Make sure you read this CDC Report

[Jeff P]

The study with the largest sample size I am aware of was published in ELSEVIER on the Science Direct site almost a month ago.


ELSEVIER | Feb 12, 2024
COVID-19 vaccines and adverse events of special interest: A multinational Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...64410X24001270

Methods

Using a common protocol, this observational cohort study compared observed with expected rates of 13 selected AESI across neurological, haematological, and cardiac outcomes. Expected rates were obtained by participating sites using pre-COVID-19 vaccination healthcare data stratified by age and sex. Observed rates were reported from the same healthcare datasets since COVID-19 vaccination program rollout. AESI occurring up to 42 days following vaccination with mRNA (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273) and adenovirus-vector (ChAdOx1) vaccines were included in the primary analysis. Risks were assessed using observed versus expected (OE) ratios with 95 % confidence intervals. Prioritised potential safety signals were those with lower bound of the 95 % confidence interval (LBCI) greater than 1.5.

Results

Participants included 99,068,901 vaccinated individuals. In total, 183,559,462 doses of BNT162b2, 36,178,442 doses of mRNA-1273, and 23,093,399 doses of ChAdOx1 were administered across participating sites in the study period. Risk periods following homologous vaccination schedules contributed 23,168,335 person-years of follow-up. OE ratios with LBCI > 1.5 were observed for Guillain-Barré syndrome (2.49, 95 % CI: 2.15, 2.87) and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (3.23, 95 % CI: 2.51, 4.09) following the first dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis showed an OE ratio of 3.78 (95 % CI: 1.52, 7.78) following the first dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine. The OE ratios for myocarditis and pericarditis following BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and ChAdOx1 were significantly increased with LBCIs > 1.5.

Conclusion

This multi-country analysis confirmed pre-established safety signals for myocarditis, pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. Other potential safety signals that require further investigation were identified.

From page 5 of the PDF version or about 1/5th of the way down from the top in the html version:

Table 5
Aggregated OE Ratios by last dose, cardiovascular conditions, period 0–42 days.

The authors compiled OE (Observed vs. Expected) Ratios for AESI (Adverse Events of Special Interest) using the health care records of more than 99 Million people vaccinated against Covid-19 in eight countries (Argentina, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, New Zealand, and Scotland.)

Looking at the last or most recent dose from each of the three major vaccine makers - Oxford/Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna:

For EVERY DOSE:

The OE Ratios for both Myocarditis and Pericarditis were higher than expected and statistically significant.

For both Pfizer and Moderna:

The Myocarditis OE Ratios were MORE THAN TWO TIMES HIGHER than expected.

Sample size: 99 Million vaccinated, 242.8 Million doses, and 23.1 Million person-years of follow-up.


-jp
.

[xtb]

Originally Posted by mostpost

There are literally dozens of studies out there and they all show the same thing. There is a small increase in the incidence of myocarditis. But it is generally short lived and has few lasting effects. On the other hand an unvaccinated person who contracts Covid is 11 to 15 times more likely to suffer from Myocarditis as a vaccinated person.

Please show us some of these studies that show an unvaccinated person who contracts Covid is 11 to 15 times more likely to suffer from Myocarditis as a vaccinated person.

[davew]

Originally Posted by xtb

Please show us some of these studies that show an unvaccinated person who contracts Covid is 11 to 15 times more likely to suffer from Myocarditis as a vaccinated person.

don't hold your breath, mostly propaganda was saying for many months after proof to the contrary ... 'if you are vaccinated, you can not catch covid'

[xtb]

Originally Posted by davew

don't hold your breath, mostly propaganda was saying for many months after proof to the contrary ... 'if you are vaccinated, you can not catch covid'

I know, the studies Musty speaks of don't exist. It's an outright lie. It's what he does. He is either incredibly dumb or he's getting paid to post his lies.

[woodtoo]

Originally Posted by xtb

I know, the studies Musty speaks of don't exist. It's an outright lie. It's what he does. He is either incredibly dumb or he's getting paid to post his lies.

100%

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by xtb

I know, the studies Musty speaks of don't exist. It's an outright lie. It's what he does. He is either incredibly dumb or he's getting paid to post his lies.

I will pick the bolded, at first I thought he was just trying to be an annoying troll.

[jimmyb]

Originally Posted by xtb

I know, the studies Musty speaks of don't exist. It's an outright lie. It's what he does. He is either incredibly dumb or he's getting paid to post his lies.

He needs to justify his 20 boosters

[Jeff P]

I found a meta-analysis of studies by researchers at Penn State from 2022, and I suspect it's the study Mostpost was referring to.

Myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection vs. COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...22.951314/full

Methods: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the WHO Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease) and trial registries were searched up to May 2022, for randomized controlled trials and observational cohort studies reporting the risk of myocarditis associated with the COVID-19 vaccines and the risk associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We estimated the effect of COVID-19 infection and vaccines on rates of myocarditis by random-effects meta-analyses using the generic inverse variance method. Meta-regression analyses were conducted to assess the effect of sex and age on the incidence of myocarditis.

Results: We identified 22 eligible studies consisting of 55.5 million vaccinated cohorts and 2.5 million in the infection cohort. The median age was 49 years (interquartile range (IQR): 38–56), and 49% (IQR: 43 to 52%) were men. Of patients diagnosed with myocarditis (in both vaccination and COVID-19 cohort) 1.07% were hospitalized and 0.015% died. The relative risk (RR) for myocarditis was more than seven times higher in the infection group than in the vaccination group [RR: 15 (95% CI: 11.09–19.81, infection group] and RR: 2 (95% CI: 1.44-2.65, vaccine group). Of patients who developed myocarditis after receiving the vaccine or having the infection, 61% (IQR: 39–87%) were men. Meta-regression analysis indicated that men and younger populations had a higher risk of myocarditis. A slow decline in the rates of myocarditis was observed as a function of time from vaccination. The risk of bias was low.

Figure 2. Association of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination versus SARS-CoV-2 infection. The risk of myocarditis from infection was more than 7-fold higher than vaccination.

Figure 3. Myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination stratified by vaccine type. The risk of myocarditis was highest in the Moderna vaccine group.

One thing sticks out to me here.

The reported RR (Risk Ratio) for Pfizer and Moderna in Figure 3 in this study are statistically significant - and they similar to the OE (Observed vs Expected) ratios reported by the authors of the newer/larger sample size GVDN cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals I posted above.


-jp
.

[PaceAdvantage]

mostpost dismisses SCIENCE when it means he can still live in his cult-like existence

He wants none of YOUR SCIENCE Jeff...it shatters his little world...

He will never address your posts because he is without the ability to do so...so he ignores

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

mostpost dismisses SCIENCE when it means he can still live in his cult-like existence

He wants none of YOUR SCIENCE Jeff...it shatters his little world...

He will never address your posts because he is without the ability to do so...so he ignores

I hope you aren't just noticing that he runs and hides when he is dumb enough to engage someone personally knowledgeable of a subject or a quick study of it, in a debate, and gets lit up like a Christmas tree.


Just from reading his posts and seeing his website Jeff makes a living or a "great side hustle"* writing and selling horse handicapping software. You have to be pretty bright to write computer code, as I do some myself.. Anyway, besides whatever his day job is, Jeff either has a medical background or understands the jargon and is a quick learner.



Why Cliffy keeps trying to take on someone with expert or close knowledge on a subject he has none on is baffling. For the record I am still waiting for Cliffy to show subject knowledge other than how to hurl 3rd grade level insults or find pictures of naked young boys, he is damn good at those.



*Side hustle is new jargon I picked up, reading posts on MSN.

[Tom]

mostpost thinks he's Professor Proton.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

mostpost dismisses SCIENCE when it means he can still live in his cult-like existence

He wants none of YOUR SCIENCE Jeff...it shatters his little world...

He will never address your posts because he is without the ability to do so...so he ignores

Appreciate the sentiment.

But you and I both know it's not MY science.

I'm just a computer programmer who's always been fascinated by the natural world we live in.

A lay person who took a deep dive down a rabbit hole when the pandemic arrived once I realized so much of what they were telling us didn't make sense.

Looking back, I think the first thing that sent me down the rabbit hole was that Johns Hopkins digital dashboard with the interactive map showing all those cases and deaths in red.

Imo, that was the single most effective well crafted webpage I've ever seen for controlling a narrative.

Millions, strike that, tens of millions of us, including myself, at least at first, were mesmerized by it.

But there was just one problem.

The digital dashboards all had a fatal flaw.

One that wasn't obvious to 99% of the people looking at them.

That fatal flaw was revealed the first time John Ioannidis of Stanford University and others published seroprevalence results:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9613797/

If you applied just the tiniest bit of critical thinking:

Infections reported on the digital dashboards (and infections that would later be reported in medical studies) were confirmed by positive pcr test.

Test kits were at a premium in early 2020. The vast majority of people getting tested were those with symptoms severe enough that they felt genuinely sick.

If you didn't present as genuinely sick you weren't getting tested.

Seroprevalence testing proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the actual number of infections was orders of magnitude HIGHER than the number of cases reported by the Johns Hopkins digital dashboard.

It followed the actual infection case fatality rate was orders of magnitude LOWER than the digital dashboards were showing and what the people pushing the narrative would have us believe.

