Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

OP has a history of posting covid/vaccine misinformation on Reddit. This is likely part of their attempt to criticize the vaccine with studies that don't really make any real conclusions about the vaccine.

They also don't read the studies they post, so I am going to highlight a couple of comments from the study, to put the emphasis out there.

Point #1: Myocarditis is worse when you are unvaccinated. Vaccination is better

> The reported incidence of (epi-)myocarditis after vaccination is low and the risks of hospitalization and death associated with COVID-19 are stated to be greater than the recorded risk associated with COVID-19 vaccination [29]. Importantly, infectious agents may also cause lymphocytic myocarditis with a similar immunophenotype, thus meticulous molecular analyses is required in all cases of potentially vaccination-associated myocarditis.

Point #2: This study has nothing to say about vaccines 'causing' these events.

> Finally, we cannot provide a definitive functional proof or a direct causal link between vaccination and myocarditis. Further studies and extended registry are needed to identify persons at risk for this potentially fatal AEFI and may be aided by detailed clinical, serological, and molecular analyses which were beyond the scope of this study. Considering that this fatal adverse event may affect healthy individuals, such registry and surveillance programs may improve early diagnosis, close monitoring, and treatment.

OP has a history of posting covid/vaccine misinformation on Reddit. This is likely part of their attempt to criticize the vaccine with studies that don't really make any real conclusions about the vaccine.

They also don't read the studies they post, so I am going to highlight a couple of comments from the study, to put the emphasis out there.

Point #1: Myocarditis is worse when you are unvaccinated. Vaccination is better

> The reported incidence of (epi-)myocarditis after vaccination is low and the risks of hospitalization and death associated with COVID-19 are stated to be greater than the recorded risk associated with COVID-19 vaccination [29]. Importantly, infectious agents may also cause lymphocytic myocarditis with a similar immunophenotype, thus meticulous molecular analyses is required in all cases of potentially vaccination-associated myocarditis.

Point #2: This study has nothing to say about vaccines 'causing' these events.

> Finally, we cannot provide a definitive functional proof or a direct causal link between vaccination and myocarditis. Further studies and extended registry are needed to identify persons at risk for this potentially fatal AEFI and may be aided by detailed clinical, serological, and molecular analyses which were beyond the scope of this study. Considering that this fatal adverse event may affect healthy individuals, such registry and surveillance programs may improve early diagnosis, close monitoring, and treatment.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Risk of myocarditis from any type sars-co-v vaccine is low (their own conclusion). Many of their 25 subjects (small sample size) had additional complications present like COPD. A laborious study, with the conclusion of 'it's good to know'. Non-significant results won't change any behavior or medical protocols.

Thank you for your careful reading !

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Not to mention that the authors themselves are acknowledging endpoint bias.

[removed]

[removed]

Take my award. This is the kind of stuff that needs to be done, shit down the misinformation.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Because you can’t make real conclusions without lots of repeatable studies

[removed]

[deleted]

[removed]

[removed]

It’s not this simple because depending on a person’s state of health they may be at an extremely low risk of myocarditis should they get Covid and in these cases the myocarditis risk for those individuals is higher with the vaccine than with Covid

[removed]

[removed]

All of you 100% ANTi-vax / 100% PRO-vax are equally annoying.. stop it and stop spreading misinformation

I enjoy reading clinical trial reports and published studies and those weren’t the major point of this publication. You’re just as guilty at OP if they are posting misinformation. This is not a misinformation post this is a published paper.

Both of your points were a single sentence each in the whole paper.

The whole paper was about the autopsy’s of multiple individuals where no other cause of death (pathological or otherwise) could be identified other than myocarditis within 20 days of vaccination.

The paper goes on to say there is a strong link that there could potentially be factors at play such as autoimmunity or genetics that could predispose people to experiencing these RARE events resulting in death due to vaccine, but more studies and screening need to take place first. !!Again, rare is emphasized!!

It has already been acknowledge by the medical community that Covid vaccines AND Covid have a small chance of causing myocarditis which can be treated. Yes the paper said unvaccinated individual are more likely to experience myocarditis, true, but you left a whole lot more out of the article.

