/sci/ - Science & Math

nature communications =/= nature

>>14606129
same publisher

>>14606136
Different journal

>>14606124
just look at the increase in cases.
I thing it was 2x? Some docs ringed alarm oh noes we got a sudden spike and we cant tell what it is.

>>14606124
Sure.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm

So how did your study control for the association when covid causes myocarditis?

>>14606432
control for the association? i don't understand sorry.

>>14607064
When you do a correlation like this, there are always risks of what are called "confounds". Things that one does not account for that are responsible for what you see.

In the case of coronavirus and vaccination, the direct and most obvious confounding factor is the question of whether or not a person in a sample for a study has been infected during the period of the study. You have to know what kinds of tests were employed to determine whether someone was infected, because each test has some chance of being wrong. These can be, respectively, a "false negative" or a "false positive" rate or chance. Whether due to test itself, laboratory error, and so on.

The problem with all of the correlations so far is the same. Not one of them, so far, has attempted to address nor control for that testing error. As it is possible, and more likely the younger someone is, to have a false negative result. It is far more likely on certain kinds of rapid, but cheaper and lower quality, tests.

So here is the issue: People go to a clinic to get vaccinated. There are already tons of other people there also being vaccinated. People can spread, on site, the same infection or get an infection in the interim. Worse, being vaccinated, people suffer what is known as "risk compensation" where they stop doing proactive measures to avoid others to avoid infection.

No correlation study, so far, has managed to account for the effects of any of these. Although they have been studied individually, none of this has been accounted for altogether in any study I have seen. This is very important to do, because the added risk is incredibly low in most reports, sometimes only 1 or 2 cases extra per 100,000. As that is well within the false negative rate of most covid-19 tests, that means the correlation cannot purport to truly be capturing a relationship between vaccination and myocarditis. This is because covid-19 has considerably higher risk rates of myocarditis, including in the young.

>>14606432
>Associations between vaccination within the seven preceding days and the risk of myocarditis or pericarditis were of the same magnitude when the analysis was restricted to the period prior to the warning against myocarditis and pericarditis as adverse events sent to prescribers on July 19, 2021 (Fig. S1 and Table S4). The results were unchanged in models excluding patients with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the past month, those with a history of myocarditis or pericarditis within five years, those diagnosed with both myocarditis and pericarditis, or those with a hospitalization within a month prior to index date.

>>14607160
>sometimes only 1 or 2 cases extra per 100,000.
sometimes or usually?

>>14607223
Given they do not control for what I just explained needs to be controlled for, obviously numbers are going to vary wildly. Especially based on testing and accuracy of testing methods.

There's just no pleasing you people. Someone explains exactly what the issue is, and you act like it wasn't explained. Yeesh.

>>14607230
What is the mean number of extra cases you have found in your research? Is it around 1 or 2 or is it higher?

>>14607239
>What is the mean number of extra cases you have found in your research? Is it around 1 or 2 or is it higher?
There are meta-analyses on this.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9000914/
"Myopericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination and non-COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis"
>The overall incidence of myopericarditis from 22 studies (405272721 vaccine doses) was 33·3 cases (95% CI 15·3–72·6) per million vaccine doses, and did not differ significantly between people who received COVID-19 vaccines (18·2 [10·9–30·3], 11 studies [395361933 doses], high certainty) and those who received non-COVID-19 vaccines (56·0 [10·7–293·7], 11 studies [9910788 doses], moderate certainty, p=0·20).

>>14607263
that's myopericarditis, i'm asking about myocarditis in general

>>14607283
>that's myopericarditis, i'm asking about myocarditis in general
>>We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the incidence of myopericarditis following vaccination against COVID-19 with that following vaccination against other diseases to explore the risk of myopericarditis in subpopulations receiving COVID-19 vaccinations and to quantify the incidence of myocarditis, pericarditis, and mortality after receiving a vaccine.
>>and to quantify the incidence of myocarditis, pericarditis, and mortality after receiving a vaccine.

Myopericarditis is the total inclusive case and this covers both individual conditions. It is literally trying to be as broad and inclusive in criteria as is possible. Come the fuck on god damn it can't you people read anything ever.

>>14607321
>Previous studies have shown that myocarditis after the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine occurs clinically in approximately one in 10000 young males
bit higher than 1 or 2 per 100000

>>14607334
Congratulations. You found a single line referencing one of the other studies. If you can control your ADHD to sit down and read the rest, and view the supplementary and other material, you will swiftly discover the rates vary from study to study.

