Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CatOfGrey t1_j04ujph wrote

OP has a history of posting covid/vaccine misinformation on Reddit. This is likely part of their attempt to criticize the vaccine with studies that don't really make any real conclusions about the vaccine.

They also don't read the studies they post, so I am going to highlight a couple of comments from the study, to put the emphasis out there.

Point #1: Myocarditis is worse when you are unvaccinated. Vaccination is better

> The reported incidence of (epi-)myocarditis after vaccination is low and the risks of hospitalization and death associated with COVID-19 are stated to be greater than the recorded risk associated with COVID-19 vaccination [29]. Importantly, infectious agents may also cause lymphocytic myocarditis with a similar immunophenotype, thus meticulous molecular analyses is required in all cases of potentially vaccination-associated myocarditis.

Point #2: This study has nothing to say about vaccines 'causing' these events.

> Finally, we cannot provide a definitive functional proof or a direct causal link between vaccination and myocarditis. Further studies and extended registry are needed to identify persons at risk for this potentially fatal AEFI and may be aided by detailed clinical, serological, and molecular analyses which were beyond the scope of this study. Considering that this fatal adverse event may affect healthy individuals, such registry and surveillance programs may improve early diagnosis, close monitoring, and treatment.

106

Skylark7 t1_j05hw3z wrote

This isn't misinformation. It's a peer reviewed study looking at fatal myocarditis associated with (but not necessarily caused by) covid vaccination. This sub isn't exactly the place to rally anti-vax support.

Trying to characterize vaccine-induced myocarditis so it can be detected and treated effectively is important, as with any other severe vaccine side effect like GBS or anaphylaxis. It's very rare - maybe 1 in 25,000 and most cases resolve - but still well worth trying to understand.

7

CatOfGrey t1_j05luu9 wrote

> This isn't misinformation. It's a peer reviewed study looking at fatal myocarditis associated with (but not necessarily caused by) covid vaccination. This sub isn't exactly the place to rally anti-vax support.

You are correct, which is why I focused on emphasizing the key points I did, rather than rely only on the headline, which appears to be a strategy OP uses to spread unnecessary fear about the vaccine.

42

Skylark7 t1_j07kdzj wrote

How is OP using a "strategy" when the headline is the exact title of the journal article? If you take exception to how the authors titled their manuscript that's got nothing to do with OP.

−1

CatOfGrey t1_j07l5l3 wrote

Selecting articles with titles that discuss vaccine side effects, then emphasizing the title instead of the content of the study.

Thus, I quoted specific parts of the study for clarification.

I take issue to this article being misused.

12

Skylark7 t1_j081cqi wrote

So you are ascribing nefarious motives to only this one post of a journal title and article link and not the remaining thousands of identically formatted posts. It seems you're the one with the agenda.

−7

CatOfGrey t1_j0827hk wrote

The answer to your question is in my main post. Please read my comments before responding.

My agenda is providing quotes from the research to help better distribute information.

9

smucek007 t1_j05z081 wrote

it is better to get vaccine Nx than to get sick with covid Nx, both leave similar immunity but vaccine has far less documented consequences

2

spX_psyborg t1_j054bky wrote

Source is not misinformation. SpringerLink offers electronic and printed literature from Springer-Verlag, a preeminent scientific publisher with a reputation for excellence spanning more than 150 years. It also offers the work of a growing roster of publishers, including Urban and Vogel, Steinkopff, and Birkhäuser.

Just read the literature and it explains what the study entailed.

Fact is a percentage, albeit small, with no other underlying conditions developed myocarditis shorty after receiving the vaccine. Others did not. The vaccine isn't good for everybody. That's all this is saying.

−35

CatOfGrey t1_j054vz4 wrote

OP's post is part of a larger pattern of misinformation.

It's why I quoted directly from the source, to clarify the difference between how this post is perceived, and what it actually says.

20

hangryhyax t1_j056j2m wrote

No, this is saying that there is an incredibly low risk of myocarditis following vaccination, but that a COVID infection is still significantly worse. OP knows that 90% people of Redditors will only read the headline and go “There, see… vaccine bad!”

That last part is the “misinformation, and it can be considered such because OP has a history of doing such things.

19

ADDeviant-again t1_j05cqe4 wrote

That has always been a fact, but it is clearly not what is being represented here.

The article concludes that, while myocarditis is possible from vaccine, COVID infection is far worse oth in severity and incidence. OP waves the paper and screams "They lied! The vaccine causes myocarditis! Says so right here!!" Figuratively, of course, but check his post history......

So, no, that is NOT "all this is saying."

13

CatOfGrey t1_j05mqa6 wrote

You are correct on face value. But the context is different.

OP is posting a lot of material with titles that intend to create a narrative of vaccine danger that does not actually exist in the publications.

> The vaccine isn't good for everybody. That's all this is saying.

This is written weakly. Your writing suggests, to be literal "The vaccine is bad for some people." That is deceptively alarmist.

A better description might be "The vaccine is good for everybody, except for very few with specific health issues." I don't mean to be pedantic, but my point is that the data on vaccine outcomes is much more overwhelming than "It's not good for everybody".

8