From the report: "Therefore, the actual rates of myocarditis per million doses of vaccine are likely higher than estimated."
The introduction states it succinctly:
Question What is the risk of myocarditis after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination in the US?
Findings In this descriptive study of 1626 cases of myocarditis in a national passive reporting system, the crude reporting rates within 7 days after vaccination exceeded the expected rates across multiple age and sex strata. The rates of myocarditis cases were highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males aged 12 to 15 years (70.7 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine), in adolescent males aged 16 to 17 years (105.9 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine), and in young men aged 18 to 24 years (52.4 and 56.3 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine and the mRNA-1273 vaccine, respectively).
Meaning Based on passive surveillance reporting in the US, the risk of myocarditis after receiving mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines was increased across multiple age and sex strata and was highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males and young men.[emphasis mine]
Under Limitations it states:
Given the high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, underreporting is more likely. Therefore, the actual rates of myocarditis per million doses of vaccine are likely higher than estimated [emphasis mine].
EDIT: Steve Kirsch points this out in a recent newsletter talking about this:
I agree. Underreporting is more likely. In fact, the term “overreporting” wasn’t even mentioned in the reference they cite.
But the key thing here is they did absolutely nothing to attempt to quantify the underreporting factor (URF).
They absolutely know how to estimate it. John wrote the paper on how to do that in November 2020: The reporting sensitivity of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for anaphylaxis and for Guillain-Barré syndrome.
Do they apply that methodology to compute a minimum underreporting factor for serious adverse events (e.g., using the anaphylaxis rates from the Blumenthal paper in JAMA).
Of course not!
They simply do not want to let anyone know how serious it is.
Read Kirsch’s article on this. He does a much better job than I have: Kirsch’s Full Article, “See the CDC corruption for yourself.”
And here’s the conclusion:
Based on passive surveillance reporting in the US, the risk of myocarditis after receiving mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines was increased across multiple age and sex strata and was highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males and young men. This risk should be considered in the context of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination. [emphasis mine]
That last sentence I find interesting. Yes, it should. I’m not sure what the authors mean by it. It could be taken either way, but per Kirsch I think we can assume the way the authors want us to take it.
From all that I know, at this point, the risk for anyone is not worth it.
DONOTCOMPLYResource Category: COVID
As censorship increases also consider using email and text messages to send links.
Leave a Reply