"You cannot use cases presenting to health care systems as the denominator, as that is is not the totality of infections." BINGO! ( and the last line....priceless. thank you!)
Comparing "percentage of myo per vaccination" to "percentage of myo per covid infection" is the correct comparison WITHOUT vaccine mandates, because the vaccination rate might be actually low... though never as low as the incredibly low risk of kids catching covid.
However, in most present contexts, the more appropriate question, given *mandates*, which will bring vaccination levels of children close to 90-100%, is to compare "total myo of vaccinated of 5-10" versus "total myo among non vaccinated 5-10". Because, comparing statistical entities of vastly different prevalence (100% vaccination versus 0.001% c19 cases in children) leads to distorted statistical analysis. And we need to publish these numbers each month, to account for the rate of change of vaccination levels in that age group. In the early days, the population size of the unvaccinated group is larger, and at some end point, the population size of the vaccinated will dominate, and somewhere in between, we'll be at a 50:50 vaccinated/non-vaccinated level, which would reveal the most precise myo assessment.
Thirdly, to warrant mandates, it does NOT suffice to demonstrate that one is simply lower risk than the other. In order to mandate a medical treatment, an inefficient one at that, people must retain personal choice unless the benefit outweighs the risk by a very large amount.
One way of reducing myocarditis and probably many other adverse effects of the COVID-19 mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccines would be to aspirate the needle in an attempt to ensure that the fluid which is about to be injected stays in the muscle, rather than being injected into a blood vessel where at least some of it will travel quickly to other parts of the body. Such travel to distant tissues is not at all intended and it is easy to imagine ill-effects occurring from this. Aspirating the needle involves inserting it, holding it still and withdrawing the plunger to see if some blood is visible in the syringe. If it is visible, the nurse or doctor starts all over again (thereby discarding the vaccine fluid).
The Li article reports on injecting mice with a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine intramuscularly and intravenously. "only IV group developed histopathological changes of myopericarditis as evidenced by cardiomyocyte degeneration, apoptosis, and necrosis with adjacent inflammatory cell infiltration and calcific deposits on visceral pericardium, although evidence of coronary artery or other cardiac pathologies was absent." Also: "The histological changes of myopericarditis after the first IV-priming dose persisted for 2 weeks and were markedly aggravated by a second IM- or IV-booster dose. Cardiac tissue mRNA expression of interleukin (IL)-1β, interferon (IFN)-β, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α increased significantly from 1 dpi to 2 dpi in the IV group but not the IM group, compatible with presence of myopericarditis in the IV group. Ballooning degeneration of hepatocytes was consistently found in the IV group."
The costs and benefits of aspiration during IM injections are controversial: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC5333604/ . However, this article was written in 2014 and concerned a variety of drugs and vaccines with the typical intention that the muscle physically holds the material and releases it slowly into circulation. These past debates did not contemplate a mass injection campaign in which the injecting material programs our own cells to produce viral spike proteins on their cell membranes, for the express purpose of the immune system developing antibodies against these proteins, and with the inevitable consequence that macrophages destroy these cells.
At the end of September, in Australia, 8 people had been killed by a side effect of the AstraZeneca adenovirus vector vaccine - thrombotic thrombocytopenia - with another 140 people diagnosed and presumably hospitalised. This was from 11.6M doses, with some proportion of these being the second dose - so I guess this was from the first and sometimes the second injection (for which there was a lower risk of this condition occurring) for about 6 million people.
Perhaps this was due, in large or whole part, to vaccine fluid going straight into circulation - the risk of which could have been greatly reduced by aspiration.
If the authorities were doing their job properly, then we would surely know they were considering this research and contemplating ways of reducing harm by making aspiration mandatory. I know of no such reports.
Vaccination is the third best approach to suppressing COVID-19 severity, viral shedding, transmission, harm and death. The second best approach is a variety of early treatments, including melatonin, ivermectin, quercetin, zinc. magnesium, vitamin C and B vitamins https://c19early.com - with the most important early treatment of all, for the great majority of people whose 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels are a fraction of the 50ng/ml 125nmol/L required for full immune function, being rapid repletion of 25-hydroxyvitamin D with ~1mg calcifediol (70kg bodyweight). https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sunilwimalawansa_multisystem-inflammatory-syndrome-mis-activity-6815294839769436160-99qJ/ . Calcifediol _is_ 25-hydroxyvitamin D. It goes straight into circulation and boosts levels in 4 hours. Failing that, bolus D3 should be used, though this takes a few days due to the need for hydroxylation in the liver. Please see the research articles cited at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/05-mds/ .