Source is not misinformation. SpringerLink offers electronic and printed literature from Springer-Verlag, a preeminent scientific publisher with a reputation for excellence spanning more than 150 years. It also offers the work of a growing roster of publishers, including Urban and Vogel, Steinkopff, and Birkhäuser.

Just read the literature and it explains what the study entailed.

Fact is a percentage, albeit small, with no other underlying conditions developed myocarditis shorty after receiving the vaccine. Others did not. The vaccine isn't good for everybody. That's all this is saying.

You get my daily free “wholesome” award because dammit facts are wholesome. But I wanted to say I appreciate this. Contextualization, rather than censorship, is the right way to deal with this stuff and I appreciate it.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

OP's post is part of a larger pattern of misinformation.

It's why I quoted directly from the source, to clarify the difference between how this post is perceived, and what it actually says.

This makes no sense. They would be at a low risk relative to Covid exposure. But the point is risk post exposure vs post vaccine. The study shows that risk is worse post Covid exposure vs vaccine exposure. Given the ubiquity of Covid exposure at this point one would have to do a risk analysis and would inevitably find that the vaccine is objectively safer than unvaccinated exposure to the virus. Your comment makes no sense.

> Again, rare is emphasized!!

Missed by OP.

> but you left a whole lot more out of the article.

So did OP, and they have a long history of posting these types of studies in manners and places where they are likely to be misinterpreted. Thus, I suggest misinformation here.

Thus, the quote that I call Point #1.

OP is posting in places and ways that suggest otherwise, which is why I claim misinformation.

[removed]

Thanx for the TLDR.

Like any good study, the authors acknowledge it’s limitations.

I still think this study serves as motivation to continue the investigation. There’s something to be said about a concentration of T cells in your heart. They don’t just show up there randomly. The spike protein could be settling in the heart. Or like the study mentions, it could be something associated with the mRNA technology. Due diligence should be done to make the vaccine as safe as possible. You can’t ignore the presence of serious adverse effects and draw it up to “well it helps a lot of people, but not everyone. We can just stop here”

Also reading this as a parent of a new born I would be extremely cautious of vaccinating an infant. The article acknowledges myocarditis as a cause of 1-14% of SIDS cases. Idk the exact research of infant mortality due to COVID-19, but even without any direct proof that the vaccine causes myocarditis, I’d be wary. More research is definitely needed.

You are definitely confused but it does make sense. Yes, the comparison being made is myocarditis risk between Covid-19 exposure and vaccination. These risks are weighed or averaged for the general population.

Many individuals are at such a low risk of a severe covid case that they are more likely to get myocarditis resulting from vaccination

No, this is saying that there is an incredibly low risk of myocarditis following vaccination, but that a COVID infection is still significantly worse. OP knows that 90% people of Redditors will only read the headline and go “There, see… vaccine bad!”

That last part is the “misinformation, and it can be considered such because OP has a history of doing such things.

Not sure if OP was involved in conducting the study, but I’m curious why they decided to fix the tissue in 4% neutral buffered formalin and not 10% which is typically standard practice. Underfixation of tissue can lead to false negative staining in IHC, so sort of curious what the rationale was behind that decision.

[removed]

[removed]

Is there any data that shows myocarditis risk after Covid exposure if you have already been vaccinated? If there is, then it would make sense there would be an additive effect of myocarditis cases from the vaccine plus myocarditis cases from catching Covid after being vaccinated. Either way, the numbers are pretty small on all the scenarios, I was just curious if there was data for that combination.

There are some people interpretation of these small numbers (literally a handful at 5) with myo/epicarditis on autopsy and no other cause of death as this is a huge problem with covid vaccines. When the actual incidence is exceedingly low. Please be aware of such publications and how they can be misinterpreted and made to seem to be a major issue when in fact it is very rare (albeit important to those few who get myocarditis).

Yes I was responding to point number one. Some individuals are actually at greater risk of myocarditis from the vaccine as what you’ve referred to are broad population averages. Another part of the issue is how since the causality between the vaccine and myocarditis isn’t recognized how the data is skewed or we could say that conclusions are tailored/shoehorned to meet the hypotheses

>Yes I was responding to point number one. Some individuals are actually at greater risk of myocarditis from the vaccine as what you’ve referred to are broad population averages.

