https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru…-ccenarios-2021-03-19.pdf

Comparing these mortality figures with the Queensland ones:

Is very difficult! the age stratification is too coarse to fit an accurate exponential. We know that at very young ages IFR goes up.

Nevertheless we could take the average 0-19 year IFR has a lower bound for the age 18 IFR.

That gives 30 per 1,000,000 mortality rate.

Or, 3 deaths per 1,000,000. Not 0.0 deaths per 1,000,000.

note how this (approx but lower bound) estimate compares with my estimate above:

From the previous paper (eyeballing Fig 2) we have IFR approx 0.003% at age 18.

The same!

That gives me some confidence that the CDC is not lying to us about IFR, and the Queensland is using some not reasonable with COVID assumption about how many unvaccinated people catch COVID

One caveat I realise - maybe Queensland is just saying that the mRNA vaccines have muhc lower risks than the AsytraZeneca vaccine in this age group - so reckon the want them. That would be sensible, but then they would still not have 0.0 in the comparison - they would need the pericarditis mortality of the Pfizer vaccine (say).

But maybe that is 0.0 per 100,000 for age 18!

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volum…eryName=USCDC_921-DM60791

Ok - so at age 18 that is say 6 : 1,000,000 myocarditis cases (taking an average of the 12-17 and 18-24 averages).

the CFR for this (better outcome than normal) type of myocarditis from a link we discussed earlier is < 10%.

So that is in fact 0.6 : 1,000,000 or 0.06 : 100,000. near enough to the Queensland 0.0 : 100,000

I am happy with these figures. They are all consistent, and also consistent with the published underlying data.

The Queensland figures make sense if they are arguing (correctly) that mRNA vaccines are a lot safer than Astrazeneca for this age group. Given than it should be possible to give people mRNA vaccines within a month or two, providing COVID rates are low enough for those unvaccinated waiting for mRNA not to get COVID - this is a correct decision.

But if the fraction of these unvaccinated 18 year olds he get COVID becomes higher over the time between now and when mRNA vaccines are available - then it will prove incorrect.

The argument with Queensland then is one about how quickly mRNA vaccination is possible and what the infection rate in Queensland will be over that period.

In the UK we know from government policy and modelling that most people unvaccinated will catch COVID over the next 3 months. So if there is not enough mRNA vaccine available age 18 should still take Astrazeneca. Nut - limited Pfizer doses should be directed to the younger age groups if possible.

THH

EDIT - i've just realised I was taking the much lower female statistics for myocarditis.

The male figure is 50 : 1,000,000. At 10% mortality that would be 0.5 (not 0.0) per 100,000. So the Queensland people are just wrong for males even if you reckon they are holding out for mRNA vaccination. Still that remains for them, with low infection rates if they have those, the right thing because the Pfizer risks are lower than the AstraZeneca risks for this age group.

Also, is 10% mortality correct? How many 18 year olds have died of vaccine-induced pericarditis in the US?

THH

Quote from Fm1

Now as for giving a thumbs up to navid, you actually check who's agreeing? Troll!!!

There is a process which dispenses with 'like' obsessors

Interesting that the UK doesn't follow the science or WHO Recommendations. Explain that hux!

WHO Scientist Cautions Against Mixing & Matching Investigational Vaccine Product While Canada Health Bureaucracy Declares Safe & Sound

https://trialsitenews.com/who-…racy-declares-safe-sound/

A leading scientist from the World Health Organization (WHO) has concerns about various studies now ongoing that actually mix and match different COVID-19 vaccines as a “dangerous trend” that may serve to do more damage than good. Soumya Swaminathan told a media briefing discussing these studies now involving this practice, which TrialSite has tracked in places such as Canada. No mixing up of products should occur until proper studies have been completed, with accompanying data. And WHO is looking at equitable distribution, which has been lacking. There are still nations where frontline workers, including those in the healthcare sector, haven’t been vaccinated. Canada responded sharply to the WHO edict, suggesting that such practices are safe and efficacious. But how do they know? TrialSite introduced the Canadian MOSAIC study just in May 2021. That Canada-based study just started and it’s premature to declare at least from that study that such practices are safe.

