mRNA Vaccine Myocarditis Disclosure Timing (2021–23)
Introduction
Myocarditis — inflammation of the heart muscle — emerged as a safety signal associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 and Moderna mRNA-1273) in 2021. The risk is concentrated in young males, particularly those aged 16–29, and most commonly follows the second dose of either vaccine. The condition is generally mild and resolves with rest and anti-inflammatory treatment in most reported cases.
The controversy is not primarily about whether myocarditis is a real vaccine adverse event — regulatory agencies, manufacturers, and independent researchers agree that it is. The controversy is about when health authorities knew about the signal, when they disclosed it to the public and to physicians, and whether the gap between internal awareness and public disclosure constitutes inappropriate suppression of safety information.
Timeline of Detection and Disclosure
April–May 2021: The Israeli Ministry of Health (MoH) began receiving reports of myocarditis cases in young males following their second Pfizer-BioNTech dose. An internal signal was detected within the Israeli surveillance system.
June 23–25, 2021: The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) held a public meeting at which CDC staff presented data on myocarditis cases reported to VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System). The committee acknowledged an elevated risk of myocarditis in males aged 16–29 following the second mRNA dose. The meeting was public and the presentations were published.
June–July 2021: The FDA and both manufacturers updated vaccine labels to include myocarditis and pericarditis as potential adverse events. Healthcare providers were notified via official communications.
2022 — peer-reviewed confirmation: Multiple large-scale epidemiologic studies confirmed the signal. Patone et al (Nature Medicine, 2022) used UK health records. Le Vu et al (Nature Communications, 2022) used French health insurance data. Lazaros et al provided additional clinical characterisation. These studies established risk estimates for myocarditis per 100,000 doses by age and sex strata.
2022 — Israeli FOI disclosures: Documents obtained via Freedom of Information requests from the Israeli MoH were published in 2022. Critics, including researchers associated with the Retsef Levi group at MIT, argued these documents showed that internal Israeli health authorities had more extensive data on myocarditis earlier than public statements acknowledged, and that the scope of the safety signal was communicated more cautiously to the public than internal assessments warranted.
2023 — Anders-Lavergne controversy: A group of researchers raised questions about the CDC's internal review of vaccine safety data and the transparency of the v-safe data release process. The CDC ultimately released v-safe data following a FOIA lawsuit by the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN). Analyses of the released data generated further debate about the completeness of earlier public safety reporting.
Risk Quantification
Risk estimates for myocarditis following mRNA vaccines in young males vary by study, dose number, vaccine product, and age group. Across published literature, estimates for males aged 16–29 following the second dose range from approximately 1 to 10 cases per 100,000 doses, with higher estimates in the 16–24 age group. Moderna's mRNA-1273 has consistently shown higher rates than Pfizer-BioNTech's BNT162b2 in head-to-head comparisons. The risk is substantially lower in females, older males, and following boosters.
For context: myocarditis risk from SARS-CoV-2 infection itself has also been estimated in multiple studies. Whether vaccine-associated myocarditis risk exceeds COVID-19-associated myocarditis risk in young males — and in which age/sex subgroups — has been a point of active and sometimes heated scientific debate, with results varying by study design, time period, and variant.
Recovery from vaccine-associated myocarditis is generally reported as good in most clinical follow-up studies, though some researchers have raised questions about whether long-term cardiac outcomes for all patients have been adequately characterised.
The Framing Debate
The core disagreement is not about facts but about characterisation:
"Concealment" framing: Israeli internal documents showed earlier and more detailed awareness of the myocarditis signal than public statements acknowledged. The CDC's v-safe data was not proactively released and required litigation to obtain. Booster recommendations were made in adolescent populations before myocarditis follow-up data were mature. These facts, combined, represent a regulatory failure to disclose known safety information in a timely manner.
"Transparent regulatory process" framing: The June 2021 ACIP meeting was public. Label updates occurred within weeks of confirmed signal detection. Post-authorisation surveillance systems (VAERS, v-safe, VSD) were operating and reporting. Peer-reviewed confirmation followed within 12–18 months of initial signal detection. The timeline is consistent with the ordinary pace of pharmacovigilance.
Both framings contain accurate factual claims. The interpretive dispute concerns the adequacy and timeliness of disclosure, a question that does not have a purely empirical answer and involves judgements about regulatory norms.
