JAMA Study Shows mRNA Vaccines Increase Myocarditis Risk By 133x

Chris Martenson does an amazing breakdown of the study point by point, showing how it was done and how it came to it's conclusion. The study also shows males (82%) have a much higher risk than females and it is occurring in much younger people. When we consider that myocarditis is just one potential adverse effects, we can also extrapolate that many of the other adverse effects are happening in much higher numbers than reported.



SOURCE

well the 'vaccines' have to do SOMETHING, because they're clearly not reducing the rate of infection
Might as well be thinning out the population, we could use less fewer of the kind of people that ran right out and asked for their experimental jabs

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Soo this includes how many boost you get? I hear that Israel dead rate is big and is not from covid.

Soo we will be facing a 4th jab by the fall, I wonder how the dead numbers will look like by then.

a reply to: marg6043

Lets hope the mandates, passes will be dropped across everywhere. Truth is slowly coming out you even had Bill Gates saying Omicron is doing something more than what the vaxs arent.

a reply to: vNex92

Well thankfully I live in a state that we do not have such nonsense and we live pretty much as before the scamdemic.

But we know most of the infected democrat rat holes do not.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

I am not the best at maths but I think this shows the chances of being unfortunatly effected by Myocarditis

Among 192 405 448 persons receiving a total of 354 100 845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines during the study period, there were 1991 reports of myocarditis to VAERS and 1626 of these reports met the case definition of myocarditis

1626 / 192405448 = 0.0000084509

I could be wrong though, how are you then seeing its a 133% increase, do you have data prior to covid?

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Can you explain where the number 133x comes from? I read the JAMA article and couldn't find it there. Can you point it out?

It doesn't seem very reasonable.

The background rate of viral myocarditis (in the years before covid and its vaccines came along) is considered to be about 1 or 2 cases per 100,000. In the study, there were a little over 192 million vaccinated subjects, and 1626 confirmed cases of myocarditis, which works out to about 1.18 cases per 100,000 of the vaccinated cohort. That's pretty damned close to the background rate.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0
Another video on the same data:

originally posted by: lordcomac
well the 'vaccines' have to do SOMETHING, because they're clearly not reducing the rate of infection

Might as well be thinning out the population, we could use less fewer of the kind of people that ran right out and asked for their experimental jabs

The thought has crossed my mind but I hope not. I'll have no family or friends left.

originally posted by: igloo

originally posted by: lordcomac
well the 'vaccines' have to do SOMETHING, because they're clearly not reducing the rate of infection

Might as well be thinning out the population, we could use less fewer of the kind of people that ran right out and asked for their experimental jabs

The thought has crossed my mind but I hope not. I'll have no family or friends left.

I think this will depend on what batch they got and how many boosters they got.

originally posted by: UpThenDown
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

I am not the best at maths but I think this shows the chances of being unfortunatly effected by Myocarditis

Among 192 405 448 persons receiving a total of 354 100 845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines during the study period, there were 1991 reports of myocarditis to VAERS and 1626 of these reports met the case definition of myocarditis

1626 / 192405448 = 0.0000084509

I could be wrong though, how are you then seeing its a 133% increase, do you have data prior to covid?

The highest amount of vaccines were given to those over thirty five, those people already have a higher risk of this condition and even though there was an increase in the numbers over thirty years old, those figures were not used in figuring this data. You cannot take the data from all people who took the vaccine, most of those people were not included in analysis of the myocarditis range that is between eleven and thirty. Your figures are extremely far off, only the numbers of those in the group they collected data from of the disease should be considered, knock that hundred ninety two million down to maybe fifty million members of the group maximum, there are a high percentage of people under thirty that did not get vaccinated everywhere. I know quite a few young people who did not get vaccinated, but relatively few older people who did not get vaccinated.

The straight line method you are trying to use is not correct to evaluate things. We have five local kids eighteen and other that got myocarditis out of maybe a thousand teens that were vaccinated in the area around where I live, excluding marquette, I don't know any pharmacists or medical professionals in that town well enough to get that information. Five incidents out of a thousand vaccines is not good and definitely not what I would consider safe. And Myocarditis is not the only serious side effect people have had here, blood clots in the legs from DVT happened to some people here and some people I know died from heart conditions in their thirties to sixties within two weeks after being vaccinated. Small area, everyone is telling others who died of vaccine related issues, the vast majority of deaths after vaccines have been guys between say mid to upper thirties to sixty two years old. Many of them seem to have gotten a cough after vaccination and it does not go away...sort of like congestive heart failure. I mean, it is not like it is killing everyone, but the rate of deaths did jump locally after the vaccines rolled out. Many people experienced problems and just recovered within a couple of weeks, and the vast majority of people just got a swollen black arm and fever and tired for a few days.

a reply to: rickymouse

Thanks I was unsure so if we use 50,000,000 as you suggest it would be


1626/50,000,000 = 0.00003252

Nobody should be put at risk from medication but would this number fall within reasonable or is it larger than previous data for same age group suffering myocarditis

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: vNex92

Well thankfully I live in a state that we do not have such nonsense and we live pretty much as before the scamdemic.

But we know most of the infected democrat rat holes do not.

