Isn't it great when we discuss science transparently instead of trying to cancel one another?
I'm going to respond to the more substantive critiques.🧵
#1. "Diagnosis codes for cardiac-related deaths are imperfect."
Yes! But that is true for every subgroup we examined. Only in young men was the risk extremely high, and it was also increased in older men.
#2. "COVID test information was only available on death certificates."
No!
We used all of our data resources-test results, vaccine records, death records-to exclude individuals who had documented COVID-19 infection, as we write in the Methods section.
#3. "The sample size is too small."
3a. Elevated cardiac risk was also found in older men, and there were thousands of deaths in this group.
3b. The total cardiac deaths meeting inclusion criteria among young men was 77, not 20, as has been going around the web.
3c. Read the references about the method!
Self-controlled case series tell us whether events (death) are occurring unusually close to an exposure (mRNA Covid vaccine), or whether their timing is due to chance.
3c cont.
Even if the sample size was half of what it is, if events cluster after an exposure, that is valuable information about causation.
Finally, is it really that hard to imagine that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines that increase myocarditis in young men by 10x, 20x, or 30x (see Karlstad et al,
JAMA Cardiology, 2022) also increase the risk of cardiac death in that age group?
Of course it's not, and we all know that. 😉
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Multiple studies show negative vaccine effectiveness after a few months, meaning that people who receive the mRNA vaccines appear to have an increased risk of COVID infection. And the safety profile is terrible.
@CDCgov says signals of stroke risk with mRNA vaccination shouldn’t be taken seriously since other countries haven’t “flagged this safety issue.” 🧵reuters.com/business/healt…
But Scandinavian countries found this signal in population studies more than six months ago with the original mRNA COVID-19 vaccines! jamanetwork.com/journals/jaman…
👏🏼Bravo to these Harvard-affiliated researchers for finding that spike protein persists in the blood of young people who develop myocarditis after receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, which may explain the mechanism of injury... 🧵 ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CI…
However, the same researchers at @MassGenBrigham felt the need to immediately back-pedal in a press release in order to defend these vaccines’ adverse effects. "Risk of severe COVID-19" is still higher, they say. Are you sure that's true for young people? newswise.com/coronavirus/re…
Today, I joined @GovRonDeSantis to announce a new preventative COVID-19 monoclonal antibody therapy from AstraZeneca that will be available for immunocompromised individuals & those who have adverse reactions to the vaccine.
According to clinical trials, recipients of this new monoclonal antibody therapy saw a 77 percent reduced risk of developing COVID-19. We must provide protection options for all, & FL will continue to respond to COVID-19 with tangible, innovative solutions.
Eligible patients should contact their health care provider. Locations that will administer this monoclonal antibody therapy can be found at FloridaHealthCOVID19.gov. @HealthyFla will continue to update the public as this therapy is delivered from the federal government.
COVID-19 vaccines are effective at reducing the risk of severe illness, hospitalization & death. There are also concerns about uncommon but underreported adverse events, some data quality, & suppression of politically unpopular perspectives.
In Florida, we have always monitored all vaccine effectiveness & safety, including for COVID-19, while ensuring early access to treatment. No health challenge has a single answer. We must continue to evolve our understanding as new information emerges.