The best single approach to suppressing the pandemic is to supplement properly with vitamin D3 so that most people's 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels are 50ng/ml or more, instead of their usual unsupplemented range of 5 to 25ng/ml. Combining this with a handful of early treatments would be far superior, far less expensive, far safer and far more beneficial to general health than this profitable, supposedly sophisticated, risky and not very effective global vaccination program. Nonetheless, people with serious co-morbidities should probably be vaccinated, even if vitamin D replete and able to access several early treatments.
The question to which we want an answer is actually this one:
What is a person's risk of the getting myocarditis from the vaccine compared with the same person's risk of getting Covid when unvaccinated and then getting myocarditis as a result?
As a database programmer who would otherwise do some analysis on this topic, I find it impossible to justify donating my time addressing this. There are two reasons.
The FDA benefit/risk breakdown does not acknowledge that the efficacy of the vax breaks down after about 5 months and then it goes negative. Studies of the UK and Israel data show this.
The test for infection is notoriously bad. The PCR tests should not have been used, and when they were used they were done badly. Reporting from the field was bad also.
To really test the efficacy, benefits and risks, controlled studies are needed. The slap-dash way the vax was released with bad testing and bad controls make it impossible to get good numbers for evaluation. The argument from gov't is that the vax is good, and it is up to someone else to prove it isn't. How can you prove it's bad when you are prevented from having credible data to work with? The whole thing stinks.
And another question - why aren't scientists falling over each other to publish research on mechanisms that cause myocarditis from either the vaccine or natural infection?
Dishonest data manipulation and flawed study design have bothered me at every step of the way in every aspect this and many other population health issues. Without accurate data and legitimate risk analysis, all you get is fear-mongering and marketing hype.
A simple question, but pointless. What we care about is the risk the vaccine presents vs. the risk COVID presents. Taking a particular potential AE / complication and comparing them in a vacuum is pointless.
I do think I'll probably pay for your substack, but I had already paid for several others before you starting publishing here more, so I'm still considering.
Anyway, great quick post. I always appreciate your thoughtful approach.
It's refreshing to hear someone say they don't know everything. Do you have an estimate?
The CDC estimates 150 per million (for all age groups) - how of do you think that they are?
You state that we don't know the denominator, which is a big problem. How accurately do we know the number of myocarditis cases caused by infection (the numerator) in the same age groups?
Regarding the denominator - what range of seroprevalence is estimated? It always seems to be lower than we hope.
Another question - Is there any clinical difference between myocarditis cases caused by vaccination and those caused by infection?
Thanks Dr. Prasad! You're one of the few people I trust to act in good faith. I have 2 boys, one in each of rhe age groups you mention and rely on you for sound information.
I'd like to this number. Then on top of this is the concern that this isn't the only long term side effect of infection or vaccination. Then I'd love it broken down by severity of case with infection. Is it reasonable to presume that a mild infection, short of hospitalization, so maybe as bad as a fever, may have less long term effects than a sever infection? Is it possible vaccination is less harmful than aymptomatic infection? Then mild 2 day runny nose? Then 2+days of fever? Etc.
But I don't have much time. I'm slated to have my 5 and 7 year olds vaccinated this Friday. I'd love to know average level of isolated spikes in blood after vaccination vs infections of various severity as well. Throw troponin measures in there as well.
In practical terms of cost for a local health authority, how much do seroprevalence of a large cohort cost, please? What is the cost of a seroprevalence test for an individual male child, youth, approximately, please? Thank you.
Vinay, at risk of overdoing it (since I dropped a comment requesting it on YT already), I want to plead a case for you to interview Dr. Peter McCullough. I'm a patient (pre-pandemic) and I've messaged him as well. Please make it happen!
lack of a denominator has been a concern of mine in almost every report on Covid especially 'cases' but 'cases' drive headlines and move governments into lockdowns and masks and vaccines. I'm curious if cases keep rising what are the total cases reported in a country? Have we seen 330 million cases in the US yet? The other number I love to watch people squirm over is the rising Covid death count - every headline quoting the death count will use the words 'continuing to climb' as if we should expect it to end or maybe reverse.
"You cannot use cases presenting to health care systems as the denominator, as that is is not the totality of infections." BINGO! ( and the last line....priceless. thank you!)
Comparing "percentage of myo per vaccination" to "percentage of myo per covid infection" is the correct comparison WITHOUT vaccine mandates, because the vaccination rate might be actually low... though never as low as the incredibly low risk of kids catching covid.
