The logic of CDC is: you either take the vax, OR you have Covid, so let's compare myocarditis risks.
This is completely misleading as, we all know, people have vax and THEN Covid, then another covid, etc.
The risks of myocarditis from vax and Covid are cumulative and it is possible that vax enhances eventual risk of myocarditis from subsequent Covid infections. Vaccinated people cannot acquire true natural immunity, as evidenced by their inability to produce nucleocapsid antibodies. If so, vax gives you myocarditis, does not prevent covid, and ensures endless infections, that would eventually produce exponentially greater myocarditis risk than a kid having Covid while unvaxed.
“Covid is more likely to cause myocarditis than a Pfizer vaccine even in teenage boys”
If the vaccine were sterilizing, then this would be a valid comparison (covid v. vaccine). Since the vaccine is non-sterilizing, this comparison is invalid.
Back to logic 101 to explain. Covid and vaccination have population overlap. Put another way, they are non-exclusive. If this were a Venn diagram, we would see a shaded area for the overlap. I can show the impact in an hypothetical example.
Let's suppose that we five cases of myocarditis in those who were vaccinated, then later contracted covid, followed by myocarditis. Let's also suppose that we have one case of myocarditis in those where are unvaccinated, but later contracted covid, followed by myocarditis.
If we compare myocarditis in the vaccinated v. myocarditis from covid, we see a risk of 0.87 (5/6), which shows that vaccination supposedly reduces risk of myocarditis. However, if instead we compare myocarditis in the vaccinated who got covid with myocarditis in the unvaccinated who got covid, we see an increase in risk of 500% for vaccination.
[Edited to discuss further]
But this is a hypothetical example and the impact will vary depending on the degree of overlap. If the overlap is tiny and the risk from myocarditis is huge and risk occurs mostly in the unvaccinated group, then the major factor is covid and vaccination wouldn't exacerbate the risk. So let's look at some actual data.
Dr. Clare Craig, a UK pathologist, looked at the data from a VA study (elderly men, mostly) of myocarditis following covid. She found a risk of about 1 /2800 in the unvaccinated group and a risk of about 1/1700 in the vaccinated group. So the degree of overlap is significant in elderly men. We don't know what it is in young men, but this finding of frequent occurrence in elderly men should raise a serious question of concern, since we expect the risk to be higher in young men than in elderly men.
So, the unanswered questions are 1) Do mRNA vaccines exacerbate the risk of myocarditis from covid in young men and 2) if mRNA vaccines exacerbate the risk, by how much is the risk exacerbated?
Dr. Hollander, I have to call issue with accusing of bad science and then using "bad science methodology" including fuzzy math and a few "selection" to justify your point, when there's dozens of deep studies and meta-analysis in the science/medicine literature? Do you have access to the literature? I'm particularly interested why you didn't mention studies that don't jive with your point. For example the meta-analysis recently published in the lancet. "Myopericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination and non-COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis" Ling et al Lancet April 13. I'll help here's some relevant quotes "the overall incidence of myopericarditis from 22 studies (405 272 721 vaccine doses) "...."156 full-text publications were reviewed. 22 observational studies totalling 405 272 721 vaccine doses were included in the meta-analysis " ...."The overall incidence of myopericarditis was 33·3 cases (95% CI 15·3–72·6) per million vaccine doses (high certainty, Egger's test p=0·12; figure 2; appendix p 21)."....."The overall incidence of myopericarditis in the general population did not differ significantly after receipt of COVID-19 vaccines (18·2 cases [10·9–30·3] per million doses, high certainty) compared with non-COVID-19 vaccines (56·0 [10·7–293·7], "....."In conclusion, this meta-analysis of more than 400 million doses of vaccines suggests that the overall incidence of myopericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination is similar to that in the published literature on its incidence after influenza vaccination, and is lower than the incidence after live smallpox vaccination. The incidence of myopericarditis in younger males after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination is higher than expected by comparison with other age groups. "
What really drives me nuts, as an actual immunologist who studies host-viral interactions, are people doing friday afternoon analysis to try to make a point that just feeds confusion and distrust. Hey I study viruses but read medicine literature, I feel like musing about some recommendations of the American Academy of Family Physiciansmedicine after doing some fuzzy back of the napkin calculations at happy hour.......If you have a relevant and well supported point by all means give a a logical and evidence based argument. But don't ignore the literature and hard work by scientists to actually determine these things. And as far as accusations of mis-leading the public. Are you actually trying to educate the public here?