An item worth studying. A question for doctors, perhaps. Given the overwhelming data, not something that should impact a person's decision whether or not to get vaccinated.

[removed]

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/german-autopsy-report-didnt-covid-19-vaccines-likely-cause-sudden-deaths/

[removed]

right? because wouldn't this potentially falsely blame the COVID vaccine? Just because they got the vaccine and then died later does not mean THAT was the reason they died. I have to read the whole study though, the headline is concerning.

Well the fact that the overwhelming data shows that the vaccine poses more risk to me personally than the infection, this should inform my decision whether or not to get vaccinated

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

This is almost complete nonsense. The only thing I can come up to give your post a sliver of possible accuracy, IF WE REACH, is a previous extreme allergic reaction to one of the OTHER vaccine ingredients (besides the RNA), which are common in other vaccines, and other injectable medications.

Can you name any other chronic condition or "state of health" where data even remotely suggests an active COVID infection is statistically (or otherwise, hell) SAFER than a vaccination?

Can you show me that study? Not some random one-off case that cannot be proven, or that you heard about this one time from this guy. Data?

I think that assessing the occurrence of myocarditis in individuals who are vaccinated post COVID infection is important future research, if none is present. The possibility of there being an additive effect would likely be determined by the cause of myocarditis post infection/vaccination.

“It is under debate whether myocarditis in COVID-19 is primarily caused by the viral infection or whether it occurs secondary as a consequence of the host´s immune response, in particular by T-lymphocyte-mediated cytotoxicity or as a consequence of the cytokine storm observed during COVID-19 [25]”

The authors note that the cause of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection is up for debate. If it is related to “T-lymphocyte-mediated cytotoxicity” I am inclined to believe that there wouldn’t be an additive effect of vaccine + infection. My logic, albeit with minimal knowledge in virology, is that by have t cells created by the vaccine would be present prior to the virus. Thus able to respond prior to extensive cell infection and reduce the “T-lymphocyte-mediated cytotoxicity.”

Again, my logic my be flawed due to a misunderstanding or missing knowledge. I am open to corrections/reading to help guide me.

[removed]

Link a study.

Causality has been widely recognized, which is one reason we know incidence to be so low.

Where are you getting this idea that your personal risks of a COVID infection being so mild, that your risk is greater from the vaccine? That sounds like more of the fuzzy math I keep hearing (and debunking) being used to pretend that COVID only affects sick people and old people....blah, blah.

Risk assessment should be individualized not based on broad averages for a population. For example let’s say a study came out showing that the general population ate too little protein and the average person needs to increase their protein. Perhaps I as an individual eat too much protein. Why would my recommendation be affected by a broad average for a population?

I eat a low carb diet and I am in great cardio metabolic health and I get plenty of exercise and have no nutrient deficiencies. The general population is at high risk with Covid because this does not describe them and high carb, seed oils is the popular diet. Most don’t get sufficient cardio exercise and have a few deficiencies.

My personal risk of complications with the vaccine is much higher whereas for some individuals the risk is higher with infection

I had Covid already and I am going based on data that also accounts for cardio metabolic health and nutrient deficiencies or lack thereof rather than just age BMI gender and other diseases etc.

[removed]

That makes total sense if that is the mechanism. I was trying to think if the mechanism is the same, why wouldn’t it be equal between vaccine and infection. If there was data on the combination, it might give better clarity on if it’s the same mechanism.

That has always been a fact, but it is clearly not what is being represented here.

The article concludes that, while myocarditis is possible from vaccine, COVID infection is far worse oth in severity and incidence. OP waves the paper and screams "They lied! The vaccine causes myocarditis! Says so right here!!" Figuratively, of course, but check his post history......

So, no, that is NOT "all this is saying."

[removed]

[removed]

I've seen standard histology fixation solution referred to as 4% because it's ~4% w/v of formaldehyde. The 10% is v/v.

