says what I said above.
> In summary, the risk of hospital admission or death from myocarditis is greater following COVID-19 infection than following vaccination and remains modest following sequential doses of mRNA vaccine including a third booster dose of BNT162b in the overall population. However, the risk of myocarditis following vaccination is consistently higher in younger males, particularly following a second dose of RNA mRNA-1273 vaccine
But the risk association might very well be not so much the exercise happening while under immune stress but the processes that happen during recovery doing their thing while under immune stress. Usually immune stress means infection and we don't get to schedule our infections, so this distinction (exercise time vs recovery time) will be very much unexplored.
Young males tend to be more into performance-oriented training (competitive, or focused on metrics, or both) than other population groups, and with an actual infection it might even be that the relevant immune stress does not really start before more direct symptoms suggest taking a break. Could be as simple as shifting the "no sports" instruction that comes with the jab a few days backwards.
Also, what you say is not the case in every country. Many countries are jabbing young men with Moderna.
That statement isn't talking about the young male cohort. In the body of the study, it says the same thing that I said above.
I suppose for some version of "eventually" then everyone would likely expect to get a breakthrough case eventually, but even so the vaccines should drastically reduce the number of times one expects to be infected, so still risk would be reduced, even if it wasn't for breakthrough cases (although it appears that vaccines reduce the risk there as well).
For instance, if someone was vaccinated, but then exposed and was lucky enough not to develop an infection from their exposure, are they immunologically better off as a result of that exposure? I think they probably are, because my understanding is that's how the earliest vaccines worked (exposure on a small enough innoculum to avoid infection) but I'm not an expert, so would love to hear more about this & whether there's a name for such an immune effect when it happens in the wild.
It also depends on how many particles it takes to get you sick. Norovirus is only 7, which is insane and also why it spreads so easily. Hard to have just an exposure to that!
But for that, you are, at most, looking for the occasional transient exposure - not the bombardment that one is getting right now.
Also read a summary of influenza challenge studies. People exposed to low doses often seroconverted asymptomatically.
I feel it's plausible small exposures after vaccination would build more protection.
It is elevated, but the implications of that depend wildly on things like case rates, as events/vaccine doses is static, and events/cases is dynamic. A conclusion reached in Sept., 2021 misses a huge upswing in cases in young men from Omicron, which while milder on a per-case bases has also caused a lot more cases (to use a gaming analogy, making better saving throws, but making a lot of them).
Could you elaborate? I'm actually interested more in your opinion than on the mainstream one.
Unfortunately this study's message is quite obfuscating, probably intentionally. They mean exactly what they say though: covid-induced myocarditis rate is higher than vaccine-induced myocarditis rate, but it says nothing about covid-induced myocarditis rate in relation to vaccination status.
Early 50's, caught original (& symptomatic) Rona early on. Heart seems fine.
Son (also control group) caught COVID recently, recovered, heart seems fine.
Wife had a vaccine so not in the control group - had an adverse reaction to it and stopped at jab #1.
You could of course argue that in all respects that matter for the risk of heart disease, people who take vaccines are the same as people who don't. I would disagree, and only a bet could settle the difference.
- Vinay Prasad MD MPH ( https://youtu.be/NR_ZVzrTeYk?t=47 )
Source used by the video author from nature.com: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0.pdf