Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

spX_psyborg t1_j054bky wrote

Reply to comment by CatOfGrey in Autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination by Razariousnefarian

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