This is a BS headline (and it's unsauced). I'd like to know who wrote the headline because it's clear whoever wrote it can't understand what's in that study. It says nothing of the sort. (Link to Oster et al, Jan 2022, JAMA)
What they did:
Look through VAERS, then attempt to establish the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis based upon national figures of vaccine injections given vs physician-verified diagnoses of myocarditis reported in VAERS.
What they found:
Myocarditis occurred within 7 days of injection in ~1900 reports of which ~1600 could be reasonably confirmed according to a standard definition. Most of them occurred among young men. It was more likely from the Moderna vaccine than the Pfizer one. Women accounted for ~20% of the cases vs ~80% for men.
They present an incidence between 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000 based on your individual risk characteristics.
Flaws with the study:
VAERS reporting is not mandatory. Further, reporting of vaccine adverse effects is spread across multiple databases from CDC's V-Safe database to the individual vaccine manufacturer's private post-marketing surveillance databases. VAERS is incomplete and widely acknowledged to be grossly underreported. Therefore, incidence cannot be calculated from this data.
The study limits the definition of myocarditis to diagnosis within 7 days of receiving the injection. It does not allow for the possibility of myocarditis with a larger delay before onset. It is commonly reported that there is a delay of several weeks or even months prior to presentation of symptoms with no other causative factor. By restricting the definition to within 7 days of injection, it increases the certainty that the vaccine is the one and only cause, but it also likely undercounts the number of cases by precluding a delayed presentation.
The authors actually do a reasonable job of assessing the limitations of their study in the text, for which they should receive credit.
At no point does this 13,200% increase come up, nor any mention of autoimmune disease. Myocarditis is simply inflammation, regardless of the cause. Here, the working theory is that the spike protein is causing inflammation. It is not explicitly autoimmune. Whoever wrote the headline doesn't know what he's talking about. Whoever posted it here should have been more skeptical, and asked if this was legit. If we're going to have a discussion about the vaccines, it should be fact-based, not screeching lunacy.
If you want context for this, compare to the benefit. What is the absolute risk reduction of severe COVID requiring hospitalization or death? The vaccine doesn't stop you getting the disease or spreading it. It only reduces your risk of ending up in the hospital. Comparing that rare possibility with the rare possibility of myocarditis is the proper risk-benefit assessment. If you're young and healthy, the vaccine looks much less attractive. If you're old or have many risk factors, you still may want the vaccine. Speak to your doctor who knows you if you have questions.
This is a BS headline (and it's unsauced). I'd like to know who wrote the headline because it's clear whoever wrote it can't understand what's in that study. It says nothing of the sort. (Link to Oster et al, Jan 2022, JAMA)
What they did: Look through VAERS, then attempt to establish the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis based upon national figures of vaccine injections given vs physician-verified diagnoses of myocarditis reported in VAERS.
What they found: Myocarditis occurred within 7 days of injection in ~1900 reports of which ~1600 could be reasonably confirmed according to a standard definition. Most of them occurred among young men. It was more likely from the Moderna vaccine than the Pfizer one. Women accounted for ~20% of the cases vs ~80% for men.
They present an incidence between 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000 based on your individual risk characteristics.
Flaws with the study:
VAERS reporting is not mandatory. Further, reporting of vaccine adverse effects is spread across multiple databases from CDC's V-Safe database to the individual vaccine manufacturer's private post-marketing surveillance databases. VAERS is incomplete and widely acknowledged to be grossly underreported. Therefore, incidence cannot be calculated from this data.
The study limits the definition of myocarditis to diagnosis within 7 days of receiving the injection. It does not allow for the possibility of myocarditis with a larger delay before onset. It is commonly reported that there is a delay of several weeks or even months prior to presentation of symptoms with no other causative factor. By restricting the definition to within 7 days of injection, it increases the certainty that the vaccine is the one and only cause, but it also likely undercounts the number of cases by precluding a delayed presentation.
The authors actually do a reasonable job of assessing the limitations of their study in the text, for which they should receive credit.
At no point does this 13,200% increase come up, nor any mention of autoimmune disease. Myocarditis is simply inflammation, regardless of the cause. Here, the working theory is that the spike protein is causing inflammation. It is not explicitly autoimmune. Whoever wrote the headline doesn't know what he's talking about. Whoever posted it here should have been more skeptical, and asked if this was legit. If we're going to have a discussion about the vaccines, it should be fact-based, not screeching lunacy.
If you want context for this, compare to the benefit. What is the absolute risk reduction of severe COVID requiring hospitalization or death? The vaccine doesn't stop you getting the disease or spreading it. It only reduces your risk of ending up in the hospital. Comparing that rare possibility with the rare possibility of myocarditis is the proper risk-benefit assessment. If you're young and healthy, the vaccine looks much less attractive. If you're old or have many risk factors, you still may want the vaccine. Speak to your doctor who knows you if you have questions.