Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CatOfGrey t1_j04uijq wrote

OP has a history of posting covid/vaccine misinformation on Reddit. This is likely part of their attempt to criticize the vaccine with studies that don't really make any real conclusions about the vaccine.

They also don't read the studies they post, so I am going to highlight a couple of comments from the study, to put the emphasis out there.

Point #1: Myocarditis is worse when you are unvaccinated. Vaccination is better

> The reported incidence of (epi-)myocarditis after vaccination is low and the risks of hospitalization and death associated with COVID-19 are stated to be greater than the recorded risk associated with COVID-19 vaccination [29]. Importantly, infectious agents may also cause lymphocytic myocarditis with a similar immunophenotype, thus meticulous molecular analyses is required in all cases of potentially vaccination-associated myocarditis.

Point #2: This study has nothing to say about vaccines 'causing' these events.

> Finally, we cannot provide a definitive functional proof or a direct causal link between vaccination and myocarditis. Further studies and extended registry are needed to identify persons at risk for this potentially fatal AEFI and may be aided by detailed clinical, serological, and molecular analyses which were beyond the scope of this study. Considering that this fatal adverse event may affect healthy individuals, such registry and surveillance programs may improve early diagnosis, close monitoring, and treatment.

2,253

LouieMumford t1_j054dtd wrote

You get my daily free “wholesome” award because dammit facts are wholesome. But I wanted to say I appreciate this. Contextualization, rather than censorship, is the right way to deal with this stuff and I appreciate it.

368

UniversalMomentum t1_j06qe9h wrote

I disagree you should not mass distribue false information. It's just another form of fraud like posting fake stats on consumer electronics or bait and switch pricing.

If we had true freedom of speech fraud and threats would be legal cuz they are just harmless words, but the reality is that words are not always harmless when they are meant to mislead or threaten.

We don't need so much freedom of speech or press that fraud is legal and that’s the direction we’ve been going recently.

42

Idixal t1_j06zjy8 wrote

The difficult thing with making misleading information illegal is- who decides what’s true? In this case it’s pretty simple with scientific consensus pointing towards the most obvious truth, but there are plenty of cases where the truth is not known.

The challenge is that if the government decides what is true, then the government has the ability to decide what is and isn’t legal to say, and that is simply the total death of free speech.

All said, I wish we could do something about people who maliciously distribute misinformation. It’s really frustrating knowing that a lot of lawmakers knowingly mislead people during the pandemic, leading to many more deaths than were necessary.

36

LordArgon t1_j09nsnb wrote

The ONLY rational answer is that there should be a confidence level based on global expert opinion and what’s allowed should be a function of that confidence and the potential damage of being wrong. In the case of something like COVID, that’s synthesizing opinions based on the WHO as well as the public health departments of most major nations. In areas where they don’t clearly agree, you have to have to give more leeway than in areas where they do.

No, it’s not perfect but no perfect system exists and unfettered misinformation is demonstrably worse than relying on expert opinion. What you need to watch out for is corruption but that’s literally always a risk in any system. And if you’re going to claim corruption, then you’d better be willing to go to court with specific actionable evidence.

1

10takeWonder t1_j0743ph wrote

this isn't false information though? a real study (that op didn't read) that op thought would back up their anti vax point, but the contents of the study do not actually do that... as explained in this comment thread.

21

StealthTomato t1_j08sk79 wrote

You can create false narratives out of true information. Repeatedly posting information that looks like it implies the vaccine is dangerous is a deliberate attempt to sow a false narrative.

13

sschepis t1_j08bsvu wrote

What you are suggesting is that as humans we are incapable of processing information or making a determination as to what information might be harmful or not, and need to centralize this responsibility to protect people.

Yet, restriction of speech always leads to restriction of thought. The ability to think freely is fundamentally associated with the abilityt to talk freely.

Legislating what needs to ultimately become something we all do by virtue of being adults will always fail , and will always be abused by those in power because it does nothing to educate the individual relative their personal responsibilities as an individual to function properly in the world.

