If you didn't get the jab, would you consider having it now?

[AreYouVeryAnti]

You'd better be quick if you're healthy and under 50...

"The Telegraph understands the Government is also preparing to wind down the open offer of the first two doses over the coming months. The move will mean unvaccinated healthy under-50s will soon not be able to get a Covid jab unless one is recommended by a medical professional."

Most people aren't going to want to download random pdfs posted on a forum @peppathe3rd - do you have a link to the journal it is published in.



it is a link that sends you to the medical journal. i don't think it's a random pdf

Found it www.mdpi.com/2414-6366/7/8/196

do the findings carry any weight?

So what findings are you talking about?

We already know carditis is a side effect associated with vaccination. Yes there have been many studies looking a relative risk ratios associated with COVID and vaccine dose number.

As they say:

In this observational study, clinically suspected myopericarditis was temporarily associated with the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in a small proportion of adolescent patients.

The adverse cardiovascular manifestations observed in this adolescent cohort were both mild and transient.

No, the link takes you to an automatically downloaded pdf.

MDPI journals are included in the Directory of Open Access Journals. MDPI is a member of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, a participating publisher and supporter of the Initiative for Open Citations, and a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

this is what i quickly found on MDPI - i don't think it's dangerous to click on the link, but please don't worry if you feel the file might be corrupted or something

the finding that 29% had heart issues

Cardiovascular manifestations were found in 29.24% of patients, ranging from tachycardia or palpitation to myopericarditis.

During the follow-up period, after receiving the second dose of vaccine, two patients were hospitalized and one patient was supervised in the ICU during hospitalization, mainly for observation of arrhythmia. The mean length of stay in the hospital was 4.5 days (range 2–7). None of the participants died, required mechanical ventilation, or required inotropic support.

we have also been told repeatedly that the risk of developing heart issues is much higher following the illness rather than the vaccine, which was one of the main reasons for recommending it for children - i.e. risks outweigh benefits. this study seems to challenge that hypothesis at least to agree, does it not? as usual, i could be worried for nothing, but i found this study to be alarming. do any of you find it worrying?

@rockly

*As they say:

In this observational study, clinically suspected myopericarditis was temporarily associated with the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in a small proportion of adolescent patients.

The adverse cardiovascular manifestations observed in this adolescent cohort were both mild and transient.*

The sentences that alarmed me are the ones i highlighted from the passage you quoted:

In this observational study, clinically suspected myopericarditis was temporarily associated with the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in a small proportion of adolescent patients. Chest pain is an alarming symptom in patients receiving BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, especially a second dose of BNT162b2. The risk for these symptoms was found to be higher than reported elsewhere. The adverse cardiovascular manifestations observed in this adolescent cohort were both mild and transient.

No I don't because this is another example of cherry picking and ignoring all other evidence.

Firstly, there is currently an ongoing systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies looking at cardiac side effects associated with vaccination which you have been linked to before. This study will be added. When taken together, the body of evidence suggests these side effects are rare, transient, and mild.

Secondly, by doing this you ignore all other side effects of vaccination versus infection. It isn't just carditis that is relevant. Again, when taken together, it showed that it was better for younger age groups to be vaccinated than unvaccinated during the first phase of the pandemic.

Thirdly, vaccination is no longer offered to this age group so I don't understand why you keep bringing it up? It offered clear benefits at a time when someone had not been exposed to COVID. Now, the benefits offered are lowered hence why it is no longer cost effective to offer to everyone.

i could be worried for nothing, but i found this study to be alarming. do any of you find it worrying?

This seems to be a theme of all your posts on this thread.

Nope I don't find it worrying for the reasons previously described.

To add - carditis will occur shortly after vaccination. Vaccines are no longer being offered to this age group. It seems like a weird thing to focus on when there are far more pressing issues impacting this age group in relation to COVID.

Out of interest, have you read the paper in detail including the methods? And do you have the relevant expertise to assess methodological quality and risk of bias?

