More On Myocarditis Under 40

Myocarditis is a known risk for serious Covid—Covid the disease. Not too long ago, however, I ran a post on a study in Nature that presented data showing that persons under 40 were at more risk from myocarditis following double injections than they were from Covid the disease. That result was true for all the injections, but wildly so for Moderna—which is why multiple countries have banned the use of Moderna injections under certain ages (usually 30). The implication was clear. Whatever other views you may have on the wisdom or lack thereof for using these injections, their use in persons under 40 appears to be contraindicated.

One flaw in the study was that its data presentation failed to break out the results by sex. That was a serious flaw because it was already well known that incidents of injection induced myocarditis are especially prevalent among younger males. I was among those who pointed out that the alarming statistics might be even more alarming if broken out by sex.

The authors of the study got the message and have now provided the data for the incidence of injection induced myocarditis in males under 40. You can read a full discussion of the new data at Myocarditis Under Age 40: An Update. However, here is the eye opening chart:

Without going into the full discussion, here are the key points:

1. It is now clear for men <40, dose two and dose three of Pfizer have more myocarditis than sars-cov-2 infection, and this is true for dose one and dose two of Moderna. 

2. Pfizer boosters (Dose three) have more myocarditis for men <40 than infection. 

3. Myocarditis post infection is more common as you get older, in contrast with myocarditis post vaccination, which is more common as you are younger (reverse gradients)

But the truth is STILL WORSE than these data.

1. If the authors fixed the denominator for viral infection (i.e. used sero-prevalance), it would look even worse

2. If the authors separate men 16-24 from 12-15 and 25-40, it would likely look worst in 16-24 age group.

With that in mind, anyone could be forgiven for asking: If this is the case—and it is—then why are we seeing a major push to inject younger and younger persons (i.e., little kids) with these experimental medications?

Robert Kennedy, Jr., is glad you asked, and he has an answer which he recently presented in the course of a long interview. This Youtube video should be prompted for the relevant section of the interview:

However, TGP has provided a transcript of the essence of what Kennedy said, which may be easier than listening:

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr: “They are never going to market a vaccine, allow people access to a vaccine, an approved vaccine without getting liability protection. Now the emergency use authorization vaccines have liability protection under the PREP Act and under the CARES Act.

So as long as you take an emergency use vaccine, you can’t sue them. Once they get approved, now you can sue them, unless they can get it recommended for children. Because all vaccines that are recommended, officially recommended for children get liability protection, even if an adult gets that vaccine. That’s why they are going after the kids. They know this is going to kill and injure a huge number of children, but they need to do it for the liability protection.”

If you think you may have misunderstood something, go ahead and reread that. Bear in mind there’s nothing speculative about this. Injection induced myocarditis in young to middle aged people (especially males) is an established fact. Liability protection for the perpetrators of this outrage is also a documented fact—a legal fact. The author of the first article (linked above) may actually be guilty of a bit of an understatement, despite his strongly worded opinion, when he notes:

The FDA is making a huge regulatory gamble with boosters, and they are cheered on by many who are not adept at data analysis. 

In fact, of course, the FDA is being egged on—pressured is surely not over stating the case—by people who actually are at least somewhat adept at data analysis and who certainly know better. 

Tired of all that good news?

Consider these stories.

Latest Study Shows Booster Protection Against Omicron Drops 25% After Just 10 Weeks

Yes, it’s true that Ominous Omicron isn’t so very ominous, and yet … Doesn’t this make you wonder about the wisdom of repeated injections generally? Maybe even just one such injection?

Maybe you think you’d rather wait to get sick and then take a pill, rather than ‘vaccinate’ yourself ahead of infection. Better think about that a bit more carefully:

COVID Antiviral Pills Cause Life-Threatening Reactions With Many Common Meds

… both Pfizer's and Merck's drugs come with some serious drawbacks, the biggest being that they can cause life-threatening reactions with widely used medications like statins - taken by people with high blood pressure - blood thinners, and even some antidepressants.

“Life-threatening reactions” do sound like “serious drawbacks,” at least where I live. There’s lots more at the link.

Now, I don’t for a moment suggest that what follows should enter into your calculations—supposing that you are calculating. However, it may interest you to know that Molnupiravir is a re-purposed horse drug. It was originally developed to treat equine encephalitis. Are you a horse, ya’ll? As for Paxlovid, its seems that was originally a sort of Exlax for cats. Just sayin’.

Ivermectin anyone? HCQ? How about mass distribution of those proven safe and effective treatments instead of testing kits of dubious value?