|
|
|
|
|
|
by thieving_magpie
1351 days ago
|
|
|
I googled it (plenty of results...) and this was the basic analysis I found: "The study of teenagers in Thailand following a second COVID-19 vaccination found that 18% -- not one third -- experienced any detectable cardiac effect, and that 1 in 301, not 1 in 43, had confirmed myocarditis. A large proportion of purported abnormalities detected by testing were without symptoms, and 100% of the teens in the study fully recovered after 14 days, the authors reported." https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-heart-teens-vaccin... I'm not knowledgeable enough about anything regarding this subject to make any determinations about if that is being downplayed or misleading. I don't want to pretend like I understand it. |
|
|
They're downplaying the harm by changing the context.
Re: "found that 18% -- not one third -- experienced any detectable cardiac effect"
This research found 1:43 harm - because that harm included detection of damage to the heart via blood:
"Troponin blood test - troponin is a protein which is released into the blood stream when the heart muscle is damaged. The troponin level provides a quick and accurate measure of any heart muscle damage. It's used to help in the assessment following suspected heart attack."
Troponin was part of the research - and in 1:43 trooponin was detected post-shot vs. pre-shot.
And 1:301 is still extremely bad, no? Certainly you can make a judgement on that? It is actually harming 1:43 but even harming a heart - which is permanent damage as the heart doesn't heal - 1:301 of harming a young person's heart is completely unacceptable - especially when they're at very little risk of any significant harm, nowhere near 1:301 from COVID itself.
Also, 100% of the teens didn't recover after 14 days: there is permanent heart damage in 1:43.
They also focus on only including myocarditis numbers to make their numbers seem less worse (1:301 is still horrific) - by excluding the case(s) of pericarditis from their numbers.
Notice how Reuters is at the top of Google, and Reuters has routinely misled people to train them of these shallow-narrow talking points - to give them enough narrative to make them think the alarming research was less true than it actually is.