I believe the figures you cite are population-wide estimates, rather than focusing on the one demographic this piece was about, young men. Myocarditis cases - and serious side effects in general - are rare outside of this one group. This is why I, and virtually every other physician, endorse the mRNA vaccines broadly. We do, however, owe this one group serious consideration of risk-benefit analysis. I am unsure if you have access to medical literature, but perhaps you saw the recent JAMA article -- https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2791253 -- which very neatly concurs with my fuzzy math. This respected physician wrote a thread discussing the study which bears reading: https://twitter.com/walidgellad/status/1517123498606538753?s=20&t=vf85Xn_wA0u-Xg81bKDu8g
One might conclude that my Friday afternoon analysis led me to the correct conclusion, if one is interested in reaching correct conclusions, rather than repeating incorrect conclusions which lead to distrust of the institutions which we rely upon to lead our country's pandemic response. Your good faith in scientific inquiry is up to you, however.
It is good that we are finally coming to a kind of conscious that this (for most people) is a very rare side effect, and we can stop with the vague numbers people are throwing out on the web. Each paper seem to confirm the low rate of side effect (for most people).
For the most at risk populations (mainly adolescent men), the risk is still low, with each study reaffirming a that we are in the same range, and that we are talking about an uncommon side effect, with <10 per 100K for the second shot of the Pfizer vaccine (BNT162b2). It does seem that this group should avoid the Moderna vaccine. In addition, we still have much work to do to compare to the rate of myocarditis following infection, which seems to be higher (not to mention the other issues).
It's nice that we can all stop with the apocalyptic rhetoric and tell everyone (who is not an adolescent boy) to go get vaccinated, don't you think?
I am not an immunologist nor do I play one on teevee. ;)
I still have a little aptness with logic and numbers, although I admit to making mistakes.
Dr. Hollander shows that you have fallen for Simpson's Paradox. It's basically an error based on ignoring wide variability in distribution.
Above, I pointed out a different sort of logical fallacy based on non-exclusive groups, applying it to rates of myocarditis following covid in the vaccinated and unvaccinated, which you may find interesting.
this anti-Nuremberg fakecine putsch will continue, with temporary pause, using another 'disease.'
It will morph into the greatest human health crisis of all time within 5 years, probably within 2. Non-Covid death rates are rising in broad swathes - up to 80% increases yoy. This is a 12-20 sigma event - once every 10 trillion years randomly therefore there is another cause. The injections are easily the most likely culprit.
The myocarditis issue is the tip of a much larger iceberg. For example, an OpEd titled "Have we entered a self-sustaining modus operandi for COVID-19?" has been posted recently on Trial Site News (https://trialsitenews.com/have-we-entered-a-self-sustaining-modus-operandi-for-covid-19/#comments). It addresses potential consequences of COVID-19 "vaccinations" followed by repeated boosters. Because most of the critical infrastructure personnel in the USA (doctors, nurses, military, law enforcement, teachers, pilots, etc.) were required to receive the initial COVID-19 "vaccinations" in order to remain employed, and are being required to get the boosters to remain employed, the consequences for the USA could be catastrophic if the scenario posited in the OpEd comes to pass. Recent events suggest we have entered the initial phases of this scenario.
Love your article.
The logic of CDC is: you either take the vax, OR you have Covid, so let's compare myocarditis risks.
This is completely misleading as, we all know, people have vax and THEN Covid, then another covid, etc.
