Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitley
Switzerland will not recommend a COVID-19 vaccine for its citizens, even for those at high risk of experiencing severe illness from contracting the virus. A study performed in Basel Switzerland highlighted that "subclinical mRNA vaccine-associated myocardial injury is much more common than estimated based on passive surveillance. Up to 3000 times." In other words, the active surveillance conducted by the researchers revealed a significantly higher prevalence of heart damage compared to the passive surveillance systems, such as the federal government's VAERS. In fact, in a study with only 777 participants with a median age of 37--all medical professionals getting the COVID vaccine–the incidence of elevated cardiac enzymes 3 days after injection was pretty substantial, at almost 3%. How can there be such a variance in what countries tell their citizens? The USA Is suggesting vaccines for toddlers while European countries advise against getting the vaccine/boosters. If you have a good relationship (rare in today's world) with your doctor you can discuss what would be right for you. Regrettably the relationship and trust many of us had with our doctor in the past are just that, in the past.
|
Too many studies and too difficult to compare. In this case it looks like an apples to oranges situation.
The Swiss study looked at 777 hospital workers and not a sampling of the population.
The article acknowledges that while myocarditis primarily affects young men, the participants in this study were middle-aged women.
The Swiss study took samples to find elevated enzymes while the CDC study looked at diagnosed cases.
The article about the Swiss study mentions a 3% occurrence rate but also mentions that myocarditis complications occur in about 3% of cases. Using just those numbers you might expect a 0.09% rate of cases that rise to the level of being noticed and requiring attention. This is still 90 times higher than the CDC rate but far less than the factor of 3,000 mentioned in the article.
Perhaps the US needs a better study in order to compare apples to apples with the Swiss study (maybe it already exists somewhere).
Conflicting studies certainly drive confusion and skepticism.