Verdict
Partially true. The myocarditis signal is real and was detected by health authorities before public disclosure — that element of the "concealment" framing has factual grounding. The June 2021 ACIP meeting and subsequent label updates represent public disclosure within a timeframe that is consistent with standard pharmacovigilance processes, though critics reasonably argue the internal-to-public gap was longer than warranted given the public health stakes. The framing of this as deliberate concealment — as opposed to standard regulatory caution — overstates what the documents show. The myocarditis risk in young males is established; the clinical significance of most cases (mild, self-resolving) is also established.
What Would Change Our Verdict
- Internal communications from FDA or CDC showing deliberate delay of public disclosure for non-scientific reasons (e.g., protecting vaccination rates)
- Long-term follow-up data showing substantially worse cardiac outcomes than early clinical characterisation suggested, combined with evidence that this risk was known earlier
- Independent verification of the Israeli FOI document interpretations by regulatory science experts with full access to the underlying data
International Regulatory Convergence: WHO and EMA
The disclosure process was not confined to the United States and Israel. The WHO's vaccine-safety subcommittee (GACVS) issued a statement on 26 May 2021 reviewing initial reports of mild myocarditis after mRNA vaccination, then published updated guidance on 9 July 2021 once VAERS reporting rates reached roughly 40.6 cases per million second doses among males aged 12–29 (versus 4.2 per million among females in the same age band). That same week, the European Medicines Agency's Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) completed its own accelerated review, concluding on 9 July 2021 that myocarditis and pericarditis were confirmed rare side effects of both Comirnaty (145 EEA myocarditis cases reviewed) and Spikevax (19 cases), and recommending EU-wide label updates. That the WHO (26 May), CDC/ACIP (23 June), and EMA (9 July) each publicly addressed the same signal within roughly a six-week span in 2021 suggests parallel pharmacovigilance systems responding to the same emerging real-world data, rather than one authority sitting on information others lacked.
Israel's Own Public Disclosure, June 2021
The gap between the Israeli Ministry of Health's internal April–May 2021 signal detection and the 2022 FOI disclosures is often presented as though nothing was said publicly in between. In fact, Israel's MoH made a public announcement on 2 June 2021 — three weeks before the CDC's ACIP meeting — reporting 275 myocarditis cases among more than five million vaccinated people, noting that 95% were mild and most patients were hospitalised for four days or fewer, and stating a "probable link" between the second Pfizer dose and myocarditis in men aged 16–30. Israel's pandemic coordinator stated publicly that vaccine benefit still outweighed this risk, and eligibility was expanded to 12–15-year-olds shortly afterward. This June disclosure sits between the two dates most often cited in the "concealment" narrative and complicates a simple internal-versus-external timeline.
Divergent National Responses: The Nordic Pause
Regulators did not treat the confirmed signal identically once it was quantified. In the first week of October 2021, Sweden (for people born in 1991 or later), Denmark (under-18s), and Finland (men 30 and under) paused or restricted Moderna's Spikevax specifically, citing an unpublished joint Nordic registry study suggesting a higher myocarditis signal for Moderna than for Pfizer-BioNTech's Comirnaty in young men, and recommended switching to Comirnaty. The WHO's GACVS documented this action in its 27 October 2021 update. The US, UK, and most other countries continued recommending both vaccines for young people. This divergence reflects differing risk tolerances and differing underlying registry data rather than one jurisdiction concealing a risk that another disclosed.
US Surveillance at National Scale
The largest US case-verification study, led by CDC epidemiologist Matthew Oster and published in JAMA in 2022, examined 354.1 million mRNA vaccine doses administered between December 2020 and August 2021 and confirmed 1,626 myocarditis cases nationally. Rates were highest among 16–17-year-old males after the second BNT162b2 dose (105.9 cases per million doses) and among 18–24-year-old males after mRNA-1273 (56.3 per million). Cases were 82% male, with a median age of 21 and median symptom onset two days post-vaccination; 96% were hospitalised, 98% were discharged, and there were no deaths among people under 30. This national-scale confirmation, arriving roughly a year after the initial 2021 signal, further supports the risk profile described above without altering it.
