Quote Originally Posted by Eternal Optimist View Post
A major study involving 1.7 million children has found that heart damage only appeared in children who had received Covid mRNA vaccines.

Not a single unvaccinated child in the group suffered from heart-related problems.

In addition, the researchers note zero children from the entire group, vaccinated or unvaccinated, died from COVID-19.
I’m guessing that you haven’t bothered to read the paper upon which that article is based?

I have. It's sad to see the way that science is distoterd by those with an agenda.

The first thing to note is that it’s a ‘pre-print’ which means that it is yet to be peer reviewed. I am not in a position to comment upon the methodology used (that would take many hours/days to assess), The authors look like credible scientists, however.

I’m struggling to understand the claim that 1.7 million records were considered – the actual number was significantly lower than that. I would also question the use of the expression ‘heart damage’. The cardiac complications looked at in the study were myocarditis and pericarditis – i.e inflammation of elements of the heart and conditions that are generally transitory.

The conclusion within the abstract of the paper reads:

BNT162b2 (the 1st generation Pfizer vaccine) vaccination in adolescents reduced COVID-19 A&E attendance and hospitalisation, although these outcomes were rare. Protection against positive SARS-CoV-2 tests was transient.

The patient records were divided between adolescents (12 to 15) and children (5 to 11).

In respect of the adolescent group (12 to 15) the paper states:

there were …9 cases of pericarditis and 3 cases of myocarditis. All pericarditis and myocarditis events occurred in the first dose group, while all COVID-19 related critical care admissions were in the unvaccinated group.

In respect of the child group, the paper states:

No children experienced a myocarditis event, all 3 pericarditis events occurred after first vaccination and did not require hospitalisation or critical care.

In fairness to your article, the paper does state:

Whilst rare, all myocarditis and pericarditis events during the study period occurred in vaccinated individuals: there were no deaths after myocarditis or pericarditis.

Within the discussion within the papers, the authors state:

Our findings provide insights into the balance between protection by vaccination against target outcomes (positive SARS-CoV-2 tests, COVID-19 related hospitalisation and emergency care) and the increased risk of pericarditis and myocarditis. In adolescents the reduction in risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation per 10,000 individuals (-1.14 for first dose versus unvaccinated, -1.45 for second versus first dose) was larger than the increase in risk of both myocarditis (0.08 for first dose versus unvaccinated) and pericarditis (0.31 for first dose versus unvaccinated, 0.21 for second versus first dose). However, the reduction in risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation in children (-0.02 for first dose versus unvaccinated) was lower than the increase in risk of pericarditis (0.22).

I could go on (I usually do) but in summary the paper states what we mostly already knew:

1. The vaccine provides a degree of protection against hospitalisation and severe illness.
2. The protection provided by the vaccine against contraction of covid (as assessed by way of a positive test) is relatively short lived.
3. That myocarditis and pericarditis are rare side effects of the Pfizer vaccine, but are generally mild and self-limiting.

Why do you suppose the 'COVID-19 related critical care admissions' in the unnvaccinated group did not feature in the article that you linked to?