However, in most present contexts, the more appropriate question, given *mandates*, which will bring vaccination levels of children close to 90-100%, is to compare "total myo of vaccinated of 5-10" versus "total myo among non vaccinated 5-10". Because, comparing statistical entities of vastly different prevalence (100% vaccination versus 0.001% c19 cases in children) leads to distorted statistical analysis. And we need to publish these numbers each month, to account for the rate of change of vaccination levels in that age group. In the early days, the population size of the unvaccinated group is larger, and at some end point, the population size of the vaccinated will dominate, and somewhere in between, we'll be at a 50:50 vaccinated/non-vaccinated level, which would reveal the most precise myo assessment.
Thirdly, to warrant mandates, it does NOT suffice to demonstrate that one is simply lower risk than the other. In order to mandate a medical treatment, an inefficient one at that, people must retain personal choice unless the benefit outweighs the risk by a very large amount.
One way of reducing myocarditis and probably many other adverse effects of the COVID-19 mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccines would be to aspirate the needle in an attempt to ensure that the fluid which is about to be injected stays in the muscle, rather than being injected into a blood vessel where at least some of it will travel quickly to other parts of the body. Such travel to distant tissues is not at all intended and it is easy to imagine ill-effects occurring from this. Aspirating the needle involves inserting it, holding it still and withdrawing the plunger to see if some blood is visible in the syringe. If it is visible, the nurse or doctor starts all over again (thereby discarding the vaccine fluid).
Evidence for and discussion of this can be found in Li et al.: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab707/6353927 , Knowlton: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab741/6359059 and Merchant: https://pmj.bmj.com/content/early/2021/10/06/postgradmedj-2021-141119 .
The Li article reports on injecting mice with a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine intramuscularly and intravenously. "only IV group developed histopathological changes of myopericarditis as evidenced by cardiomyocyte degeneration, apoptosis, and necrosis with adjacent inflammatory cell infiltration and calcific deposits on visceral pericardium, although evidence of coronary artery or other cardiac pathologies was absent." Also: "The histological changes of myopericarditis after the first IV-priming dose persisted for 2 weeks and were markedly aggravated by a second IM- or IV-booster dose. Cardiac tissue mRNA expression of interleukin (IL)-1β, interferon (IFN)-β, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α increased significantly from 1 dpi to 2 dpi in the IV group but not the IM group, compatible with presence of myopericarditis in the IV group. Ballooning degeneration of hepatocytes was consistently found in the IV group."
The costs and benefits of aspiration during IM injections are controversial: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC5333604/ . However, this article was written in 2014 and concerned a variety of drugs and vaccines with the typical intention that the muscle physically holds the material and releases it slowly into circulation. These past debates did not contemplate a mass injection campaign in which the injecting material programs our own cells to produce viral spike proteins on their cell membranes, for the express purpose of the immune system developing antibodies against these proteins, and with the inevitable consequence that macrophages destroy these cells.
At the end of September, in Australia, 8 people had been killed by a side effect of the AstraZeneca adenovirus vector vaccine - thrombotic thrombocytopenia - with another 140 people diagnosed and presumably hospitalised. This was from 11.6M doses, with some proportion of these being the second dose - so I guess this was from the first and sometimes the second injection (for which there was a lower risk of this condition occurring) for about 6 million people.
Perhaps this was due, in large or whole part, to vaccine fluid going straight into circulation - the risk of which could have been greatly reduced by aspiration.
If the authorities were doing their job properly, then we would surely know they were considering this research and contemplating ways of reducing harm by making aspiration mandatory. I know of no such reports.
Vaccination is the third best approach to suppressing COVID-19 severity, viral shedding, transmission, harm and death. The second best approach is a variety of early treatments, including melatonin, ivermectin, quercetin, zinc. magnesium, vitamin C and B vitamins https://c19early.com - with the most important early treatment of all, for the great majority of people whose 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels are a fraction of the 50ng/ml 125nmol/L required for full immune function, being rapid repletion of 25-hydroxyvitamin D with ~1mg calcifediol (70kg bodyweight). https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sunilwimalawansa_multisystem-inflammatory-syndrome-mis-activity-6815294839769436160-99qJ/ . Calcifediol _is_ 25-hydroxyvitamin D. It goes straight into circulation and boosts levels in 4 hours. Failing that, bolus D3 should be used, though this takes a few days due to the need for hydroxylation in the liver. Please see the research articles cited at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/05-mds/ .
