SBM: COVID Vaccines and Cardiac Effects – Reality vs Lies
Posted by Sinister Burt on January 7, 2022, 6:07 pm
More from that science based medicine place, might be of interest (or not).
"COVID mRNA vaccines only result in rare, mild, and transitory myocarditis, but this doesn’t stop misinformation from spreading.
Steven Novella on January 5, 2022
After airing a viral video showing a young athlete unconscious on the field following a cardiac arrest, anti-vaccine crank Del Bigtree asked his viewers, “All of these sports are mandating this vaccine on everybody in order to play, and I can only ask the very simple question, do you ever remember hearing a story of an athlete having a heart attack on the field?” [er yeah, quite a few actually -SB] The obvious implication is that this is a new phenomenon, and he is encouraging his audience to make a connection to the COVID vaccines. He also states there is no evidence for a connection, and he can also hide behind the notion that he is “just asking questions”, but the implication is undeniable, and that’s all it takes.
Social media also facilitates compiling and spreading video and audio clips to create what are in essence mini-documentaries, with a specific message apparently supported by the video evidence being presented. These videos, however, may be complete fabrications, all lies and misinformation. That athlete lying on the field, for example, had a cardiac arrest due to a primary cardiac condition having nothing to do with COVID vaccines. We can be highly confident that the vaccine was not involved – because the video is from 2013.
This is now the reality we are living in. Pictures can be used out-of-context to falsely support a narrative. Eventually, they tend to get debunked as “the internet” will generally find the source material and expose the fraud, but by the time this happens the damage is already done. This phenomenon is also not limited to social media – even major news outlets (like Fox News and Newsmax) have been caught red-handed using misleading photos out-of-context. This is combined with opinions presented as facts, or hiding behind posing leading questions without making explicit claims.
This misinformation not only affects people’s behavior, but can affect policy. Anti-vaccine crank Sheri Tenpenny, for example, was invited to give testimony to the Ohio Health Committee in support of a bill essentially banning vaccine mandates. Among the claims she made to the committee was that COVID vaccines “magnetize” people, and offered as evidence misleading videos from the internet.
The science about COVID vaccines and cardiac effects
Meanwhile the reality, slowly documented through careful scientific study, is that the current COVID vaccines are both safe and effective, and the reported cardiac effects are rare, mild, and transient. No one would reasonably argue that vaccines are entirely without side effects. No medical intervention is. They are designed to provoke a specific immune response, which creates the possibility of inflammatory side effects. One such side effect is myocarditis or pericarditis – inflammation of the heart or the lining around the heart, respectively.
According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, myocarditis/pericarditis rates are ≈12.6 cases per million doses of second-dose mRNA vaccine among individuals 12 to 39 years of age. In reported cases, patients with myocarditis invariably presented with chest pain, usually 2 to 3 days after a second dose of mRNA vaccination, and had elevated cardiac troponin levels. ECG was abnormal with ST elevations in most, and cardiac MRI was suggestive of myocarditis in all tested patients.
In almost every case the symptoms were mild and resolved completely, with or without treatment. This is a rare, mild, and transitory side effect, and therefore not a significant phenomenon, and not a reason to avoid the vaccine. Further, when considering any medical intervention we cannot only consider risk, we have to consider risk vs benefit. We know the vaccines are highly effective at preventing severe COVID, and based on that alone the benefits outweigh this tiny risk. However, the benefits are even more direct. COVID-19 itself is much more likely to cause myocarditis that the mRNA vaccines:
After adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, patients with COVID-19 during March 2020–January 2021 had, on average, 15.7 times the risk for myocarditis compared with those without COVID-19.
This is not uncommon with inflammatory vaccine side effects, they often mimic (but are less severe and less common) complications of the very infection that they prevent. If a vaccine increases the risk of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS – inflammation of the peripheral nerves) slightly, then it’s a good bet that the illness the vaccine prevents is far more likely to cause GBS itself.
