Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
[flagged] Recent deaths in young people in England and Wales (hartgroup.org)
45 points by walterbell 12 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 25 comments

The source it gives for the mortality of myocarditis is a paper titled "A clinical trial of immunosuppressive therapy for myocarditis" I.e. they were testing a possible treatment. The conclusion was "Our results do not support routine treatment of myocarditis with immunosuppressive drugs."

Referencing this as though it's the true mortality rate is woefully misleading. This is the mortality rate when using this experimental treatment.

In regards to the cardiac arrests and ambulance calls, it seems that the graph almost exactly follows the baseline, except for the two heatwaves. It doesn't say what the baseline is - I guess 2020 figures?

Edit: on further inspection - figures 1a,b,c are from a paper[1] and are showing an increase in cardiac arrest, unconsciousness, e.t.c. however this article ignores 2 graphs from the paper which show a decrease in chest pain and decrease in breathing difficulty, both of which are myocarditis symptoms.

I think this article is wilfully misleading.

[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

Pre-covid definitely seems like the better baseline to use here, because lockdowns may have prevented some other deaths in 2020.

For the 2015-2019 data, I would be interested in seeing the standard deviation, not just the mean, to be able to judge how likely such a deviation is, historically. The fact that female deaths show a similar order of magnitude change in the opposite direction makes me suspect this may be within the noise?

> However, in the literature the overall mortality rate for myocarditis after one year is 20% and after five years 44% to 56%.

I haven't looked in to this but if this is correct it's orders of magnitude larger than what my intuition after all the discussion of myocarditis had led me to believe.

Hopefully there's a confounding factor such as old age and other comorbidities I'm missing.

It's because the paper they are referencing is testing the use of immunosuppressive therapy to treat myocarditis. The conclusion that was reached was that it doesn't work.

Needless to say, that's not how myocarditis is treated in hospitals.

The lack of actual statistics to evaluate the significance of these findings means that it's hard to discern whether this is within the limits of year-to-year variation. Also note that the 2020 numbers are already consistently lower than the average from 2015-2019. They also only address one possible cause, myocarditis caused by the Covid-19 vaccine. If there is a significant increase in deaths in young males, you still need a lot more than 2 graphs with similar spikes to prove that the vaccine is the cause. See also: ice cream trucks and shark attacks.

Break's over, so no time to tidy this up. I'll be back, probably.

It's like we are witnessing the stage 3 clinical trial being tested in production.

Finland, Sweden and Denmark have already banned use of Moderna due to their findings of it increasing myocarditis, but it's still unknown if other vaccines have a high rate of this side effect.

Good to see other countries investigating this too.

The Hart Group is one of a number of overlapping organisations that target children and parents with vaccine-related misinformation:


This seems like a reasonably good-faith analysis to me at first glance, and I think it merits being discussed.

I added a methodological question at the top level.

You may want to browse the website a bit and see if you feel like they might have a bias.

The tables are poorly labeled and I'm honestly having trouble figuring out what subset of the population they're referring to in each column.

As someone else pointed out, they got their numbers for mortality from myocarditis from the results of a study on a novel treatment that apparently was not very effective as far as keeping folks alive. I went to the study myself hoping that the other commenter had just misunderstood and that somewhere in the study, they had more general numbers for myocarditis outcomes, but that's not the case. The numbers are from the results and are only representative of the outcome if treated with immunosuppressants.

The only real argument that they have is that they managed to make two graphs which look similar. If it weren't on a web page dedicated to discouraging the use of the vaccine, I'd think maybe it was a relatively harmless misunderstanding of how science works.

It lacks any real substance and what little evidence they have is presented out of context.

I agree the study they linked to is an unfortunate choice but I looked elsewhere for mortality numbers for myocarditis and they don't seem to be that far off [1]. In the end I also don't think this is a meaningful finding, but I do believe it is worth looking at the data at least a bit and not dismissing it out of hand because of the venue where it was published. It's good to keep an open mind.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3370379/#:~:tex...).

What I got from that study is that the prognosis for myocarditis is very dependent on the cause and how much damage happens before the cause is removed.

I dismissed it initially due to the website it was on. Then I spent a good half hour digging through their arguments and finding out whether they had any basis in reality. Now I know for sure it has no real merit and I've wasted a decent amount of time on it. For a more extreme example, I'm not going to go through every blog post the KKK puts up just because they used some scientific-sounding arguments to argue that black people are bad.

I get where people are coming from trying to consider all the data, but some sources aren't worth the effort.

Are you aware of data analysis which contradicts the information presented in this article?

The paper suggests it may be myocarditis and doesn't do anything to establish normal myocarditis fluctuations in young males who are always more susceptible than females. Just looking at the influenza chart, 2018 is probably also an abnormal year compared to 2019 if influenza related myocarditis kills young males.

I think there is enough evidence now to pause the vaccine for young people, like Sweden and Denmark have done. It's simply not worth it for a young person.

Sweden has paused the use of Moderna's vaccine for people under 30, young people still get the Pfizer one though.


Is there a specific concern with official UK medical data reported in the article?

The purpose of studying deaths and other injuries after a medical intervention is to improve screening of those at risk of injury, thereby avoiding injury.

How many times has "think of the children" been used to justify technology policy? It's literally the topic here.

We can prevent deaths by performing basic data science, to identify questions for further study.

Take a deep breath and read what you just wrote. You are the extremist

> No, this should not be investigated.

> Or what are we here, anti-science?

Isn't science all about investigation?

If the data presented is inaccurate, or the analysis flawed, people will identify the inaccuracies and flaws. And on HN, probably very quickly.

Thankfully it was flagged. I'm at ease. Please put your facemask on.

We will learn a lot from upcoming research about the algorithmic PR descendants of Cambridge Analytica.


It's already gone from the front page.

If people email hn@ycombinator.com about the incorrect flagging, it can be restored.

HN has been good about reversing non-justified flags, especially if there is substantive discussion about the article, rather than a flamewar.

More anti-vax pseudo-science backed up with data.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact