About 7 days after the first mRNA shot, I got really bad chest pain. I went to see my doctor and my EKG was okay. It only got worse from there, and eventually I was sent to the hospital and diagnosed with pericarditis.
The pericarditis wasn't registered as "caused by the vaccine", since it took three weeks before I finally got a hospital appointment, and by then it was too late to prove. I'm 31 years old and relatively fit and I've never had any issues until 7 days after the vaccine. So when this wasn't attributed to the vaccine, here in Denmark, what percentage of issues will be attributed to the vaccine in a country with a greater population density, like India?
As a consequence of this, I find the "~23 in a million" get heart complications highly questionable.
I've seen 2 people on my Facebook feed have issues. One is pretty big in the skydiving community. He had a Moderna booster and it all went downhill. He's doing better now. He initially thought the vaccine was to blame but then it seemed that there were issues for a while but it kind of put him over the edge. Again all anecdotal.
It would make sense that pre-existing heart issues would be worsened by vaccine that has heart complications. Similar to how covid itself is much more deadly with pre-existing comorbidities while being mostly harmless for healthy young people.
Your language pushes pretty hard for a conclusion.
Consider: A friend had no heart issues for 35 years, decided to take a new route to work, and dropped dead of a heart attack. Is it coincidental?
Of course it is. Anecdotal / single point evidence is completely useless. The study gives you the actual numbers on how likely it's a coincidence or not.
> The study gives you the actual numbers on how likely it's a coincidence or not.
The study doesn't really do that. What it does is compare different methodologies for counting the number of incidences of (myo|peri)-carditis following the 2nd shot. They conclude that the methodology used officially gives lower numbers than other methodologies.
Counting how likely a coincidence it is is something we can do reasonably well using standard null hypothesis testing: compare the number of incidences of pericarditis in a random sample against a sample of patients post-vaccine. But this is not something that the article does. The difficulty, discussed in the article, lies in deciding what counts as "post-vaccine".
There are multiple data points, evidence of heart issues being caused by vaccines, Moderna in particular because of higher relative doses. It's not unreasonable to suspect causation when the event matches a known pattern.
> If it takes 3 weeks to get the the hospital in Denmark, how long does it take in India?
I’m not sure why you keep comparing Denmark to India, but India actually has very accessible on-demand healthcare compared to the USA/EU. It wouldn’t be an issue.
Yeah, my family in india is able to get at home testing for everything from covid to blood tests. On the other hand, I have to wait for days to get tested with my American healthcare.
> My story is definitely anecdotal, but my cardiologist said that unfortunately she couldn't register this with VAERS because I got there too late. If it takes 3 weeks to get the the hospital in Denmark, how long does it take in India?
Highly skeptical about this. In the US, I registered to vsafe after my vaccines and got pinged for a survey daily after the dose for a week (IIRC) then weekly for a month. Then again after 6 months. All surveys asking about my condition, new symptoms, etc..
Not saying you're lying, or that your doctor was full of shit, but I don't believe there's any time limit for reporting possible vaccine side effects.
Also, VAERS is an American thing. Not sure what Denmark has to do with it. If there's a Danish equivalent, why didn't you mention it?
Same. It's got so bad it keeps me awake at night, and prevents me from taking naps. Heart thumping harder than when I go for a run, but just while laying down on the couch.
I've noticed my omega3 supplements help a lot though, as in, almost instantly. It comes back if I forget to take them for a few days too, so that's a possible cause as well. Just sucks to have that in the back of my mind.
There is a higher risk to dying from a covid infection (at least with delta) than from the vaccine as far as we can see in the short term.
But there is still a risk from the vaccine.
If there was a train hurtling down the tracks about to kill five people many think they’d be able to push the switch to make it only kill one different person, yet I wouldn’t be able to do even that let alone the more intense situations from that scenario.
Thinking of people as numbers is what allows for someone to think it is ok to coerce people into getting vaccines.
A person susceptible to heart conditions from the vaccine would probably also be susceptible to the same (or worse) from the disease itself. Your hapless groups of people on the tracks, the five and the one, aren't independent. It may well be flipping the switch only saves lives.
I am absolutely pro vaccine despite my heart problems, but this kind of argumentation basically means that regardless of how bad the vaccine is, it gets away free because "covid would probably be worse".
