How big of a problem is acute COVID myocarditis for children?
Pediatric cardiologist Dr. Matthew Oster, in his presentation to VRBPAC : “we had no cases to include in our analysis .. “
The majority of cases of myocarditis in children are based on its association with MIS-C .. but MIS-C myocarditis has almost no cardiac enzyme leak , and is not associated with any persistent cardiac changes on MRI in follow up.
Again compare this to vaccine myocarditis … where kids present with chest pain, have a higher troponin leak, and a third of these previously healthy kids have abnormal MRIs 3 months after..
Perfectly reasonable to choose to vaccinate your children, but we certainly don’t have to manufacture reasons to compel/persuade parents to do so
Important to put COVID - cardiac apocalypse papers in context.
Reports of Sars-COV2 and & cardiac proclivity have proliferated since early 2020.
Here is @JAMACardio saying that "78% of sur-
vivors had lingering heart disease, of which 60% had myocarditis"
Here's a frequently cited preprint studying health care workers that suggested rates of myocarditis, myopericarditis, and pericarditis at 26%, 11%, and 4% respectively long after sars-cov2 recovery.
But these studies relied heavily on abnormal cardiac MRIs only to make the diagnosis of myocarditis. The healthcare worker study only had 1 patient that leaked cardiac enzymes, & half had NO symptoms. Prior to 2020 you needed clinical criteria AND abnormal imaging.
Next, expert notes Covid mortality in the young is 1/1000. He’s corrected by a sharp @joshzepps that the # is actually 1/10000 (500/5mil) & that 5 mil is prob an undercount.
So @joshzepps facts check his expert live to combat misinformation from expert 😂 2/
When @joshzepps brings up recent study in Nature from Oxford that shows higher rates of myocarditis with vaxx than COVID in young men specifically, Expert discounts this..saying Israeli data is better. He’s referring to this paper by Barda et al. In Sep 2021 which does show ⬆️ 3/
This is the myocarditis study that was brought up by journalist @joshzepps who 'debunked' @joerogan tinyurl.com/2httdr9n
Only problem: paper made the diagnosis based on certain diagnostic codes that were charted. ICD10 codes listed include R01.1 (cardiac murmur unspecified)
Studies that are more rigorous about how myocarditis was defined (requiring lab abnormalities + imaging abnormalities + clinical symptoms) show vaxx myocarditis rates >> COVID myocarditis rates
There is a CDC report floating around that claims a 16x higher rate of myocarditis (this was mentioned by @drsanjaygupta on @joerogan ) . There are some basic major issues with this as well that I go into on this thread
A quick word about Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE). Must say, there is nothing to suggest this is operative at present with Sars-COV2 or the vaccines for it, but the historical context is very interesting!
ADE occurs when the antibodies generated during an immune response recognize and bind to a pathogen, but instead of preventing infection, the complex allows easier access of the pathogen into the cell.
When vaccinated individuals fall ill this is but one possibility..
The other possibilities are : 1. A mild illness (evidence the vaccine worked to prevent more severe disease 2. A breakthrough (a term normally used to describe severe illness that results even after a vaccine, which cld mean the vaxx didnt work, didnt generate enough antibodies)
Its possible for the following 2 things to be true :
1. Vaccines appear to be safe for most people, and appear to be effective in reducing the burden of severe disease
2. mRNA vaccines are associated with myocarditis (the CDC agrees : tinyurl.com/kfj9kc9y)
Much of the debate from mostly non-cardiologists focuses on "mildness" of vaxx-myocarditis, and risk of myocarditis from Sars-COV2 (COVID).
Some thoughts :
1st - multiple datasets beyond the much maligned VAERS report links vaccines with
myocarditis
Israeli Study: Notice uptick after 2nd shot.
"Most cases were mild or moderate in severity, but one patient had cardiogenic shock, and one patient with preexisting cardiac disease died of an unknown cause soon after hospital discharge." tinyurl.com/hd3nrbun
@Jabaluck acknowledges the concern about effective randomization because the survey teams that enrolled participants were more motivated to enroll patients in villages randomized to masks. [~14,000 more Pts were in the mask intervention than control.]
This imbalance creates a potential fundamental problem because the 1º endpoint (symptomatic sero positive patients) only differed by a total of 20 cases in the 10,000 out of 300,000 patients that were convinced to give blood samples.