The statement from the state's surgeon general was based on unpublished data internal to the health department. Only broad numbers have been made available. But others have reviewed the methodology he used to reach his errant conclusion.
Serious flaws have been identified including
1. There were very few deaths in the age group and there was absolutely no consideration of how many lives were saved and health protected by getting a vaccine.
Example: I review all drownings while inside an automobile an extremely rare evet. I discover that, oh lordy, that people wearing seat belts are more likely to die than those who were unbelted. Then I announce to great fanfare, that as an official government authority on staying alive, you should not wear a seat belt. I have failed to include in my analysis any other benefit vs risk that a seat belt might provide. This is exactly what the surgeon general did.
2. The surgeon general failed to have the medical records of these few cases of cardiac deaths examined. Were these people with pre-existing cardiac conditions? If so his recommendation might have been to be cautious about getting the vaccine if you have pre-existing disease A, B, or C not a general statement. Again even if you are known to have cardiomyopathy... would being vaccinated prevent more deaths than it causes? That is very important and ignored by the surgeon general.
You can find fairly detailed discussions online. It is shameful that our chief medical officer has carelessly made a suggestion that is not science based as his data is incomplete and his analysis in failing to consider any benefit to offset any risk is deeply, profoundly, dangerous to the public health.
The actual paper, unlike the surgeon general's tweet, is available
HERE
In that paper you will read lots of precautionary comments about how they know the data is flawed
Quote:
"this method has been used to assess risk of death following COVID-19 vaccination,
it violates the assumption that an event does not affect subsequent exposure (for mRNA vaccines), which may introduce bias."
|
They admit they do not know why the patient died
Quote:
This study cannot determine the causative nature of a participant’s death. ..., the underlying cause of death may not be cardiac-related.
|
There are many similar statements, cautions about interpretation of the methods and about drawing any conclusion from what they had available to date.
Consider the difference in these two statements:
A. We have found a small increased risk of cardiac death in the age range 18 to 39 in males shortly after mRNA vaccines. We are doing more investigation of these cases and will provide further information transparently as well as risk vs benefit for that population segment
B. We have found a small increased risk of death in the age range 18 to 39 in males shortly after mRNA vaccines. The Florida Health Dept does not recommend you get the shot.