Covid-19 vaccine & increased myocarditis mortality risk

www.medrxiv.org...

Setting: Japan

Participants Vaccinated population was 99 834 543 individuals aged 12 years and older who have been received SARS-CoV-2 vaccine once or twice by 14 February 2022. Reference population was defined persons aged 10 years and older from 2017 to 2019.


Conclusion

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was associated with higher risk of myocarditis death, not only in young adults but also in all age groups including the elderly. Considering healthy vaccinee effect, the risk may be 4 times or higher than the apparent risk of myocarditis death. Underreporting should also be considered. Based on this study, risk of myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination may be more serious than that reported previously.


Further conclusions and policy implications

Despite above limitations, this study revealed that SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was associated with higher mortality rate from myocarditis, especially in young adults compared with 2017 to 2019 population. But it also revealed that myocarditis death occurs in older persons. If healthy-vaccinee effect is taken into account, the risk increases at least approximately 4 times more than the unadjusted mortality risk. In addition, underreporting deaths after receiving vaccine should be considered. Based on the results of this study, it is necessary to inform public about that the risk of serious myocarditis including death may be far more serious than the risk reported before and that it occurs not only in young persons but also in elderly.

Another crucial piece of evidence from Japan which discusses the risk of serious heart disease and specifically myocarditis and death post vaccination. The authors argue that the risk is far more serious than thought before (although many of us here on ATS knew it already) and that not only it occurs to young and healthy people but to the elderly too.

Very important point is the underreporting of heart disease and death after receiving vaccinations. The numbers could be much higher than thought before.

In my view the entire vaccination policy should be reconsidered and I see no need for vaccinating young and healthy people including children, young adults and healthy middle-age individuals who may have had already superior natural immunity and they are in very low or extremely low risk of getting sick and die from Covid.

The above news isn't a surprise to most of us as there is plenty of evidence showing that mRNA vaccines are increasing the risk of myocarditis, pericarditis and death post vaccination.

Recently Dr Ladapo in Florida, the State Surgeon General has recommended that 18-39 year old males should avoid the mRNA products due to an increased risk in cardiac related deaths. He added that with a high level of global immunity to COVID-19, the benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in this age group


As a result of this recommendation there is new guidance from the Department of Health in Florida on mRNA vaccines.

content.govdelivery.com...




Earlier Dr Malhotra has published a review paper arguing that the vaccination program must pause due to serious health concerns associated with the mRNA products and argued that according to the evidence there is a greater risk of serious adverse events from the vaccines than being hospitalised from COVID-19 in the young and healthy populations.

insulinresistance.org...

staff edit

The authors make a very important point.
There are many epidemiological studies which show increase myocarditis incidence post vaccination.

There are some case reports of fulminant myocarditis

Fulminant myocarditis (FM) is an uncommon syndrome characterized by sudden and severe diffuse cardiac inflammation often leading to death resulting from cardiogenic shock, ventricular arrhythmias, or multiorgan system failure. Historically, FM was almost exclusively diagnosed at autopsy.

However there are no epidemiological studies focusing the association between vaccination and myocarditis death.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

By prior standards the mRNA 'vaccine' would never have been allowed to be tested on the general population, but under the guise of a deadly 'pandemic' half the worlds' population became lab rats.

I can only hope they've collected enough data to reformulate mRNA technology so it isn't so damaging to such a large number of people, since it's obvious that mRNA vaccines won't be going away.

My hat is off to all the brave people who took the jab and didn't have any adverse reations; my heart aches for thos who did.

C19 has highlighted gov. overeach, and Florida is leading the way to turn majority control back to individual states. R v W is another example where individual states shold be allowed to let the voters decide.

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: Asmodeus3

By prior standards the mRNA 'vaccine' would never have been allowed to be tested on the general population, but under the guise of a deadly 'pandemic' half the worlds' population became lab rats.

I can only hope they've collected enough data to reformulate mRNA technology so it isn't so damaging to such a large number of people, since it's obvious that mRNA vaccines won't be going away.