What’s the data behind combining vaccines? What safety tests have been conducted? What about low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) without nearly enough vaccine supplies? So many questions get raised for those countries that are now experimenting with the mixing and matching of what are essentially experimental vaccine products (at least the ones still under emergency use authorization) in what are entirely new testing schemes.

A Dangerous Trend?

The WHO scientists cautioned, “So it’s a little bit of a dangerous trend here where we’re in a data-free evidence-free zone as far as a mix and match there is limited data on mix and match. There are studies going on, we need to wait for that.”

Booster Shot Confusion & Pharma Math

Moreover, with pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer getting ahead of the regulators and apex research agencies (e.g. National Institutes of Health or NIH) announcing a forthcoming third booster shot, the WHO’s Swaminathan has a cautionary message that this practice can introduce more chaos than orderly care. Already, TrialSite reported that Pfizer’s CEO had to call Dr. Anthony Fauci and apologize for the action, and Fauci all but said in a recent interview that it should be the regulators and public health agencies that declare when a third jab would be needed, not a pharmaceutical company, which has clear conflicts of interest (e.g. derived from the pressures on them to generate more revenues for shareholder value).

And once the math becomes apparent, the pharma boardroom can be abuzz in anticipation. Why? Swaminathan shared some of the compelling math for the companies:

“We have four countries that have announced a booster program, and a few more that are thinking about it. If 11 high and upper-middle-income countries decide to….they will go for a booster for their populations or even subgroups. This will require an additional 800 million doses.” Well, at say $10 per dose, that’s an additional $8 billion in revenue. TrialSite reported Israel called out their move to progress with a booster.

Canada Position

Canada responded to the WHO scientist’s warning by declaring efforts there for mixing and matching vaccines would continue. Carly Luis, director of communications for Health Minister Christine Elliott in Ontario, reported that Ontario would continue its initiative involving the mixing of vaccine doses. The spokesperson declared, “Ontario continues to follow the advice of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI), which recommends that it is safe to mix vaccines based on studies from the UK, Spain and Germany that have found that mixing vaccines is safe and produces a strong immune response.”

As TrialSite reported, studies in Ontario have been mixing these vaccines for weeks now, reports CTV News. For example, they allow the mixing of mRNA-based vaccines to be given interchangeably. Moreover, individuals that received AstraZeneca for the first dose in Ontario can opt for a vaccine from Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna for the second jab—of course, both of those are mRNA-based. According to NACI, the mixing of these approved vaccine brands is safe and effective, reports CTV News. But how do they know? What formal studies have been completed?

Canada Mishaps

TrialSite argued that Canada’s high government made tremendous errors early on in picking partners. They opted to go with a small biotech with known Chinese military connections called CanSino Biologics for a strategic national vaccine research and supply deal. That turned into a disaster as, due to geopolitical intrigue, the nation never received its supply of investigational vaccine products last summer. More than likely, China was punishing Canada for participating in the arrest and detention of Meng Wanzhou, CFO of Huawei, a giant Chinese telecom run afoul of U.S. and international law. As a result of the selection (and consequent deal debacle), however, Canada fell way behind most other wealthy nations. This put them in scramble mode and, to some extent, their government has been scrambling ever since. A move to mix and match candidates, TrialSite suggests, was one outcome of such risk-taking earlier on. For whatever reason, Canada didn’t participate in the previous POTUS’ Operation Warp Speed. TrialSite wondered aloud why was that the case? TrialSite was one of few media to even report on the Canadian COVID-19 vaccine debacle in the U.S. and abroad. Search the new Google search feature on our site for examples.

Canadian Study

Back in May, TrialSite reported on a $4.8 million MOSAIC study to address the question of vaccine interchangeability. The Canadian national government placed $4.8 million into the COVID-19 Immunity Task Force (CITF) and the Vaccine Surveillance Reference Group (VSRG) to study the safety and effectiveness of combining two different COVID-19 vaccines for a first and second jab in addition to a better understanding of the effects of increasing the intervals between doses.

Led by Co-Principal Investigator Dr. Joanne Langley—head investigator of the Canadian Immunization Research Network’s (CIRN) Clinical Trials Network and Professor at Dalhousie University.

