JAMA recently published a study on the long-term prognosis of myocarditis after COVID-19 RNA vaccination in comparison to myocarditis due to COVID-19 or of other origins.
Why would they use a cutoff of 7 days to detect vaccine-associated myocarditis hospitalization? Most of the official statistics for "vaccinated" status say it starts 14 days after the dose. For example Health Canada defines "Primary series completed" Covid cases as "Cases whose episode date was 14 days or more after receipt of a second dose in two-dose series, 14 days or more after receipt of one dose of a one-dose vaccine, or 0 to <14 days after receipt of a first additional dose (e.g., third or booster) of a Health Canada authorized COVID-19 vaccine."
Seems like a cherry-picked cutoff to make the jab look safer.
What does your method show about 14 day cutoff? How did you pick 30?
Vaccinated status starts conventionally after 14-21 days according to the rule adopted in clinical trials testing efficacy, in turn based on evidence regrding the rise in circulating antibodies. On the contrary, the time window for safety/adverse events always starts immediately after exposure to any drug occurs. The point is when it should end. WHO AEFI guidelines recommend "suitable time windows", which are usually set very shortly after the adminstration of vaccines, in the wrong belief that antigens will remain for just a few at the site of injection. On the contrary, these products undergo systemic biodistribution and most importantly may remain in blood and tissues for weeks and even months. This is why any "suitable time window" with RNA vaccines should last at least weeks or even months.
For genetic therapy drugs such as these "codon optimized" mRNA products that are likely contaminated with DNA plasmids and SV40 promoters, should the suitable time window be on the scale of generations?
grazie per il suo punto di vista, ma (chiedo) perché non è invece lecito pensare che dopo tot giorni la proteina spike, venendo eliminata dall’organismo, non possa più contribuire all’insorgenza di miocardite e che quindi l’incidenza sia comparabile a quella “convenzionale”
In questo studio non si parla di incidenza bensì di gravità. La ragione per cui un intervallo di tempo troppo ridotto, come i sette giorni dell'analisi principale, è criticabile risiede nelle numerose evidenze elencate nel testo che documentano la presenza della proteina Spike per tempi (molto) più lunghi. Mia opinione è che questa persistenza si verifichi in una percentuale ridotta di persone, ma questo basta per delegittimare intervalli ultrabrevi come i sette giorni dello studio, arbitrari e conflittuali con le evidenze disponibili e che non possono che finire per "cancellare" i casi di miocardite non immediati ma comunque riconducibili alla vaccinazione.
Why would they use a cutoff of 7 days to detect vaccine-associated myocarditis hospitalization? Most of the official statistics for "vaccinated" status say it starts 14 days after the dose. For example Health Canada defines "Primary series completed" Covid cases as "Cases whose episode date was 14 days or more after receipt of a second dose in two-dose series, 14 days or more after receipt of one dose of a one-dose vaccine, or 0 to <14 days after receipt of a first additional dose (e.g., third or booster) of a Health Canada authorized COVID-19 vaccine."
Seems like a cherry-picked cutoff to make the jab look safer.
What does your method show about 14 day cutoff? How did you pick 30?
30 days it the time window chosen by study authors for sensitivity analysis.
Vaccinated status starts conventionally after 14-21 days according to the rule adopted in clinical trials testing efficacy, in turn based on evidence regrding the rise in circulating antibodies. On the contrary, the time window for safety/adverse events always starts immediately after exposure to any drug occurs. The point is when it should end. WHO AEFI guidelines recommend "suitable time windows", which are usually set very shortly after the adminstration of vaccines, in the wrong belief that antigens will remain for just a few at the site of injection. On the contrary, these products undergo systemic biodistribution and most importantly may remain in blood and tissues for weeks and even months. This is why any "suitable time window" with RNA vaccines should last at least weeks or even months.
For genetic therapy drugs such as these "codon optimized" mRNA products that are likely contaminated with DNA plasmids and SV40 promoters, should the suitable time window be on the scale of generations?
Egregio Professore,
grazie per il suo punto di vista, ma (chiedo) perché non è invece lecito pensare che dopo tot giorni la proteina spike, venendo eliminata dall’organismo, non possa più contribuire all’insorgenza di miocardite e che quindi l’incidenza sia comparabile a quella “convenzionale”
Grazie in anticipo
In questo studio non si parla di incidenza bensì di gravità. La ragione per cui un intervallo di tempo troppo ridotto, come i sette giorni dell'analisi principale, è criticabile risiede nelle numerose evidenze elencate nel testo che documentano la presenza della proteina Spike per tempi (molto) più lunghi. Mia opinione è che questa persistenza si verifichi in una percentuale ridotta di persone, ma questo basta per delegittimare intervalli ultrabrevi come i sette giorni dello studio, arbitrari e conflittuali con le evidenze disponibili e che non possono che finire per "cancellare" i casi di miocardite non immediati ma comunque riconducibili alla vaccinazione.