Covid vaccine 'concerns'...

[tas8831]

A conspiracy monger on here posted a link to a list of 1000 peer reviewed papers that "questioned Covid vaccine safety."

Being confident that this person did not actually read any of them, and knowing that people compiling such lists usually do not read past the title of the things they find in keyword searches, I took a look at this list.
Very first paper on the list:

Myocarditis following mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, a case series - ScienceDirect​

Myocarditis following mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, a case series

Sounds serious. Let's take a look, emphases mine:

Introduction
mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have emerged as a new form of vaccination that has proven to be highly safe and effective against COVID-19 vaccination. Rare adverse events including myocarditis have been reported in the literature....
Four patients, ages 20 to 30, presented with myocarditis characterized by chest pain, elevations in troponin-I and C-reactive protein, and negative viral serologies two to four days following mRNA vaccine administration. One had a cardiac MRI showing delayed gadolinium enhancement in a subpericardial pattern. All experienced symptom resolution by the following day, and the two who have returned for follow-up had normal troponin-I and CRP values.

[...]

6. Discussion
This is among the first series to report multiple cases of myocarditis in adults following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. All four patients were young, between 20 and 30. All presented with chest pain two to five days after their second vaccine dose. All had significantly elevated troponin-I levels. Though one had a viral prodrome, all had negative serologies. None reported prior COVID-19 infection. None had stigmata of autoimmune disease, and the one who underwent a rheumatologic workup while hospitalized had unremarkable autoimmune serologies. Reassuringly, the two patients who have returned for follow up in the weeks following discharge had normalized CRP values and denied symptom recurrence.

Myocarditis is most often caused by direct viral injury or by autoimmune mechanisms but has been sporadically linked to vaccination. Over 50 cases had been reported to the Department of Defense Smallpox Vaccination Program [3]. Myopericarditis has also been reported soon after vaccines against anthrax, haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B virus, inactivated influenza, and live attenuated zoster vaccines [4].

Neither clinical trial reported adverse cardiac events including myocarditis [1], [2]. As vaccination rates increase among younger patients, however, several cases of post-vaccine myocarditis are being reported in adolescents and young adults [5], [6], [7]. In addition to these anecdotes, a multinational cohort study analyzed electronic health record databases and found the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis among vaccine recipients aged 18 to 35 to be approximately 0.016% for women and 0.037% for men [8]. The CDC has since warned clinicians to be wary of post-vaccine myocarditis in teens and young adults [9]. It remains unclear why younger patients are more prone to develop this adverse effect. A possible explanation could be related to the stronger immune response in younger patients, which can also explain the higher prevalence of side effects to the vaccines in this patient population [10].

While certainly a pattern worth exploring, this case series has numerous limitations, including a small sample size, variation in workup and treatment strategies, and retrospective analysis insufficient to establish causality. Nevertheless, the odds of incidental seronegative viral myocarditis occurring in four patients presenting to a single medical center within days of vaccine administration would be long. The authors would encourage further investigation and reporting of potential cases of post-vaccine myocarditis. The authors seek not to frustrate vaccination efforts, but rather to prepare patients and providers for a rare but potential adverse effect. Furthermore, the authors hope the dramatic improvement in all four patients will reassure those who do suffer from myocarditis following vaccination.​

Nothingburger.
As I suspect the other 999 are. These kinds of lists are the results of keyword searches made by people with limited understanding of the tentative nature of science, especially health-related science, in pursuit of "victory" for their fringe beliefs.
Sad.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

ScienceDirect

sounds like a conspircy to me to cover up the truth

 

[guyver]

.

 

[imsaneru]

A conspiracy monger on here posted a link to a list of 1000 peer reviewed papers that "questioned Covid vaccine safety."

Well thats just terrible , maybe we should cancel freedom of speech to stop this nonsense.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A conspiracy monger on here posted a link to a list of 1000 peer reviewed papers that "questioned Covid vaccine safety."