[removed]

That’s interesting, is this outside of the US? I’ve never seen it indicated this way in a Pathology report or in a lab SOP, in or out of the US.

What is your basis in the data?

Ur a public service thank u

This isn't misinformation. It's a peer reviewed study looking at fatal myocarditis associated with (but not necessarily caused by) covid vaccination. This sub isn't exactly the place to rally anti-vax support.

Trying to characterize vaccine-induced myocarditis so it can be detected and treated effectively is important, as with any other severe vaccine side effect like GBS or anaphylaxis. It's very rare - maybe 1 in 25,000 and most cases resolve - but still well worth trying to understand.

I totally almost had a coincidence when I read headline.

There is no basis. There is no data. He is speculating that off of either his pure ignorance, or misrepresented data from sources with ulterior motives. There are no studies showing folks have a higher risk of myocarditis from vaccine compared to infection, in any populations

> This isn't misinformation. It's a peer reviewed study looking at fatal myocarditis associated with (but not necessarily caused by) covid vaccination. This sub isn't exactly the place to rally anti-vax support.

You are correct, which is why I focused on emphasizing the key points I did, rather than rely only on the headline, which appears to be a strategy OP uses to spread unnecessary fear about the vaccine.

You are correct on face value. But the context is different.

OP is posting a lot of material with titles that intend to create a narrative of vaccine danger that does not actually exist in the publications.

> The vaccine isn't good for everybody. That's all this is saying.

This is written weakly. Your writing suggests, to be literal "The vaccine is bad for some people." That is deceptively alarmist.

A better description might be "The vaccine is good for everybody, except for very few with specific health issues." I don't mean to be pedantic, but my point is that the data on vaccine outcomes is much more overwhelming than "It's not good for everybody".

[removed]

I hate to break it to you but this is most of the literature that’s published (and posted on this sub)

[removed]

covid viral infection makes it 10x more likely to develop myocarditis/pericarditis. Theres an inoperable fact. These jerkoffs just never quit. Anything for their gotcha Dunning Kruger blended with cognitive dissonance moment.

Yesssss look into their history and expose the heretic! He'll yea! Great job!

This is the type of scientific studies and comments I come here for

Doesn't mean we should discount this study. Use it's data in the context of what is generally known about the vaccine.

>They don’t just show up there randomly. The spike protein could be settling in the heart. Or like the study mentions, it could be something associated with the mRNA technology. Due diligence should be done to make the vaccine as safe as possible. You can’t ignore the presence of serious adverse effects and draw it up to “well it helps a lot of people, but not everyone. We can just stop here”

Well, isn't that what we needed with cross-comparative studies against vaccines not using the mRNA platform seeing as most of world isn't going to get that

You're not going to stock the Pfizer covid vaccine in Africa, and it isn't made in China.

These studies are dumb because the focus is 0.1% of the wealthiest society on the planet.

yes, censorship only gives importance to something unimportant

it is impossible to find enough persons on the planet who did not have covid if one wants to be sure that myocarditis is caused by vaccine and not by the illness itself

it is better to get vaccine Nx than to get sick with covid Nx, both leave similar immunity but vaccine has far less documented consequences

Especially considering the hypocrisy of the anti-vaxxers as most of them were constantly going around stating that people were dying "with covid" and not "from covid". You could just as easily say the same thing about all possible vaccine related deaths.

[removed]

Nobody else got dizzy from the title?

[removed]

What should the title have been?

Most likely an error in methods reporting. I’m guessing some mixup since most labs I know will either use 10% NBF or 4% PFA for human tissue. Either way, the example photos do not appear under fixed.

[removed]

I disagree you should not mass distribue false information. It's just another form of fraud like posting fake stats on consumer electronics or bait and switch pricing.

If we had true freedom of speech fraud and threats would be legal cuz they are just harmless words, but the reality is that words are not always harmless when they are meant to mislead or threaten.

We don't need so much freedom of speech or press that fraud is legal and that’s the direction we’ve been going recently.

This is a legitimate publishing company. His past posts have nothing to do with the validity or lack there of regarding this current article. Zealots gonna zealot though.