In fact these types of illnesses (including GBS and myocarditis) are often either infectious or post-infectious syndromes. That means they are caused by the inflammation brought about by an active infection, or they are an auto-immune inflammatory response that follows an infection. The post-infectious auto-immune response is often caused by molecular mimicry, which means that an antigen on the infecting organism (virus or bacteria) looks very similar to a self-antigen (on the coating around nerves for GBS or in the heart muscle for myocarditis, for example). The immune system then starts to target the self-antigen, because it looks too much like the viral or bacterial antigen.
This is likely the case with myocarditis following mRNA vaccinations as well. Rare individuals, due to genetic variation, have cardiac self-antigens that are similar to the spike protein targeted by the COVID vaccines. This causes the inflammation provoked by the vaccine to target the heart muscle, causing the myocarditis. But in this case the heart antigen must only be a little similar to the spike protein, because the inflammatory response is mild and transient.
The science regarding the mRNA vaccines and myocarditis is reassuring – this is a rare and mild side effect. Meanwhile, COVID is a potentially deadly disease, and is far more likely to produce myocarditis as a side effect that the vaccines that prevent COVID. But of course it takes a lot less mental energy to watch a video online and react with fear, than to wade through the scientific evidence and make an informed risk vs benefit assessment."
---- This one about vaccination of children might be relevant too:
Sure, I'm interested in that too, ta. Calling the first article industry stalwarts isn't an argument or a refutation of anything they say in itself though.
(I was going to criticise the article I posted, but I was in a rush so I thought I'd leave someone else do it - but here we are: the first half is a bit dishonestly using a single example of a misleading video to dismiss seemingly many more similar incidents (eg as posted by Tomski previously) - not good really (though I do remember on pitch heart attacks on at least two occasions in recent years pre covid). The second half had some data that was relevant though (from the cdc (booo!)), so I thought worth posting for that bit more than the first bit)
Just a quick assessment of your post SB + before I fall off my perch
I have no idea what you are referring to, sorry : (.
Is there an insinuation here SB? (only kiddin') : ). It seems you probably had little time to formulate your position in this post e.g. I don't understand which vid you are referring to for one (Joe Rogin vid?) .. for example.
At some point I thought our discussion delved into VAERS data after you flagged it up and the effects thereof. You probably missed my sarky comments thereafter since they were relatively nuanced.
Ultimately, as I said, this data seems to be all we had and your commentator shot it down (ranted) as totally unreliable since VAERS is used by all and sundry (btw including doctors, if they can be bothered and if they actually know the system – most don’t, it seems and the nurses complain) and we have nothing else. It is a rubbish dump, and one cannot be bothered to sift through it (sark).
Since our discussion is not standing still from my perspective, can you please evaluate the following (you didn't pick up my post since it is way down):
Just came across this report from NIMS. Possibly more reliable than VAERS, UK study:
The graphs of incidents of Myocarditis for under 40s seem remarkably similar to Vinay's analysis of VAERS data unless it's my biased optical illusion : ). Is there anything in it?
At least you have a worse record than mine. For example, I gave you a number of myocarditis incidents in sports, especially football - a relatively long list if you recall. I did say it was anecdotal since we had no back-up medical evidence. Meanwhile it is a lil’ bit more than your couple of incidents on offer in passing (eyes roll). No comparison. Why do you think there is only 66-75% odd uptake of vaccines in sports – never mind Djokovic (100 % should be the norm, no? : ). Just being playful ...
Re: Just a quick assessment of your post SB + before I fall off my perch
"For example, I gave you a number of myocarditis incidents in sports, especially football - a relatively long list if you recall. I did say it was anecdotal since we had no back-up medical evidence. "
Sorry I could have been clearer it seems (definitely no snark) - that post with the link with the list of sportspeople who had cardiac issues was exactly what I was referring to (I was saying above that the SBM post was seemingly dismissing all these (or at least not mentioning them) on the basis of that one dodgy video, which I said was 'not good').
