Unfortunately we still do not understand the mechanism of action nor the underlying cellular consequences. (Subclinical cases obviously are not measurable, and clinical resolutions may not mean no permanent damage.) Here is a study where autopsies were done on teenagers who appear to have died from the vaccine induced myocarditis.
It could go either way imo: we may find only a small number of people were harmed, or we may find that thousands of young men now have subclinical heart damage that they need to monitor and make lifestyle choices to address. I suspect we will know more in the next year, but in any case this radically alters the bioethics of mandates.
I can't edit my parent comment, just want to say thanks for your later comments, and citing sources.
I was of the impression (and, tbh, am still under the suspicion..) that any myocarditis risk was "noise" -- not noticeably higher than that in the larger population, or that reported cases have confounding factors that would suggest the vaccine is not the cause.
That being said, I think the more interesting question is what constitutes non-trivial medical risk. 1 in 10k is really small, especially for a medical treatment.
It doesn’t constitute noise if you control for males under 40, especially Moderna. Early on this would have potentially just been data mining, but it’s been replicated and has also led to pulling Moderna for those age groups in some countries. 1 in 10k isn’t a massive risk, but when taken in conjunction with the mandates making the population this is administered in to be “all living humans” then the absolute numbers get very concerning imo, esp if you think there may be more subclinical cases than we think.
> if you control for males under 40, especially Moderna
Fascinating! Thanks. (to be pedantic, my emphasis on the word "was", meant to convey that my opinion was changing)
I was gonna ask "do you have a source on that?" but was able to find this in JAMA w/o much effort: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346
which states in no uncertain terms that "The rates of myocarditis cases were... in adolescent males aged 16 to 17 years .. 105.9 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine", sure enough, 1 in ~10k.
I think it's also important to note, just for larger context -- not attacking or negating anything you've said -- that that cohort (16-17yo males) is the most extreme, it's down to 1 in ~20k once you include up to age 24. Across the whole population it becomes closer to 1 in 200k.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35157759/
It could go either way imo: we may find only a small number of people were harmed, or we may find that thousands of young men now have subclinical heart damage that they need to monitor and make lifestyle choices to address. I suspect we will know more in the next year, but in any case this radically alters the bioethics of mandates.