[dead]
“Despite a large body of evidence from extraordinary efforts by investigators around the world, our committee found that in many cases, if not most, evidence was insufficient to accept or reject causality for a particular potential harm from a specific COVID-19 vaccine,” said committee vice chair Anne Bass, professor of clinical medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, and a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery and New York Presbyterian Hospital. “In other cases, we did find sufficient evidence to favor rejection, favor acceptance, or establish causality. It is important to note, however, that identifying a harm does not mean that it occurs frequently. Harms associated with vaccines are rare.”
I find the press release very interesting, by the way. It is almost as if they want to assure people that their report is politically correct.
Small fucking potatoes against millions dead plus millions more injured. I'm on 5 shots and I guess I'm due for a booster.
Yeah, that myocarditis, it's basically like a flu.
However, the prognosis for myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination appears to be much less severe. In a study of nearly 4 million residents of Hong Kong, only one death occurred (1%) among 104 cases of postvaccination myocarditis, compared with 84 deaths (11 percent) among 762 cases of viral infection-related myocarditis (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01-0.57). In a surveillance study of cases of myocarditis related to COVID-19 vaccination in the United States reported to VAERS, among 484 hospitalizations there were no deaths, and evidence of ongoing myocarditis at follow-up cardiac MR was uncommon (13 percent)
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9888677/#:~:tex....
https://newsroom.heart.org/news/myocarditis-risk-significant...
Still lower in the end.
Personally, I'd like that explained to me before the shot.
Children also get much higher myocarditis rates from COVID than without COVID.
Too busy to read it yourself? The summary is not long. After that, maybe check out the possible consequences of a Covid infection, Wikipedia is a good start.
So you're just a troll.
> I am interested in what people think about the document.
The "document" is a 300-page book of medical studies. How about you read it and give us a summary?
Conclusions Regarding mRNA-1273
Conclusion 3-2: The evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the mRNA-1273 vaccine and Guillain-Barré syndrome.
Conclusion 3-10: The evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the mRNA-1273 vaccine and Bell's palsy.
Conclusion 5-2: The evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the mRNA-1273 vaccine and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome.
Conclusion 6-2: The evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the mRNA vaccine and myocardial infarction.
Conclusion 7-2: *The evidence establishes a causal relationship between the mRNA-1273 vaccine and myocarditis*.
Conclusion 9-2: The evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the mRNA-1273 vaccine and female infertility.
For all other possible harms studied, the conclusion was that the evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship with the mRNA-1273 vaccine.
BOX 7-1
Conclusions for Myocarditis and Pericarditis
Conclusion 7-1: The evidence establishes a causal relationship between the BNT1622 vaccine and myocarditis.
Conclusion 7-2: The evidence establishes a causal relationship between the mRNA-1273 vaccine and myocarditis.
Conclusion 7-3: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine and myocarditis.
Conclusion 7-4: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine and myocarditis.
Conclusion 7-5: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between the BNT162b2 vaccine and pericarditis without myocarditis.
Conclusion 7-6: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between the mRNA-1273 vaccine and pericarditis without myocarditis.
Conclusion 7-7: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine and pericarditis without myocarditis.
Conclusion 7-8: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine and pericarditis without myocarditis.However:
"In a detailed analysis of nearly 43 million people, the risk of myocarditis in unvaccinated individuals after COVID-19 infection was at least 11 times higher compared to people who developed myocarditis after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine or booster dose, according to new research published today in the American Heart Association’s flagship, peer-reviewed journal Circulation."
https://newsroom.heart.org/news/myocarditis-risk-significant...
That population didnt exist for very long. Once the conditions became that virtually everyone had at least one shot or one infection, is there any benefit with respect to myocarditis to getting more shots?
* I find it hard to trust data like this because of the immense pressure against side effects being attributed to the shots: pressure both on those impacted (for shame or disbelief or difficulty in knowing), on those doing the reporting (professional consequences, shame, disbelief), and on those in charge of administering the whole thing (monetary incentives, shame, disbelief, etc). That we see a signal at all in those conditions is frightening.
None of those really exist at the level where these metrics are collected, and myocarditis is a general medical condition that one would get treatment for.
I think it's hard for a lot of people deep into their beliefs to realize that the vast vast majority of the population just doesn't actually care. You get a vaccine. Done. If you then get sick for whatever reason you'll go to the hospital or not. Vaccine isn't even part of the thought process. Medical staff will treat you because that's what they do. Then it will go onto whatever metrics exist. Then later someone pulls the numbers together but they're not the ones collecting them.
There's no grand conspiracy because people don't actually care and it doesn't impact them in any way either directly or emotionally.
edit: As a movie villain once said: To you it was the most important day of your life, to them it was a Tuesday.
That sounds reasonable. Although I've read that many cases of vaccine related myocarditis are sub clinical (you don't find it until you proactively look for it, which there is only so much appetite to do).
> There's no grand conspiracy
I think you're typecasting me to some character in your head. I'm not claiming anything about conspiracies. I am pointing at the social and professional stigma around saying anything less than positive about anything related to vaccines. Is it some grand conspiracy to say that exists?
Your response is sort of proof of this: I said something less than positive about vaccines and now you think I'm a conspiracy theorist.
No, you're extrapolating those to wide scale second and third order impact that you have no data or logical baseline to support. Second and third order impacts related to vaccines that override many other higher priorities for short term decision making. You're claiming that a medical professional who doesn't speak out about vaccines will also look at someone having a medical condition, look up their vaccination records, look at if this condition may be related to vaccines, and then change the medical diagnosis they write to not put that condition on their medical record. Endangering the patient's very life through an incorrect medical record. A condition that actually happens more often in those without vaccines that get covid. A condition that happens significantly often on it's own with or without covid or vaccines being involved. Not just a few people but a majority of people to the point of drastically impacting the calculated prevalence of the disease.
I'm not even sure wha to call that mindset. I said conspiracy because the alternatives are even less flattering.
> Your response is sort of proof of this: I said something less than positive about vaccines and now you think I'm a conspiracy theorist.
No, I called you that because your argument is downright insane and I called you a conspiracy theorist because instead of reflecting on that your response is to call me as part of the conspiracy for merely calling you out.
I'm making no claim on whether or not you should be punished for saying less than positive things about vaccines, I'm not making any claims about shadowy forces making this true. I'm just pointing out that it is in fact true.
This and only this is my argument. If you think that is downright insane or has no logical basis, well there isn't much else for me to say.
BTW, in case you missed it, I was somewhat convinced by your point that maybe this doesn't impact metrics like we are discussing above.