Rare myocarditis after COVID shots: Study rules out some common culprits

[Bruce Stephens]

Taken together, the researchers concluded that the most likely explanation is that in these rare cases of myocarditis and pericarditis, the vaccine is spurring a generalized, vigorous inflammatory response that leads to heart tissue inflammation and damage.​

​

[...]​

​

For now, the finding that an inflammatory response is behind the cases can help guide treatment and prevention. A Canadian study from last year suggested that extending the interval between mRNA vaccine doses can reduce the chances of myocarditis and pericarditis in young males. But, the new study may bring some relief when it does occur—self-resolving inflammation is less concerning than a difficult-to-treat autoimmune response.​

Rare myocarditis after COVID shots: Study rules out some common culprits

Researchers ruled out overexuberant antibodies in an autoimmune response.

arstechnica.com

 

[Dragonheart]

I saw that study and also noted this sentence in relation to young males who are the most prevalent group a reaction is seen in.

“In fact, they're significantly more likely to develop myocarditis or pericarditis from a COVID-19 infection than from a COVID-19 vaccination”,

which seems to be ignored when discussing the very sad and scary situations when the vaccine has indeed caused a reaction.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

I saw that study and also noted this sentence in relation to young males who are the most prevalent group a reaction is seen in.

Of course, yes. And I've seen lots of comments from doctors contrasting serious effects from infection to the (almost always) milder effects from vaccination.

(My guess is these mRNA vaccines will be relatively unusual just because they seem quite expensive to make. Even so, it's obviously worth investigating the rare side effects and trying to work out how to avoid, reduce, or treat them. Similarly, I very much hope the problems with the adenovirus vector vaccines are being investigated since those vaccines are about as fast to make and much cheaper.)

 

[bulkbiker]

I saw that study and also noted this sentence in relation to young males who are the most prevalent group a reaction is seen in.

“In fact, they're significantly more likely to develop myocarditis or pericarditis from a COVID-19 infection than from a COVID-19 vaccination”,

which seems to be ignored when discussing the very sad and scary situations when the vaccine has indeed caused a reaction.

There was of course the study from Israel that showed that the unjabbed who had covid did not develop the same heart problems as those seen in the jabbed. Which didn't makes the news very much.. oddly

The Incidence of Myocarditis and Pericarditis in Post COVID-19 Unvaccinated Patients-A Large Population-Based Study - PubMed

Myocarditis and pericarditis are potential post-acute cardiac sequelae of COVID-19 infection, arising from adaptive immune responses. We aimed to study the incidence of post-acute COVID-19 myocarditis and pericarditis. Retrospective cohort study of 196,992 adults after COVID-19 infection in...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

" Post COVID-19 infection was not associated with either myocarditis or pericarditis.
We did not observe an increased incidence of neither pericarditis nor myocarditis in adult patients recovering from COVID-19 infection."

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Which didn't makes the news very much.. oddly

I don't think it's that odd. The finding is contrary to the majority of studies, and (while very big) has some issues. It's big because it's counting in health records and there can be issues in doing that. In this case, apparently they included diagnostic codes for most forms of myocarditis but not viral or infective myocarditis (they didn't include those codes).

It also doesn't seem that relevant to the (really small) study exploring why mRNA vaccines might cause rare cases of myocarditis or pericarditis. Presumably your suggestion is that people might just get infected instead, but infection can cause many other issues than these (including death) none of which were included in the Israel study (which looked only some time after infection, so myocarditis or pericarditis during the acute phase wasn't looked at). (In contrast, myocarditis and pericarditis do seem to be the main risk factors for the mRNA vaccines.)

Multiple studies showed that COVID-19 increases the risk of heart inflammation more than vaccines do; study in Israel misleadingly used to claim otherwise

Myocarditis and pericarditis are conditions involving inflammation of the heart. Both conditions are commonly caused by viral infections, such as COVID-19 and the flu. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have also been associated with a higher risk of myocarditis, particularly in young men. However, the...

healthfeedback.org

 

[bulkbiker]

Presumably your suggestion is that people might just get infected instead,

My suggestion is that we have a study (maybe with some problems) that demonstrates that covid infection per se is not associated with the heart problems that many have experienced post jab.
How many of the studies looking at C19 increasing the risk of heart problems have made the distinction between jabbed and unjabbed? Of course if the jabs were either "safe" or "effective" then they shouldn't cause any problems at all.
Logic seems to be another huge casualty of the 'pandemic' which is a shame.

 

[Dragonheart]

Of course if the jabs were either "safe" or "effective" then they shouldn't cause any problems at all.

Does that logic apply to all medications and vaccines? If so we are living in a world where we should have zero pharmaceuticals. Every single one of them has some contraindications or side effects or helps without solving an issue entirely. Yet they are still considered effective and safe even though they fail the 100% test you want to apply to this product.

 

[Amity Island]

Given studies have shown that those that contracted covid19 acquired immunity which provides far broader immunity at least equal or better than a vaccine, it matters not, to those with acquired immunity how safe a drug is as they just don't need to take it and hence no need to take the risk, especially for what would equate to a 1% absolute effectiveness.