Even if you ignore the first paragraph about the poster's history, the other two points highlighted in this comment are important for context. Yes there is a risk, but the risk associated with infection is greater, and more studies are needed to establish causation. A "zealot" would be unlikely to highlight either of those points; this smacks of someone who just wants people to have the right takeaways from the study.

[removed]

The difficult thing with making misleading information illegal is- who decides what’s true? In this case it’s pretty simple with scientific consensus pointing towards the most obvious truth, but there are plenty of cases where the truth is not known.

The challenge is that if the government decides what is true, then the government has the ability to decide what is and isn’t legal to say, and that is simply the total death of free speech.

All said, I wish we could do something about people who maliciously distribute misinformation. It’s really frustrating knowing that a lot of lawmakers knowingly mislead people during the pandemic, leading to many more deaths than were necessary.

I wish I was more smarter like you guys :/

[removed]

this isn't false information though? a real study (that op didn't read) that op thought would back up their anti vax point, but the contents of the study do not actually do that... as explained in this comment thread.

[removed]

You have no data, stop lying and get properly educated on the subject

And yet you provide no proof of your baseless claim. Go get educated on the subject before spreading antivax propaganda and misinformation

Dont trip, it's just jargon. Look up words you don't understand. Repeat forever.

[removed]

Wow thanks man! You’re a nice person.

[removed]

Not necessarily smarter, just better educated in their fields.

I'm going to hire an electrician to replace my breaker panel. Is he smarter than me? In his field of expertise, 100% he is. Could I learn it if I dedicated 5 years or so? Absolutely.

Just don't ask me to learn and understand quantum mechanics. That's probably outside of my realm.

It is German, not sure if that changes anything.

[removed]

I've seen it in papers from people fixing tissue culture cells or animal tissues. Also I don't think fixation in 4% v/v would even crosslink well enough to section and stain. Their photomicrographs looked pretty typical for FFPE.

How is OP using a "strategy" when the headline is the exact title of the journal article? If you take exception to how the authors titled their manuscript that's got nothing to do with OP.

Selecting articles with titles that discuss vaccine side effects, then emphasizing the title instead of the content of the study.

Thus, I quoted specific parts of the study for clarification.

I take issue to this article being misused.

Thank you for this!

This is very true. Thank you. I appreciate that.

outside your realm...I get it! Good one!

I was going to say the same until I read the comment below. Thanks.

So you are ascribing nefarious motives to only this one post of a journal title and article link and not the remaining thousands of identically formatted posts. It seems you're the one with the agenda.

It just means we've had the misfortune to be in a lab reeking of formalin. You're not missing out on anything meaningful or fun. :-)

And as other folks have said, it's just jargon. The first person said the heart tissue may not have been preserved in a standard way and that could impact the results. I'm pointing out that there are some less-common ways to describe the chemical used to preserve the tissue. We don't know which is right, whether they did something unusual or used very unusual language.

The answer to your question is in my main post. Please read my comments before responding.

My agenda is providing quotes from the research to help better distribute information.

[removed]

[removed]

>> Importantly, infectious agents may also cause lymphocytic myocarditis with a similar immunophenotype, thus meticulous molecular analyses is required in all cases of potentially vaccination-associated myocarditis.

Yeah but this isn’t double plus good

Saved? Estimates are always trash, focus on who died and who hasn’t, same picture, isn’t a trash metric

What you are suggesting is that as humans we are incapable of processing information or making a determination as to what information might be harmful or not, and need to centralize this responsibility to protect people.

Yet, restriction of speech always leads to restriction of thought. The ability to think freely is fundamentally associated with the abilityt to talk freely.

Legislating what needs to ultimately become something we all do by virtue of being adults will always fail , and will always be abused by those in power because it does nothing to educate the individual relative their personal responsibilities as an individual to function properly in the world.

We deal with this with proactive education - we teach our kids to think properly, first of all. None of what is happening now should be a surprise, considering our politicians have been undermining and defunding our educational system.

Reacting out of fear is neither justified nor effective - and in itself shows a profound failure of our educational system

Anyone who says they understand quantum mechanics doesn't.

