Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

I don't see it either. Maybe he saw an advanced copy of the report? He said it needs to be "reproduced."

 

I found the study being referenced I believe…

Cardiovascular Assessment up to One Year After COVID-19 Vaccine-Associated Myocarditis - PubMed

 

Pretty sure I found the study being referenced…

Cardiovascular Assessment up to One Year After COVID-19 Vaccine-Associated Myocarditis - PubMed

 

We’re not anti-science. We’re just anti your authoritarianism …

What Some Call "Anti-Science" Is Just Anti-authoritarianism ⋆ Brownstone Institute

 

lol welcome to the covid thread. The ignore function is your friend in here.

 

Why can’t I find this study anywhere on the internet?

 

Myocarditis after Covid vaccine: Research on long-term effects underway

It’s not nothing -


It’s unknown how many people with vaccine-associated myocarditis will experience this scarring, he said, noting that about 20% of people with myocarditis linked to viruses go on to experience heart failure.

“It could be 2%. It could be 0%. It could be 20%,” he said, referring to the percentage of people with vaccine-associated myocarditis who could experience long-term heart consequences. “We don’t know the answer.”

The CDC recently published a study in The Lancetthat looked at health outcomes in more than 500 teens and young adults at least 90 days after the onset of myocarditis following an mRNA vaccination. Most got better at least three months after symptoms. Other findings from the CDC report included:

• About a quarter of the patients in the study were prescribed daily medication related to myocarditis at their last health care provider follow-up.
• A little more than 100 of the patients had not been cleared for physical activity.
• In addition, 81 patients had an abnormality on their cardiac MRI — although that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are at risk for any adverse health problems.

The CDC will follow the patients who had not fully recovered for 12 months, said Ian Kracalik, the study’s lead author and CDC epidemiologist

 

Here we have instances of seizures in young children after taking the vaccine. Again, this is criminal that we are vaccinating healthy young kids with all the data we have.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.10.13.23296903v1.full.pdf

In this study including 4,102,106 vaccinated enrollees from three commercial claims databases, myocarditis or pericarditis signaled after BNT162b2 (12-17 years) and a new signal was detected for seizures/convulsions after BNT162b2 (2-4 years) and mRNA1273 COVID-19 vaccinations (2-5 years).

 

If there was no risk of myocarditis from infection, then the risk of myocarditis from vaccine would be an issue. But there is risk of myocarditis from COVID infection, and it's at a higher rate than from the vaccine.

Still lots of questions left to research and answer. Are the kids who got myocarditis from the vaccine at a higher risk than the general population of developing myocarditis from infection? What are the percentages who have severe cases that turn into MIS-C from infection? What about from vaccine? What percentage of those from infection have long term effects? Is it similar to the vaccine?

Point being that looking at just at risk from the vaccine without also examining risk from infection without the vaccine doesn't paint the full picture of risk. If the risk from vaccine is lower, and kids who get myocarditis from the vaccine are also the most at risk from infection, but vaccine lowers the risk of cases and severity, then the benefits of the vaccine still outweigh the risks. Can anyone say, now, with certainty that the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine is higher and worse than infection? If you say this, then you aren't looking at all the current data.

 

It is worth at least coming up with the data. If the risk to younger people is higher than normal, perhaps you think about delaying or forgoing the second shot in some cases, or if there has already been an infection delay or forgo future shots and boosters.

 

Not 100% certain, but Q might have found it. It's a "Research Letter" published in Aug 2023, not a full study.

The study is behind a paywall so I can't provide a copy due to copyright, so you'll have to take my word on it.

Anyway, here are some thoughts:

Study published in Circulation's "Research Letters" section, which means a condensed study that normally wouldn't be fit for regular research publication, likely due to methodological issues, even if the study itself was peer reviewed.

What are those methods issues?

I'm going to guess the very small sample size (N=40 overall; N=26 in CMR follow-up sample), likely non-random selection of cases (faiap a convenience sample), and lack of any trajectory of findings, per the authors' admission.

Researchers found that in 15 of 26 follow-up cases, patients had mild-residual LVEF (left ventricular ejection fraction), 2 that had borderline LVEF, 11 with normal LVEF, and zero patients who had any T1 or T2 abnormalities.

I'm not a cardiologist or MD, but in interpreting their discussion, they seemed concerned about those 17 patients, mainly that in the 5 months to a year out there were still signs of problems that could potentially affect patients for awhile. However, those signs were mild and as mentioned above, the researchers noted that they didn't have any trajectory to examine.

My bottom line opinion:

Pinsky's claims were hyperbolic at best, especially in the way he projected far into the future the health implications from the findings of a small study where even the researchers themselves did not suggest such implications. Also, his wondering why this study wasn't being discussed more is part of that hyperbole. It's because it's a small study w/other methodological issues that simply don't permit generalization, or anything else beyond "something to keep an eye on" in future research.

 

Absolutely. Let's do the research, gather the data, and let it guide our decisions. If the risk from the vaccine is higher than then infection at a certain demographic like age level, then we should delay vaccination. If the same cohort of kids are at a high risk from vaccination are at a higher risk from infection, then the benefits from vaccination outweigh the risks.

Right now, we don't have the answers. Much more research to be done. Early returns show the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks, but then tons more research to be completed before we are closer to definitive answers.

 

Given the small sample size, the numbers are likely not statistically inconsistent with the article I posted above, that showed about 20-25% of 500 people with myocarditis still had some symptoms 90 days later.

 

Agree. Highlights symptoms or effects can last longer without people realizing it.

To a point you made to @AzCatFan about delaying a second shot. I won't go search for the studies again, but this is something several (maybe many) researchers have floated. Put more time between the first & second shots since it was after the second one where most of the issues have been found (recognizing that these are still rare events overall0.

 

Not for every risk category and it is not close. The one size fits all approach we did was and is the antithesis of medicine. They used propaganda to scare people like you so bad that you still can’t see reality. Please don’t harm young people. There is a reason Offit advised his son to stop taking the shots after taking the primary series.

 

I follow the data. You don't. Show me peer reviewed data that conclusively shows the risks of the vaccine outweighs the benefits, and I'll read it and respond. If you can't do that, than you have zero to offer me.

 

You follow the garbage the cdc puts out. You are behind the times. Sadly I am now concerned you will not get there. Please do not harm young people by putting another one of these shots in them!

 

Anyone giving a Covid shot to a healthy kid is either ignorant, stupid or a little bit of both.

 

Several studies have shown the risk from myocarditis from infection is significantly higher than the vaccine. The only one that shows different was a preliminary study based on VAERS data, and every subsequent study is like the one linked.

Several studies also have shown vaccination cuts pediatric hospitalization rates in half.

This data is global, not just from the CDC. If the data changes, then I'll change my opinion. But right now, global data shows benefits outweighs the risks. Still lots of research to be done and knowledge to be gained. But for those who follow the data, it tells a story.

 

Not to take the other side, but where we are in 2023’is very different than 2021. Is the benefit of a young healthy male, who has already had the disease recently, as well as vaccinated getting a booster - is the benefit greater than the cost? I’d probably say yes but it isn’t definitive.