That's kind of how relative risk works. I mean, no COVID would be nice, but we left that world behind two years ago. What do you mean "get away free" anyway? There's no morality here. The vaccine didn't "do" anything wrong. It is either efficacious or it isn't, and the side effects are either worth it or they aren't. From what we can tell, the risk of heart problems from the vaccine is so much lower than from COVID. What more would you like people to do?
The preprint discussed in that post specifically calls out that there weren’t enough myocarditis events in the 13-17 age group to reliably estimate the relative risk, so I don’t see where that conclusion is coming from
Also, note the higher relative risk only applies to the full moderna dose
I’m not saying that I don’t think myocarditis is a risk factor for kids and teens, just that this paper isn’t giving a quantitative assessment of its relative risk vs Covid. If you have seen research that does provide quantitative insight, I would be interested to read it; I have two kids under 5 and I’m still evaluating things.
I have a pre-teen daughter myself and while she's not directly in a "risk-group" (like boys are) I wouldn't feel comfortable shoving jabs and boosters after boosters into her, when the benefits are dubious.
This is why many countries are holding off on vaccinating kids still, even though some countries like the US seem to be hellbent on vaccinating 100% at any cost.
Edit: The above study has risks broken up by which vaccines were administered as 1st/2nd (page 12). Interestingly Moderna+Pfizer seems to have no(!?) risk, whereas myocarditis is very high among Pfizer+Moderna. Not sure what to make of it.
Edit2: Keep in mind we haven't vaccinated <12 year olds extensively yet, but the data on young children is already worrisome (to the point where risks of myocarditis seem to outweigh risks of Covid).
Edit3: I'm myself double-jabbed, so not an antivaxxer per se, even though I'm classified as one as per "modern definition".
Thanks for the link, it’s interesting that they have similar findings to other studies based on passive reporting systems like VAERS in the US.
I don’t think the forever-recurring boosters are going to be a thing, it seems like cellular immunity is holding, and from the apparent drop off in myocarditis with greater spacing between doses one and two in this paper, that seems like evidence that 3-6 months would have been a better spacing than 3-4 weeks
> Interestingly Moderna+Pfizer seems to have no(!?) risk, whereas myocarditis is very high among Pfizer+Moderna. Not sure what to make of it.
I wouldn’t pay this much heed at all (based on this data at least). There were under 10k people in that first group (and zero cases of myocarditis), and the confidence intervals of the poisson regression overlap. You can even see from the figure how the model predicts a non-zero rate even though there were no actual cases!
really? I know many people who "got omicron" shortly after Christmas... by which I mean, they self-tested daily and eventually the test came up positive, with symptoms ranging from literally nonexistent to that of the mildest of colds—a far cry from my mom's ten-day absolute misery (and very real fear for her life given her immunosuppressed state) back in early 2020 that I personally witnessed & took care of her during. if that's what we're dealing with now, I don't see any reason why someone like myself who hasn't taken any of these vaccines or boosters or whatever to start doing so now. what part of my own personal risk assessment here is misguided?
How this does help anyone in particular to decide for themselves, unless you include some other factors like pre-existing conditions, sex, or age to the comparison?
People are not averages of the whole population. We would not need doctors if medical advice was this simple.
The trolley problem analogy breaks down when you consider that Covid is an infectious disease. Getting vaccinated doesn't just protect you; it protects everyone else you might have spread the disease to.
Both technically true statements (though I think you mean Iceland), but presented in a completely misleading way. Yes, breakthrough infections exist and nothing is 100%; you should still get the vaccine, obviously. Yes, when the population is highly vaccinated, a lot of infections will be in the vaccinated; that's just how denominators work.
Well what if there is a side effect that kills them? What if that person already got covid and was barely affected by it?
Forcing them to get the vaccine is crazy, especially when it doesn’t behave how the other vaccines do, and vaccinated people are both getting it and spreading it, albeit with far less severe symptoms than the unvaccinated person on average.
I think vaccines are amazing, these new covid ones, look to be reducing the symptoms of covid.
The idea of forcing it on folks when even vaccinated people are spreading it is absurd.
I wouldn’t be surprised if vaccinated people go out more because they feel safer. I went on a cross-US road trip right after I got my vaccine and now I’ve been to 4 different countries.
I wouldn’t have done any of that if I wasn’t vaccinated.