Status: Mixing and Matching MOSAIC Study Still Early Days

So where are we at with this study? Well according to their disclosure (NCT04894435), the study just started a couple of months ago; and, according to the protocol, the sponsors, the Canadian Immunization Research Network—along with numerous collaborators—must enroll 1,200 participants. This study doesn’t end until early 2023. A handful of important primary and secondary outcome endpoints are sought.

Quote from THHuxleynew

FM1 - not sure if you realise how unhinged this article is?

I mean - Ivermectin is being trialled - it might help although I don't see at the moment much except a popular bandwagon and misconceptions about the power of non-randomised or poor quality trials going for it. All it needs is for positive results from one of the randomised trials and it will be taken up everywhere.

This rant (it is that, if you look at the hyperbole) is polemic, not evidence. It contains any number of gross and obvious errors. I'll highlight just one:

It was a lie by the US Task Force and medical experts including the nonsensical television medical experts to allude to and suggest that lockdowns were effective, that masks were effective, that school closures were effective, that mask mandates were effective etc. when all evidence clearly showed and very early on, that all of these measures were complete failures. None of them reduce transmission or deaths. There is no nation, no setting, no where, in the entire world, where there is any evidence, after 16 months, that any lockdowns, school closures, mask mandates or any of the policy decision by these Task Forces, worked to reduce transmission or deaths. None! Not one! It was all a lie and a failure. I have examined all of the evidence on each of these lockdown and closure policies.

Taking one country I know very well, the UK, it is absolutely clear that (as any epidemiologist will tell you) reducing contact between the population reduces R number. When this goes below 1 the infection rate reduces.

We have seen this multiple times in the UK. Before you make naive comparisons I suggest you consider the factors that could possibly alter cases:

1. lockdown
2. seasonal differences in behaviour (summer => windows open more, people outside more, all reducing spread)
3. availability of testing
4. COVID variant poulation
5. Level of vaccination

Luckily in the UK we have the ONS survey which gives us infection numbers every week in a way which is completely independent of 3, and the level of vaccination is known (though not entirely its effect, because somone isolating and getting vaccinated will have zero efefct on transmission, whereas a high contact person getting vaccinated will have a large effect).

And not surprisingly the government - not at all keen to lock people down, wants to know what lockdown effects are. here is a report:

https://assets.publishing.serv…70_NPIs_table__pivot_.pdf

"Reduction of Rt from 2.7 to 0.6 in most of the UK - high confidence"/. the intervention that caused this was the "stay at ho,me except for essential travel" lockdown.

FM1 - I am just a bit surprised that you seem so enthusiatically to support things that are obviously false - like this stuff, Navid's comments on immune response saying that Sabra Klein was lying which did not hold water and in any case you should consider when random internet trolls with scary conspiracy theory baggage claim that a whole load of hard-working, well-qualified research scientists, busting their guts out to find solutions to COVID, and willing honestly to say "I don't know" when they don't know, are lying. I actually think you might want to apologise for that like of his post. How would you like it if someone did the same to you in an area where you have worked for 20 years and have just started a new job where your performance can save lives? I mean - I am quite sure that Sabra will not see Navid's post, and know doubt can deal with social media trolls in any case. But I thought on this site we tried to debate the science, not claim without evidence that serious people doing research are liars?

If you really believe Sabra is wrong perhaps you could re-read what she says and make an argument. as i do when I disagree with something in some preprint etc. It would still be out of order for you to call her a liar.

Display More

Ok my real reason for posting this article, I was hoping to wake up this morning and read in the daily mall or mail or whatever rags that a UK man's head exploded

Quote from JedRothwell

We know it could not have been handled without the vaccine because it was not handled. No country escaped from it

Have a look at Uttar Pradesh...

Quote from JedRothwell

The only methods of "handling" the pandemic other than vaccines were stop-gap, limited; they were socially and economically destructive; and eventually they were bound to fail catastrophically.

Fauci knew February 2020 that Ivermectin stops CoV-19. So he willfully agreed in killing 600'000 Americans. Among the FM/R/J/B mafia members the correct wording is "helping". So Fauci did help his vaccine friends.