Being confident that this person did not actually read any of them, and knowing that people compiling such lists usually do not read past the title of the things they find in keyword searches, I took a look at this list.
Very first paper on the list:

Myocarditis following mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, a case series - ScienceDirect​

Myocarditis following mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, a case series

Sounds serious. Let's take a look, emphases mine:

Introduction
mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have emerged as a new form of vaccination that has proven to be highly safe and effective against COVID-19 vaccination. Rare adverse events including myocarditis have been reported in the literature....
Four patients, ages 20 to 30, presented with myocarditis characterized by chest pain, elevations in troponin-I and C-reactive protein, and negative viral serologies two to four days following mRNA vaccine administration. One had a cardiac MRI showing delayed gadolinium enhancement in a subpericardial pattern. All experienced symptom resolution by the following day, and the two who have returned for follow-up had normal troponin-I and CRP values.

[...]

6. Discussion
This is among the first series to report multiple cases of myocarditis in adults following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. All four patients were young, between 20 and 30. All presented with chest pain two to five days after their second vaccine dose. All had significantly elevated troponin-I levels. Though one had a viral prodrome, all had negative serologies. None reported prior COVID-19 infection. None had stigmata of autoimmune disease, and the one who underwent a rheumatologic workup while hospitalized had unremarkable autoimmune serologies. Reassuringly, the two patients who have returned for follow up in the weeks following discharge had normalized CRP values and denied symptom recurrence.

Myocarditis is most often caused by direct viral injury or by autoimmune mechanisms but has been sporadically linked to vaccination. Over 50 cases had been reported to the Department of Defense Smallpox Vaccination Program [3]. Myopericarditis has also been reported soon after vaccines against anthrax, haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B virus, inactivated influenza, and live attenuated zoster vaccines [4].

Neither clinical trial reported adverse cardiac events including myocarditis [1], [2]. As vaccination rates increase among younger patients, however, several cases of post-vaccine myocarditis are being reported in adolescents and young adults [5], [6], [7]. In addition to these anecdotes, a multinational cohort study analyzed electronic health record databases and found the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis among vaccine recipients aged 18 to 35 to be approximately 0.016% for women and 0.037% for men [8]. The CDC has since warned clinicians to be wary of post-vaccine myocarditis in teens and young adults [9]. It remains unclear why younger patients are more prone to develop this adverse effect. A possible explanation could be related to the stronger immune response in younger patients, which can also explain the higher prevalence of side effects to the vaccines in this patient population [10].

While certainly a pattern worth exploring, this case series has numerous limitations, including a small sample size, variation in workup and treatment strategies, and retrospective analysis insufficient to establish causality. Nevertheless, the odds of incidental seronegative viral myocarditis occurring in four patients presenting to a single medical center within days of vaccine administration would be long. The authors would encourage further investigation and reporting of potential cases of post-vaccine myocarditis. The authors seek not to frustrate vaccination efforts, but rather to prepare patients and providers for a rare but potential adverse effect. Furthermore, the authors hope the dramatic improvement in all four patients will reassure those who do suffer from myocarditis following vaccination.​

Nothingburger.
As I suspect the other 999 are. These kinds of lists are the results of keyword searches made by people with limited understanding of the tentative nature of science, especially health-related science, in pursuit of "victory" for their fringe beliefs.
Sad.

I'm not sure I see an absolute refutation here, tas8831. Simply citing some weak attempts by one's opposition doesn't thereby assure us of the complete solidity of our own view on an issue.

What might our university professors say about doing more balanced and fair investigation and basic research when exploring the details of a controversial topic? Should I just stop here since in your OP you've already concluded with a solid "nothingburger"?

 

[tas8831]

sounds like a conspircy to me to cover up the truth

By anti-vaxxers, yes.

 

[tas8831]

I'm not sure I see an absolute refutation here, tas8831. Simply citing some weak attempts by one's opposition doesn't thereby assure us of the complete solidity of our own view on an issue.

No, but it shows the incompetence and dishonesty of the fringe.

What might our university professors say about doing more balanced and fair investigation and basic research when exploring the details of a controversial topic?

They might suggest this to the fringers.

Should I just stop here since in your OP you've already concluded with a solid "nothingburger"?

