Last week, Florida's Governor Ron DeSantis convened a panel of 'experts' to try and prove mRNA vaccines are unsafe.
We wanted to point out some key myths which illustrate how they continue to mislead people. 🧵
Many of their claims center around distorting the real side-effect of myocarditis. The first is this narrative that history has shown that this side effect is riskier for kids than the virus.
We *know* this is false. AAP data show most kids 12-17 were fully vaccinated by August.
At this point, national data showed only 543 confirmed cases of vaccine-associated myocarditis in kids. And since 0-11 year olds are at very low risk for this event, there would be a limit to its scale.
Contrast this with 170000+ reported pediatric hospitalizations from COVID.
Another set of myths involves looking at the original clinical trials to determine if vaccines "really work."
This makes no sense because (in the US) we intentionally limited harms from COVID in the trial. The reason being so that the placebo group could get the vaccine...
When you look at real-world data for hundreds of thousands of ppl—matched by age, gender and class—you find all of the most significant outcomes are FAR worse with COVID.
This is better than cherry picking small trials designed not to let people get hurt. nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NE…
Panelist Joseph Ladapo then tries to claim that vaccine harms go unreported because: "These people are dying before they get to the hospital."
That's categorically false. Studies using electronic data on outcomes (instead of voluntary reports) find no increase in arrhythmia.
Ladapo also tries to claim that autopsies show vaccine associated sudden cardiac death.
His only proof is a case report with four older patients who died of arrhythmia. While they did have subclinical myocarditis, they also had pre-existing heart disease.
This study did show a slight increase following Moderna's vaccine (with a much smaller sample), but this was based on 48 events and the confidence interval included no increase in risk. So the evidence is insufficient.
Meaning—at worst—Ladapo should just opt to recommend Pfizer.
Instead, he claims that the COVID vaccine has been shown to increase "cardiac mortality" in young men.
This isn't true. In fact, we've followed these rumors for a long time and it's hard to find any clear cut cases in the US where vaccine myocarditis was fatal...
That's not to say it hasn't ever happened (we examine some edge cases in the article below), only that if it does it's exceedingly rare.
Nonetheless, Florida's government promised to uncover some hidden harms and will keep pushing this narrative...
The Hep B vaccine is now given at birth, but starting *this year* all adults <60 are recommended to get it.
I talked to the CDC's former viral hepatitis lead Dr. John Ward to understand why 🧵
First, what is viral hepatitis?
Viral hepatitis comprises a few different infections caused by viruses Hepatitis A, B, C, D and E. While A and E mostly cause acute disease, the others including B often lead to chronic infection.
HepB in particular is a lifelong infection.
HepB is harmful because chronic infection is a leading cause of liver cancer.
In the US, between 1-2 MM people have chronic HepB. Most are unaware. And while it travels through body fluids, it's so infectious that transmission can happen through casual contact. (Dr. Ward ⬇️)
Since the EUA for COVID vaccines for kids under 5, there have been some high-profile misconceptions about the recommendation.
It's an issue because this virus isn't going away and newborns have a chance at immunity before infection. So here's why we recommend the vaccine (🧵)
First, authorization.
The concern here has been that the vax trials were too small to detect many severe outcomes. And so some people say we "don't know" whether vaccine works.
That's misleading. The stated basis for the EUA was what's known as immunobridging. (2)
Immunobridging is when you have a new use for an effective vaccine and want to get the dose right.
Both the Pfizer + Moderna trials showed good immune response in kids (>=1 GMTR) with high statistical confidence. This—not efficacy—is why the vaccine was unanimously approved. (3)
My repeated attempts to address concerns about long-term effects from vaccines have led me to believe that people must not know what infectious diseases can do.
So in this 🧵 I will cite a variety of sources to show they are what cause such effects. (3)
Recently, a paper in Scientific Reports began circling that suggests mRNA vaccines may have yet undetected heart risks. The authors used EMS data in Israel looking at calls for cardiovascular events.
They also draw some conclusions that go beyond their data. A 🧵 (1)
First, it should be noted that some people are saying this was published in Nature.
It wasn't. Scientific reports is a mega journal, publishing the largest # of articles in the world and specifically selects papers for their methods rather than their immediate importance. (2)
That's not a knock against the authors, because for the most part we're not looking at their methods.
So what did they do?
They looked at rates of emergency medical calls for two conditions--cardiac arrest (CA) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS)--across Israel during COVID. (3)
One common objection to vaccination goes like: "I'm healthy. I'll overcome disease naturally."
People believe that because we evolved to deal with viruses, we don't need to immunize.
Turns out this isn't true. Today you face viruses a caveman would never dream of. 🧵 (1)
This thread is about a term we hear often, natural immunity 🍃
There's a certain ring to it as if getting sick is what your ancestors would have wanted.
And while it is true that we have an *amazing* immune system, the world is much, much different than it used to be. (2)
Let's start with some facts. You obviously did evolve to handle a lot of exposures throughout your life.
We know this because even your average baby--with an immature immune system--fights off millions of potential microbial threats every single day | kqed.org/stateofhealth/… (3)
I reached out to Dr. Paul Offit for comment on this study. Here's what he said. (🧵/4)
1⃣ The drop in observed protection against infection is not surprising. When the 💉 was approved, 45% of kids in this age group had antibodies. Many more do now. So 💉 has a robust competitor.
2⃣ The 💉 still functions as intended. A 💉 against mucosal infection won't stop infection forever.
"I don't think it's weaker" Paul said. It should still provide long-lasting protection against severe disease (thru memory B and T cells) and beget hybrid immunity post-infection.
3⃣ A max of 8 kids in the 5-11 💉 group were hospitalized per week.
"I mean, who are these people? We don't know," said Paul. They could be kids who were at risk (e.g. immunocompromised), not quite representative of the broader population.