More Vaccine Safety Drama

Other than as a guide to the future, which it won’t be used for anyway, I don’t know why people are still obsessing over the CV-19 vaccine effectiveness or safety.  But they are.  The University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research, helmed by the reputable Dr. Michael Osterholm, weighs in on an issue related to both the effectiveness and safety of the vax, relying on a recent study published in the journal Vaccine.  As everyone, I think, now acknowledges, the vaccines created a serious risk of heart inflammation, especially in young males.  While most of those cases resolved quickly, some had serious consequences.  But as I have pointed out, a CV-19 infection also often creates heart inflammation, which you would expect since the vaccines are basically just part of the virus.  So you have to weigh that risk in a vaccination decision.  To me the decision is easy, since the likelihood of any serious infection in a young male is incredibly low, there is no reason to take the risk of additional serious effects from the vaccine.  And since the vaccine doesn’t actually keep anyone from ultimately getting infected, as almost every unvaxed and vaxed person has been infected at least once, why compound the risk of heart inflammation.

In any event the new study says that the risk of heart inflammation is higher from an infection than from vaccination.  But of course, it is flawed study because once more there is no rigorous treatment of who had an infection prior to vaccination or prior to whatever infection allegedly caused heart inflammation.  There was no antibody testing.  That is a very serious confounder.  I am willing to believe, and it is just that, an informed belief, that there is more risk from an infection, but if someone is going to say they have proof of that, they should be sure they have removed the most significant confounder.  Right, Dr. Osterholm?  And for some reason, only people age 16 to 25 were included, and only people who had at least two health care encounters during the five-year study period.  I do not understand that limitation, unless the visits are for an infection test and/or vaccination.  It potentially eliminates a lot of unvaxed people and perhaps even some who were vaxed but had only one visit to the included data sources.  And it eliminates anyone who did not seek health care, as it was solely health records from certain sources that were used to determine infection status, vax status and treatment for heart inflammation.  (CIDRAP Post) (Vaccine Study)