We deal with this with proactive education - we teach our kids to think properly, first of all. None of what is happening now should be a surprise, considering our politicians have been undermining and defunding our educational system.

Reacting out of fear is neither justified nor effective - and in itself shows a profound failure of our educational system

9

smucek007 t1_j05ynz5 wrote

yes, censorship only gives importance to something unimportant

13

FS_Slacker t1_j050ggc wrote

Not to mention that the authors themselves are acknowledging endpoint bias.

61

garlic_warner t1_j0513j8 wrote

Take my award. This is the kind of stuff that needs to be done, shit down the misinformation.

14

peterdent234 t1_j0564wl wrote

Like any good study, the authors acknowledge it’s limitations.

I still think this study serves as motivation to continue the investigation. There’s something to be said about a concentration of T cells in your heart. They don’t just show up there randomly. The spike protein could be settling in the heart. Or like the study mentions, it could be something associated with the mRNA technology. Due diligence should be done to make the vaccine as safe as possible. You can’t ignore the presence of serious adverse effects and draw it up to “well it helps a lot of people, but not everyone. We can just stop here”

Also reading this as a parent of a new born I would be extremely cautious of vaccinating an infant. The article acknowledges myocarditis as a cause of 1-14% of SIDS cases. Idk the exact research of infant mortality due to COVID-19, but even without any direct proof that the vaccine causes myocarditis, I’d be wary. More research is definitely needed.

10

apathetic_panda t1_j05x9dq wrote

>They don’t just show up there randomly. The spike protein could be settling in the heart. Or like the study mentions, it could be something associated with the mRNA technology. Due diligence should be done to make the vaccine as safe as possible. You can’t ignore the presence of serious adverse effects and draw it up to “well it helps a lot of people, but not everyone. We can just stop here”

Well, isn't that what we needed with cross-comparative studies against vaccines not using the mRNA platform seeing as most of world isn't going to get that

You're not going to stock the Pfizer covid vaccine in Africa, and it isn't made in China.

These studies are dumb because the focus is 0.1% of the wealthiest society on the planet.

−7

Sweet-Emu6376 t1_j09hogv wrote

At least for me it all boils down to your first point:

> Point #1: Myocarditis is worse when you are unvaccinated. Vaccination is better

People forget when a doctor recommends a medicine, it's not because it's 100% safe with no side effects. It's because any known side effects are less severe and common than whatever it is that it is treating.

3

Swierky_ t1_j08edzu wrote

Can we stop with the “misinformation” buzzword? It’s a peer reviewed study. Just because someone has a history of something doesn’t make the study any less valid.

Citing everything you disagree with as misinformation is what’s actual harmful to real science.

2

CatOfGrey t1_j08zsaw wrote

Please read my comment. I explicitly chose language that identified precisely what I was concerned about.

The misinformation is not literally this study. It's a pattern of a user cherry-picking studies with headlines that can be construed as anti-vaxx.

So to clear up confusion, I quoted points from the study that made it clear that this was not, in fact, an anti-vaxx study.

11

Theuniguy t1_j05r9lt wrote

Yesssss look into their history and expose the heretic! He'll yea! Great job!

−12

Davividdik696 t1_j05ryly wrote

Doesn't mean we should discount this study. Use it's data in the context of what is generally known about the vaccine.

−12

dgeating t1_j06qzgn wrote

This is a legitimate publishing company. His past posts have nothing to do with the validity or lack there of regarding this current article. Zealots gonna zealot though.

−15

AcrimoniousPizazz t1_j06u4yn wrote

Even if you ignore the first paragraph about the poster's history, the other two points highlighted in this comment are important for context. Yes there is a risk, but the risk associated with infection is greater, and more studies are needed to establish causation. A "zealot" would be unlikely to highlight either of those points; this smacks of someone who just wants people to have the right takeaways from the study.

12

Goleeb t1_j0927ju wrote

>This is a legitimate publishing company.

Just because the publishing company is legitimate doesn't inform on the legitimacy of the study.