Medical advice should be provided by doctors, not politicians, activists, or bureacrats. Doctors have specific ethical training and guidelines by which they're qualified to make judgments about safety and relative risks for individuals.
Consider that polio vaccination was never framed and exploited by political parties playing despicable red vs blue games with the public. The results, driven by information campaigns devoid of partisan politics, were a nearly universal state of vaccination, driving the disease more or less extinct. Trust in doctors and medical institutions was high and relatively untrammeled by partisan games.
The second that coronavirus vaccination became a political shibboleth for team blue, the current state of vaccine resistance became inevitable. Both parties are responsible for a lot of unnecessary death and suffering because of their willingness to never let a good crisis go to waste.
Throw in the general decline and corruption of institutions, lack of trust in public health agencies and even doctors in general, and you've got a mess of hyperpartisan unvaccinated conservative folks being shrieked at by the clueless but vaccinated team blue, and nobody credible or trusted able to bring the situation back to something resembling sanity.
In the US, it would be required that the doctors report it to the VAERS database. There is no need to prove any causal relationship, since that is basically impossible anyway. It doesn't really make sense that Denmark would require you to prove it either, since the data gathering is really the only tool to get evidence of causation.
"In the US, it would be required that the doctors report it to the VAERS database."
From my personal experience and what I've heard online, that seems like wishful thinking. I know two people who had bad heart reactions to the vaccine whose doctors insisted it couldn't be from the vaccine and wouldn't speak of it being connected. And it seems like I've heard similar stories online dozens of times. My guess is the VAERS data dramatically undercounts incidents.
The Pfizer whistleblower paper claimed that even in the early days of the vaccine, internal Pfizer incidents weren't even reported. And given how hostile the entire internet is to discussions of vaccine safety, the idea that people are extremely reluctant to report vaccine injuries seems believable.
Anyone can report to VAERS. Evidenced by the reports if you care to peruse them. There are a lot of gems like, "he got the vax and then just died" and "my baby died a few weeks after I received the vaccine" and my favorite, "my cat died a few days after I got vaccinated". Considering the infinitely higher level of publicity that VAERS has received for this vaccine vs all previous vaccines, my guess is that it is over-reported.
A good friend of mine told me that he developed shortness of breath and palpitations after his first shot, and had to spend 8 hours in the ER.
While I do acknowledge that there is a lot of misinformation on the topic out there, it was really weird to see an actual real person you know suffer from a side effect of a shot. I started to think that things aren't as simple as they seem to be advertised...
heard a story of a nurse vaccinating a 16 yo kids crying and not wanting the vaccine and dying in the minutes after the shot.
It seems totally unbelievable, but the story was only n+2 (from someone knowing the nurse). Also said people in vaccine center had clear instructions not to mention anything happening there.
All this seems totally paranoid, i know. But i've also found numerus videos of actual doctors mentionning huge numbers of blood disorders in their own patients following the injection, so...
Why are there two separate commenters saying that it was a panic attack?
Is this the recommended explanation medical professionals should provide now when a patient has to spend 8 hours in ER, or is HN full medical experts in panic attacks?
What I can't seem to figure out (and the knee-jerk censorship of any discussion on the topic isn't helping...) is whether or not this is unusual, as vaccines go. Although I never thought much about it before, it seems like no vaccine could possibly be 100% safe, so, say the smallpox vaccine must produce occasional side effects. How does this vaccine compare with all the other ones? Smallpox will almost definitely kill you, so a small chance of a side effect is worth it. What is the real cost/benefit of getting this particular vaccine?
I think the most important data point you should compare in this case is the rate of myopericarditis in young men who get COVID.
It's somewhat irrelevant what the rate is in past vaccines.
Two things seem pretty clear from the data. The first is that myocarditis rates are much higher in unvaccinated young men who get COVID than those who get the vaccine. And the second is that you almost certainly will get COVID eventually.
One hypothesis is that the spike protein in the vaccine is what causes the myocarditis. If you are scared of that, then you should be really scared of how much more spike protein you are going to have in your body if you get COVID unvaccinated. The spike protein in the vaccine does not replicate. In COVID, it obviously does. If I had to guess, I would say that anyone who gets myocarditis from the vaccine probably would have had a very bad time with COVID.
First the original study did not stratify based on age and sex - a huge failure because potential issue among young men was well known problem.