Evidence Filters11
Israeli MoH detected myocarditis signal April 2021 before public disclosure
SupportingStrongThe Israeli Ministry of Health's surveillance system detected a myocarditis signal in young males following mRNA vaccination in April 2021. FOI documents released in 2022 showed this internal detection preceded public statements, creating a gap between internal awareness and public communication.
CDC ACIP June 2021: public confirmation of elevated myocarditis risk
DebunkingStrongThe CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices held a public meeting on June 23-25, 2021, at which CDC staff presented VAERS data showing elevated myocarditis reports in young males following mRNA vaccine second doses. The meeting was public, recorded, and presentations were published.
FDA label updates June-July 2021: myocarditis added to both mRNA vaccines
DebunkingStrongThe FDA and both manufacturers (Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna) updated vaccine labels in June-July 2021 to include myocarditis and pericarditis as potential adverse events. Healthcare providers received official communications. The label update is a formal regulatory disclosure mechanism.
Patone et al (Nature Medicine 2022) and Le Vu et al (Nature Comm 2022) confirmed signal
DebunkingStrongLarge-scale epidemiologic studies using UK and French national health records confirmed myocarditis risk following mRNA vaccines, provided risk quantification by age/sex/dose, and were peer-reviewed and published in high-impact journals within 12-18 months of initial signal detection.
Risk approximately 1-10 per 100,000 doses in young males: established
NeutralStrongPublished risk estimates for vaccine-associated myocarditis in males aged 16-29 following second dose range from approximately 1 to 10 per 100,000 doses across studies, with higher estimates in the 16-24 subgroup. The risk is well-characterised and not disputed by public health authorities.
Israeli FOI documents showed earlier internal awareness than public statements
SupportingDocuments obtained via FOI from the Israeli MoH in 2022 were analysed by critics including researchers at MIT, who argued the internal data showed more extensive early knowledge of the myocarditis signal than public-facing communications acknowledged. The documents are publicly available.
Rebuttal
Interpretation of the Israeli FOI documents is contested. Regulatory agencies routinely accumulate internal safety signals before formal public disclosure as part of standard pharmacovigilance — the question is whether the gap was longer than warranted, not whether a gap existed.
V-safe data released only after FOIA litigation
SupportingThe CDC's v-safe vaccine safety monitoring system data was not proactively released. The Informed Consent Action Network obtained the data via FOIA lawsuit. Analyses of the released data prompted further debate about the completeness of earlier public safety reporting.
Rebuttal
Government agencies commonly require formal FOIA requests before releasing granular surveillance data, for reasons including privacy protection and data quality review. The requirement for a FOIA lawsuit rather than proactive release is a legitimate transparency concern without being definitive evidence of suppression.
Recovery from vaccine-associated myocarditis generally favourable in clinical follow-up
DebunkingClinical follow-up studies of vaccine-associated myocarditis cases have generally found resolution of symptoms and normalisation of cardiac markers in most patients with rest and anti-inflammatory treatment. Long-term outcomes for all patients remain under study.
Sweden, Denmark, and Finland paused or restricted the Moderna vaccine for young people in October 2021, citing a stronger myocarditis signal
SupportingIn the first week of October 2021, Sweden (people born 1991 or later), Denmark (under-18s), and Finland (men aged 30 and under) paused or restricted use of Moderna's Spikevax specifically, based on an unpublished joint Nordic registry study finding a higher myocarditis/pericarditis risk for Moderna than for Pfizer-BioNTech's Comirnaty in young men. All three recommended switching to Comirnaty instead. Critics argue this shows the true magnitude of vaccine-specific risk was understated in the broader 2021 public messaging, which had generally treated the two mRNA vaccines' myocarditis risk as comparable.
Rebuttal
The Nordic pause is better read as evidence of pharmacovigilance working as designed than of concealment. It was based on new national linked-registry data that only became statistically robust in autumn 2021 — months after mass rollout — and each country announced its reasoning publicly within days, with the WHO's GACVS documenting the action in its 27 October 2021 update. The US, UK, and most other regulators continued recommending both vaccines for young people, reflecting a judgment call about small absolute risk differences and different available datasets rather than a hidden or falsified finding, and some Nordic restrictions were later eased as more data accumulated. Multiple regulators reaching different risk-tolerance conclusions from the same evolving evidence base is a sign of independent, functioning oversight, not proof that any one of them suppressed what another revealed.
