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

[Sabuca]

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A research study that linked a very rare side effect to the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines has been withdrawn by researchers after they made a major mathematical error.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

[abqtommy]

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.

[SergeStorms]

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.

[Scrivener7]

3. Q world will never hear of the retraction.

[MissMillie]

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.

[GregariousGroundhog]

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.

[MissMillie]

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

.

[elias7]

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.

[BlueIdaho]

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

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