I find it suprising you make this statement without the very obvious caveats.

the vaccinations are still being offered and promoted to this age group ( perhaps not in uk) but elsewhere for sure. that is why i am asking. i'm thinking of my godsons, cousins and other loved ones who do not live in the uk.

I think you misunderstand my point. Vaccines are not being offered here due to cost-effectiveness, not because there is uncertainty regarding safety.

There are far lower benefits of vaccination when someone has already had several infections recently.

I would be completely happy for my loved ones to have a booster dose if they were offered, but I support the face that the UK & NHS should priortise resources/costs elsewhere. On a population-level it makes sense.

Oh. The study was published in August 2022.

So it would have already been included in the systematic review and meta analysis I mentioned, and included in various countries risk:benefit analysis alongside all other evidence.

Why are you randomly promoting it now @peppathe3rd ?

@rockly
ugh!! i'm not promoting it. i just discovered it today. so much for your helpful advice last time regarding how to approach topics on here

Did you take anyone's advice on this @peppathe3rd ?

The way you link specific sources that have gone viral on disinformation sites suggests you're still only accessing an algorithm of things designed to scare.

Can I ask where you came across it? And was it the paper itself, or someone's interpretation of it?

By all means, stay following telegram/rumble/oddesee/anti-vaccine twitter people, but consider subscribing to some credible scientists/experts also, as these really are heavily biased sources (discussed intensely on this thread and others).

i came across it because thailand has been investigating the vaccine after the death (coma?) of the their princess. of course i read the paper. i did not read anyone's analysis on it / just directly read the piece.

Fair enough, I asked as it's been deliberated misinterpreted and heavily promoted by many of the "big names" in the anti-vaccine circuit, who are making a living of scaremongering.

Consider reading some reviews of the study in context by credible scientists.

thailand has been investigating the vaccine after the death (coma?) of the their princess.
Again, this is not true, and I suggest you dig deeper into the story by looking at credible sources.

I don't think this can be overstated enough on this thread:

There's an entire industry designed to profit by pumping out anti-vaccine disinformation. The people at the top benefit, everyone else is harmed (scammed out of money, risk of various "snake oils" that are offered instead, harms of turning down vaccines, anxiety/depression/fear for themselves and others).

From a quick Google, it’s another study that is being widely spread and misrepresented on Twitter/social
media. The author of the study has stated that it has been misrepresented.

“Most of the other symptoms that the study documented, such as shortness of breath, are insignificant and could be due to anxiety from receiving the vaccine, Adler added.

“Most of the symptoms could occur if I gave someone an injection with water,” he said. “There’s really no insight gained from this study.”

“When you’re talking about cardiac side effects, people think of very serious outcomes,” Shane Crotty, a vaccine expert at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, told the AP. But of the roughly 29% of study participants who were flagged as having cardiac side effects following the shot, only one — the teen with myopericarditis — developed anything concerning, he said.”

There are various articles debunking the social media claims linking this article. It’s important it is not to cherry pick one study. You draw a consensus opinion from a variety of studies.

Ugh.

@peppathe3rd you need to consider the things you're reading might not be true before repeating them. When you see a claim, dig into a little more and read multiple sources, apply critical thinking.

Thai health officials said the claim is baseless, and a Pfizer spokesperson told USA TODAY the company continues to operate in Thailand. The princess' condition has been attributed to a heart issue caused by a bacterial infection, not the COVID-19 vaccine.

The Princess' health condition tied to bacterial infection, not COVID vaccine
Thailand's Department of Disease Control said the claim that Pfizer was banned was false in a Feb. 2 Facebook post.

It is a study widely circulated/misrepresented among anti vaxx groups, so I highly suspect that’s where it has come from. Strange to otherwise come across it.

A new study concerning cardiovascular effects of COVID-19 vaccines in teenagers has circulated widely on social media in recent days, as some users have pointed to its findings to argue that the vaccines are dangerous.

“BREAKING: A new study has found cardiovascular adverse effects in around a third of teens following Pfizer vaccination, and heart inflammation in one in 43, raising fresh concerns about the risks of vaccination for young people,” one Twitter user wrote on Saturday. “This is beyond concerning.”