Yes that NIMS thing is interesting (just tried to copy and paste a bit but it came out as gobbledygook) - abstract says the overall myocarditis risk is still higher for covid than the vaccine in the overall population, but not so in younger males, where the risk is about equal for dose one of mRNA vaccine and quite a bit higher for the second mRNA dose (less affected by covid, but similarly by a vaccine?). I probably misunderstood it in some way though - I'm not sure I parsed the last paragraph of the abstract correctly (starting "In summary...") - it's late
Re: Just a quick assessment of your post SB + before I fall off my perch
Let me tell you, when you get that responsibility, it goes two ways. One, objectively most progeny survives whatever happens, going by the short term outcomes I witnessed. So, many variables. I try to take care of the basics first (health).
Communication is good (and trying that sometimes with a teenager is interesting ).
I was going by the text as I wasn't sure I could understand the graphs fully. The text actually said the risk was 'similar' between covid and the first mRNA jab for young males, and higher for jab 2.
Here - I managed to copy and paste it (had to screenshot it and then scan it):
"We report several observations that may have implications for policy makers and the public. First, we confirm and extend our previous findings in more than 42 million persons that the risk of hospitalization or death from myocarditis following COVID-19 infection is higher than the risk associated with vaccination in the overall population. Second, the risk of myocarditis is greater following sequential doses of mRNA vaccine than sequential doses of the adenovirus vaccine. For the first time, we observe an increase in myocarditis events following a third dose of BNT162b vaccine. Whilst the incidence rate ratios are higher sequentially following each dose of mRNA vaccine, the risk remains small in the overall population with an estimated 2 additional cases of myocarditis per million following a booster dose of BNT162b. Third, we report the risk associated with vaccination and infection in younger persons stratified by sex. Despite more myocarditis events occurring in older persons, the risk following COVID-19 vaccination was largely restricted to younger males aged less than 40 years, where the risks of myocarditis following vaccination and infection were similar. However, the notable exception was that in younger males receiving a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine, the risk of myocarditis was higher following vaccination than infection, with an additional 101 events estimated following a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine compared to 7 events following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.
In summary, the risk of hospital admission or death from myocarditis is greater following COVID-19 infection than following vaccination and remains modest following sequential doses of mRNA vaccine including a third booster dose of BNT162b in the overall population. However, the risk of myocarditis following vaccination is consistently higher in younger males, particularly following a second dose of RNA mRNA-1273 vaccine."
However, the risk of myocarditis following vaccination is consistently higher in younger males, particularly following a second dose of RNA mRNA-1273 vaccine.".
In Vinay's graph from VAERS (boo) data for 12-17 old boys the risk from 1st dose is a touch more than catching covid.
My take, no Pfizer for my boy, 1st or second jab. Feed him some C, D3 and K12 and dodge the bug.
Thank you for your effort, it is appreciated.
"Anti-vaccine crank" ? Ha - in what sense are you "sinister" - seems like a total misnomer.
More like an Orwellian armchair conformist - aka a sinister get-vaxxed fascist.
I'm assuming I won't be censured - given that crass name-calling seems to be all the rage and A-OK when it comes to eagerly playing guinea-pig / lab-rat / lab-bat / lab-chimp to help boost Big Pharma profits and their big fat annual executive bonus payouts with their intravenous Koolaid and perpetual Koolaid booster jab concoctions.
To Big Pharma leaking biolabs labs like unchecked, "unspeakable", diabolical Fort Detrick could well serve as a perpetual profit and bonus booster. Thanks to a gazillion or three terrifically sinister burts.
Re: "Anti-vaccine crank" ? Ha - in what sense are you "sinister" - seems like a total misnomer.
It's sinister as in left, not spooky . Refute the information if you want, otherwise, call me names, I don't mind (or provide some counter info - I'm open to it - I always ask - I'm willing to be convinced if it's good enough - are you?).