The risks of myocarditis from vax and Covid are cumulative and it is possible that vax enhances eventual risk of myocarditis from subsequent Covid infections. Vaccinated people cannot acquire true natural immunity, as evidenced by their inability to produce nucleocapsid antibodies. If so, vax gives you myocarditis, does not prevent covid, and ensures endless infections, that would eventually produce exponentially greater myocarditis risk than a kid having Covid while unvaxed.
I fleshed out your logic and added some real world data, but you beat me to the draw.
“Covid is more likely to cause myocarditis than a Pfizer vaccine even in teenage boys”
If the vaccine were sterilizing, then this would be a valid comparison (covid v. vaccine). Since the vaccine is non-sterilizing, this comparison is invalid.
Back to logic 101 to explain. Covid and vaccination have population overlap. Put another way, they are non-exclusive. If this were a Venn diagram, we would see a shaded area for the overlap. I can show the impact in an hypothetical example.
Let's suppose that we five cases of myocarditis in those who were vaccinated, then later contracted covid, followed by myocarditis. Let's also suppose that we have one case of myocarditis in those where are unvaccinated, but later contracted covid, followed by myocarditis.
If we compare myocarditis in the vaccinated v. myocarditis from covid, we see a risk of 0.87 (5/6), which shows that vaccination supposedly reduces risk of myocarditis. However, if instead we compare myocarditis in the vaccinated who got covid with myocarditis in the unvaccinated who got covid, we see an increase in risk of 500% for vaccination.
[Edited to discuss further]
But this is a hypothetical example and the impact will vary depending on the degree of overlap. If the overlap is tiny and the risk from myocarditis is huge and risk occurs mostly in the unvaccinated group, then the major factor is covid and vaccination wouldn't exacerbate the risk. So let's look at some actual data.
Dr. Clare Craig, a UK pathologist, looked at the data from a VA study (elderly men, mostly) of myocarditis following covid. She found a risk of about 1 /2800 in the unvaccinated group and a risk of about 1/1700 in the vaccinated group. So the degree of overlap is significant in elderly men. We don't know what it is in young men, but this finding of frequent occurrence in elderly men should raise a serious question of concern, since we expect the risk to be higher in young men than in elderly men.
So, the unanswered questions are 1) Do mRNA vaccines exacerbate the risk of myocarditis from covid in young men and 2) if mRNA vaccines exacerbate the risk, by how much is the risk exacerbated?
https://dailysceptic.org/archive/heart-problems-after-covid-are-much-worse-for-the-vaccinated-nature-study-shows-but-its-hidden-in-the-appendix/
Hard to conclude CDC isn’t willfully misrepresenting these data.
Same deal with lying (I believe that’s the correct word) about post infection aka “natural immunity”.
And the alleged mountain of evidence supporting mask mandates.
You must have had a LOT of faith in CDC at the outset to still lend them any benefit of doubt.
Dr. Hollander, I have to call issue with accusing of bad science and then using "bad science methodology" including fuzzy math and a few "selection" to justify your point, when there's dozens of deep studies and meta-analysis in the science/medicine literature? Do you have access to the literature? I'm particularly interested why you didn't mention studies that don't jive with your point. For example the meta-analysis recently published in the lancet. "Myopericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination and non-COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis" Ling et al Lancet April 13. I'll help here's some relevant quotes "the overall incidence of myopericarditis from 22 studies (405 272 721 vaccine doses) "...."156 full-text publications were reviewed. 22 observational studies totalling 405 272 721 vaccine doses were included in the meta-analysis " ...."The overall incidence of myopericarditis was 33·3 cases (95% CI 15·3–72·6) per million vaccine doses (high certainty, Egger's test p=0·12; figure 2; appendix p 21)."....."The overall incidence of myopericarditis in the general population did not differ significantly after receipt of COVID-19 vaccines (18·2 cases [10·9–30·3] per million doses, high certainty) compared with non-COVID-19 vaccines (56·0 [10·7–293·7], "....."In conclusion, this meta-analysis of more than 400 million doses of vaccines suggests that the overall incidence of myopericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination is similar to that in the published literature on its incidence after influenza vaccination, and is lower than the incidence after live smallpox vaccination. The incidence of myopericarditis in younger males after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination is higher than expected by comparison with other age groups. "
What really drives me nuts, as an actual immunologist who studies host-viral interactions, are people doing friday afternoon analysis to try to make a point that just feeds confusion and distrust. Hey I study viruses but read medicine literature, I feel like musing about some recommendations of the American Academy of Family Physiciansmedicine after doing some fuzzy back of the napkin calculations at happy hour.......If you have a relevant and well supported point by all means give a a logical and evidence based argument. But don't ignore the literature and hard work by scientists to actually determine these things. And as far as accusations of mis-leading the public. Are you actually trying to educate the public here?