My hat is off to all the brave people who took the jab and didn't have any adverse reations; my heart aches for thos who did.

C19 has highlighted gov. overeach, and Florida is leading the way to turn majority control back to individual states. R v W is another example where individual states shold be allowed to let the voters decide.

This situation will probably lead to legal investigations around the world. But there needs to be cooperation and order has to be restored before any such actions are taken. You can't trust the establishment and we are under a weird form of medical tyranny. We need to get rid off it first.

It is clear that there are several serious adverse reactions from these products and especially on young and healthy people who were never at any measurable risk of getting severe illness or die due to Covid.

And these are the short term effects. The medium and long term effects can be much more scary (apart from death). I am thinking of possible immune-suppression, autoimmune disorders, and carcinogenesis. However lets hope we are wrong on this one.

Adding a little more on the above important papers

www.medrxiv.org...

RESULTS: Nine clinical studies were identified including three randomized controlled studies, four retrospective observational cohorts, one prospective observational cohort, and a case-control study. The NOS quality appraisals of these articles ranged from four to nine (out of nine stars). All of the included studies found at least statistical equivalence between the protection of full vaccination and natural immunity; and, three studies found superiority of natural immunity.

Another important paper with the authors being very polite and trying to praise vaccination but at the same time argue without 'provoking' readers that natural immunity is at least equivalent to vaccine induced immunity making reference to three studies showing superiority of natural immunity as it is expected.

If natural immunity is at least equivalent and/or superior to vaccine induced immunity then why someone who is young and healthy or someone older to get vaccinated with these products??? Especially when they have already been infected and have dealt with the infection successfully.

Given the serious adverse reactions and increased risk of heart disease and death.

I believe MRNA has a fascinating future.

The way it was rushed onto the world stage is wrong.

It takes years for medications to be approved.

The stages are all needed.

originally posted by: whyamIhere
I believe MRNA has a fascinating future.

The way it was rushed onto the world stage is wrong.

It takes years for medications to be approved.

The stages are all needed.

Indeed it takes years to establish safety for any medications including vaccines.

But there is more into this in our case. Promotion of untested products for financial and political/, ideological reasons. I won't entertain the 'conspiracy' theories in this thread.

a reply to: whyamIhere

I believe there is a place for pushing emergency medications. This simply wasn't one of them.

If a disease with, say, a 50% mortality rate were to suddenly appear and begin spreading throughout the population, then it might well be prudent to risk a small chance of adverse side effects in order to protect against the more fatal disease. It becomes a matter of risk assessment. Of course, that risk assessment cannot be transferred from the individual to any form of authority. That was the big red neon flashing high-intensity, illuminated flag for me. There should, IMO, never be mandated vaccinations for any purpose whatsoever. If this planned-demic has taught me anything, it's that.

However, this time the "vaccines" were rushed over a disease which, while highly contagious, had a very low fatality rate. There was never a compelling reason for people to hold the amount of fear the media had stirred up. Thus there was no compelling need whatsoever for the rush to introduce a "vaccine." Another massive red flag was when medications known to be safe for decades, which had undergone extensive rigorous testing as well as having a long history of safety barring use in contraindicated patients, were promptly rejected, demonized in the media, and even outlawed for use.

In short, this was not a breakdown in our medical system as much as it was an exploitation of and abuse of our medical system by our political leaders and their lapdogs in the media. All of the necessary information was out there pretty rapidly; it was just suppressed, buried, and dismissed in favor of a political agenda.

There will be more of these rogue reports coming out as time goes on; one can only withhold a widespread truth for so long before it escapes. Eventually, our descendants (assuming they survive that long) will look back on this time period and wonder at how we managed to survive ourselves. If they get an answer to that question, I hope they put it on my tombstone... 'cause I haven't figured it out yet myself. I'd like to know how we manage to do it.

As much as I hate to admit it, I think the only answer may indeed be de-population. The key to that is, we need to de-populate the problems, and in today's society, often the solutions are named problems for political expediency.
Maybe if we started with all politicians and moved on to national journalists next?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: whyamIhere

I believe there is a place for pushing emergency medications. This simply wasn't one of them.