...the respective age groups median IFR estimates were 0.001%, 0.010%, 0.023%, 0.050%, 0.15%, and 0.49% (Axfors and Ioannidis, 2022)

That's what initially sent me down the rabbit hole.

At the time, I couldn't possibly imagine, not in a million years, the fustercluck that was waiting there.

End of Part I.


-jp
.

[classhandicapper]

That fatal flaw was revealed the first time John Ioannidis of Stanford University and others published seroprevalence results:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9613797/

He took a LOT of heat for that little bit of truth telling. I didn't read that study. It was over my head. But I read an analysis of that study I did understand and immediately understood the risks were way lower than being presented and it was very significant to consider age and health status.

I got the first two doses (I was already in my 60s and could get it fairly quickly), but then I started reading English language news papers that were covering the results out of Israel and how it was failing to protect people. At the same time the early red flags about the risks of the vaccine itself were creeping into the non mainstream conversation. So I didn't' get a booster.

I don't feel badly about my decisions. I was acting on the information I had at the time and felt I was WAY ahead of the mainstream US narrative at the time. It wouldn't be so bad if honest mistakes were being made, but the government, media, health care experts etc...were clear cut and obvious lying sacks of shit on many of the questions. IMO they were/are pure evil vermin. That's what has me so pissed off. Some of them should clearly be in jail or worse.

And to be clear, I'm still not sure what the vaccine risks were/are. I just know on a risk reward basis it looks like a terrible bet for many young healthy people. And that goes double if you already had Covid. So mandating to everyone regardless of age and health was a bad mistake and mandating to people that already had Covid was criminally stupid

[Jeff P]

He DID take a lot of heat didn't he?

As did many others.

And as many others still are.


-jp
.

[Jeff P]

According to the CDC, seroprevalence testing shows 58.7% of the US population had Covid antibodies from prior infection as of 06-30-2022.

Clickable thumbnail attached below

According to the US Census site the population of the US was about 333.3 million as of 07-01-2022.

58.7% of 333.3 million works out to about 195.7 million people in the US who had at least one Covid infection as of 06-30-2022.

According to the interactive chart on the USAFacts.Org site about 67% of the US population or 223.3 million people were fully vaccinated for Covid as of 06-30-2022.



Something else sticks out to me about the Penn State study from post #23 above:

The authors looked at randomized controlled trials and observational cohort studies reporting the risk of myocarditis associated with the COVID-19 vaccines and the risk associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection up to May 2022.

They identified 22 eligible studies consisting of 55.5 million vaccinated cohorts and 2.5 million in the infection cohort.



The authors included 55.5 million in their Vaccine Cohort or 24.85% of the 223.3 million people in the US who were fully vaccinated for Covid as of 06-30-2022.

But they only managed to include 2.5 million in their Infection Cohort or 1.2% of the 195.7 million people who were reported by the CDC to have Covid antibodies (and therefore at least one prior Covid infection) as of 06-30-2022.

Read those two sentences again and let it sink in.



The Infection Cohort in the author's meta-analysis was pulled together from studies like this one, listed as #36 in the citations section towards the very bottom.

If you read that study you'll find the following in the third paragraph down from the top:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7114e1.htm

Five cohorts were created using coded EHR data among persons aged ≥5 years: 1) an infection cohort (persons who received ≥1 positive SARS-CoV-2 molecular or antigen test result); 2) a first dose cohort (persons who received a first dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine); 3) a second dose cohort (persons who received a second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine); 4) an unspecified dose cohort (persons who received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose not specified as a first or second dose); and 5) an any dose cohort (persons who received any mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose).

Everyone in the Infection Cohort was confirmed by a positive test.

You'd want that right? (Because you wouldn't want anyone in the Infection Cohort who wasn't infected.)

On the surface that sounds really good.

But it misses the big picture.


The Vaccine Cohort in the meta-analysis captured about 25% of the US population that was fully vaccinated when the study was ended.

I think it's a safe bet the Vaccine Cohort is representative of the overall US population that was fully vaccinated when the study was ended.


But the Infection Cohort?

I think it's a safe bet the Infection Cohort is NOT representative of the overall US population that had been infected when the study was ended.

The ONLY people in the Infection Cohort were those who felt genuinely sick enough to seek treatment. (Again just 1.2% of the 195.7 million people who were actually infected.)


The other 98.8% of the people in the health care databases used by the authors of this study who were actually infected?

They never sought treatment. Could it be because they never felt sick enough to do so?

There's a HUGE BIAS in the Infection Cohort of this study.

It has the same fatal flaw as the Johns Hopkins Dashboard in early 2020.


Fwiw, I've reached out to the authors with some questions.

If they respond to me I'll come back to this thread and post an update.



-jp
.