Natural immunity was intentionally ignored as part of deailing with the pandemic by those "following" the science.

https://www.science.org/content/art...er-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital

and

Several studies (in Qatar, England, Israel, and the US) have found infection rates at equally low levels among people who are fully vaccinated and those who have previously had covid-19. Cleveland Clinic surveyed its more than 50 000 employees to compare four groups based on history of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination status. Not one of over 1300 unvaccinated employees who had been previously infected tested positive during the five months of the study. Researchers concluded that that cohort “are unlikely to benefit from covid-19 vaccination.” In Israel, researchers accessed a database of the entire population to compare the efficacy of vaccination with previous infection and found nearly identical numbers. “Our results question the need to vaccinate previously infected individuals,” they concluded.

 

[Amity Island]

Does that logic apply to all medications and vaccines? If so we are living in a world where we should have zero pharmaceuticals.

In pharmaceuticals, we surely only use them when needed?

 

[Dave_Z1a]

love to know what the true deffanition of "rare" is it seems to change from topic to topic, especially when mrna 'vaccines ' are concerned.

 

[bulkbiker]

Does that logic apply to all medications and vaccines?

If the claim is made then it should surely?
When something is being sold as "safe and effective" and is patently neither then it should be removed from sale.

 

[Dragonheart]

Given studies have shown that those that contracted covid19 acquired immunity which provides far broader immunity at least equal or better than a vaccine, it matters not, to those with acquired immunity how safe a drug is as they just don't need to take it and hence no need to take the risk, especially for what would equate to no more than a 1% absolute effectiveness.

Well that depends very much which studies you read which form was better and its effectiveness. We all know it’s possible to find something that supports almost any position. How accurate and what consensus there is for that position varies enormously.

And the protection gained varies by individual and by variant exposed by and to.

And it assumes you survive the exposure without any long term harms. Not so for many millions in either death, damage or long covid.

But I do agree, whatever the source, once you have immunity it seems crazy to ignore it completely. We do need to remember many of these choices and decisions were not medically based but political.

 

[Dragonheart]

In pharmaceuticals, we surely only use them when needed?

And you think that happens? And what definition of “needed”.

 

[Dragonheart]

If the claim is made then it should surely?
When something is being sold as "safe and effective" and is patently neither then it should be removed from sale.

How many deaths or harms have been caused by other medications that still are considered safe and effective as they too are sold? What is the threshold and has it been proven?

 

[Amity Island]

But I do agree, whatever the source, once you have immunity it seems crazy to ignore it completely. and decisions were not medically based but political.

Yes! 100%

To me, it seems they wanted everyone jabbed regardless of need and, that the lockdowns, stay at home, mask wearing, job losses, home schooling, destroying NHS, economy were all there to encourage everyone to have the jabs (as the only route out). It clearly wasn't for just health reasons.

 

[Amity Island]

And you think that happens? And what definition of “needed”.

Well; does a healthy child who has had and recovered from covid19 need a vaccine (prophylactic with 1% effectiveness)?

 

[Dragonheart]

Well; does a healthy child who has had and recovered from covid19 need a vaccine (prophylactic with 1% effectiveness)?

You keep quoting 1% as if it’s an undisputed fact. It’s not.

 

[Amity Island]

How many deaths or harms have been caused by other medications that still are considered safe and effective as they too are sold? What is the threshold and has it been proven?

I think some honesty would help. Instead of unequivically stating "safe and effective" how about

Safe most of the time
Safe for many
Safe for some people
etc etc

Where is the harm in being truthful?

and on the effectiveness, again, some honesty would help here too. Instead of giving only the sales pitch figures (95% effective), the ones that sound most impressive, the ones most likely to result in higher take up, give also the absolute effectives too.

 

[Amity Island]

You keep quoting 1% as if it’s an undisputed fact. It’s not.

Here's the facts from CDC. First column ARR absolute risk reduction. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9115787/ Pfizer gives a 0.84 absolute risk reduction. Bearing in mind we already had a 99% chance of survival without any vaccine.

BNT162b2​	[3]​	0.84​	95.0​	119​
(Pfizer-BioNtech)​	​	​	​	​
mRNA1273​	[4]​	1.24​	94.1​	81​
(Moderna-NIH)​	​	​	​	​
ChAdOx1nCoV19​	[5]​	1.11​	72.8​	90​
(Astra Zeneca – Oxford)​	​	​	​	​
Ad26CoV2S​	[6]​	1.19​	66.9​	84​
(Johnson & Johnson)​	​	​	​	​
GamCovidVac​	[7]​	0.93​	91.0​	86​
(Gamaleya)​	​	​	​	​
NVX-CoV2373​	[8]​	1.23​	89.7​	82​
(Novavax)​	​	​	​	​
CORONAVAC​	[9]​	0.76​	83.5​	131​
(Sinovac)​	​	​	​	​
WIBP-CorV​	[10]​	0.54​	72.8​	185​
(Wuhan – Sinopharm)​	​	​	​	​
BBIBP-CorV​	[10]​	0.58​	78.1​	172​
(Beijing – Sinopharm)​	​	​	​	​

 

[Amity Island]

And it assumes you survive the exposure without any long term harms. Not so for many millions in either death, damage or long covid.

None of us had a say in this throughout 2020, there wasn't much we could do to prevent catching it. The ones that either died or got really sick all had really high levels of a "snake like" venom (enzyme) in their blood.