Your claim is directly contradicted by the abstract of the paper you linked to:

"We estimated an extra two (95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 3), one (95% CI 0, 2) and six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1 million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively, in the 28 days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1 million vaccinated in the 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273. This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1 million patients in the 28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test."

1 shot of mRNA vaccine = 6 per 1 million = 0.0006%

2 shot of mRNA vaccine = 10 per 1 million = 0.001%

COVID infection = 40 per 1 million = 0.004%

COVID infection has a 4 times higher chance of myocarditis than the vaccine. It also has significantly higher risks of many other things, some of which are also touched on in the abstract.

I’m not so sure 1 and 2 preclude 3. Is it not increasingly likely you get it even if vaccinated, especially with Omicron, thereby suffering the increased risk of all three (four with booster?)?

Its also not a guarantee you get Covid. Current stats are that 50 / 330 million of the USA population have had Covid. So comparing the risk factors of the vaccine to covid directly is a bit misleading, IMO.

He's referring to the under 40 group which is indeed supported by the paper to say there's double the number of myocarditus events per pop group among those who were double moderna vacc vs sars-cov2 infected.

OPs comment is deleted, so I can't see the paper.

Is there a reason to believe the risk of myocarditis will continue to rise with each booster?

The comment is flagged by the "community", not deleted. You can see it by turning on "showdead" in the settings.

Cool, thanks!

A double shot of moderna more than halved myocarditis vs getting covid according to your link?

>> We estimated an extra … six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1 million people vaccinated with … mRNA-1273 … in the 28 days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1 million vaccinated in the 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273

>> This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1 million patients in the 28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test.

That's the average, but if you look at the under 40 cohort, the risk is doubled (Figure 2). The Myocarditis cases from vaccination overwhelmingly affect males in the younger age groups.

I'm not sure that your reading of the paper is correct. For example, see this figure https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0/figures/1

It is correct, note the qualification for under 40:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0/figures/2

Did I misread or does this study say the opposite of what you said?

> We estimated an extra two (95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 3), one (95% CI 0, 2) and six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1 million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively, in the 28 days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1 million vaccinated in the 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273. This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1 million patients in the 28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test.

So an increased risk of 16 per million after the vaccine + booster, and an increased risk of 40 per million after an infection.

Look at the data per age group and per sex, when looking at 0-99 all 3 sexes does not tell the full story since 65+ have totally different risks from covid-19 than 20-29.

This study isn’t based on VAERS data, it’s from the UK.

The design tracks their medical record system, under reporting shouldn’t be a big concern

Edit:

> We assessed the temporal association between COVID-19 vaccination and cardiac adverse events using hospital admissions with diagnoses of myocarditis or pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmias.

Maybe there is differential reporting based on who shows up at the hospital with Covid vs just vaccine induced side effects, but it’s sort of hard to design a large scale study to pin this down. The methodology seems sound enough to fairly track at least those ill enough to go to the hospital

That’s not how I read the abstract of this paper.

Moderna: (2, 8) + (7, 11) extra cases per million

Covid: (38, 41)

(95% confidence intervals)

See figure 2. Double shot of Moderna has higher chance of myocarditis than covid does. They do add this to the conclusions of the paper, but they defocus it by talking about the populations as one large unbroken dataset.

When looking at people under 40, the risks for myocarditis are higher amongst Moderna double shot patients than for covid infections.

Right, that’s fair, I was overreacting a bit because you left out the age qualifier.

For reference the under 40 stats are (4, 9) + (12, 16) extra events for moderna vs (7, 11) for infection

That's a 50% increase in relative risk. Or as the pharma companies would call it, 'a risk increase of 50%'

Averages are misleading. All the risk is concentrated in the group under 40, where it is higher for the vaccine.

That group is also men and women. If it were broken down even further to just 'men' the effect would likely be even more pronounced.

How is this a bombshell?

VAERS data isn’t reliable and should not be used to determine adverse reactions.

> VAERS data isn’t reliable and should not be used to determine adverse reactions.

FDA and CDC do use VAERS as their source for estimating risk of adverse events:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-...

https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download (page 23)

As a starting point, but they use more robust EHR data to actually investigate.

From the very first slide in your link...

>The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Here are the limitations of VAERS as per the CDC.

>Limitations of VAERS:

>It is generally not possible to find out from VAERS data if a vaccine caused the adverse event

>Reports submitted to VAERS often lack details and sometimes contains errors

>Serious adverse events are more likely to be reported than non-serious events

>Numbers of reports may increase in response to media attention and increased public awareness

>VAERS data cannot be used to determine rates of adverse events

This isn’t based on VAERS, it’s a uk study using NHS records.

Also I think OP’s summary is kind of misleading