You should be skeptical of the claims of anti-vaxxers and conspiracy nuts, and anti-vax types should double-check their sources before putting them forward as "world renowned experts" and their lists of this or that really ARE the lists of the things they assume they are, and the like, which was the whole point.

If you read the OP, you would see how the claim that this paper was one of a 1000 that "questioned Covid vaccine safety" should make one at least suspicious about the intent and honesty and competence of those pushing the anti-Trump vaccine narrative.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This reply was to the phrase "ScienceDirect" (and just that phrase) clipped from @tas8831 's post:

sounds like a conspircy to me to cover up the truth

"ScienceDirect" is the name of the web portal one large, European publishing company has for its very large collection of journals and to manage their paywall. It is not a conspiracy. Just a lot of rent seeking from a commercial publisher. Fortunately in my field the leading (and dominant) journals are published by professional societies.

 

[tas8831]

This reply was to the phrase "ScienceDirect" (and just that phrase) clipped from @tas8831 's post:


"ScienceDirect" is the name of the web portal one large, European publishing company has for its very large collection of journals and to manage their paywall. It is not a conspiracy. Just a lot of rent seeking from a commercial publisher. Fortunately in my field the leading (and dominant) journals are published by professional societies.

Aye...
Seems the gullible anti-vaxxers have to grasp onto anything they can rather than actually trey to understand the issues.

 

[tas8831]

Just to expand on a point:

What might our university professors say about doing more balanced and fair investigation and basic research when exploring the details of a controversial topic?

Not sure what this is intended to mean - are you saying in the name of 'fairness', they should automatically look for bad things to write about the vaccine, Fox-style? Had you considered that plain old research maybe doesn't give support to anti-vax claims regardless of how much they want it to?

Is it your position that all scientific issues must always, in the name of more fairness, present 'both sides' and let people that cannot even pronounce half the words in the published work 'decide' what it means?

A few years back, House member Eric Cantor wanted to 'let his voters decide' the merits of scientific research proposals seeking grant funding. He made the abstracts (only the abstracts) available on a website, and encouraged feedback. From people that had never done scientific research, sought federal funding, etc.
Long story short - he ended up quietly getting rid of the website because it became quite clear that all this did was open the floodgates for goobers and rubes to do keyword searches for things they didn't like and declare those proposals bad. Even populist charlatan Cantor saw the mistake he'd made.

Here we are, a decade or so later, and some are actively encouraging goobers and rubes to "do science by keyword search" and have an undeserved seat at the table.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Just to expand on a point:
Not sure what this is intended to mean - are you saying in the name of 'fairness', they should automatically look for bad things to write about the vaccine, Fox-style? Had you considered that plain old research maybe doesn't give support to anti-vax claims regardless of how much they want it to?

No, more precisely what I'm intending to imply is that in the name of 'academic integrity' and education you, as an atheist, would do better I think to do the fair and balanced research for 'the other guys' so as to make available the best data and information. You also need to be able to address in academically critical fashion the more robust and professional peer-reviewed journals and/or books that are presented to you from 'the other side.'

I hear atheists on youtube saying that for the sake of argument and integrity they attempt to "steel-man" the opposing side. I think that's a great endeavor, but all too often the attempt to "steel-man" seems to preclude doing the work of actually finding the 'best' documents that contribute to an opposing side or mind-set. For the sake of fuller education, I think it benefits everyone if we all could attempt to do our utmost to investigate in triangulating fashion any issue--including those pertaining to politics and health crises--we may encounter and wish to weigh in on, especially for the purpose of communicating and having an understanding of others.

Is it your position that all scientific issues must always, in the name of more fairness, present 'both sides' and let people that cannot even pronounce half the words in the published work 'decide' what it means?

Yes. And if 'your' side is the stronger, then the fact that when you do the Literary Review research FOR the other side you end up actually finding much less data or analysis in comparison to all that you may find for your own side, then THAT can also be readily pointed out to the 'other side.'

For instance, I understand your gripe when someone who is an anti-vax advocate tosses a list at you which supposedly has a 1000 peer-reviewed articles. That is frustrating, especially if you know that a lot of those articles aren't really even qualified and professional journal articles but rather merely 3rd party 'science' or political advocacy articles.