Lots of confusion about Covid vaccines, so, here's a nice link about multiple vaccines currently being developed or in trials:https://view-hub.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/COVID19%20VE%20Studies_Forest%20Plots_1.pdf
And, for our conspiracy theorist chums, hope folks are aware that in my neck of the woods BioNtech actually teamed with Fosun to develop and manufacture mRNA vaccines, including that for Covid, so, despite concerns over Pfizer trials, in China, well, trials were conducted in China under the auspices of China's regulatory body - now, and for those wishing to jump down big rabbit holes, in the HKSAR two types of vaccines were utilised, one being mRNA-based, and, strangely the contraindications/adverse effects for the mRNA vaccine are slightly lower than that for a conventional vaccine, namely 0.06%, compared to 0.07% for Sinovac.
Further, the HKSAR medical authorities, that's the Centre for Health Protection and HKSAR Hospital Authority keep full data sets on contraindications and adverse effects, oh, and, these don't occur 14 days after first vaccine, rather they keep stringent records from the moment a needle is stuck in your arm - funny that.
Anyhow, with more than 10 million jabs given and nearly 70% of all those eligible persons vaccinated, guest what, nothing much has happened, although mRNA vaccine has caused myocarditis in Han Chinese Male teenagers, of which a few medical papers, peer reviewed of course, have been published.
Knock yourselves out folks, you can do comparative analysis via this website and find/link into many data sets - don't tell Off Guardian though as those loony bins think its all a conspiracy and that China & Cuba are in on the act.
By the way, more than 1.2 billion double jabs of vaccine have been administered in China, the bulk of this being Sinovac and no mass cull yet or folks growing two heads - funny that. https://www.chp.gov.hk/en/index.html
Jim's antecedent character here was once memorably described as: "...a vulgar, semi-literate and infantile troll, a stubborn toenail fungus on the board with no effective antidote..."
Confining myself to a single strand of that comment, I just complemented him on his English since it had shades of Rhis' concoctions. But then what do I know, I haven't got English O'level (GCSE for younger generation) : (. I suffer and thrive &.
That Jim's "antecedent character" was ZEV or that he was described as such? The latter doesn't need believed but merely looked up. It was by Brooks who has to our collective loss unfortunately been quiet for some while here. His full reply to a previous typically self indulgent ZEV post:
"Zev, this is so moving. One of the most morally repulsive, elite-serving, neoliberal sock-puppets the western corporate death-system has ever vomited up helped your mom play Chopin! The tears fall on my keyboard as I write. It proves there really is a moral order in the universe. For all of you (for shame!) who thought that Zev was a vulgar, semi-literate and infantile troll, a stubborn toenail fungus on the board with no effective antidote, I hope this deeply moving post about his mom, music and Saint Maggie, puts such cynical thoughts to bed forever."
despite him being on my DADE list for various reasons. His wit and humour is missed, especially during his takedowns of various characters (wrongful in my case, of course - cr*p, trust me).
Nope. Just don't read OffG anymore, bit boring, although I came across an non-covid article posted elsewhere which I thought was cute recently. Also applies to a lot of 'right on' websites that went awol during pandemic. For example, although I still use globalresearch for bits, sometimes it can trying : (.
Anyways, I have stone in my shoe that ain't going away. 14 year old athlete, my son (btw I am double-jabbed AZ and not planning to get an mRNA booster, if I can help it - why .. no obvious reason, just don't want it). The question of does the benefit outweigh the risk type of equation for my son. This beholder has some ideas : ). I am having an easy conversation with Sinister on the subject at the mo. Lets see where it goes
Thanks for the first link with .pdf. I like that kind of staff. No pictures (I think .. as such (graphs) unfortunately). I prefer scientific as opposed to management-scientific. The WHO are not ideal in this respect. I must look at it (eyes roll).
