Review of studies on vaccine-induced myocarditis finds that the Science we're meant to be Following pervasively obfuscates the risk of the mRNA jabs for young men
Of the few studies that even attempt to assess the population-wide risk of myocarditis following vaccination, nearly three-fourths neglect to include the proper stratifiers
This review, co-authored by Vinay Prasad, sets out to assess the literature on the risk of myocarditis in young men following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Of 758 articles considered, the vast majority (89%) didn’t attempt any systematic risk assessment at all, and only 29 looked at population-wide risk. Of this meagre number, only eight properly stratified adverse events by sex, age, dose and vaccine manufacturer. This matters enormously, because the risk of myocarditis is heavily concentrated in men under forty following their second Pfizer or Moderna vaccination.
eugyppius: a plague chronicle is a reader-supported publication. maybe you subscribe?
By failing to break out these specific categories, scientists can write studies that overlook the risk of the vaccines for younger men, effectively by spreading their heightened risk across broader subgroups or even the whole population:
By looking only at men, or only at which dose, or only at which vaccine, you can reduce the highest stated incidence of myocarditis enormously, putting you in an excellent position to argue that, yes, myocarditis is a rare side effect from vaccination, but the risk of myocarditis from infection is greater.This is a game that is played at both ends, with complementary studies that massively overestimate the rate of myocarditis from Covid by considering only documented infections. Almost everyone with a severe outcome will have an official positive test at some point, while vastly fewer people who recover without incident will bother. A similar tactic, would be inflating the risk of severe outcome by looking only at hospital patients, or inflating the case fatality rate by looking only at those receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
The problem isn’t that a memo went out from Science Headquarters instructing researchers to cover up the obvious fact that the vaccines are clearly and beyond all cavil a bad deal for males under 40. It’s rather that science is subordinate to broader political, social and cultural forces, all of which incentivise research showing that the vaccines are safe and effective, and disincentivise research showing anything else. One kind of finding will get you promotion and grant funding, the other will – in the best case – simply be ignored. Cast in this light, the sheer paucity of studies looking at population-wide risks from vaccination in the first place begins to look deeply ominous. This is an entire area nobody wants to look into, for fear of what they might find.
It will be a long time indeed before we have any clarity on exactly how risky the vaccines are, and for whom.
At this point, it is convenient for the vaccinators to forget that their elixirs do not actually prevent infection, in service of presenting the false alternative.
Don't like the aggregated results? Stratify!
Don't like the stratified results? Aggregate!
Classic data masseuse techniques. Why anyone trusts any of this garbage at all at this point is beyond me.
I Fucking Love Science Except When It Contradicts My Preferred Narrative!
Doesn't roll off the tongue quite as smoothly...