Vaccinated are 133 times more likely to develop myocarditis (Debunked!)

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Neurostudent, Jan 28, 2022.

  1. Neurostudent Registered Member

    Messages:
    31
    Here's the 'study'.

    https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/321238

    ''
    New study: 133x risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination
    Comparisons with myocarditis rates following infection now irrelevant as vaccination no longer prevents infection.''

    ''A recent study published on January 25, 2022, on JAMA Network, has shown that the risk of myocarditis following mRNA COVID vaccination is around 133 times greater than the background risk in the population.''

    I've never heard of 'JAMA Network'. Sounds like a bunch of conspiracy hogwash to me. This should be the first warning sign that something isn't quite right with this story.

    ''The study, conducted by researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) as well as from several U.S. universities and hospitals, examined the effects of vaccination with products manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna.''

    Ooh, the ebil Billy Gates vaccines! Of course these nutjobs forget about the other vaccines which are not mRNA based.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    ''1626 cases of myocarditis were studied, and the results showed that the Pfizer-BioNTech product was most associated with higher risk, with 105.9 cases per million doses after the second vaccine shot in the 16 to 17 age group for males, and 70.7 cases per million doses after the second shot in the 12 to 15 age group for males. The 18 to 24 male age group also saw significantly higher rates of myocarditis for both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s products (52.4 and 56.3 cases per million respectively).''

    I'd imagine that internet trolls filing false VAERS reports would fall within that range, so this makes perfect sense..

    Wait..VAERS?

    '' The study’s authors used data obtained from the CDC’s VAERS reporting system''

    In other words; ''things people made up''.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Remind me again why newspapers are publishing unscientific hogwash?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,388
    I'd stick to people strangled by their own thymus glands, if I were you. Nobody is interested wading through this muddle of anti-vax disinformation.
     
    Kristoffer likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,148
    It's a very interesting approach:

    1) Post odd story from dubious source.

    2) Object to story, but do so incorrectly.​

    You are correct that VAERS reports mean a self-reporting survey, which can be unreliable; but JAMA Network, which you, as a medical student↗, have apparently never heard of, is the website for the Journals of the American Medical Association.

    Meanwhile, Arutz Sheva is a rightist, supremacist newspaper, and that's why they are publishing unscientific politicking.

    By the way, the debunk label in the title probably goes better at the beginning. As a matter of form, the "debunking" that you do isn't effective. If I put on a certain critical hat and try to look at this with conservative eyes, I see the word "study" placed in quotes, a self-undermining complaint that one has never heard of the JAMA website, and a vague dismissal of internet trolls. As one who has heard rightist complaints of elitism about pretty much whatever conservatives don't like, I would suggest you're hitting the marks of a long-lamented stereotype.

    The actual debunk you need here is that the newspaper isn't reporting what it says it is; this isn't a "133x risk of myocarditis", but suggestion of a "133x increase in unconfirmed reports of suspected myocarditis".

    Meanwhile, observe that the study itself is not named, nor its authors; this stands out, especially as the article mislabels reports of myocarditis to diagnosed cases, and we might wonder if Rabinovitz, who penned the news for Arutz Sheva, would prefer readers not check the recent study itself.

    And that's the thing: Reading through Oster, et al.↱, we find the news report is misleading. Additionally, if we look to Montgomery et al.↱, we find that in certain known cases of myocarditis, "the clinical course suggests eosinophilic hypersensitivity myocarditis as described in the context of other drug-associated and vaccine-associated myocarditis", and the footnote includes citations dating to 2013, and the point here is that the question of EHM is itself not uncommon,

    The actual 133x number Arutz Sheva leads with does not appear in Oster, because it is not an appropriate statistic.

    It's important to know what is actually happening, here: EHM is not unknown in relation to medication and vaccination; Rabinovitz and Arutz Sheva pretend the presence of myocarditis in a vaccination discussion is somehow extraordinary, and then misrepresent the results of the study. The actual conclusion of the Oster study is that passive surveillance reporting in which confirmation of myocarditis did not include examination of patients suggests risk of myocarditis after mRNA Covid-19 vaccination "was increased across multiple age and sex strata and was highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males and young men". Compared to the general background population, we should observe that the general background population is not be included in VAERS reports.

    While myocarditis can be a scary word, its variable clinical course ranges in severity; and while some patients experience severe symptoms requiring drastic treatment, there are also those who simply do not require treatement. Compared to a general background population that, colloquially, doesn't call a doctor until they're dragged to the hospital in an ambulance, we can expect to see suggestion of increased incidence in passive surveillance reporting. The political circumstance, including potential trolling behavior, can also skew crude reporting.

    For many people who read news of studies, a lot of this sort of thing gets baked into their perception and assessment. The Arutz Sheva article is clearly misrepresenting, and the potentital effect of the bogus narrative would be reduced trust and increased fear of vaccines and medical science.

    It's not that myocarditis isn't a dangerous problem; it's not that myocarditis is not associated with vaccination both in general and particular; rather, it's that when we cut through the drama of the news report, the study result falls within a range we might otherwise expect.

    And behavior is important in many ways, but we must recall this study lacks a particular resource, which is hands on the patient: The VAERS reports, even when pared according to study criteria, will still include cases of coincidental myocarditis, and also some that are not actually myocarditis. Meanwhile, the general background population includes unreported myocarditis of diverse origin.

    But for many who read news of studies, the Arutz Sheva article seems to play the fears of people who don't generally pay attention to news about medical and scientific studies.

    The Oster study is actually a useful marker in finding our way along the difficult path of a public health challenge with profound implication for individual and communal quality of life. But it's not actually a dramatic study result. The news article is nearly typical of a certain strain of antisociality nearly endemic in the contemporary rightism of which Arutz Sheva is part.

    By comparison, debunking rightist antivax propaganda by doubting JAMA is, well, yeah, sure, that's new. But in reposting the antivax propaganda, you do more to mock or denigrate debunking than actually debunking.

    Of note: Searching, vaers myocarditis jama, returned a result pointing directly to the public posting, five days ago, of the December, 2021 paper from Oster et al. It's one thing if the news article author might prefer readers not check the actual study, but many who read news of studies know that in this time of the Internet, the study itself might well be available. And with the Journals of the American Medical Association making this public health information freely available to anyone who wants it, we have a reasonable expectation that we are attending reasonably good work. The JAMA article does not seem to say what Arutz Sheva wants it to say.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Montgomery, Jay, et al. "Myocarditis Following Immunization With mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Members of the US Military". Journals of the American Medical Association. 29 June 2021. JAMANetwork.com. 30 January 2022. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2781601

    Oster, Matthew E., et al. "Myocarditis Cases Reported After mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccination in the US From December 2020 to August 2021". Journals of the American Medical Association. 25 January 2022. JAMANetwork.com. 30 January 2022. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346

    Rabinovitz, Y. "New study: 133x risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination". Arutz Sheva. 27 January 2022. IsraelNationalNews.com. 30 January 2022. https://bit.ly/32MGlhy
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.

Share This Page