I appreciated the kind words of Prof Morris:
And, more reluctantly, the observation of one of his numerically-literate followers that I’d mis-characterized a CDC study on odds of getting myocarditis from Covid-19.
The “you’re 16X more likely to get myocarditis from covid” study.
I have seen that figure referenced twice in the last 24 hr, despite the study being 2 mo old.
It’s relevant now, in that lots of people are trying to assess the risk of myocarditis in kids if they choose/are mandated to have the vaccine vs if they do not.
My mistake? Image
I missed that this “hospital-based” study included hospital-based OUTPATIENT clinics where people were diagnosed with covid:
cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/7…
I had assumed that the denominator was all hospitalized patients, when really it was an unstated mix of inpatients and outpatients.
In retrospect, not I nor anyone should reference this study like it is useful for making population estimates.
Since hospitalized ppl are different than un-hospitalized ppl, it’s best to either use a whole population watershed (like the Israeli study on covid v vaccine events); ImageImage
Or just limit a study to hospitalized patients, as this is an accepted study design (albeit one with limited extension to the general population).
This MMWR did neither, mixing the two groups in an unstated proportion. Image
We’re left with the question, “16X more likely to get myocarditis than… whom?”
If the incidence rate of myocarditis from covid is very low, then being 16X higher does not imply the risk is greater from virus than vaccine - since mandates would require the vaccine for everyone.
We get from CDC’s COVID-NET population-based data that total hospitalizations for age 5-17 with covid is about 1/1500-2000 per annum. Unless a third of those kids are being diagnosed w/ myocarditis (and the MMWR suggests it’s <1%), the vaccine-induced risk is higher.
Far higher. Image
I hate pushing my mistakes out into the world.
But I’m grateful for when they are pointed out.
I’ll write the study author to see if they have the data on the mix of hospitalized covid cases vs outpatient.
Meanwhile, I wouldn’t this study as a justification for vaccine mandates.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Buzz Hollander MD

Buzz Hollander MD Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @buzzhollandermd

31 Oct
The reaction to the recent CDC MMWR on immunity after covid infection being 5X less protective than vaccination shows off everything that has been wrong about science communication through this pandemic.
cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/7…
“Told ya so” -
Seriously? Image
Public Health voices got their Gotchas in for anyone in anti-vax, anti-mandate, or just anti-establishment camps who ever dared to argue that we should consider immunity from prior infection on par with vaccination in terms of protection from disease.
But what DID the study show?
A: Not much.
Anyone claiming this study shows that unvaccinated people with prior infection are 5X more likely to be hospitalized than fully vaccinated people, probably either did not read the study, or did not understand it.
And should not be tweeting about it. Image
Read 9 tweets
30 Oct
This Lancet study from the UK has fueled a lot of “gotchas,” only some of which are appropriate. It’s interesting, though:
thelancet.com/journals/lanin…
The take-away: vaccinated ppl with “breakthrough” infections were as likely to spread to household members as unvaccinated ppl.
Take w/ a grain of salt, as even a smart, prospective study like this cannot avoid major confounders, esp when this small (163 cases, 232 household contacts). The index cases captured in this study might not represent average folks.
Still - this is as good as we’ve got. Image
I feel like some public health voices looked at the data from Singapore and N Illinois with rose-colored glasses and decided infected vaccinated ppl have lesser viral loads or less viable virus to spread; that’s not how I saw the same data.
ITRW, this study suggests the contrary. Image
Read 7 tweets
10 Jul
#ivermectin for covid has been in heavy-play mode in the media again.
Why?
A new trial report, and 3 meta-analyses.
As usual, half the world thinks these are proof of the #ivermectincure and half thinks it's bogus.
Why can't we all get along?

foxnews.com/media/biologis…
@DrAndrewHill released his team's meta-analysis right on the heels of 2 other meta-analyses, one positive & one negative. Dr Hill, who has been a bit of an ivermectin cheerleader, had a positive conclusion:
academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-a…
A huge concern w/ any meta-analysis is "Garbage In, Garbage Out" - and we've plenty of garbage in the IM world.
Whether a study rates inclusion and how it gets weighted in a meta-analysis can swing the conclusion.
These meta-analyses don't move the needle.
Read 13 tweets
14 Mar
Another look at long covid out in a pre-print, from @mlipsitch&co:
medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
I'm not surprised, but at last someone had the notion to compare folks post-covid to folks post-viral-infection, non-covid.
The headline is "14% had sequelae" but they buried the lede! 1/6
First, the limitations:
1) totally based, not on survey/exam, but on MD-reported ICD-10 codes; so these are "long," possibly random, symptoms bad enough to see an MD and have them code it.
2) retrospective cohort, so all the usual bias & matching concerns.
3) only age 18-65. 2/6
But it was HUGE (>200K matched cases), which helps;
and fairly well-matched;
and, at last, well-chosen cohorts (2020 no covid, 2019, pre-2020 viral).
WHAT DID THEY FIND???
Post-covid, you had a 14.6% chance of seeing an MD for post-viral problems.
Pre-2020 virus? 13%. 3/6
Read 8 tweets
13 Mar
I am not terribly excited about the "clot" concerns for AZ/Ox in Europe:
medscape.com/viewarticle/94…
Both because it's not in the US, and I didn't like their data or how they collected it very much;
and because I am not sure this is a story. 1/3
I mean, if the avg vaccinated pop would have about a 1/6000 risk per mo of a VTE as the background rate;
and 5M ppl got the AZ/Ox in the past mo;
we'd expect >800 VTEs in any circumstance, not 30! 2/3
Maybe the up side of this latest issue w/ the ill-fated AZ/Ox vaccine is for all the Vax-suspicious out there:
living proof that Big Pharma, Big Govt,etc isn't doing a very good job of "covering up" adverse events.
Arguably, they're swinging too far to the other extreme here! 3/3
Read 4 tweets
12 Mar
I missed this disturbing/fascinating bit on leaked docs w/ quality control issues from the Pfizer vaccine:
bmj.com/content/372/bm…
A reminder that just because Big Pharma hits a home run, they (& the medical-industrial complex) are not suddenly warm and fuzzy trusted friends. 1/3
I wish I understood mRNA vaccines better, but the bottom line appears to be:
these mRNA particles tucked in those lipid nanoparticle membranes are frail;
they degrade easily;
and you want them to be intact when they hit our cells, so the proper protein complexes are formed. 2/3
Since "commercial grade" seems to be 75-80% intact mRNA, and the "bad" batches were around 55%, that would imply about a third less production of proper spike-like proteins.
Not from zero to something, but from 25% to 45%.
So - I doubt these are forming *dangerous* proteins. Image
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(