If a disease with, say, a 50% mortality rate were to suddenly appear and begin spreading throughout the population, then it might well be prudent to risk a small chance of adverse side effects in order to protect against the more fatal disease. It becomes a matter of risk assessment. Of course, that risk assessment cannot be transferred from the individual to any form of authority. That was the big red neon flashing high-intensity, illuminated flag for me. There should, IMO, never be mandated vaccinations for any purpose whatsoever. If this planned-demic has taught me anything, it's that.

However, this time the "vaccines" were rushed over a disease which, while highly contagious, had a very low fatality rate. There was never a compelling reason for people to hold the amount of fear the media had stirred up. Thus there was no compelling need whatsoever for the rush to introduce a "vaccine." Another massive red flag was when medications known to be safe for decades, which had undergone extensive rigorous testing as well as having a long history of safety barring use in contraindicated patients, were promptly rejected, demonized in the media, and even outlawed for use.

In short, this was not a breakdown in our medical system as much as it was an exploitation of and abuse of our medical system by our political leaders and their lapdogs in the media. All of the necessary information was out there pretty rapidly; it was just suppressed, buried, and dismissed in favor of a political agenda.

There will be more of these rogue reports coming out as time goes on; one can only withhold a widespread truth for so long before it escapes. Eventually, our descendants (assuming they survive that long) will look back on this time period and wonder at how we managed to survive ourselves. If they get an answer to that question, I hope they put it on my tombstone... 'cause I haven't figured it out yet myself. I'd like to know how we manage to do it.

As much as I hate to admit it, I think the only answer may indeed be de-population. The key to that is, we need to de-populate the problems, and in today's society, often the solutions are named problems for political expediency.
Maybe if we started with all politicians and moved on to national journalists next?

TheRedneck

There are several aspects of this story that don't add up.

It was known from the beginning the infection fatality rate of this disease is very low and the people who are affected mostly are the elderly and the clinically vulnerable. If you are young and healthy the chances you get seriously ill or die are miniscule.

The IFR is just 0.15% estimated before the vaccines were rolled out by John Ioannidis from Stanford. This is the updated version. In his earlier version he had around 0.2% or so.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


They should have never rolled out this vaccine in young and healthy populations as it is clear from the my opening page and from the numerous pieces of evidence and data that there are serious adverse reactions and deaths especially in the younger populations. As the authors have said these are much more than discussed contradicting the 'rare' events that are parroted by the vaccine ideologists and political activists.

Do you really think that the purpose of this unpleasant exercise was depopulation? Because clearly they have failed.

www.medrxiv.org...


Risk of Myocarditis after Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination: Impact of Booster Dose and Dosing Interval

Covid-19 mRNA vaccines have been shown to be associated with a short-term increased risk of myocarditis, with the highest risk observed after the second dose compared to the first. The extent of the risk associated with more distant booster doses is less clear. Here, we aimed to assess the relation between dosing interval and the risk of myocarditis, for both the two-dose primary series and the third dose (first booster). Extending our previous matched case-control study, we included 4 890 cases of myocarditis aged 12 or more and 48 900 controls up to January 31, 2022. We found that the risk of myocarditis remained elevated after the booster dose and that longer intervals between each consecutive dose (including booster doses) may decrease the occurrence of vaccine-associated myocarditis.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

There are several aspects of this story that don't add up.

Nothing about this story adds up.

This all first started with China announcing that they had a serious outbreak of a novel virus in Wuhan. We were given no numbers on the fatality rates, but reports were that Wuhan authorities were scrambling to control it like it was akin to ebola or something. I remember reports of entire families having their doors welded shut when one member caught it. China even went so far as to close off Wuhan from the rest of the country, grounding any flights out of Wuhan.

Wait, that's not exactly true... China grounded all domestic flights out of Wuhan. International flights out were still allowed. 2+2=47.