Quote from JedRothwell

Other versions of the mRNA vaccine were tested 10 or 20 years ago in humans and animals. You say the delay is months?

With totally fatal outcome: Great!

Quote from Fm1

Thomas I'm happy you are so concerned with my thought process and I do agree the opinion article is a bit unhinged but as usual in your analysis leaves out human emotion. Now as for giving a thumbs up to navid, you actually check who's agreeing? Troll!!!

You must realise that I take my role as one of the thought police working out who are the misguided people propagating vaccine misinformation here very seriously!

I report direct to Bill gates and it will affect the chip microprogramming as soon as you next go to hospital and are secretly dosed with microchip-containing magnetic-forehead inducing vaccine.

Quote from THHuxleynew

You must realise that I take my role as one of the thought police working out who are the misguided people propagating vaccine misinformation here very seriously!

I report direct to Bill gates and it will affect the chip microprogramming as soon as you next go to hospital and are secretly dosed with microchip-containing magnetic-forehead inducing vaccine.

A little humor goes along way . Good day thomas

Quote from Fm1

Interesting that the UK doesn't follow the science or WHO Recommendations. Explain that hux!

WHO Scientist Cautions Against Mixing & Matching Investigational Vaccine Product While Canada Health Bureaucracy Declares Safe & Sound

https://trialsitenews.com/who-…racy-declares-safe-sound/

A leading scientist from the World Health Organization (WHO) has concerns about various studies now ongoing that actually mix and match different COVID-19 vaccines as a “dangerous trend” that may serve to do more damage than good. Soumya Swaminathan told a media briefing discussing these studies now involving this practice, which TrialSite has tracked in places such as Canada. No mixing up of products should occur until proper studies have been completed, with accompanying data. And WHO is looking at equitable distribution, which has been lacking. There are still nations where frontline workers, including those in the healthcare sector, haven’t been vaccinated. Canada responded sharply to the WHO edict, suggesting that such practices are safe and efficacious. But how do they know? TrialSite introduced the Canadian MOSAIC study just in May 2021. That Canada-based study just started and it’s premature to declare at least from that study that such practices are safe.

What’s the data behind combining vaccines? What safety tests have been conducted? What about low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) without nearly enough vaccine supplies? So many questions get raised for those countries that are now experimenting with the mixing and matching of what are essentially experimental vaccine products (at least the ones still under emergency use authorization) in what are entirely new testing schemes.

A Dangerous Trend?

The WHO scientists cautioned, “So it’s a little bit of a dangerous trend here where we’re in a data-free evidence-free zone as far as a mix and match there is limited data on mix and match. There are studies going on, we need to wait for that.”

Booster Shot Confusion & Pharma Math

Moreover, with pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer getting ahead of the regulators and apex research agencies (e.g. National Institutes of Health or NIH) announcing a forthcoming third booster shot, the WHO’s Swaminathan has a cautionary message that this practice can introduce more chaos than orderly care. Already, TrialSite reported that Pfizer’s CEO had to call Dr. Anthony Fauci and apologize for the action, and Fauci all but said in a recent interview that it should be the regulators and public health agencies that declare when a third jab would be needed, not a pharmaceutical company, which has clear conflicts of interest (e.g. derived from the pressures on them to generate more revenues for shareholder value).

And once the math becomes apparent, the pharma boardroom can be abuzz in anticipation. Why? Swaminathan shared some of the compelling math for the companies:

“We have four countries that have announced a booster program, and a few more that are thinking about it. If 11 high and upper-middle-income countries decide to….they will go for a booster for their populations or even subgroups. This will require an additional 800 million doses.” Well, at say $10 per dose, that’s an additional $8 billion in revenue. TrialSite reported Israel called out their move to progress with a booster.

Canada Position

Canada responded to the WHO scientist’s warning by declaring efforts there for mixing and matching vaccines would continue. Carly Luis, director of communications for Health Minister Christine Elliott in Ontario, reported that Ontario would continue its initiative involving the mixing of vaccine doses. The spokesperson declared, “Ontario continues to follow the advice of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI), which recommends that it is safe to mix vaccines based on studies from the UK, Spain and Germany that have found that mixing vaccines is safe and produces a strong immune response.”

