Probably a good decision, but one pair of conditions being 5.6x more likely out of the thousands of medical conditions, and only when you slice for gender...a total of <10 very serious cases in the country...
If this were a social psychology result I'd be super skeptical it isn't a statistical fluke.
Does anyone know if there's a mechanism for action that would make causation make sense? I don't know anything about medicine or biology.
A study in mice found that the condition occurred with some frequency when the vaccine was administered intravenously. So, possibly inadvertent injection into a vein, causing mRNA to be taken up by heart muscle cells which then express spike protein, and either the immune system attacks those cells or the cytotoxic nature of the spike itself kills them off.
Aspirating the needles could help avoid this but the CDC explicitly says it is not necessary.
The thing is, heart inflammation rates are in very good correlation with gender and age, raising in teen boys until they turn about 18 and the start to decrease.
After vaccination heart inflammation rates are in good correlation with this. So when Pfizer vaccine gives good (enough) immunity and rates are higher with Moderna vaccine, then it makes sense to prefer Pfizer vaccine.
> Officials say that about one in approximately 5,000 males between the ages of 18 and 24 have developed the condition after receiving Moderna for their second dose compared to about one in 28,000 males who got Pfizer instead.
If this were a social psychology result I'd be super skeptical it isn't a statistical fluke.
Does anyone know if there's a mechanism for action that would make causation make sense? I don't know anything about medicine or biology.