Then we had to repatriate our citizens in Wuhan. They were put in quarantine (actual quarantine) upon landing in the USA. It still got loose. 2+2=6.

The first US outbreak was in a nursing home in Washington, I believe. It killed a good number of the residents. Then it began to spread across the country. When it hit New York, everyone there panicked. Andrew Cuomo put the patients, which were primarily elderly folks, into isolation wards in the hospitals for treatment, then forced their nursing homes to take them back in as soon as the hospital was through treating them (aka "seeing if they would live or not"). When the nursing homes objected and asked to additional PPE to handle them in some sort of isolation, Cuomo refused to provide it. As a result, the New York death toll dwarfed any other state. 2+2=7,953.

At one point, the CDC acknowledged that 85% of the patients on respirators died. That report came months after the trend was actually noticed, and today we know that it was the respirators that were the actual cause of death. They were forcing the virus into the blood stream via heavily-damaged lungs, where the spike protein, among a few others I suspect, was causing clotting issues, myocarditis, and severe, acute anemia. Some places are still using respirators, although most finally... well after that CDC report... started using less aggressive settings. 2+2=79.

At one point, some local doctors tried a concoction of hydrochloroquiene, zinc, and vitamin C as a treatment. Zinc is a known anti-viral agent, vitamin C enhances immune regulation, and hydrochloroquine enhances the anti-viral abilities of zinc. It's been used literally for decades and all that time was known to be one of the safer medications (as long as a couple of contra-indicators were taken into account). Suddenly every doctor who suggested hydrochloroquine, regardless of actual success with the concoction, was denounced as a "quack" (some of whom had spent years in private practice with excellent records of success). Suddenly, the AMA and CDC went to work to disprove any allegation that this cocktail might help. Not to determine if it did help, mind you, but specifically to show it does not help. Studies were conducted using hydrochloroquine by itself without the cocktail and showed, of course, limited success at best and no effect at worst. More studies were found that showed hydrochloroquine was suddenly this dangerous drug, using those few contra-indicators as fodder. Eventually, attempts were made to criminalize any attempt to cure sick patients using anything the CDC did not consider "safe and effective" based on their own biased and skewed "studies." 2+2=1,438,560.548.

Lockdowns were handled in such a way as to maximize the amount of time people would be forced to spend in the weather before they could enter a store. The requirements were so severe that many small businesses closed for good and others were forced to temporarily close during the "planned-demic" so the lines to get into the larger stores would be even longer. 2+2=748.5.

Mask mandates were issued, which totally ignored (in practice anyway) any medical conditions that prevented some individuals like me from being able to even enter a store! Ergo, these people, considered the most vulnerable, were forced to eat less and forego common household cleaners to protect themselves. At the same time, the masks forced people to become irritable (from the enhanced carbon dioxide levels they were now forced to breathe... thousands of times the levels in the atmosphere which are supposed to be "toxic"), forcing them to carry a larger viral load should they be infected, and creating literal plains of bio-hazard refuse across parking lots which were promptly ignored. As a result, people became sicker easier. 2+2=3597.342-i56.739.

The whole time, we had monoclonal antibodies which worked quite effectively against severe cases... the same monoclonal antibodies that were used to great success to treat Donald Trump and which Joe Biden then made difficult to obtain in states that did not vote for him. 2+2=54.278854*10^-i48,212.

And that's just off the top of my head.

Even today, the paranoia continues. Someone is about to start posting link after link after link in some ill-advised attempt to "disprove" something I have mentioned in this post. They are wasting my time; I was there and I know what went on. Links can be changed and stories updated on the Internet at a whim, so save your typing skills for someone who can't see that by trying to "disprove" reality, you are only proving your complete and total ignorance (or your allegiance to the current political agendas).

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

All of that is just the tip of the iceberg unfortunately...

The dam will break someday, and all of this psychotic behavior will be exposed. God help ( I pray He doesn't) the ones who perpetrated this mess when it does.

originally posted by: MaxxAction
a reply to: TheRedneck

All of that is just the tip of the iceberg unfortunately...