As TrialSite reported, studies in Ontario have been mixing these vaccines for weeks now, reports CTV News. For example, they allow the mixing of mRNA-based vaccines to be given interchangeably. Moreover, individuals that received AstraZeneca for the first dose in Ontario can opt for a vaccine from Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna for the second jab—of course, both of those are mRNA-based. According to NACI, the mixing of these approved vaccine brands is safe and effective, reports CTV News. But how do they know? What formal studies have been completed?

Canada Mishaps

TrialSite argued that Canada’s high government made tremendous errors early on in picking partners. They opted to go with a small biotech with known Chinese military connections called CanSino Biologics for a strategic national vaccine research and supply deal. That turned into a disaster as, due to geopolitical intrigue, the nation never received its supply of investigational vaccine products last summer. More than likely, China was punishing Canada for participating in the arrest and detention of Meng Wanzhou, CFO of Huawei, a giant Chinese telecom run afoul of U.S. and international law. As a result of the selection (and consequent deal debacle), however, Canada fell way behind most other wealthy nations. This put them in scramble mode and, to some extent, their government has been scrambling ever since. A move to mix and match candidates, TrialSite suggests, was one outcome of such risk-taking earlier on. For whatever reason, Canada didn’t participate in the previous POTUS’ Operation Warp Speed. TrialSite wondered aloud why was that the case? TrialSite was one of few media to even report on the Canadian COVID-19 vaccine debacle in the U.S. and abroad. Search the new Google search feature on our site for examples.

Canadian Study

Back in May, TrialSite reported on a $4.8 million MOSAIC study to address the question of vaccine interchangeability. The Canadian national government placed $4.8 million into the COVID-19 Immunity Task Force (CITF) and the Vaccine Surveillance Reference Group (VSRG) to study the safety and effectiveness of combining two different COVID-19 vaccines for a first and second jab in addition to a better understanding of the effects of increasing the intervals between doses.

Led by Co-Principal Investigator Dr. Joanne Langley—head investigator of the Canadian Immunization Research Network’s (CIRN) Clinical Trials Network and Professor at Dalhousie University.

Status: Mixing and Matching MOSAIC Study Still Early Days

So where are we at with this study? Well according to their disclosure (NCT04894435), the study just started a couple of months ago; and, according to the protocol, the sponsors, the Canadian Immunization Research Network—along with numerous collaborators—must enroll 1,200 participants. This study doesn’t end until early 2023. A handful of important primary and secondary outcome endpoints are sought.

Display More

Sigh!

So: it may be dangerous to mix vaccines. That is why the UK is doing trials of this to find that out.

There are risks to any trial - the people in it consent and the reason is so that overall we save lives later on.

The reason for this is that in many places (not the UK or the US) vaccine supplies are likley to be low over the next two years. in that case people will have the choice of a faster double vaccination using mixed doses, or waiting maybe a long time.

But there may also be benefits. For example if an mRNA vaccine has almost all cases of pericarditis after the second jab, and mRNA followed by Astrazeneca is as effective as 2 X mRNA, that would be a good idea.

The point is that we do not know, and it is (arguably) worth finding out. I don't myself see this study as being a lot of use in the UK and US where I suspect the likely lower efficacy of mixed doses will make them not useful. That is very low confidence, and if it turns out they are higher efficacy that would be a win for these trials.

The main issue here is of course equitable distribution. Places with lots of vaccine availability like Israel, UK, US are prioritising their own populations over those at very high risk in other countries. You can sort of see why. it is short-sighted mainly in that overall case rates will not fall till everyone has enough vaccine, and new resistant variants like lambda will continue to emerge and spread. Luckily the vaccines remain pretty good so far - natural immunity less so. So i expect we will have variants waves of COVID just as we do for Flu. But with vaccinations more effective against them.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

Nevertheless we could take the average 0-19 year IFR has a lower bound for the age 18 IFR.

That gives 30 per 1,000,000 mortality rate.