Neither vaccine's original authorisation trials detected the myocarditis signal before rollout to younger age groups began
SupportingPfizer-BioNTech's and Moderna's original Phase 2/3 trials, each with tens of thousands of participants per arm, did not identify myocarditis as an adverse event, and it was absent from the initial FDA fact sheets used when younger age groups became eligible in spring 2021. Critics argue that authorising use in adolescents and young men — the group later found to carry the highest risk — before this signal was known left informed consent incomplete at the time.
Rebuttal
This reflects a structural, well-recognised limitation of pre-authorisation trials rather than concealment: an adverse event occurring at roughly 1 in several tens of thousands of doses cannot be reliably detected in a trial cohort of tens of thousands of participants, which is precisely why regulators built VAERS, V-safe, and equivalent registries to catch rare post-marketing signals. Those systems did exactly that within months — CDC's vaccine-safety groups and Israel's Ministry of Health identified the myocarditis signal through real-world surveillance in spring 2021, and the FDA, EMA, and WHO updated labels and guidance within weeks of the signal being statistically confirmed, consistent with routine pharmacovigilance timelines rather than a failure to disclose a known trial finding.
Show 1 more evidence point
The WHO flagged myocarditis reports internationally in late May 2021, before the CDC's ACIP meeting made the US signal public
SupportingWeakThe COVID-19 subcommittee of the WHO's Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) issued a statement on 26 May 2021 reviewing initial reports of mild myocarditis after mRNA vaccination — about four weeks before the CDC's ACIP meeting of 23 June 2021 that is often cited as the moment of US disclosure. Critics point to this gap as evidence that global regulators were tracking the signal earlier and more widely than a US-centric account of the disclosure timeline suggests.
Rebuttal
The WHO's 26 May 2021 statement was itself a public communication, not an internal-only finding withheld from other regulators — it shows the international safety-monitoring apparatus escalating in near-real time rather than one body sitting on data another later revealed. The WHO published further updates on 9 July and 27 October 2021 as more country-level data matured, tracking closely with the EMA's own 9 July 2021 confirmation and the CDC's 23 June 2021 meeting. Multiple public health bodies converging on the same finding within weeks of each other, each publishing its reasoning as it went, is the signature of a real signal being surfaced through ordinary international pharmacovigilance channels — not evidence that any single authority concealed it.
Evidence Cited by Believers6
Israeli MoH detected myocarditis signal April 2021 before public disclosure
SupportingStrongThe Israeli Ministry of Health's surveillance system detected a myocarditis signal in young males following mRNA vaccination in April 2021. FOI documents released in 2022 showed this internal detection preceded public statements, creating a gap between internal awareness and public communication.
Israeli FOI documents showed earlier internal awareness than public statements
SupportingDocuments obtained via FOI from the Israeli MoH in 2022 were analysed by critics including researchers at MIT, who argued the internal data showed more extensive early knowledge of the myocarditis signal than public-facing communications acknowledged. The documents are publicly available.
Rebuttal
Interpretation of the Israeli FOI documents is contested. Regulatory agencies routinely accumulate internal safety signals before formal public disclosure as part of standard pharmacovigilance — the question is whether the gap was longer than warranted, not whether a gap existed.
V-safe data released only after FOIA litigation
SupportingThe CDC's v-safe vaccine safety monitoring system data was not proactively released. The Informed Consent Action Network obtained the data via FOIA lawsuit. Analyses of the released data prompted further debate about the completeness of earlier public safety reporting.
Rebuttal
Government agencies commonly require formal FOIA requests before releasing granular surveillance data, for reasons including privacy protection and data quality review. The requirement for a FOIA lawsuit rather than proactive release is a legitimate transparency concern without being definitive evidence of suppression.
Sweden, Denmark, and Finland paused or restricted the Moderna vaccine for young people in October 2021, citing a stronger myocarditis signal
SupportingIn the first week of October 2021, Sweden (people born 1991 or later), Denmark (under-18s), and Finland (men aged 30 and under) paused or restricted use of Moderna's Spikevax specifically, based on an unpublished joint Nordic registry study finding a higher myocarditis/pericarditis risk for Moderna than for Pfizer-BioNTech's Comirnaty in young men. All three recommended switching to Comirnaty instead. Critics argue this shows the true magnitude of vaccine-specific risk was understated in the broader 2021 public messaging, which had generally treated the two mRNA vaccines' myocarditis risk as comparable.