However, just for the sake of a small suggestion, when you come to the first item you mention in your OP, rather than pulling up the '1st article' and slamming it for its obvious less than satisfactory level of insight, you do further lit reviews and see if you can find both valid, academic and professional articles (recent, relevant and peer-reviewed, obviously) to lay beside the singular article you're wanting to refute or criticize. In this case, you engage an article in your OP that has to do with Myocarditis following mRNA vaccination. Ok then. All you have to do is do some Lit Review and see what you can find (preferably with a medical database). But being that we all don't have the expensive access of a university at our fingertips, then we may just have to settle for Googling with Google or Google Scholar.

So, when I just throw out a search for Myocarditis following mRNA vaccination, a number of articles come up and, if it were me, I'd gather them as best I can and present them. But just one example here is all I'll print for the sake of what I'm saying:

Williams, C. B., Choi, J. I., Hosseini, F., Roberts, J., Ramanathan, K., & Ong, K. (2021). Acute Myocarditis Following mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination. CJC open, 3(11), 1410-1412. [link below]

Acute Myocarditis Following mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination​

That's easy enough, and we can read the article and also see that there are at least several recent references in the Bibliography that show from where the basic findings were drawn for further consideration in the existing article. This can be expanded to whatever else also appears in our search.

And we do this for the sake of education (and to possibly help allay paranoia).

A few years back, House member Eric Cantor wanted to 'let his voters decide' the merits of scientific research proposals seeking grant funding. He made the abstracts (only the abstracts) available on a website, and encouraged feedback. From people that had never done scientific research, sought federal funding, etc.

Yeah, and we all know that abstracts are limited.

[qute]Long story short - he ended up quietly getting rid of the website because it became quite clear that all this did was open the floodgates for goobers and rubes to do keyword searches for things they didn't like and declare those proposals bad. Even populist charlatan Cantor saw the mistake he'd made.[/quote] Well........if you want to stem the tide then you'll need to do their work for them rather than just calling them down or demonizing them. The upshot is that even if you're correct that they are goobers and rubes, by demonizing them you simply offer them rhetoric by which they then say to themselves, "See, I was right. They are the enemy. They don't care!!! Defy them!!!"

See what I mean?

Here we are, a decade or so later, and some are actively encouraging goobers and rubes to "do science by keyword search" and have an undeserved seat at the table.

I would recommend education .... .... ....

 

[Hans Blaster]

No, more precisely what I'm intending to imply is that in the name of 'academic integrity' and education you, as an atheist, would do better I think to do the fair and balanced research for 'the other guys' so as to make available the best data and information. You also need to be able to address in academically critical fashion the more robust and professional peer-reviewed journals and/or books that are presented to you from 'the other side.'

I hear atheists on youtube saying that for the sake of argument and integrity they attempt to "steel-man" the opposing side. I think that's a great endeavor, but all too often the attempt to "steel-man" seems to preclude doing the work of actually finding the 'best' documents that contribute to an opposing side or mind-set. For the sake of fuller education, I think it benefits everyone if we all could attempt to do our utmost to investigate in triangulating fashion any issue--including those pertaining to politics and health crises--we may encounter and wish to weigh in on, especially for the purpose of communicating and having an understanding of others.

What's being an atheist have to do with any of this? (Answer: Nothing. So why bring it up?)

Just because some atheists use this so-called "steel-man" technique (when arguing against religious claims, not things with acutal data mind you), doesn't mean anyone needs to use this technique when discussing scientific topics.

Yes. And if 'your' side is the stronger, then the fact that when you do the Literary Review research FOR the other side you end up actually finding much less data or analysis in comparison to all that you may find for your own side, then THAT can also be readily pointed out to the 'other side.'

If you're doing vaccine/disease research in the Literary Review, you are definitely doing it wrong:

The Literary Review

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What's being an atheist have to do with any of this? (Answer: Nothing. So why bring it up?)

Just because some atheists use this so-called "steel-man" technique (when arguing against religious claims, not things with acutal data mind you), doesn't mean anyone needs to use this technique when discussing scientific topics.