As usual undergrad math is not your strength. 0.00002% * 0,1 = 0.00000002 of 1 million....small delta of some 1000...

Quote from THHuxleynew

(2) Although delta is more deadly than previous variants, care has got better, so let us assume that risks of serious adverse outcomes for those infected have stayed roughly constant over time.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Spoiler - they are very very small compared to COVID risks at age 23.

Quote from THHuxleynew

https://assets.publishing.serv…d-prevalence-estimate.pdf

Thanks for the FM/R/J/B update of the daily vaccine promotion statements.

If a 23 year dies form CoV-19 then for 100% a section will show some comorbidity. It is a fascist method to use sample sick people to force healthy people to take a potential deadly action.

Ivermectin is the only answer and shows why you are an agent.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Overall mortality 3 : 1,000,000 (coincidentally the same as COVID pulmonary embolism (blood clot) figure for 18 year old's!)

Adjusted for lower ages having double the clot incidence of higher ages:

Lower age mortality 5 : 1,000,000

Of course this is a fascist argument. Only severely ill CoV-19 people in the final state - killed by not giving Ivermectin - develop cloths.

The vaccine kills healthy young people that face Zero = 0 CoV-19 risk. People in that age category die 10..100x more often from accidents, flu, crime than from CoV-19.

Just to remind you: So far 30'000 CoV-19 vaccine deaths are in the database. The back log is 100% at least.

So the "official" - far to low - figures are based only on 100% direct obvious links to a vaccines. It's like in traffic. If somebody lies dead on the road,then to what percentage do you claim he has been killed by a car??

Quote from THHuxleynew

Places with lots of vaccine availability like Israel, UK, US are prioritising their own populations over those at very high risk in other countries.

This is fascist work. Pure racism . Willfully killing people by not giving them ivermectin...

Quote from THHuxleynew

Sigh!

So: it may be dangerous to mix vaccines. That is why the UK is doing trials of this to find that out.

There are risks to any trial - the people in it consent and the reason is so that overall we save lives later on.

The reason for this is that in many places (not the UK or the US) vaccine supplies are likley to be low over the next two years. in that case people will have the choice of a faster double vaccination using mixed doses, or waiting maybe a long time.

But there may also be benefits. For example if an mRNA vaccine has almost all cases of pericarditis after the second jab, and mRNA followed by Astrazeneca is as effective as 2 X mRNA, that would be a good idea.

The point is that we do not know, and it is (arguably) worth finding out. I don't myself see this study as being a lot of use in the UK and US where I suspect the likely lower efficacy of mixed doses will make them not useful. That is very low confidence, and if it turns out they are higher efficacy that would be a win for these trials.

The main issue here is of course equitable distribution. Places with lots of vaccine availability like Israel, UK, US are prioritising their own populations over those at very high risk in other countries. You can sort of see why. it is short-sighted mainly in that overall case rates will not fall till everyone has enough vaccine, and new resistant variants like lambda will continue to emerge and spread. Luckily the vaccines remain pretty good so far - natural immunity less so. So i expect we will have variants waves of COVID just as we do for Flu. But with vaccinations more effective against them.

THH

Display More

Jesus, hell must be freezing over, 2 times in a matter of an hour I see some humor out of you and I agree with everything you said. But why do you think the WHO would take such a stand without evidence. Are you saying the WHO is talking out their asses with no evidence?

Quote from Fm1

Jesus, hell must be freezing over, 2 times in a matter of an hour I see some humor out of you and I agree with everything you said. But why do you think the WHO would take such a stand without evidence. Are you saying the WHO is talking out their asses with no evidence?

No - I'm saying these decisions are often not black or white and you can argue both sides. There is also politics. WHO want equitable distribution (= US,UK use less and give more) of vaccines, not a fix to help if it is not equitable.

(unlike to vaccinate or not to vaccinate which for most age groups and vaccines, thank God, is black and white).

Quote from THHuxleynew

No - I'm saying these decisions are often not black or white and you can argue both sides. There is also politics. WHO want equitable distribution (= US,UK use less and give more) of vaccines, not a fix to help if it is not equitable.

