Incidence of Myocarditis from mRNA Vaccine Compared to COVID - A Strange New Study

Here we have a study of Myocarditis rates in children 12-17 after vaccination with two MRNA injections. It’s long awaited data…but you’d be wise to draw your own conclusions!

Jul 09, 2023

Dr. Been’s video:

The study was funded by a grant from Xinxiang Medical University, an independent university of western medicine in Henan Province, China.

It was peer reviewed and published by the The Japanese Society for Vaccinology journal, “Vaccine”.

You really have to wonder…

Myocarditis is the weak link in the mRNA vaccination campaign. The CDC knows it. Moderna knows it. Pfizer knows it. Is this study an attempt to demonstrate that the risk of myocarditis is of little consequence? If so, it is pretty transparently failing at its job.

Let’s look more closely:

Fifteen studies were included. The pooled incidences of myopericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination among adolescents aged 12–17 years were 43.5 (95 % CI, 30.8–61.6) cases per million vaccine doses for both BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 (39 628 242 doses; 14 studies), and 41.8 (29.4–59.4) cases for BNT162b2 alone (38 756 553 doses; 13 studies)41.8 (29.4–59.4)...” cases for BNT162b2 alone (38 756 553 doses; 13 studies).

“Pooled” is the operative word here. It is well known the incidence of myocarditis is much higher in boys than girls. So when you separate those data by sex, here’s what happens:

Myopericarditis was more common among males (66.0 [40.5–107.7] cases) than females (10.1 [6.0–17.0] cases) and among those receiving the second dose (60.4 [37.6–96.9] cases) than those receiving the first dose (16.6 [8.7–31.9] cases). “

Here’s the forest plot for age and dose:

Notice that when they get to dose, the numbers are pooled again…they aren’t separated by sex.

It looks like they are laying the groundwork for the results of the risk ratios.

Based on the risk ratios, none of the incidences of myopericarditis pooled in the current study were higher than those after smallpox vaccinations (132.1 cases per million vaccine doses) and non-COVID-19 vaccinations (56.0 cases per million vaccine doses) (Fig. 5; Supplemental Table 4); moreover, all of them were significantly lower than those in adolescents aged 12–17 years after COVID-19 infection (females: 247 cases per million; males: 501 cases per million) (Fig. 5; Supplemental Table 5).

Smallpox vaccinations?

As a grandmother worried about the safety of my grandchildren I feel akin to a mother bear right now.

Smallpox was declared eradicated by the WHO in 1979. Why would they correlate the myocarditis rate of the mRNA injections to a now defunct vaccine? (I sense wool being pulled over my eyes.) How is it logical to compare the myopericarditis rate for the mrNA vaccines to a vaccine that not only is a completely different technology but until mRNA came along, has had the highest rate of myocarditis side effects of any vaccine? Do they consider that rate to be acceptable? As a parent looking out for the safety of your child, would you allow them to be injected and just hope for the best?

How many people who consult their doctor about a vaccine (and remember, you don’t have to consult your doctor to get injected) have the capacity to spot this one if their doctor, or health care worker, didn’t point it out?

It gets worse. Here’s the key message in this study:

..all of them (the numbers) were significantly lower than those in adolescents aged 12–17 years after COVID-19 infection”

First, it is important to note that their conclusion was arrived at based on a single study from the CDC. Second, that the case numbers are derived from those confirmed by testing. In other words, the case was serious enough that the patients entered the health care system and got tested and counted. We know that children, for the most part, were only mildly affected by Covid. We know that anyone mildly affected was told to stay home by their doctor or health care worker, and that if they stayed home, many were never tested so their cases would not have been entered on the record. That makes this correlation highly questionable. We actually don’t know how many Covid cases there actually were in that age group, so to announce that the myopericarditis rate after mRNA injection is much lower than after covid infection is a fallacy.

We do know, however, that this is a message that has been put forward by those defending the mRNA shot (CDC, Moderna, Pfizer, President Biden, Justin Trudeau, Anthony Fauci, Teresa Tam...et al) and it seems like this study set out to prove it. But to a critical eye, they shot themselves in the foot.

It’s almost like shooting fish in a barrel to point out another weakness of the study: That there is no correlation with the background incidence of myopericarditis in the 12-17 year age group. To be fair, and the researchers admitted it, the background incidence is not known. You could ask why it’s not known. Could it be that kids don’t generally get myopericarditis, and because it is so rare it hasn’t been regarded as important enough to count?1 Doesn’t that make any incidence of myocarditis significant? What is considered an acceptable rate? And who decides?

What about long term damage?

That question was brushed aside in this paper:

Based on the results of the current study, combined with earlier studies showing generally favorable outcomes of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine-associated myopericarditis in adolescents [27], [28], [29]…2

A study by the Seattle Children’s Hospital, published in The Journal of Pediatrics in March of 2022, (where the researchers declare no conflicts of interest) demonstrated that the damage from the myocarditis was observable in heart imaging even after 5 months of observation.. 3

Here is Dr. Been’s video on that paper: https://youtube.com/live/smKDRiiVIpY

To summarize the weaknesses of the study:

The rate of myocarditis in the 12-17 year age group was pooled resulting in a reduction of the overall incidence so that it correlated more favorably to other non-covid vaccines, most notably the smallpox vaccine that has not been widely used since 1979 and is known to have the highest myocarditis risk in history.
The incidence of myocarditis after injection was correlated favorably with the incidence of myocarditis after infection, the true rate of which is not known, therefore is a fallacious correlation.
There was no correlation to the background rate of myocarditis in that age group because the background rate in that age group is not known. A fact not to be ignored, but a crucial correlation to make nevertheless.4
The fact that myopericarditis can cause permanent heart damage is brushed aside in this study. But the CDC is looking into it, so rest assured.
Here’s what the Myocarditis Foundation has to say about long term damage:

The prognosis of myocarditis in children depends, in part, on the age of the patient. The mortality rate in newborn infants has been reported as high as 75%, while estimates in older children generally range from 10-30%. If a child survives the early acute phase of the disease, their chances for long-term survival (are) very good. In addition, some patients may develop a chronic or recurrent form of myocarditis. Pediatric patients hospitalized with myocarditis have a readmission rate of 15%.

Lastly, The myopericarditis rates were counted per million doses of the injection, further diluting the numbers. There is no accurate count of how many people that ratio represented, with each person getting anywhere from 1 to 4 doses, so the actual cases can’t possibly be counted accurately.

If you were to quickly peruse the abstract and read no further, you would be left with the conclusion as published:

“The incidences of myopericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination among adolescents aged 12–17 years were very rare; they were not higher than other important reference incidences. These findings provide an important context for health policy makers and parents with vaccination hesitancy to weight(sic) the risks and benefits of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination among adolescents aged 12–17 years.”

There you go. It bears repeating:

..important context for health policy makers and parents with vaccination hesitancy to weight(sic) the risks and benefits of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination .

Message delivered.

Where does that leave us?

Based on the results of the current study, combined with earlier studies showing generally favorable outcomes of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine-associated myopericarditis in adolescents [27], [28], [29], we support (emphasis mine) the continuous use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines among adolescents aged 12–17 years, including a second vaccination dose.

What does this say about the peer review process? Were the researchers somehow influenced to massage their results to get their paper published?

Just in case you were wondering, here’s the

“Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Scientific Research Fund of Xinxiang Medical University (Grant Number XYBSKYZZ201609).”

That grant reference just refers back to the paper, so unfortunately we can’t see what the mandate was.

KoolBeensCafe

Discussion about this post