You guys are all so nice! Thank you! Honestly you guys have made my day.

Can we stop with the “misinformation” buzzword? It’s a peer reviewed study. Just because someone has a history of something doesn’t make the study any less valid.

Citing everything you disagree with as misinformation is what’s actual harmful to real science.

[removed]

Actually, this kind of stuff is pretty easy to calculate with only a few simple variables. It's only slightly more complicated to calculate the confidence, which is 95% with between 3.0 & 3.4 million lives saved.

You must have failed math worse than me.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

One of the more hilarious fields of study is trying to find negative health conditions related to getting the Covid vaccine.

I think with Covid you are damned if you do vax damned if you don’t, I think Covid is just a crapshoot all around, as someone who has not got the vaccine at all, and just now getting a positive diagnosis of Covid, I can say for sure it sucks, I haven’t felt like I was near death at any point but the first two days I showed symptoms I legitimately could not move or do much of anything, the third day I was able to move around but the sore throat that was still in full swing just felt like daggers all down my throat, I am now on day 4 going into day 5 of the first start of symptoms and I feel so much better than I did days 1-3, with a strong fatigue of days 1-2 and high fever.

The scary thing is I might not even be out of the oven so to speak because they say it can take up until the second week for things to take a turn for the worst, however I’m keeping the faith alive that what I had was the omicron variant which is supposedly more mild.

Now that I’ve had Covid I would probably get vaccinated if anything like Covid should ever come around again, it was bad enough that I don’t want to suffer thru that again plus I don’t know what if any long symptoms will stick with me.

Also just an fyi I am not an antivaxxer I was just lazy and didn’t particularly care to get the vaccine because I didn’t want to go out of my way to get it done, I’m paying the price for that now but I want to make it very clear that I in no shape or way believe vaccines are the devil, because otherwise the comments on my post would probably be wishing my death or something awful like I’ve seen throughout all the years of seeing this transpire

From the conclusion: "Finally, we cannot provide a definitive functional proof or a direct causal link between vaccination and myocarditis."

I don't understand quantum mechanics

This is why it’s standard practice to have scientists very similar to your work be the ones reviewing your papers for submission. It’s minutiae you wouldn’t know unless you also do the same type of protocol. You’ll notice it in grad school journal clubs. The best critique are people doing similar things while others who are equally talented can only ask bigger picture questions

You can create false narratives out of true information. Repeatedly posting information that looks like it implies the vaccine is dangerous is a deliberate attempt to sow a false narrative.

Hey pal, it’s just me and you over here with cheetoh fingers

The title on this post is not good. Stop being confusing, I shouldn't have to Google terms to understand something that's supposed to catch my attention

Please read my comment. I explicitly chose language that identified precisely what I was concerned about.

The misinformation is not literally this study. It's a pattern of a user cherry-picking studies with headlines that can be construed as anti-vaxx.

So to clear up confusion, I quoted points from the study that made it clear that this was not, in fact, an anti-vaxx study.

[removed]

I tend to trust people more when they say "I get the gist of it".

“ If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.” - Richard P. Fleynmen

[deleted]

>This is a legitimate publishing company.

Just because the publishing company is legitimate doesn't inform on the legitimacy of the study.

​

>His past posts have nothing to do with the validity or lack there of regarding this current article.

No but it informs what kind of things they will post. We wont see any positive studies, and only those that are negative. They are also more likely to post flawed studies. So you should look at any studies posted by them with extreme skepticism.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t work in reverse.

Mechanics Quantum understand don't I?

[removed]

[removed]

Just not true. What is true is that quantum mechanics has limits.

The hardest thing to teach is the desire to learn. Everything else just takes time and patience.

It's fascinating to watch this new tech in medicine. 20 + yrs ago while taking care of my dad with parkinsons, his science magazine had the article about the gene splicing and what it could mean. His hope was to cure parkinsons, which is now on the horizon. With this knowledge, the nuances of how things really work will be fascinating to watch.

Idiot… it’s not “more smarter”…

It’s ”smarterer”…

I dated a woman for a while that had a p.h.d. She used it working for a college to translate papers written by faculty into language they could use to teach to students.