Edit: this article says out of 192 405 448 people, 1626 had myocarditis, or about 0.0008%.
In contrast, the CDC estimates COVID has a 0.146% chance to give you myocarditis.
Again, I made up those numbers and I'm not saying mRNA is worse. My point is that we should take a more nuanced and honest view than "they both cause it" or even "X has a great rate; therefore Y is better"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0
> the increased risk of myocarditis after vaccination was higher in persons aged under 40 years. We estimated extra myocarditis events to be between 1 and 10 per million persons in the month following vaccination, which was substantially lower than the 40 extra events per million persons observed following SARS-CoV-2 infection.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v...
> Despite more myocarditis events occurring in older persons, the risk following COVID-19 vaccination was largely restricted to younger males aged less than 40 years, where the risks of myocarditis following vaccination and infection were similar. However, the notable exception was that in younger males receiving a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine, the risk of myocarditis was higher following vaccination than infection, with an additional 101 events estimated following a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine compared to 7 events following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.
Exercising while infected is known to increase risk. If you get the vaccine, you will be told not to exert yourself for some time after. If you get infected, you might have no idea that you should stop exercising unless and until you're symptomatic. https://www.bvhealthsystem.org/expert-health-articles/covid-...
I'd remove that word. It's more uncommon to get symptomatic covid in vaccinated vs unvaccinated.
We still need to investigate whether myocarditis risks exceeds vaccine benefits in very young people.
Unvaccinated is two groups that are wildly different:
Those who've had Covid and those who haven't. Depending on where you are, unvaccinated may be majority share recovered, in which case this is an incorrect statement:
> It's more uncommon to get symptomatic covid in vaccinated vs unvaccinated.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.07.22268919v...
Rates of myocarditis after 2nd shot for males 16 to 17 years of age: 105.9 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine
Rates of myocarditis from COVID-19: 1500 per million cases
I rewrote both stats to be in the form of "x per 1 million" but I don't think that's a fair thing to do. Not everyone is going to get both a vaccine and get covid.
What's a better comparison? Rates of myocarditis for a unvaccinated person (roughly rate of getting covid multiplied by rate of myocarditis if getting covid) versus rates of myocarditis if vaccinated?
stats are hard, explaining stats are even harder. I'm already screwing this up.
Personally I know someone who had a heart attack 3 day after second dose (60yo female) The doctor dismissed the possibility of a causation by the vaccine, this case is not reported even if the person almost died.
Is covid still worse than the vaccine with Omicron, I don’t know, probable. But I know that most side effect are not reported.
A crazy thing is that the Myocardis rate can be reduce 3X by a 2 second procedure at vaccination (verifying that the injection is not in a vein)
Also, are you only counting the number of reported and confirmed vaccine-caused cases, but then comparing that to an estimate of the total number of COVID-caused cases?
Do tell me more about this vaccine/disease exclusivity. I must be doing something wrong.
https://twitter.com/joshzepps/status/1486213480823017472?s=2...
Edit : Consider readied the entire Twitter thread.
https://www.abc.net.au/radio/sydney/programs/afternoons/myoc...
> It's hard to sift through the mass of information and misinformation that exists about COVID-19. Recently there’s been increased focus on myocarditis and whether COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of this condition and, if so, is that risk greater or less than the risk if you contract COVID.
> To clarify exactly what the situation is Josh Szeps spoke to an expert, Associate Professor Raj Puranik who’s a consultant cardiologist with the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Camperdown and board member and clinical practice advisor with the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand.
AZ also uses spike, so he's undermining his own argument.
Of course the spike is pathogenic. In this case, though, it could be something else like the mRNA strands themselves or the structure of the lipid envelope causing inflammation. There isn't enough evidence either way for this journalist to confidently assert a single cause.
So if there is a difference in the incidence of myocarditis, it must be for a different reason.
[0]: https://abcmedia.akamaized.net/radio/local_sydney/audio/2022...
I think it is therefore more likely that adaptive immune system is involved because it has ability to remember.