This preprint tries to fix this but as the original study compared also other cardiac adverse events like pericarditis and cardiac arrhythmias, the preprint does not. It is important because the rate of other complications was not elevated among vaccinated.
This study uses self-controlled case series. This means that they compare against previous incidence rates in the study group (vaccinated, covid-19). This would be possibly more or less fine if they compared two treatments but even then there is big potential for selection bias (the choice of treatment is based on preexisting conditions) but is even higher when you compare treatment and disease - covid-19 is harder for people with comorbidities, when you make a comparison within this group, you can most likely expect higher preexisting prevalence of heart conditions and therefor lower IRR.
This preprint and the orginal paper do not contain any mentioning of unvaccinated. It very likely means that the covid-19 group also contains patients who were vaccinated and had lower rate of AE.
Finally, this study design includes people with previous incidence. Hearth problems are very often recurrent. While it is important to know if vaccination of covid-19 will reintroduce the condition, it is not very interesting for most of the people because incidence rate of these conditions is very low. What is real interest here is how prevalent it is among people who did not have it previously.
Now I am really interested to find out the truth here. This preprint and the orginal study does not help me in this unfortunately.
I completely agree; nothing here is conclusive at all. I just can't stand flippant statements like, "the data is clear," when it isn't, at all. Those kinds of people are directly contributing to the social divide about science.
A preprint, but included because it is specifically for young men. 6x more likely to get myocarditis from COVID than vaccine. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34341797/
There are now a multitude of studies indicating the prevelance of myocarditis from COVID 19. Many of which are broken down by age, so you can see how much higher the prevelance is vs vaccine side effects.
We have a pretty good idea of how bad the myocarditis issue for COVID is because we had a good long time without a vaccine. There were very large increases in myocarditis in 2020 vs 2019.
The real problem is that people like yourself jump to the first contradictory study you can find and tout it as proof or simply muddy the water from what many of the experts are saying. The reality on this particular issue is that quite a bit of research has already been done. A quick search will pull up multiple studies on myocarditis rates with covid, most of which have age breakdowns.
That preprint you linked estimates a rate per million of 561 for myocarditis, for young adult males.
OP's preprint show a rate per million of 537 for young adult males on their second dose.
I would say the research definitely isn't conclusive yet. For young adults, whether the vaccine is safer than getting COVID is an open question, but we do know the absolute risk for both (vaccination or getting COVID) is small.
I wanted to specify that I find these attempts to but vaccination and covid-19 into perspective very important. This is first study that I know so far has truly attempted to do so. Now in current state they create more confusion and possible harm but they have the data so they should be able to fix these issues.
Singer et al paper estimates first occurrence of myocarditis without any previous cardiovascular history and without previous vaccination against COVID-19. The OP paper does not have this specification so the results of these papers are not directly comparable.
In addition the Singer et al paper includes also pericarditis, myopericarditis (myocarditis and pericarditis occurring together) in addition to myocarditis. Considering that pericarditis is more prevalent in COVID-19 patients and is missing in vaccinated https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0 OP papers clearly is overestimating the difference.
"And the second is that you almost certainly will get COVID eventually" this wasn't true until Omicron. Social distancing, proper masking, and maintaining good ventilation were all ways to dramatically lower your chances of getting any of the previous strains.
And Omicron is so much milder it would be shocking if myocarditis rates remain higher than in vaccinations.
"The spike protein in the vaccine does not replicate. In COVID, it obviously does." This is misleading. The spike protein is created similarly in both cases, both from RNA being introduced into the cells.
"If I had to guess, I would say that anyone who gets myocarditis from the vaccine probably would have had a very bad time with COVID." This very much is a guess as we don't know the mechanism for what is causing myocarditis.
My guess is that we'll find much lower levels of vaccine myocarditis in countries which aspirate injections, dramatically lowering the rate of inadvertent intravenous injections. And we'll find that the cause of SARS-COV-2 myocarditis differs greatly from vaccine induced myocarditis.
It's milder when measured by overall hospitalization rates (covering vaccinated + unvaccinated + past infection), but is there evidence that it is milder for unvaccinated individuals specifically? Genuine question, happy to learn.
Solid data is still hard to come by, but preliminary analyses from the week of Dec 20 have omicron as moderately less virulent than Delta, and on par (+/- 10-20%) with the original strain.