Fucking imbeciles.

>>14607341
average rate for young males seems to be about 6 per 100000. Are you reading that too?

>>14606124
lmao don't care still got the vaccine
I literally view it as culling the weak, how can you not support eugenics

>>14606124
some scientific data for you.

>>14606432
>cdc.gov
lmao
not a legitimate source anymore.

>>14607160
>There are already tons of other people there also being vaccinated. People can spread, on site, the same infection or get an infection in the interim.
Sounds like people should avoid getting vaccinated if it's such a risk. Same for going to mass testing sites.

>>14607160
>This is because covid-19 has considerably higher risk rates of myocarditis, including in the young.
Source? And does your associated risk of catching covid due to vaccination, and the lack of efficacy in vaccination preventing infection and myocarditis, weigh into that? If you have a risk of myocarditis from COVID-19, and vaccination does little to mitigate that risk, then that makes the benefit of vaccination even smaller.

>>14607572
Avoid the recently vaccinated people also, especially the first few months after each of their sheep-jabs.

>>14607504
Nice 7-day observation period retard

>>14607599
>Nice 7-day observation period
yeah, the actual numbers are MUCH WORSE for the vaccinated, as you just pointed out.

>>14607579
>And does your associated risk of catching covid due to vaccination, and the lack of efficacy in vaccination preventing infection and myocarditis, weigh into that?
https://epicresearch.org/articles/myocarditis-risk-17-times-higher-for-unvaccinated-patients-ages-12-30-who-get-covid-19-than-covid-vaccinated-patients
>Myocarditis Risk 17 Times Higher for Unvaccinated Patients Ages 12-30 Who Get COVID-19 Than COVID-Vaccinated Patients

Plenty of other studies in different countries. Google them if you want to go reading. Or read the citations of this one, or go check papers citing this one or the ones cited. Your resources are endless. Anyway, your risk is far less post-vaccination infection than unvaccinated infection. So much of "lack of efficacy".

>If you have a risk of myocarditis from COVID-19, and vaccination does little to mitigate that risk, then that makes the benefit of vaccination even smaller.
Neat so now you know the opposite is the case you totally change your position right?

Right?

>>14607626
>epicresearch.org/
lmao
suuuuure thing

>>14607631
>I'm a retarded antivaxxer I don't know what citations are
Just ignore the CDC citation, the new england journal of medicine citation, ignore anything you can google.

The truth entirely depends on your subjective dislike of a link.

Antivaxxer epistemology everybody.

>>14607635
>CDC citation
LMAO!

>>14607638

>>14607640
that fits "big pharma" perfectly! That's exactly what they do!

>>14607626
>We found the 30-day risk of myocarditis was less than the one-year historical incidence across all three vaccine manufacturers when considering all ages and sexes.
Discarded.

>>14607626
Btw, this is interesting.

>When evaluating different combinations of sex, age, and manufacturer, out of the 364,249 male patients aged 18-30 who received Moderna, 73 had myocarditis, which is approximately 20 cases per 100,000.
That's one in 5k. That's higher than the estimated risk of COVID myocarditis in that same age group.

>>14607655
>That's higher than the estimated risk of COVID myocarditis in that same age group.
always has been.
Media lies since the mainstream media is all owned by the same corporations that own the big pharma companies and donate billions to politicians.

>>14607663
>end media brainwashing
>let me just repeat this phrase I first heard on Joe Rogan

>>14607663
They way they calculate the risk is the issue. For myocarditis from vaccination, they take the number of known cases who sought out medical intervention and divide by the number of known vaccinees. For COVID-19 myocarditis risk, they use the pool of COVID-19 patients who sought medical intervention, and then divide the myocarditis number by the total number of patients. So the assumption is that a hospitalized patient with COVID-19 carries the same risk of myocarditis as the COVID-19 positive people who never sought medical attention, or never even knew they were sick. Meanwhile, it's assumed that nearly every case of vaccine-induced myocarditis seeks medical attention, and everyone else is fine.

>>14607708
yes? you're saying it's brainwashing to repeat a concept you heard somewhere instead of inventing yourself?

>>14607892
you're not allowed to use other peoples' information
you're only allowed to say things that you independently derived from first principles or else you're a puppet

>>14607626
how many times higher is the myocarditis risk among all vaccinated 12-30 year olds than unvaccinated?

>>14607908
gobel ragy fant ne soth

>>14607495
do you think eugenists took the vaccine?

>>14606136
Do you also beleive that JavaScript is the same as Java?

>>14607720
This