The best single approach to suppressing the pandemic is to supplement properly with vitamin D3 so that most people's 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels are 50ng/ml or more, instead of their usual unsupplemented range of 5 to 25ng/ml. Combining this with a handful of early treatments would be far superior, far less expensive, far safer and far more beneficial to general health than this profitable, supposedly sophisticated, risky and not very effective global vaccination program. Nonetheless, people with serious co-morbidities should probably be vaccinated, even if vitamin D replete and able to access several early treatments.
The question to which we want an answer is actually this one:
What is a person's risk of the getting myocarditis from the vaccine compared with the same person's risk of getting Covid when unvaccinated and then getting myocarditis as a result?
As a database programmer who would otherwise do some analysis on this topic, I find it impossible to justify donating my time addressing this. There are two reasons.
The FDA benefit/risk breakdown does not acknowledge that the efficacy of the vax breaks down after about 5 months and then it goes negative. Studies of the UK and Israel data show this.
The test for infection is notoriously bad. The PCR tests should not have been used, and when they were used they were done badly. Reporting from the field was bad also.
To really test the efficacy, benefits and risks, controlled studies are needed. The slap-dash way the vax was released with bad testing and bad controls make it impossible to get good numbers for evaluation. The argument from gov't is that the vax is good, and it is up to someone else to prove it isn't. How can you prove it's bad when you are prevented from having credible data to work with? The whole thing stinks.
Dr. Prasad I have heard you reference p1 and p2 before, why ignore it here?
To get Covid-myocarditis you need to get covid first, right? Whereas when you get the vaccine there is a 100% chance you get the vaccine.
The apples to apples comparison is...
N-month going forward risk of a boy getting covid (remember: a lot of existing immunity) TIMES risk of that covid leading to myocarditis.
Where N is the number of months until booster / vaccine protection wanes.
And another question - why aren't scientists falling over each other to publish research on mechanisms that cause myocarditis from either the vaccine or natural infection?
Dishonest data manipulation and flawed study design have bothered me at every step of the way in every aspect this and many other population health issues. Without accurate data and legitimate risk analysis, all you get is fear-mongering and marketing hype.
A simple question, but pointless. What we care about is the risk the vaccine presents vs. the risk COVID presents. Taking a particular potential AE / complication and comparing them in a vacuum is pointless.
Unlocked article! 😊 Thank you!!
I do think I'll probably pay for your substack, but I had already paid for several others before you starting publishing here more, so I'm still considering.
Anyway, great quick post. I always appreciate your thoughtful approach.
It's refreshing to hear someone say they don't know everything. Do you have an estimate?
The CDC estimates 150 per million (for all age groups) - how of do you think that they are?
You state that we don't know the denominator, which is a big problem. How accurately do we know the number of myocarditis cases caused by infection (the numerator) in the same age groups?
Regarding the denominator - what range of seroprevalence is estimated? It always seems to be lower than we hope.
Another question - Is there any clinical difference between myocarditis cases caused by vaccination and those caused by infection?
Thanks Dr. Prasad! You're one of the few people I trust to act in good faith. I have 2 boys, one in each of rhe age groups you mention and rely on you for sound information.
I'd like to this number. Then on top of this is the concern that this isn't the only long term side effect of infection or vaccination. Then I'd love it broken down by severity of case with infection. Is it reasonable to presume that a mild infection, short of hospitalization, so maybe as bad as a fever, may have less long term effects than a sever infection? Is it possible vaccination is less harmful than aymptomatic infection? Then mild 2 day runny nose? Then 2+days of fever? Etc.
But I don't have much time. I'm slated to have my 5 and 7 year olds vaccinated this Friday. I'd love to know average level of isolated spikes in blood after vaccination vs infections of various severity as well. Throw troponin measures in there as well.
In practical terms of cost for a local health authority, how much do seroprevalence of a large cohort cost, please? What is the cost of a seroprevalence test for an individual male child, youth, approximately, please? Thank you.
Vinay, at risk of overdoing it (since I dropped a comment requesting it on YT already), I want to plead a case for you to interview Dr. Peter McCullough. I'm a patient (pre-pandemic) and I've messaged him as well. Please make it happen!
lack of a denominator has been a concern of mine in almost every report on Covid especially 'cases' but 'cases' drive headlines and move governments into lockdowns and masks and vaccines. I'm curious if cases keep rising what are the total cases reported in a country? Have we seen 330 million cases in the US yet? The other number I love to watch people squirm over is the rising Covid death count - every headline quoting the death count will use the words 'continuing to climb' as if we should expect it to end or maybe reverse.