Rebuttal
The Nordic pause is better read as evidence of pharmacovigilance working as designed than of concealment. It was based on new national linked-registry data that only became statistically robust in autumn 2021 — months after mass rollout — and each country announced its reasoning publicly within days, with the WHO's GACVS documenting the action in its 27 October 2021 update. The US, UK, and most other regulators continued recommending both vaccines for young people, reflecting a judgment call about small absolute risk differences and different available datasets rather than a hidden or falsified finding, and some Nordic restrictions were later eased as more data accumulated. Multiple regulators reaching different risk-tolerance conclusions from the same evolving evidence base is a sign of independent, functioning oversight, not proof that any one of them suppressed what another revealed.
Neither vaccine's original authorisation trials detected the myocarditis signal before rollout to younger age groups began
SupportingPfizer-BioNTech's and Moderna's original Phase 2/3 trials, each with tens of thousands of participants per arm, did not identify myocarditis as an adverse event, and it was absent from the initial FDA fact sheets used when younger age groups became eligible in spring 2021. Critics argue that authorising use in adolescents and young men — the group later found to carry the highest risk — before this signal was known left informed consent incomplete at the time.
Rebuttal
This reflects a structural, well-recognised limitation of pre-authorisation trials rather than concealment: an adverse event occurring at roughly 1 in several tens of thousands of doses cannot be reliably detected in a trial cohort of tens of thousands of participants, which is precisely why regulators built VAERS, V-safe, and equivalent registries to catch rare post-marketing signals. Those systems did exactly that within months — CDC's vaccine-safety groups and Israel's Ministry of Health identified the myocarditis signal through real-world surveillance in spring 2021, and the FDA, EMA, and WHO updated labels and guidance within weeks of the signal being statistically confirmed, consistent with routine pharmacovigilance timelines rather than a failure to disclose a known trial finding.
The WHO flagged myocarditis reports internationally in late May 2021, before the CDC's ACIP meeting made the US signal public
SupportingWeakThe COVID-19 subcommittee of the WHO's Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) issued a statement on 26 May 2021 reviewing initial reports of mild myocarditis after mRNA vaccination — about four weeks before the CDC's ACIP meeting of 23 June 2021 that is often cited as the moment of US disclosure. Critics point to this gap as evidence that global regulators were tracking the signal earlier and more widely than a US-centric account of the disclosure timeline suggests.
Rebuttal
The WHO's 26 May 2021 statement was itself a public communication, not an internal-only finding withheld from other regulators — it shows the international safety-monitoring apparatus escalating in near-real time rather than one body sitting on data another later revealed. The WHO published further updates on 9 July and 27 October 2021 as more country-level data matured, tracking closely with the EMA's own 9 July 2021 confirmation and the CDC's 23 June 2021 meeting. Multiple public health bodies converging on the same finding within weeks of each other, each publishing its reasoning as it went, is the signature of a real signal being surfaced through ordinary international pharmacovigilance channels — not evidence that any single authority concealed it.
Counter-Evidence4
CDC ACIP June 2021: public confirmation of elevated myocarditis risk
DebunkingStrongThe CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices held a public meeting on June 23-25, 2021, at which CDC staff presented VAERS data showing elevated myocarditis reports in young males following mRNA vaccine second doses. The meeting was public, recorded, and presentations were published.
FDA label updates June-July 2021: myocarditis added to both mRNA vaccines
DebunkingStrongThe FDA and both manufacturers (Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna) updated vaccine labels in June-July 2021 to include myocarditis and pericarditis as potential adverse events. Healthcare providers received official communications. The label update is a formal regulatory disclosure mechanism.
Patone et al (Nature Medicine 2022) and Le Vu et al (Nature Comm 2022) confirmed signal
DebunkingStrongLarge-scale epidemiologic studies using UK and French national health records confirmed myocarditis risk following mRNA vaccines, provided risk quantification by age/sex/dose, and were peer-reviewed and published in high-impact journals within 12-18 months of initial signal detection.