I don't know that we know that. But given the UK death rates I'm guessing we'll be happy. I don't know anyone still unvaccinated, but I certainly hope omicron is milder for the people are aren't.
unless omikron spread to vaccinated people preferably , or if vaccination rates increase a lot between delta and omikron, the fact that the increase in omikron cases doesn't produce an increase in hospital ICU prooves it's also not as lethal to non-vax
You don’t understand what people mean when they say that. The premise of everyone getting covid is based on the continued mutation and evolutionary pressure to more contagious and less deadly variants. The emergence of an Omicron-like variant is exactly what people meant when they said “everyone will get covid”.
No, they did not. What they meant was that already Delta is so contagious that only very limited amount of people can avoid it - r0 ~ 6-8 will make sure of it that ~85-90% of people must be immune to stop its spread.
Seasonal flu has r0 = 1.3. This means that it does not affect 75% of the population. The formula is p = 1 - (1/r0) to find out at what level of immunity the disease will die out.
Original Sars2 had r0 = 3, this meant that about 60% immunity level is needed. This is from where to original need of 70% of vaccinated comes from - vaccines do not give 100% immunity so you have to account for that.
Delta messed everything up. With p=85% and vaccine efficiency of 70% (because nobody, except Israelis dared to think about boosters first), you need more than 100% vaccinated - everyone gets is either vaccinated and lucky or vaccinated/unvaccinated and will get infected.
The fact is, that the vast majority of people who refuse to get the vaccine, are also the same people not taking enough precautions to avoid contracting COVID.
If you want the absolute safest option, then don't get the vaccine and take extreme precautions to avoid catching COVID. But that is unrealistic for the vast majority.
> Two things seem pretty clear from the data. The first is that myocarditis rates are much higher in unvaccinated young men who get COVID than those who get the vaccine. And the second is that you almost certainly will get COVID eventually.
Given that it is well documented that the vaccine reduces the severity of the disease I would also expect it to modify the risk of myocarditus in some way (I assume that it reduces the risk)... That further complicates the picture...
Yeah, this is the logic and data that I used. I plan on engaging in fairly 'risky' behavior when I can (social dancing), so I'm assuming I'll catch Covid at some stage, so I'd rather catch it with a vaccine (as I think the risk of vaccine+covid is less than unvaccinated covid). At current rates of 20,000 cases/day, everyone in New South Wales will get Omicron in just over a year, so unless you totally isolate yourself from society, it's highly likely everyone will catch it at some point.
I want to know about it too. I got the flu vaccine in ~2016 and the next day experienced heartburn like I had never experienced before. I had to lay down the rest of the day. I had and have never experienced heartburn like that since. I probably should’ve had it checked but just toughed it out. I had a suspicion it was the vaccine, but no one I knew in medicine had ever heard of it happening.
I didn’t have any side effects with either SARS2 vaccines except for a sore arm, so who who knows what that was!
> During March 2020–January 2021, patients with COVID-19 had nearly 16 times the risk for myocarditis compared with patients who did not have COVID-19, and risk varied by sex and age.
> During March 2020–January 2021, the risk for myocarditis
was 0.146% among patients with COVID-19 and 0.009%
among patients without COVID-19. Among patients with
COVID-19, the risk for myocarditis was higher among
males (0.187%) than among females (0.109%) and was
highest among adults aged ≥75 years (0.238%), 65–74 years
(0.186%), and 50–64 years (0.155%) and among children
aged <16 years (0.133%)
I don't get these numbers because the other original paper says the rate is 95.4 per million or 0.00954%, but that's well below the risk with or without COVID-19.
> We estimated a risk of 95.4 cases of myopericarditis per million second doses administered in
patients age 12-39 which is higher than the incidence reported to US advisory committees
The numbers in that tweet are based on this (pre-print) paper which reports a higher rate than the CDC does, and doesn't give a figure for Moderna specifically, so doesn't really work as a source for that "known fact" if that was your intent.
I don't see how body mass and aspiration can possibly explain the presentation of vaccine associated myocarditis we're seeing. i.e. increased incidence in pubescent boys and young men. They should tend towards lower body mass than older men, and the people administering vaccines don't aspirate in general, not just for some demographics. This demographic is just generally more susceptible to myocarditis from any cause.