Re AZ double jab and need for Booster, i actually visited the GP on Friday and talked about the Booster and, although being double jabbed with BioNtech, was instructed I could go with Sinovac as the Booster, reason for this, less side effects on third vaccine with SinoVac than with BioNtech, that and Chinese research indicates best protection is 8 months after you last jab, not 3 or 6 and by the time I gets the jab it will be nearly 8 months after last jab. Do you still have a choice now in the UK, or are all Booster BioNtech?
Nope. It's all Pfizer boosters here in London (in my case), I am afraid
Actually I am bit funny about it (Pfizer booster) and possibly pi**ed off for no good reason that they will get $36 odd billions for their 'efforts' last year. I am, of course, taking all the vitamins etc. and thinking slightly alternatively, as a double jabbed mostly pro-vax punter does.
Not connected with my quest to assess the safety of mRNA vaccines slated for my boy, nope.
Re: "Anti-vaccine crank" ? Ha - in what sense are you "sinister" - seems like a total misnomer.
But really SB, don't you think it funny how Zev (oops .. sorry, Jim) has zero bedside manner and does a full frontal adhom before you hear his half-baked argument ending up with the Fort Derrick fantasy-land biolab signature slogan. To give him credit, his English is probably better than mine (lately anyway - quite impressed at times : )) and reminds me of Rhis at times (although Rhis was quite dismissive of Zev's ideas - naturally).
I mean .. does he really think we are not aware of the Empire's biolab scams in the former SU +? We don't read? (eyes roll). Treating the TLN punters like 4 year olds. Good luck with that, especially since there is no solid evidence (no, I don't want to hear about it going by the track record, thank you). Bedside manners first.
Posted by Tomski on January 8, 2022, 1:04 am, in reply to "Talking about Rhis"
It seems my last post for the day ... rejoice!
Chris, it was a bit mean to just direct us to the whole thread, in my books : ). One should've quoted or provide the evidence, n'est-ce pas? e.g.:
I'm unvaccinated, and will remain so. Not only for 'covid' but for all the other ills which vaccination is supposed to defeat. You could call me a moderate anti-vaxer; moderate because I acknowledge that there MAY be some occasions when some vaccines are really, genuinely useful, but not often; and they need to be comprehensively proven to be absolutely safe, and actually effective: a pair of hurdles rarely overcome by most vaccines. I regard the 'anti-vaxer' label - under the above provisos - as a badge of honour, and not one that worries me in the least.
When I got the covid infection, in 2020, aged 79, I did the usual thing which has kept me totally free of illnesses from colds and flu for more than quarter of a century: I upped my regular daily prophylactic intake of vitamin C from two grams to thirty grams (sic!) per day, and continued that regimen for the three days that it took for me to off the infection completely. During that time, I was just slightly under the weather, and spent most of my time keeping warm and taking it easy. Since then, I have had no bother whatever from any of the - allegedly lethal - 'variants'. Nothing. Zero special precautions taken, no masks, distancing, isolating and all the rest of the hysteria, but no problems whatever.
The Wuhan thing - if that's really where it came from - has been no more to me than a standard-issue passing flu, that has - as ever - failed to make me ill, and to which I'm now naturally immune, I'm assuming.
But then, I live in a radically-different belief system from the one currently driving the covid troobleevers into constant hysterical panic.
Get - psychologically - well soon, guys!
Posted by: Rhisiart Gwilym | Dec 29 2021 10:30 utc | 82
Yes, I've seen it and ... ?
Rhisiart Gwilim: A sample size of one, but evidently the important one..
Even if everything he says is true - to be taken at face value despite being written as a narrative whose punchline you can see coming like the Rank gong:
..even despite this, what possibly can be the broader significance of writing several paragraphs about just one person?
Unless it is basically the only person he basically gives a flying f*ck about?
The irresistible reaction is a slow handclap and “Well, good for jolly-old you” followed by some head-scratching and “Why did I just read that?”
He never realized how he appeared to others (at least some others) which, since it apparently continues to this day, means he is presumably incapable of it.
You are right, he is set in his ways : ). I still liked the old codger. He can be quite perceptive and amusing until he dons his antivax tights in fulsome and is in his 'don't take any prisoners' mode.