Recovery from vaccine-associated myocarditis generally favourable in clinical follow-up
DebunkingClinical follow-up studies of vaccine-associated myocarditis cases have generally found resolution of symptoms and normalisation of cardiac markers in most patients with rest and anti-inflammatory treatment. Long-term outcomes for all patients remain under study.
Neutral / Ambiguous1
Risk approximately 1-10 per 100,000 doses in young males: established
NeutralStrongPublished risk estimates for vaccine-associated myocarditis in males aged 16-29 following second dose range from approximately 1 to 10 per 100,000 doses across studies, with higher estimates in the 16-24 subgroup. The risk is well-characterised and not disputed by public health authorities.
Timeline
Israeli MoH detects myocarditis signal in young males post-mRNA vaccination
The Israeli Ministry of Health's surveillance system generates a myocarditis signal in young males following second-dose mRNA vaccination. Internal analyses proceed. FOI documents released in 2022 show this internal detection predates public statements by weeks to months.
Israel's Ministry of Health publicly reports 275 myocarditis cases and a "probable link" to the vaccine
Israel's MoH announced that 275 cases of myocarditis had been identified among more than 5 million vaccinated people between December 2020 and May 2021, describing 95% as mild and stating a probable link between the second Pfizer dose and myocarditis in men aged 16–30. The announcement came three weeks before the CDC's ACIP meeting and preceded Israel's approval of vaccination for 12–15-year-olds.
Source →CDC ACIP public meeting confirms elevated myocarditis risk
The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices holds a public meeting presenting VAERS data on myocarditis cases. The committee acknowledges elevated risk in males aged 16-29 following second mRNA dose. The meeting is public, recorded, and presentations are published on the CDC website.
Source →Patone et al publish large-scale UK myocarditis risk quantification in Nature Medicine
Using UK national health records, Patone and colleagues publish peer-reviewed risk estimates for myocarditis following mRNA vaccines by age, sex, and dose. The study confirms the signal and provides the most robust epidemiologic quantification to date.
Verdict
Myocarditis signal post-mRNA vaccines is real and confirmed by multiple peer-reviewed studies (Patone et al Nature Med 2022; Le Vu et al Nature Comm 2022). Israeli MoH detected signal Apr 2021; CDC ACIP public meeting confirmed it Jun 2021; labels updated Jul 2021. Israeli FOI documents 2022 showed earlier internal awareness than public statements. Risk: ~1-10/100K doses in young males aged 16-29, generally mild recovery. The signal was real and disclosed; whether the timeline constitutes 'concealment' vs 'appropriate regulatory process' is the contested framing question. Confidence 4.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is myocarditis a real side effect of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines?
Yes. Myocarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is a real adverse event confirmed by regulatory agencies, manufacturers, peer-reviewed studies, and independent researchers. The risk is concentrated in young males aged 16-29 following the second dose, at approximately 1-10 cases per 100,000 doses. Most cases are mild and resolve with rest and anti-inflammatory treatment. This is not disputed by public health authorities.
When did health authorities know about the myocarditis risk?
The Israeli Ministry of Health detected a signal internally in April 2021. The CDC ACIP held a public meeting disclosing the elevated risk on June 23-25, 2021 — approximately two months after the Israeli internal detection. FDA label updates followed in July 2021. FOI documents from Israel released in 2022 showed the internal signal predated public statements, generating debate about the adequacy of the disclosure timeline.
How does vaccine-associated myocarditis compare to COVID-19-related myocarditis?
Both COVID-19 infection and mRNA vaccination are associated with myocarditis risk. Multiple studies have attempted to compare these risks, with varying results depending on study design, time period, age group, and which variant was circulating. In some age/sex subgroups, vaccine-associated myocarditis risk may exceed COVID-19-associated risk; in others, the reverse may be true. This remains an active area of research and is not definitively resolved.
Was the myocarditis risk deliberately concealed?
Sources
Show 10 more sources
Further Reading
- paperCDC ACIP June 2021 meeting slides: myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccines — Tom Shimabukuro, CDC (2021)
- paperRisk of myocarditis after sequential doses of COVID-19 vaccine and SARS-CoV-2 infection — Simon Le Vu et al (2022)
- paperMyocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against COVID-19 — Martina Patone et al (2022)
- paperMyocarditis Cases Reported After mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccination in the US From December 2020 to August 2021 — Oster ME, Shay DK, Su JR, et al. (2022)