If you're doing vaccine/disease research in the Literary Review, you are definitely doing it wrong:

The Literary Review

I didn't yet describe the Lit Review process, now did I? Work with me here, Hans. If we've both been educated at State universities (or better), I think we both know what's involved.

And for the life of me, when I click on your link, I'm not seeing anything but some off-handed article ...

 

[Hans Blaster]

I didn't yet describe the Lit Review process, now did I? Work with me here, Hans. If we've both been educated at State universities (or better), I think we both know what's involved.

1. There is no better level than "state universities". (I have three degrees from state universities.)

2. Are you talking about a literature review? or are you confused about peer review?

And for the life of me, when I click on your link, I'm not seeing anything but some off-handed article ...

That's a link to the journal "The Literary Review". It's a journal on contemporary literature.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

1. There is no better level than "state universities". (I have three degrees from state universities.)

2. Are you talking about a literature review? or are you confused about peer review?



That's a link to the journal "The Literary Review". It's a journal on contemporary literature.

My apologies. Yes, I meant to say .......................**cough**..........Literature Review. But when I'm in a rush to write while on work break, I might slip a wrong term here or there.

I beg for your forgiveness ... Maybe I could just do two days in the stockade rather than four in this case ...

Pretty please?

 

[Hans Blaster]

My apologies. Yes, I meant to say .......................**cough**..........Literature Review. But when I'm in a rush to write while on work break, I might slip a wrong term here or there.

I beg for your forgiveness ... Maybe I could just do two days in the stockade rather than four in this case ...

Pretty please?

3 days.

 

[com7fy8]

In addition to these anecdotes, a multinational cohort study analyzed electronic health record databases and found the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis among vaccine recipients aged 18 to 35 to be approximately 0.016% for women and 0.037% for men [8].

So, it appears these statistics are from much more data than this one study reported in your article.

All experienced symptom resolution by the following day,

So, the symptoms involved the heart, which can in some titles get a lot of attention just because the heart is involved. And yet, they subsided by the next day!

A possible explanation could be related to the stronger immune response in younger patients, which can also explain the higher prevalence of side effects to the vaccines in this patient population [10].

 

[tas8831]

So, the symptoms involved the heart, which can in some title get a lot of attention just because the heart is involved. And yet, they subsided by the next day!

Indeed. Like I said - nothingburger.

 

[Alistair_Wonderland]

Nothingburger.
As I suspect the other 999 are.

I've done a great deal of research into the morality of Christian sexuality and what that entails. If I read one review and passed off the others because I "suspected they were the same", my research would have been quickly halted.
There are many well-informed people on both sides of the argument. To act as if your opposition is idiotic or "sad" indicates personal bias on your own part; you must take all factors into account, including the crazy ones, with an objective mind if you wish to truly understand a situation and how to resolve any problems.

Personally, I don't know enough about the science to make a statement either way; however, I can state that the heated debates on the subject seem to come from the fact that the subject has become, at least in America, a very politically charged subject (just like everything else in America nowadays), and so naturally this fosters mistrust and conflict. In ordinary circumstances, the vaccine would not have met nearly this level of pushback, but as certain political parties are avidly pushing for it and even bullying people over it, suddenly the matter leaves the realm of the medical and becomes a political matter. And as it is a political matter, any potential merits or problems with the vaccine will be played down or played up by people depending upon their political affiliation.

That said, I have this to state on the matter: listen to the opposition, whichever side of the argument they are on. There are plenty of crazy people; ignore them. There are many well-informed people on either side who, if you show a genuine interest, will be more than willing to help provide the information as to why they reached the conclusions that they have.

 

[tas8831]

I've done a great deal of research into the morality of Christian sexuality and what that entails. If I read one review and passed off the others because I "suspected they were the same", my research would have been quickly halted....

Good thing this is not a research outlet. Tell you what - feel free to take a look at the other 999 articles cited and point out a couple that do not fit this description (nothingburger).

Personally, I don't know enough about the science to make a statement either way

Then keep quiet on the subject.