I left NYC on March 1, 2020 by happenstance not due to Covid. THANK GOD. I moved to a small town in a agricultural area, not in NY state but a "purple state." Beyond the initial spring 2020 lockdown, and a 3 week one in winter 2020, and some mask mandates, life has 95% returned to normal for over a year. The only exception is like everywhere, some events are still online like conferences. That's true in all states if one looks.

My point is, I have been visiting CA this whole time, and have many friends in NYC and even Australia. They were NOT living the same lifestyle over all this time, although NYC and parts of CA have opened up somewhat, NYC with mandates. It's shocking how many of these locations still have serious restrictions, and people have no idea that half the US has moved on to relatively normal living.

originally posted by: UpThenDown
a reply to: rickymouse

Thanks I was unsure so if we use 50,000,000 as you suggest it would be


1626/50,000,000 = 0.00003252

Nobody should be put at risk from medication but would this number fall within reasonable or is it larger than previous data for same age group suffering myocarditis

But, there are also complications with the kidneys, pancreas, spleen, blood vessels, neurological issues, deep vein thrombosis, complications with the veins and arteries, problems with the lungs, and so on so forth. This vaccine program is way worse than any vaccine program to date...in fact some figures show that problems with it exceed all vaccines to date.

I have taken a stance that this vaccine is not appropriate for people under around sixty, but seems to be worthwhile for people sixty to seventy five or so. Over seventy five, you cannot stimulate an immune system that is worn out so it is not that effective as it is in the sixty to seventy five group.

From looking at many thousands of articles I have made my conclusion. Does it help some people at risk under sixty...yes I believe it does, but for the majority it does not if they are not at risk. Although I am not into D3 vitamin supplements, for those who are deficient in vitamin D they do reduce the susceptibility of it causing severe or long term covid. I know lots of food chemistries that help us fend off a severe case of this virus plus still allow us to build up immunity and because the FDA and NIH does not tell people this information even though the NIH and other programs world wide have funded the research and I have seen the conclusions, these agencies stay mute on the subject and want the Pharma companies to create expensive meds based off these chemistries to help reduce severity. These agencies are steering people to believe that the only treatment comes in a shot or pill that is approved through their agencies. I have lost all respect for these agencies now...and unless they replace everyone at the top, I will never respect their interpretations of the evidence ever. I will examine if the evidence is real and find the origination of the chemistry they are using and hack it's origination though to see where it is available in nature and if it is bioavailable and how to correctly prepare the food chemistry to make it bioavailable if I can using research from the NIH and other health agencies and other reputable scientific sources.

The research that these agencies fund is crucial to health, but they are twisting the evidence to promote fear and reliance on their clients the Pharmaceudical and chemical industries. They are omitting the whole truth. This has been going on for decades, but in the last five or six years the deception has exploded and the media is on their side.

If those figures were real, how come I personally know of five people locally in a population of say fifteen thousand where the kids have gotten heart problems after vaccination, usually it turns up within a week. I also know some healthy middle aged men that died within a month after the vaccine from heart attacks and I know of more than normal amounts of people that have had blood clots since the vaccines have started. Yes, the virus can also cause these, and I am aware of this, but most of those people I have mentioned tested negative for the virus, and the ones who did test positive tested negative upon going to the hospital but tested positive after two or three days in the hospital...so they got it while in the hospital most likely. That testing negative upon admission to the hospital and testing positive three days later no matter what the vaccination status is actually very common and it accounts for almost half of the cases in hospitals according to SCIENTIFIC analysis of the evidence. Verified throughout the USA and many other countries. It could be they contacted the virus waiting in the waiting room or from who knows where around the time of the admittance, but it was not the cause of their going to the hospital is what evidence shows.

I read way too much research but I have nothing I would rather be doing.....we are getting a foot or more of snow in the next two days, and I would rather not be plowing and shoveling, but I have to or pay someone to do it...It sucked getting gas for the plowtruck today in a snowstorm when yesterday I could have gone out in the balmy twenty degree weather with no winds blowing snow all over the place.

originally posted by: UpThenDown
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

I am not the best at maths but I think this shows the chances of being unfortunatly effected by Myocarditis

Among 192 405 448 persons receiving a total of 354 100 845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines during the study period, there were 1991 reports of myocarditis to VAERS and 1626 of these reports met the case definition of myocarditis

1626 / 192405448 = 0.0000084509

I could be wrong though, how are you then seeing its a 133% increase, do you have data prior to covid?

Yea, using VARES for anything is problematic. It's too easy for anyone to add anything there. You need official data.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: UpThenDown
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

I am not the best at maths but I think this shows the chances of being unfortunatly effected by Myocarditis

Among 192 405 448 persons receiving a total of 354 100 845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines during the study period, there were 1991 reports of myocarditis to VAERS and 1626 of these reports met the case definition of myocarditis

1626 / 192405448 = 0.0000084509

I could be wrong though, how are you then seeing its a 133% increase, do you have data prior to covid?

Yea, using VARES for anything is problematic. It's too easy for anyone to add anything there. You need official data.

It's easy to add anything in VAERs?

So, you have a bunch of doctors NPI numbers and vaccine batch numbers and a specific medical write up with PHI details of a person that takes an hour to enter and agree that a fake report is a felony. And people are just creating millions of these ?

Where do they get the NPI numbers and batch numbers from, and why do the doctors who are checked up with confirm they are real?