Now is it possible that spike protein itself or lipid shell is causing this based on indicence rate differences between 3 vaccines?
Hard to say.
The amount of spike protein produced is in correlation with amount of mRNA entering cells. The amount of mRNA entering cells is 3x higher with Moderna vaccine than with Pfizer vaccine and it appears that it is similar on both shots (first and second). But the amount of mRNA (converted from adenovirus DNA) entering cells with the second AZ shot is probably lower than on the first shot because there is also some immunity against the adenovirus and the dose size is the same.
This is in correlation with the amount of antibodies produced by these vaccines.
This is the not contradicting with the observation so far.
But it could be also lipid cell that has been found to cause inflammation. Considering the high amount of antibodies generated on the second vaccination, it is plausible that the lipid shells are not attacked by the immune system directly. But it might be possible that the cells are attacked after lipid shells have merged with their membranes.
There are few ways to find how what is most likely happening.
First is to hope that protein based vaccine from Novavax will be used by meaningful amount to detect proper incidence rates. When it is spike protein itself then we should see also high incidence rate on second vaccination.
The second option is to analyze mixed vaccinations where first vaccination was done with adenovirus vaccine and the second one with mRNA vaccine. It is not perfect setup but it might provide some additional information.
Third option is to use a mouse model similar to one in previous study where mouse were intravenously injected with mRNA vaccines. Repeat the study with mRNA vaccine, placebo (saline solution), dummy lipid shells and protein vaccines (might be necessary to do the study without and with the adjuvant).
Does the AstraZeneca vaccine not include the spike protein? I thought it included the whole virus including the spike protein.
In both the mrna and viral vector vaccines, the mrna and virus are the DELIVERY mechanism of the payload.
I think it is therefore more likely that adaptive immune system is involved because it has ability to remember.
Now is it possible that spike protein itself or lipid shell is causing this based on incidence rate differences between 3 vaccines?
Hard to say.
The amount of spike protein produced is in correlation with amount of mRNA entering cells. The amount of mRNA entering cells is 3x higher with Moderna vaccine than with Pfizer vaccine and it appears that it is similar on both shots (first and second). But the amount of mRNA (converted from adenovirus DNA) entering cells with the second AZ shot is probably lower than on the first shot because there is also some immunity against the adenovirus and the dose size is the same.
This is in correlation with the amount of antibodies produced by these vaccines.
This is the not contradicting with the observation so far.
But it could be also lipid cell that has been found to cause inflammation. Considering the high amount of antibodies generated on the second vaccination, it is plausible that the lipid shells are not attacked by the immune system directly. But it might be possible that the cells are attacked after lipid shells have merged with their membranes.
There are few ways to find how what is most likely happening.
First is to hope that protein based vaccine from Novavax will be used by meaningful amount to detect proper incidence rates. When it is spike protein itself then we should see also high incidence rate on second vaccination.
The second option is to analyze mixed vaccinations where first vaccination was done with adenovirus vaccine and the second one with mRNA vaccine. It is not perfect setup but it might provide some additional information.
Third option is to use a mouse model similar to one in previous study where mouse were intravenously injected with mRNA vaccines. Repeat the study with mRNA vaccine, placebo (saline solution), dummy lipid shells and protein vaccines (might be necessary to do the study without and with the adjuvant).
So I'm not sure what this guy is on about.
So.. we're using VAERS now?
The scientists are, in a controlled way. That doesn't mean that it's a regular source.
Yes, it's appropriate to use a no-validation report system to search for signal.
Vaers is crap, but crap is actually what you want when you're saying "look how ridiculously wide I cast my net looking for examples."
1. "experts" have been relentlessly debunking vaers the past 2 years. This is even discussed in the limitations: "Given the high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, underreporting is more likely."