And you know me ... I always have 'otoh' ready i.e. I have certain reservations about bits.
Re: Haha
Posted by Sinister Burt on January 9, 2022, 11:21 am, in reply to "Haha"
Yeah I love the old git - hope all the vitamin c he pisses out actually helps him before it goes - shame he ended up thinking what he does - I mean his apparent change of view on climate change much more than any views on vaccination - he always spat out solid polemics on green stuff (not that I always agreed) - and now it's all that Patrick Moore-type horseshite (last I saw anyway) - a much sadder change than anything covid related.
Re: Haha
Posted by Tomski on January 9, 2022, 2:59 pm, in reply to "Re: Haha"
Que? You caught me on the hop mate. I thought he was pretty much 'TLN mainstream' on climate change last time I looked. When and how did he change his mind?
Re: Haha
Posted by Sinister Burt on January 9, 2022, 6:09 pm, in reply to "Re: Haha"
I can't remember, but before he left here - he'd started posting 'just asking questions' type posts accompanied often by Patrick Moore videos (climate change denial/CO2-phile shill) or similar. There was some posting of the usual debunking of that stuff in response (skeptical science etc).
Who knows why he started saying this stuff - you'd have to ask him. I'd enjoyed many of his cantankerous screeds about climate here for years before though so it is a loss to me.
No issue, will do as advised
Posted by Chris Rogers on January 8, 2022, 7:54 am, in reply to "Re: Talking about Rhis"
Tomski,
Sorry about that, yes you are correct, there was a great deal of BS on that page, one reason I did a very unusual post myself in order to give some sanity, sanity with the facts and Stats these fools demand.
Its an article by one Steven Novella merely posted by Sinister Burt and quite an informative one.
Is it that you can't even work that out by the authors name being at the top of it (clue: its next to the date of publication)? Or is it rather that you already knew that but decided to ignore the fact in order to indulge in the above spew of uninformative Carlucci-drivel aimed at the poster rather than the author?
On the matter of those whom Steven Novella names as cranks...I suspect Wakefield sidekick Del Bigtree is merely in it for the money of which he has found a lucrative source of billionaire antivax revenue in the Selz family whilst Sherri Tenpenny is indeed probably likewise of the same ilk, having been described as one of "...America's biggest anti-vaccine profiteers" Still, I don't think theres any more crank like statement that her claim that people are "magnetized" after receiving a Covid-19 vaccine: "...They put a key on their forehead, it sticks. They can put spoons and forks all over them, and they can stick..."
'COVID mRNA vaccines only result in rare, mild, and transitory myocarditis, but this doesn’t stop misinformation from spreading.'
Rather misleading IMO, unless he's being super-specific about myocarditis in this statement, blurred by references to heart attacks and 'cardiac effects' later in the article. Looking at the MHRA figures, last updated in December I see that:
I only counted 4 fatalities specifically linked to myocarditis, but looking at total fatalities linked to 'cardiac disorders' the number is 312 across all the jabs, with 22,395 total reported adverse cardiac reactions. You can explain it away (as MHRA does) by saying they were all old or with existing complications or statistically some were going to die anyway, and it is a minuscule percentage of the total number jabbed, but I think it's dishonest to imply that all adverse reactions are 'mild and transient'.
Otherwise seems fair comment, especially the point about covid itself posing severe risks to the heart.
Posted by Sinister Burt on January 8, 2022, 11:59 am, in reply to "'only'?"
That's fair comment about the 'only' in the subheading, even though he's more nuanced in the body text, eg:
"In almost every case the symptoms were mild and resolved completely, with or without treatment. "
I thought the article was less careful and a bit more lazy than some of the others I've read there, as I said above. I think linking/comparing the myocarditis from covid with the same from the vaccine was instructive though.
I assumed that Sinister Burt was left-handed....nm
on January 7, 2022, 6:07 pm
). 
.
&