(unlike to vaccinate or not to vaccinate which for most age groups and vaccines, thank God, is black and white).

Nothing is black and white with Covid and the question wasn't about distribution but about issuing a statement in regards to mixing vaccines. Do they have evidence to back their concerns. You would think that mixing would lead to wider distribution. Am I wrong Thomas?

Quote from Curbina

https://www.military.net/dod-s…s-after-getting-vaccines/

DoD Sounds the Alarm: Service Members Found to Have Rare Heart Inflammation Cases After Getting Vaccines

Yes. That was at the end of June

https://jamanetwork.com/journa…ology/fullarticle/2781601

A total of 23 male patients (22 currently serving in the military and 1 retiree; median
[range] age, 25 [20-51] years) presented with acute onset of marked chest pain within 4 days
after receipt of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. All military members were previously healthy
with a high level of fitness. Seven received the BNT162b2-mRNA vaccine and 16 received the
mRNA-1273 vaccine. A total of 20 patients had symptom onset following the second dose of
an appropriately spaced 2-dose series. All patients had significantly elevated cardiac troponin
levels. Among 8 patients who underwent cardiac magnetic resonance imaging within the
acute phase of illness, all had findings consistent with the clinical diagnosis of myocarditis.
Additional testing did not identify other etiologies for myocarditis, including acute COVID-19
and other infections, ischemic injury, or underlying autoimmune conditions. All patients
received brief supportive care and were recovered or recovering at the time of this report.
The military administered more than 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in this
period. While the observed number of myocarditis cases was small, the number was higher
than expected among male military members after a second vaccine dose.

That is a case rate of 20 : 1,000,000

But note that all recovered well. Vaccine pericarditis seems to be very short-timescale with excellent outcomes. Unlike the disease generally. Whereas the dangers as above for those same people catching COVID are significantly greater.

Quote from Curbina

DoD Sounds the Alarm

CommentsSteve Gregory says

JULY 13, 2021 AT 9:20 AM

My father had a strong heart and was going strong at 92 years old. A couple of weeks after receiving his second Moderna mRNA shot, he suddenly developed congestive heart failure and passed away. I obviously have no proof that there is a link between the experimental drug and my dad’s passing, but I now wonder if his death was related to myocarditis. They did note that his heart appeared to be inflamed. This is enough that I will not accept this experimental drug into my body. And unfortunately, the J&J version, which doesn’t mess with your DNA, seems to have its own increasingly known risks. Anyone up for Russian Roulette with Guillain-Barre? Why should a vaccine be risky?

I used to get flu shots when I was in the Army – and was under the impression that the trade of a couple of days of feeling like crap was worth not getting the flu and feeling like crap for a couple more days. It was risk analysis – and orders. But now with a small but verified risk that I might lose the ability to walk (Guillane Barre side effect), that’s an increase in the negative side of the risk equation.

My risk analysis now says take precautions – and if I get COVID, the treatments are increasingly effective. The risk of getting COVID and suffering a long term debilitation appear to actually be less than the risk of taking the experimental drugs and getting a debilitating side effect. If you want to change my mind, show me the error in my analysis. No points for name calling!

Quote from Fm1

Nothing is black and white with Covid and the question wasn't about distribution but about issuing a statement in regards to mixing vaccines. Do they have evidence to back their concerns. You would think that mixing would lead to wider distribution. Am I wrong Thomas?

As i say it is a political thing. It is like when those concerned about AGW are against geoengineering, because they think it is used as an excuse to take less action now (which it is, by some people). On that question I am for action now, and also for geoengineering.

But it can be political because the scientiifc merits of this study are debatable - you can argue it both ways. Some things are like that.

Quote from RobertBryant

CommentsSteve Gregory says

JULY 13, 2021 AT 9:20 AM

My father had a strong heart and was going strong at 92 years old. A couple of weeks after receiving his second Moderna mRNA shot, he suddenly developed congestive heart failure and passed away. I obviously have no proof that there is a link between the experimental drug and my dad’s passing, but I now wonder if his death was related to myocarditis. They did note that his heart appeared to be inflamed. This is enough that I will not accept this experimental drug into my body. And unfortunately, the J&J version, which doesn’t mess with your DNA, seems to have its own increasingly known risks. Anyone up for Russian Roulette with Guillain-Barre? Why should a vaccine be risky?

