HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Covid study linking vacci...

Wed Oct 13, 2021, 06:07 AM

Covid study linking vaccines to rare side effect of myocarditis was wrong, researchers admit

Source: Independent UK

A research study that linked a very rare side effect to the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines has been withdrawn by researchers after they made a major mathematical error.

The Canadian study attracted headlines after it suggested there was a 1 in 1,000 risk of people developing myocarditis or inflammation of the heart after receiving the Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines.

But the paper’s conclusions were wrong, and the calculation flawed.

The numbers used by the researchers, from the Ottawa Heart Institute, underestimated the amount of vaccines delivered in Ottawa over a two-month period with the result being 25 times smaller than the true figure.

Read more: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/covid-vaccine-side-effect-myocarditis-b1936880.html



Shame on the Ottawa Heart Institute.
They gave antivaxxers fuel with their crappy methods.

8 replies, 1414 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply Covid study linking vaccines to rare side effect of myocarditis was wrong, researchers admit (Original post)
Sabuca Oct 13 OP
abqtommy Oct 13 #1
SergeStorms Oct 13 #2
Scrivener7 Oct 13 #3
MissMillie Oct 13 #4
GregariousGroundhog Oct 13 #6
MissMillie Oct 13 #7
elias7 Oct 13 #5
BlueIdaho Oct 13 #8

Response to Sabuca (Original post)

Wed Oct 13, 2021, 06:43 AM

1. While it is disappointing to find that so much misinformation exists, the

hard-headed, stupid people who are anti-vax and anti-mask don't need any "fuel" to
feed their deadly frenzy. A lie will do for them anytime, any day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sabuca (Original post)

Wed Oct 13, 2021, 06:49 AM

2. I'm sure....

Facebook will be rife with apologies for spreading false information for the next week or so.

Facebook, if anything, is all about truth and honesty in disseminating information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sabuca (Original post)

Wed Oct 13, 2021, 08:22 AM

3. Q world will never hear of the retraction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sabuca (Original post)

Wed Oct 13, 2021, 08:49 AM

4. Peer review is VITAL to all research studies

I don't understand why any results were published/announced before peer review.

I get the need for expediency, but not above accuracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MissMillie (Reply #4)

Wed Oct 13, 2021, 10:31 AM

6. The article actually addresses this

From the article:

The study was a pre-print, meaning it had yet to be peer reviewed by independent experts and accepted for publication in a reputable science journal. During the pandemic the need for scientific answers over the Covid-19 crisis and vaccine effectiveness has meant pre-print studies have been highlighted much earlier than normal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GregariousGroundhog (Reply #6)

Wed Oct 13, 2021, 10:35 AM

7. And I'm saying that I disagree with their decision (n/t)

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sabuca (Original post)

Wed Oct 13, 2021, 10:25 AM

5. I had calculated 1 in 24,000 from available data for younger males when asked about it

I think pretty much all cases were mild and self-limited (1-2 weeks). Risk even less for older males and for females. It was a simple calculation of going to VAERS, getting the number of reported cases of myocarditis, and dividing into number of vaccine recipients total. How anyone could make that “mistake” is beyond me, since one in a thousand (0.1%) is fairly substantial and should have sent off red flags to those doing the research, i.e. it is difficult to believe no one picked that up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elias7 (Reply #5)

Wed Oct 13, 2021, 11:14 AM

8. I have read 1 in 800,000 overall.

I just want to know who fucked up the math in the first place…

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread