Discussion about this post

User's avatar
All who wander's avatar

Appreciate another good write-up here. The sheer number of confounding factors with all of these studies render then nearly useless. The issues related to testing and diagnosis alone with so many asymptomatic cases make all of this virtually impossible to unpack. That said, your conclusion is spot-on. Even if the vaccines work perfectly, and clearly they do not, the myocarditis discussion relies completely on the rate of infection in the involved cohorts. That exact value that will never be close to accurate unless participants are tested every day independent of symptoms for months on end and the testers are blinded as to the vaccine status of those tested. (And you were, rightly, all over this point.)

Goodness, I would love to participate in that study... But, without it, there is no proof of vaccine utility or relative safety. And there is no way my teenagers are going to be vaccinated. Particularly after they all had it last year and were barely symptomatic. What is their risk/benefit? Certainly unfavorable. And further boosters will likely have further risks of cardiac issues, again relative to risk of new infection, and the whole cycle continues....

Oh, and I did notice the footnote that they are only comparing to the second dose. So, the first dose increases the risk of illness (well documented) who end up in the unvaccinated cohort (less than 14d after vaccination) and their risk of cardiac issues does not count. Well, that sure seems fair. How many jokers do you have in that deck, anyway???

Expand full comment
Ms. P's avatar

I don't have the skillset to unpack all of the shenanigans, but I know when something is "off." I worked as a data-collector for research, including for one big pharma-study. This CDC study was very murky (putting it kindly). I shared your substack on Twitter. Hopefully, others weigh in!

Expand full comment
5 more comments...

No posts