I used to get flu shots when I was in the Army – and was under the impression that the trade of a couple of days of feeling like crap was worth not getting the flu and feeling like crap for a couple more days. It was risk analysis – and orders. But now with a small but verified risk that I might lose the ability to walk (Guillane Barre side effect), that’s an increase in the negative side of the risk equation.

My risk analysis now says take precautions – and if I get COVID, the treatments are increasingly effective. The risk of getting COVID and suffering a long term debilitation appear to actually be less than the risk of taking the experimental drugs and getting a debilitating side effect. If you want to change my mind, show me the error in my analysis. No points for name calling!

Display More

Yes, this type of anecdotal response is a pity because it leads to unnecessary deaths: this person will risk his life because he does not do the math.

This could be vaccine-induced pericarditis - true. But the rates of that are low, lower in older people than younger, and when from vaccine is usually mild, and it does not normally result in heart failure (< 10%).

Whereas the rate of spontaneous heart failure amongst 90 years olds with strong hearts is high.

Because basically all 90 year olds will get vaccinated, vaccines are going to be blamed for all of their deaths within 2 weeks of the vaccine. At age 90 life expectancy is around 4 years (depending on lifestyle) so we expect 1% of such people to die anyway - horrible though that sounds. That is much much higher than the vaccine pericarditis rates.

From the figure above, even if you are 18, the pericarditis risk is less than the risks from COVID without vaccination. This person is probably 60 years old? Same as me. His mortality risk from COVID without a vaccine, when he catches it as he will, is around 1%. With a higher risk than this of long COVID.

Whereas the vaccine risk of death is in the 1 : 1,000,000 and of recoverable nasty symptoms is maybe 50: 1,000,000

Compare with COVID death: 10,000 : 1,000,000 and recoverable nasty symptoms 100,000 : 1,000,000 (10%? - maybe higher age 60, I'm not sure).

Look at that risk ratio - COVID is100s of times riskier for this guy.

Lack of math + suspicion of health recommendations from medical advisors can kill you.

the J&J version, which doesn’t mess with your DNA, seems to have its own increasingly known risks. Anyone up for Russian Roulette with Guillain-Barre? Why should a vaccine be risky?

And again, this guy is just not doing the J&J math. Which would be fine if he was prepared to trust health professionals to do it for him. But instead he is reading scare stories from social media and making personally bad decisions. So sad.

What is this about vaccines messing with your DNA??? They don't (not even the mRNA ones). Is this another trialsitenews scare story I need to investigate

The equation would change - though in his case I suspect still be positive for vaccination - if he had already had COVID - but he does not say that.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Yes. That was at the end of June

https://jamanetwork.com/journa…ology/fullarticle/2781601

A total of 23 male patients (22 currently serving in the military and 1 retiree; median
[range] age, 25 [20-51] years) presented with acute onset of marked chest pain within 4 days
after receipt of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. All military members were previously healthy
with a high level of fitness. Seven received the BNT162b2-mRNA vaccine and 16 received the
mRNA-1273 vaccine. A total of 20 patients had symptom onset following the second dose of
an appropriately spaced 2-dose series. All patients had significantly elevated cardiac troponin
levels. Among 8 patients who underwent cardiac magnetic resonance imaging within the
acute phase of illness, all had findings consistent with the clinical diagnosis of myocarditis.
Additional testing did not identify other etiologies for myocarditis, including acute COVID-19
and other infections, ischemic injury, or underlying autoimmune conditions. All patients
received brief supportive care and were recovered or recovering at the time of this report.
The military administered more than 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in this
period. While the observed number of myocarditis cases was small, the number was higher
than expected among male military members after a second vaccine dose.

That is a case rate of 20 : 1,000,000

But note that all recovered well. Vaccine pericarditis seems to be very short-timescale with excellent outcomes. Unlike the disease generally. Whereas the dangers as above for those same people catching COVID are significantly greater.

Display More

You might want to read up on dresslers syndrome before posting your opinion