​

>His past posts have nothing to do with the validity or lack there of regarding this current article.

No but it informs what kind of things they will post. We wont see any positive studies, and only those that are negative. They are also more likely to post flawed studies. So you should look at any studies posted by them with extreme skepticism.

1

Walterwayne t1_j051qpn wrote

Because you can’t make real conclusions without lots of repeatable studies

−19

Spiritual_Asparagus2 t1_j0540e2 wrote

All of you 100% ANTi-vax / 100% PRO-vax are equally annoying.. stop it and stop spreading misinformation

I enjoy reading clinical trial reports and published studies and those weren’t the major point of this publication. You’re just as guilty at OP if they are posting misinformation. This is not a misinformation post this is a published paper.

Both of your points were a single sentence each in the whole paper.

The whole paper was about the autopsy’s of multiple individuals where no other cause of death (pathological or otherwise) could be identified other than myocarditis within 20 days of vaccination.

The paper goes on to say there is a strong link that there could potentially be factors at play such as autoimmunity or genetics that could predispose people to experiencing these RARE events resulting in death due to vaccine, but more studies and screening need to take place first. !!Again, rare is emphasized!!

It has already been acknowledge by the medical community that Covid vaccines AND Covid have a small chance of causing myocarditis which can be treated. Yes the paper said unvaccinated individual are more likely to experience myocarditis, true, but you left a whole lot more out of the article.

−34

CatOfGrey t1_j0556cz wrote

> Again, rare is emphasized!!

Missed by OP.

> but you left a whole lot more out of the article.

So did OP, and they have a long history of posting these types of studies in manners and places where they are likely to be misinterpreted. Thus, I suggest misinformation here.

40

[deleted] t1_j04wt1e wrote

[removed]

−42

[deleted] t1_j04xo7p wrote

[removed]

27

Jealous-Pop-8997 t1_j053ro2 wrote

It’s not this simple because depending on a person’s state of health they may be at an extremely low risk of myocarditis should they get Covid and in these cases the myocarditis risk for those individuals is higher with the vaccine than with Covid

−52

CatOfGrey t1_j055d3s wrote

Thus, the quote that I call Point #1.

OP is posting in places and ways that suggest otherwise, which is why I claim misinformation.

22

Jealous-Pop-8997 t1_j0579dw wrote

Yes I was responding to point number one. Some individuals are actually at greater risk of myocarditis from the vaccine as what you’ve referred to are broad population averages. Another part of the issue is how since the causality between the vaccine and myocarditis isn’t recognized how the data is skewed or we could say that conclusions are tailored/shoehorned to meet the hypotheses

−20

ADDeviant-again t1_j05bca0 wrote

Link a study.

Causality has been widely recognized, which is one reason we know incidence to be so low.

Where are you getting this idea that your personal risks of a COVID infection being so mild, that your risk is greater from the vaccine? That sounds like more of the fuzzy math I keep hearing (and debunking) being used to pretend that COVID only affects sick people and old people....blah, blah.

17

Jealous-Pop-8997 t1_j05boen wrote

I had Covid already and I am going based on data that also accounts for cardio metabolic health and nutrient deficiencies or lack thereof rather than just age BMI gender and other diseases etc.

−9

CatOfGrey t1_j057l18 wrote

>Yes I was responding to point number one. Some individuals are actually at greater risk of myocarditis from the vaccine as what you’ve referred to are broad population averages.

An item worth studying. A question for doctors, perhaps. Given the overwhelming data, not something that should impact a person's decision whether or not to get vaccinated.

8

Jealous-Pop-8997 t1_j058svt wrote

Well the fact that the overwhelming data shows that the vaccine poses more risk to me personally than the infection, this should inform my decision whether or not to get vaccinated

−5

CatOfGrey t1_j05ftsz wrote

What is your basis in the data?