It should be noted, of course, that Vinay Prasad is a hematologist and oncologist (not a specialist in infectious disease) most well known as of late for comparing US public health restrictions to Nazi Germany [1]. Needless to say, he's not exactly representative of medical consensus.
The piece is a hypothetical about what happens when pluralism / democratic institutions decline and how opportunists/authoritarians could exploit this. The reference to Nazi Germany was not at all about current US public health restrictions or policy. If you actually read it, this becomes clear. (Given that Germany had essentially no pluralism or democratic traditions entering the 1920s I don't think the comparison is great but oh well.)
It is true that VP is an oncologist not an ID doc. But he is also a professor of epidemiology and biostats at UCSF, perhaps the top med school in the US. This means he is vastly more quantitatively savvy than most public health officials or commentators.
And how exactly is this hospital visiting covid diagnosed demographic comparable to complications in a normal healthy people receiving vaccine against covid?
What I want to know is... what's the rate of myocarditis in vaccinated individuals who get covid compared to the rate of myocarditis in unvaccinated individuals who get covid?
It is now obvious that the vaccines do not prevent covid. But do the vaccines reduce the likelihood of myocarditis for when I do catch covid? Or is it the same 150 per 100k that the CDC estimates?
>It is now obvious that the vaccines do not prevent covid.
For the record, that was obvious when the vaccines were released, as the trial results for vaccine effectiveness against infection for all the vaccines were clearly and widely reported to be significantly less than 100%. I think you may be referring to the lower effectiveness against new variants, which, again, was always reported as a possibility even before variants started appearing.
Pfizer and BioNTech concluded their phase 3 study and reported their vaccine to be 95% effective against COVID-19 beginning 28 days after the first dose.[0]
This was widely reported in the American and worldwide media.[3][4][5][6]
Fauci said the results were "extraordinary" and would "have a major impact on everything that we do with regard to COVID."[1]
>For the record, that was obvious when the vaccines were released
It doesn't seem obvious to me at all. Seems like an outright retelling of history. You should do a search for the period of November 1, 2020 to January 31, 2021 on this topic.
The difference between a zero chance of infection and a 1 in 20 chance is obvious to me, and I would hope, to most people. I'd be happy to offer you a 0% chance at winning $1000 from me in exchange for a 5% chance of winning $1000 from you. I'll even pay you $5. ;-)
> as the trial results for vaccine effectiveness against infection for all the vaccines were clearly and widely reported to be significantly less than 100%
This is not true.
Now you’re saying… I don’t know what you’re trying to say. That you understand basic arithmetic, but don’t understand how vaccine efficacy and herd immunity works?
> as the trial results for vaccine effectiveness against infection for all the vaccines were clearly and widely reported to be significantly less than 100%
> This is not true.
It is absolutely true. The difference between 0% and 5% is enormous, as I tried to illustrate with my example. Let me try again. If your doctor told you there was a 0% chance you have cancer vs a 5% chance, you would behave very differently, correct?
Note: VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to the system. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.
Would be nice to have some reasoning given for why I51.4 should be included. Not a physician, but it appears to indicate a pre-existing cardiac condition, in which case it seems reasonable to exclude those cases on the grounds of not being able to establish that the vaccine was the likely cause.
If a doctor doesn't find any immediate causal link between chest pain and vaccination, or if the tests performed in hospital look normal, which is typically troponin, ECG and chest xray, then the patient is often dismissed and told to rest and then subsequently follow up with a cardiologist if the pain doesn't improve.
The inflammation may not be acute enough for a definitive diagnosis of myocarditis.
Go to a cardiologist and have a CT and MRI for a thorough diagnosis.
I'm just one lonely data point but I got really bad myocardia (didn't know what it was at the time but woke up three days after my second shot and it literally felt like my heart was going to explode out of my chest... or like I had a high pressure bag of camp fire smoke in my chest, it burned and hurt).
I got Pfizer each time, was a 34 year old male at the time.
The pericarditis wasn't registered as "caused by the vaccine", since it took three weeks before I finally got a hospital appointment, and by then it was too late to prove. I'm 31 years old and relatively fit and I've never had any issues until 7 days after the vaccine. So when this wasn't attributed to the vaccine, here in Denmark, what percentage of issues will be attributed to the vaccine in a country with a greater population density, like India?
As a consequence of this, I find the "~23 in a million" get heart complications highly questionable.