Consider: A friend had no heart issues for 35 years, decided to take a new route to work, and dropped dead of a heart attack. Is it coincidental?
Of course it is. Anecdotal / single point evidence is completely useless. The study gives you the actual numbers on how likely it's a coincidence or not.
The study doesn't really do that. What it does is compare different methodologies for counting the number of incidences of (myo|peri)-carditis following the 2nd shot. They conclude that the methodology used officially gives lower numbers than other methodologies.
Counting how likely a coincidence it is is something we can do reasonably well using standard null hypothesis testing: compare the number of incidences of pericarditis in a random sample against a sample of patients post-vaccine. But this is not something that the article does. The difficulty, discussed in the article, lies in deciding what counts as "post-vaccine".
I’m not sure why you keep comparing Denmark to India, but India actually has very accessible on-demand healthcare compared to the USA/EU. It wouldn’t be an issue.
Highly skeptical about this. In the US, I registered to vsafe after my vaccines and got pinged for a survey daily after the dose for a week (IIRC) then weekly for a month. Then again after 6 months. All surveys asking about my condition, new symptoms, etc..
Not saying you're lying, or that your doctor was full of shit, but I don't believe there's any time limit for reporting possible vaccine side effects.
Also, VAERS is an American thing. Not sure what Denmark has to do with it. If there's a Danish equivalent, why didn't you mention it?
I'm sorry, but your post has too many red flags.
I've noticed my omega3 supplements help a lot though, as in, almost instantly. It comes back if I forget to take them for a few days too, so that's a possible cause as well. Just sucks to have that in the back of my mind.
age 12-17, 377 per million
Compare heart complications to heart complications. They are higher in COVID than the vaccine for any age group.
There is a higher risk to dying from a covid infection (at least with delta) than from the vaccine as far as we can see in the short term.
But there is still a risk from the vaccine.
If there was a train hurtling down the tracks about to kill five people many think they’d be able to push the switch to make it only kill one different person, yet I wouldn’t be able to do even that let alone the more intense situations from that scenario.
Thinking of people as numbers is what allows for someone to think it is ok to coerce people into getting vaccines.
Its not even in the same ballpark.
Specifically when it comes to myocarditis (which is even an issue for <40 apparently): https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/uk-now-reports-myoca...
Also, note the higher relative risk only applies to the full moderna dose
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v...
I’m not saying that I don’t think myocarditis is a risk factor for kids and teens, just that this paper isn’t giving a quantitative assessment of its relative risk vs Covid. If you have seen research that does provide quantitative insight, I would be interested to read it; I have two kids under 5 and I’m still evaluating things.
Of myocarditis in kids (especially boys).
This is the pre-print I was thinking of: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.02.21267156v...
I have a pre-teen daughter myself and while she's not directly in a "risk-group" (like boys are) I wouldn't feel comfortable shoving jabs and boosters after boosters into her, when the benefits are dubious.
This is why many countries are holding off on vaccinating kids still, even though some countries like the US seem to be hellbent on vaccinating 100% at any cost.
Edit: The above study has risks broken up by which vaccines were administered as 1st/2nd (page 12). Interestingly Moderna+Pfizer seems to have no(!?) risk, whereas myocarditis is very high among Pfizer+Moderna. Not sure what to make of it.
Edit2: Keep in mind we haven't vaccinated <12 year olds extensively yet, but the data on young children is already worrisome (to the point where risks of myocarditis seem to outweigh risks of Covid).
Edit3: I'm myself double-jabbed, so not an antivaxxer per se, even though I'm classified as one as per "modern definition".
I don’t think the forever-recurring boosters are going to be a thing, it seems like cellular immunity is holding, and from the apparent drop off in myocarditis with greater spacing between doses one and two in this paper, that seems like evidence that 3-6 months would have been a better spacing than 3-4 weeks
> Interestingly Moderna+Pfizer seems to have no(!?) risk, whereas myocarditis is very high among Pfizer+Moderna. Not sure what to make of it.
I wouldn’t pay this much heed at all (based on this data at least). There were under 10k people in that first group (and zero cases of myocarditis), and the confidence intervals of the poisson regression overlap. You can even see from the figure how the model predicts a non-zero rate even though there were no actual cases!
People are not averages of the whole population. We would not need doctors if medical advice was this simple.
Forcing them to get the vaccine is crazy, especially when it doesn’t behave how the other vaccines do, and vaccinated people are both getting it and spreading it, albeit with far less severe symptoms than the unvaccinated person on average.
I think vaccines are amazing, these new covid ones, look to be reducing the symptoms of covid.
The idea of forcing it on folks when even vaccinated people are spreading it is absurd.
I wouldn’t have done any of that if I wasn’t vaccinated.
Consider that polio vaccination was never framed and exploited by political parties playing despicable red vs blue games with the public. The results, driven by information campaigns devoid of partisan politics, were a nearly universal state of vaccination, driving the disease more or less extinct. Trust in doctors and medical institutions was high and relatively untrammeled by partisan games.
The second that coronavirus vaccination became a political shibboleth for team blue, the current state of vaccine resistance became inevitable. Both parties are responsible for a lot of unnecessary death and suffering because of their willingness to never let a good crisis go to waste.
Throw in the general decline and corruption of institutions, lack of trust in public health agencies and even doctors in general, and you've got a mess of hyperpartisan unvaccinated conservative folks being shrieked at by the clueless but vaccinated team blue, and nobody credible or trusted able to bring the situation back to something resembling sanity.
From my personal experience and what I've heard online, that seems like wishful thinking. I know two people who had bad heart reactions to the vaccine whose doctors insisted it couldn't be from the vaccine and wouldn't speak of it being connected. And it seems like I've heard similar stories online dozens of times. My guess is the VAERS data dramatically undercounts incidents.
The Pfizer whistleblower paper claimed that even in the early days of the vaccine, internal Pfizer incidents weren't even reported. And given how hostile the entire internet is to discussions of vaccine safety, the idea that people are extremely reluctant to report vaccine injuries seems believable.
The pericarditis wasn't registered as "caused by the vaccine", since it took three weeks before I finally got a hospital appointment, and by then it was too late to prove. I'm 31 years old and relatively fit and I've never had any issues until 7 days after the vaccine. So when this wasn't attributed to the vaccine, here in Denmark, what percentage of issues will be attributed to the vaccine in a country with a greater population density, like India?
As a consequence of this, I find the "~23 in a million" get heart complications highly questionable.