2. This isn't the first analysis of this kind, yet prior reports have emphasized an important distinction not found in the OP:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0
> the increased risk of myocarditis after vaccination was higher in persons aged under 40 years. We estimated extra myocarditis events to be between 1 and 10 per million persons in the month following vaccination, which was substantially lower than the 40 extra events per million persons observed following SARS-CoV-2 infection.
because it feels like you're being a valuable skeptic, even though you aren't?
because you think "just asking questions," the way scare political news commentators, delivers something positive?
because you think the work of scientists should be judged based on the debunking of a source that has nothing to do with the science you're openly questioning?
because you've become so comfortable explaining your behavior to people who are openly telling you to your face that it's not appropriate that you don't even hear them saying "this isn't appropriate" anymore?
.
> prior reports have emphasized an important distinction
I took a look at your new link, and I don't see any important distinction being emphasized.
THIS IS NOT AN INVITATION FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN.
This is me saying "nothing is being emphasized to the point that someone who, unlike you, has domain specific training can even notice it."
In reality, you've hyper-focused on some irrelevant detail, and now you're desperately trying to figure out why that irrelevant detail isn't present other places.
"Well yes, don't you see? Sure, this paper is about fuel efficiency, but this one doesn't cover kerosene cars, and the other one emphasized an important distinction about kerosene cars"
In reality it's likely to be some detail the paper put in to silence a different walrus.
Yes, I see that you quoted a random statistical detail about age groups and likelihoods.
You want to know why this doesn't matter?
Every vaccine you've ever taken has this risk. All of them.
We just don't talk about it for the same reason that we don't talk about a seatbelt's risk of causing a broken rib, which can puncture your lung, and kill you. Happens twice a year in this country.
Why?
Because twice a year is nothing, and we don't want to spend the rest of our lives talking to people who really want to deeply study that twice a year number, as if there's something valuable there.
The real issue is you have no statistical intuition, so you don't recognize that you're wasting everyone's time chasing ghosts.
The downside, of course, is that STUPID PEOPLE CAN SEE YOU.
And they think you're challenging whether the vaccine is a good idea.
And no, it really doesn't matter if you say you aren't doing that. Stupid people see scary numbers and they remember what Fox News said, and they end up not taking the vaccine, because with five billion people worldwide having a dose in their arm, their dumb ass is so scared by people like you that they're still going to wait and see.
And you, desperate to feel intelligent, will not stop trying to ply these bullshit nonsense numbers, to show everyone else how much you get it.
Please stop doing this soon.
You're killing stupid people.
Whoa now, easy on the antivaxxer rhetoric!
They're saying "sure, seat belts occasionally break ribs, but consider that in the context of all the windshields you didn't get thrown through"
If you feel the need to make a joke like that, which is unfunny and makes you look like you don't understand things, you should expect some inbound explanations.
"Data out of Israel ... suggests that vaccine-induced myocarditis is caused by the spike protein. In that case, Covid would cause the same condition in the same person -- but more severely, attached to a fully-fledged living virus.
To be clear: whoever gets heart inflammation from Moderna would’ve almost certainly got it worse from Covid. The issue arises from the spike protein itself. That’s why we don’t see myocarditis from non-MRNA vaccines like Astra Zeneca."
[0]: https://twitter.com/joshzepps/status/1486213462816866304?t=P...
"We have this bug in production which is a Sev-1. We have a possible fix that won't make things worse we can rollout that should make things better."
Yes, we have all been here where someone did this and it made things worse, but we also have thousands of people looking at this change and been in situations where this was required.
I guess what I'm saying is: The spike protein is in the vaccine and the virus - injecting ourselves with a spike protein to build immunity is likely less impactful than getting the entire virus. If it is truly the spike protein that causes myocarditis, then it causing issues in vaccination is a non-issue. There is a (in my mind high, but we need controlled studies on it) chance that the same people would have gotten myocarditis from Covid. If we can limit the number of other side-effects that people have during the myocarditis then it seems like a win.
I am by no means a virologist or an expert in vaccines, just my thought process.
I wouldn't be surprised if incresed risk of miocarditis after second dose is completely explained by changes in behavior of people who finally got vaccinated after many monthes of lockdowns.
They probably started going out more and exposing themselves to coronavirus which vaccine provides partial protection against.
Researchers don't even exclude from this research people who got full blown covid before their miocarditis.
