Hacker News Reader

Comment by piva00 | Hacker News Reader

I don't see any literature showing myocarditis through the roof, can you share some sources? As far as I can remember the sources I've read after 2 years of the vaccines rollout showed a small risk of temporary myocarditis in a very small cohort.

The shots were quite effective at curbing spread by lowering the time people shed the virus, and also substantially lowering mortality among infected.

If that's ineffective I think... You had the wrong expectations?

I'd really appreciate sources for your extraordinary claims.

View on HN

> If that's ineffective I think... You had the wrong expectations?

it was said to "stop the spread" and "prevent infection", both it did not live up to.

there are many, here's one study from Basel:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978

discussed by someone that discusses these things more often here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd_RTf_ForA

Doesn't your link say that it was transient and temporary?

fixed my post. tnx

Doesn't your link also say this?

"No definitive case of myocarditis was found. However, the two participants (both women) with vaccine-associated myocardialinjury and chest pain met the Brighton Collaboration case defini-tion Level 2, indicating probable myocarditis in those patients (0.3%[95% CI 0.1–0.9%])"

So 2 of the participants had a .3% possibility?

0.3% is the percentage of participants, not the confidence in the diagnosis.

Every result reported in the paper follows that same pattern: "[N] participants had [result] ([% of participants], [95% confidence interval])".

0.3% is a lot for a medicine to be called safe.

What do you think a safe threshold should be?

And note that your own link said that the .3% of participants were those that could possibly show signs of myocarditis, they didn't actually contract that disease. So what does your paper show that is damning evidence to you?

I guess what I am asking you is what is the most important figure in that paper, as I read it and I'm no scientific expert but it made me come away more confident in the efficacy and safety of the vaccines. What am I missing that you are finding?

I'm not the person who posted the paper.

Here's a meta analysis from 2023 about the effectiveness of the vaccine with around ~3 million subjects from the different studies: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10....

A meta analysis about the vaccines' safety record with around ~99 million subjects over different analysed studies: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X2...

The conclusion from the article you shared also says the resulting myocarditis doesn't seem to be alarming:

> mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated myocardial injury was more common than previously thought, being mild and transient

More common than previously thought doesn't equate to your claim of "myocarditis through the roof".

As much as I liked to watch Dr. John Campbell in the beginning of the pandemic I verge on trusting more meta analysis covering dozens to hundreds of studies than a single person reviewing a few studies. If a slight increase in transient myocarditis gives me a huge boost in immune response against COVID I will take the transient myocarditis 100% of the time (which I had as a side-effect of the vaccine, got no complications from that after being assessed).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com