16

arealdoctor25 t1_j05kh6m wrote

There is no basis. There is no data. He is speculating that off of either his pure ignorance, or misrepresented data from sources with ulterior motives. There are no studies showing folks have a higher risk of myocarditis from vaccine compared to infection, in any populations

15

JaelPendragon t1_j076xcr wrote

You have no data, stop lying and get properly educated on the subject

6

ADDeviant-again t1_j05af1b wrote

This is almost complete nonsense. The only thing I can come up to give your post a sliver of possible accuracy, IF WE REACH, is a previous extreme allergic reaction to one of the OTHER vaccine ingredients (besides the RNA), which are common in other vaccines, and other injectable medications.

Can you name any other chronic condition or "state of health" where data even remotely suggests an active COVID infection is statistically (or otherwise, hell) SAFER than a vaccination?

Can you show me that study? Not some random one-off case that cannot be proven, or that you heard about this one time from this guy. Data?

18

Jealous-Pop-8997 t1_j05bdi5 wrote

Risk assessment should be individualized not based on broad averages for a population. For example let’s say a study came out showing that the general population ate too little protein and the average person needs to increase their protein. Perhaps I as an individual eat too much protein. Why would my recommendation be affected by a broad average for a population?

I eat a low carb diet and I am in great cardio metabolic health and I get plenty of exercise and have no nutrient deficiencies. The general population is at high risk with Covid because this does not describe them and high carb, seed oils is the popular diet. Most don’t get sufficient cardio exercise and have a few deficiencies.

My personal risk of complications with the vaccine is much higher whereas for some individuals the risk is higher with infection

−15

LouieMumford t1_j05536k wrote

This makes no sense. They would be at a low risk relative to Covid exposure. But the point is risk post exposure vs post vaccine. The study shows that risk is worse post Covid exposure vs vaccine exposure. Given the ubiquity of Covid exposure at this point one would have to do a risk analysis and would inevitably find that the vaccine is objectively safer than unvaccinated exposure to the virus. Your comment makes no sense.

17

primal_screame t1_j05733h wrote

Is there any data that shows myocarditis risk after Covid exposure if you have already been vaccinated? If there is, then it would make sense there would be an additive effect of myocarditis cases from the vaccine plus myocarditis cases from catching Covid after being vaccinated. Either way, the numbers are pretty small on all the scenarios, I was just curious if there was data for that combination.

2

Explorer456 t1_j05aits wrote

I think that assessing the occurrence of myocarditis in individuals who are vaccinated post COVID infection is important future research, if none is present. The possibility of there being an additive effect would likely be determined by the cause of myocarditis post infection/vaccination.

“It is under debate whether myocarditis in COVID-19 is primarily caused by the viral infection or whether it occurs secondary as a consequence of the host´s immune response, in particular by T-lymphocyte-mediated cytotoxicity or as a consequence of the cytokine storm observed during COVID-19 [25]”

The authors note that the cause of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection is up for debate. If it is related to “T-lymphocyte-mediated cytotoxicity” I am inclined to believe that there wouldn’t be an additive effect of vaccine + infection. My logic, albeit with minimal knowledge in virology, is that by have t cells created by the vaccine would be present prior to the virus. Thus able to respond prior to extensive cell infection and reduce the “T-lymphocyte-mediated cytotoxicity.”

Again, my logic my be flawed due to a misunderstanding or missing knowledge. I am open to corrections/reading to help guide me.

5

primal_screame t1_j05bqi5 wrote

That makes total sense if that is the mechanism. I was trying to think if the mechanism is the same, why wouldn’t it be equal between vaccine and infection. If there was data on the combination, it might give better clarity on if it’s the same mechanism.

3

Jealous-Pop-8997 t1_j056dur wrote

You are definitely confused but it does make sense. Yes, the comparison being made is myocarditis risk between Covid-19 exposure and vaccination. These risks are weighed or averaged for the general population.

Many individuals are at such a low risk of a severe covid case that they are more likely to get myocarditis resulting from vaccination

−15

JaelPendragon t1_j0774zc wrote

And yet you provide no proof of your baseless claim. Go get educated on the subject before spreading antivax propaganda and misinformation

6