I believe the figures you cite are population-wide estimates, rather than focusing on the one demographic this piece was about, young men. Myocarditis cases - and serious side effects in general - are rare outside of this one group. This is why I, and virtually every other physician, endorse the mRNA vaccines broadly. We do, however, owe this one group serious consideration of risk-benefit analysis. I am unsure if you have access to medical literature, but perhaps you saw the recent JAMA article -- https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2791253 -- which very neatly concurs with my fuzzy math. This respected physician wrote a thread discussing the study which bears reading: https://twitter.com/walidgellad/status/1517123498606538753?s=20&t=vf85Xn_wA0u-Xg81bKDu8g
One might conclude that my Friday afternoon analysis led me to the correct conclusion, if one is interested in reaching correct conclusions, rather than repeating incorrect conclusions which lead to distrust of the institutions which we rely upon to lead our country's pandemic response. Your good faith in scientific inquiry is up to you, however.
It is good that we are finally coming to a kind of conscious that this (for most people) is a very rare side effect, and we can stop with the vague numbers people are throwing out on the web. Each paper seem to confirm the low rate of side effect (for most people).
For the most at risk populations (mainly adolescent men), the risk is still low, with each study reaffirming a that we are in the same range, and that we are talking about an uncommon side effect, with <10 per 100K for the second shot of the Pfizer vaccine (BNT162b2). It does seem that this group should avoid the Moderna vaccine. In addition, we still have much work to do to compare to the rate of myocarditis following infection, which seems to be higher (not to mention the other issues).
It's nice that we can all stop with the apocalyptic rhetoric and tell everyone (who is not an adolescent boy) to go get vaccinated, don't you think?
"It is good that we are finally coming to a kind of conscious that this (for most people) is a very rare side effect,"
Is 1 case of myocarditis following covid per 1700 injections all that rare? It's certainly far more common than with other vaccines.
I am not an immunologist nor do I play one on teevee. ;)
I still have a little aptness with logic and numbers, although I admit to making mistakes.
Dr. Hollander shows that you have fallen for Simpson's Paradox. It's basically an error based on ignoring wide variability in distribution.
Above, I pointed out a different sort of logical fallacy based on non-exclusive groups, applying it to rates of myocarditis following covid in the vaccinated and unvaccinated, which you may find interesting.
this anti-Nuremberg fakecine putsch will continue, with temporary pause, using another 'disease.'
It will morph into the greatest human health crisis of all time within 5 years, probably within 2. Non-Covid death rates are rising in broad swathes - up to 80% increases yoy. This is a 12-20 sigma event - once every 10 trillion years randomly therefore there is another cause. The injections are easily the most likely culprit.
The myocarditis issue is the tip of a much larger iceberg. For example, an OpEd titled "Have we entered a self-sustaining modus operandi for COVID-19?" has been posted recently on Trial Site News (https://trialsitenews.com/have-we-entered-a-self-sustaining-modus-operandi-for-covid-19/#comments). It addresses potential consequences of COVID-19 "vaccinations" followed by repeated boosters. Because most of the critical infrastructure personnel in the USA (doctors, nurses, military, law enforcement, teachers, pilots, etc.) were required to receive the initial COVID-19 "vaccinations" in order to remain employed, and are being required to get the boosters to remain employed, the consequences for the USA could be catastrophic if the scenario posited in the OpEd comes to pass. Recent events suggest we have entered the initial phases of this scenario.