The dam will break someday, and all of this psychotic behavior will be exposed. God help ( I pray He doesn't) the ones who perpetrated this mess when it does.

Take a look at the paper in the opening page.
I ask the question why is it that children and young and healthy people were coerced, pressured, intimidated and bullied to use the products given that there is a real chance of serious adverse reactions and death when using them.

a reply to: MaxxAction

The dam will break someday, and all of this psychotic behavior will be exposed.

Incidentally, I am watching the Pennsylvania Senate debate right now (mainly out of curiosity since I don't live in Pennsylvania). Fetterman, the Democratic candidate, cannot put together a coherent thought, but he claims he is fit to serve as a US Senator. We already have Joe Biden, who is obviously suffering from late-stage dementia, as US President. When did the call for mental health become an embracement and celebration of mental deficits?

I should clarify that I do not condemn those who have suffered some similar fate to Fetterman and Biden; they need compassionate help to rebuild as much of their life as possible (when possible). I just don't think they should be leading the country by lone virtue of their mental difficulties. That appears to be the primary consideration today.

It actually makes me wonder how many of our so-called leaders, including specifically those who promoted the national lockdowns, face mask mandates, and "vaccine" mandates, are simply undiagnosed.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: MaxxAction

The dam will break someday, and all of this psychotic behavior will be exposed.

Incidentally, I am watching the Pennsylvania Senate debate right now (mainly out of curiosity since I don't live in Pennsylvania). Fetterman, the Democratic candidate, cannot put together a coherent thought, but he claims he is fit to serve as a US Senator. We already have Joe Biden, who is obviously suffering from late-stage dementia, as US President. When did the call for mental health become an embracement and celebration of mental deficits?

I should clarify that I do not condemn those who have suffered some similar fate to Fetterman and Biden; they need compassionate help to rebuild as much of their life as possible (when possible). I just don't think they should be leading the country by lone virtue of their mental difficulties. That appears to be the primary consideration today.

It actually makes me wonder how many of our so-called leaders, including specifically those who promoted the national lockdowns, face mask mandates, and "vaccine" mandates, are simply undiagnosed.

TheRedneck

Biden is on the record for making a range of unsubstantiated claims. If you have the vaccine you won't get Covid he said. Either he was ill informed or misinformed and completely confused and didn't know what he was talking about or he knew and was propagating the narrative.

Whichever is true makes the situation even more absurd and ludicrous.

None in the leadership were able to discuss science and medicine. For example what is the infection fatality rate overall. What is the infection fatality rate in different age groups. What is the benefit to risk ratio in different age groups if they get vaccinated. Short or medium and long term effects? Are cardiac related problems associated with vaccines? The link in the opening page leaves no doubt about it.

Instead hysteria and paranoia swept the country and the world over a virus with a very low infection fatality rate. Even lower than it was initially thought as the authors have described it.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Do you really think that the purpose of this unpleasant exercise was depopulation? Because clearly they have failed.

Not if you look at it as a long-term project of patient psychopaths, not to be accomplished all at once.

originally posted by: DevotedResearcher

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Do you really think that the purpose of this unpleasant exercise was depopulation? Because clearly they have failed.

Not if you look at it as a long-term project of patient psychopaths, not to be accomplished all at once.

My view on this matter, eventhough I don't reject whet your are saying, is that it looks like a massive test in conformity and obedience. Presenting lockdowns as epidemiological measures, forcing young people imprisoned in their homes, etc. It's the young and healthy the ones who can resist the most.

If you take a look at the publications I have linked in this thread you see there is no justification for either vaccines or lockdowns for young and healthy people. If anything, vaccines can cause complications and death. And still we dint know the medium and long term effects.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
My view on this matter, eventhough I don't reject whet your are saying, is that it looks like a massive test in conformity and obedience.

I think it's both.

At present the World Economic Forum is the mouthpiece for "The Great Reset." They want both depopulation and to impose complete and total tyranny on planet Earth.