Boys aged 12-17 more at risk from myocarditis after Pfizer jab than Covid

Here we present another peer-reviewed paper in relation to myocarditis post vaccination for children 12-17 years old. We pay tribute to Pfizer for once more after several other threads on the subject and one I have created to honour them: Pfizer: Six scandals to remember.


www.medrxiv.org...

Objectives

Establishing the rate of post-vaccination cardiac myocarditis in the 12-15 and 16-17-year-old population in the context of their COVID-19 hospitalisation risk is critical for developing a vaccination recommendation framework that balances harms with benefits for this patient demographic.


Main outcome measures

1) Stratified rates of mRNA vaccine-related myocarditis in adolescents age 12-15 and 16-17; and 2) harm-benefit analysis of vaccine-related CAEs in relation to COVID-19 hospitalisation risk


Results

A total of 257 CAEs were identified. Rates per million following dose 2 among males were 162.2 (ages 12-15) and 94.0 (ages 16-17); among females, rates were 13.0 and 13.4 per million, respectively. For boys 12-15 without medical comorbidities receiving their second mRNA vaccination dose, the rate of CAE is 3.7 to 6.1 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk as of August 21, 2021 (7-day hospitalizations 1.5/100k population) and 2.6-4.3-fold higher at times of high weekly hospitalization risk (7-day hospitalizations 2.1/100k), such as during January 2021. For boys 16-17 without medical comorbidities, the rate of CAE is currently 2.1 to 3.5 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk, and 1.5 to 2.5 times higher at times of high weekly COVID-19 hospitalization.


Conclusions

Post-vaccination CAE rate was highest in young boys aged 12-15 following dose two. For boys 12-17 without medical comorbidities, the likelihood of post vaccination dose two CAE is 162.2 and 94.0/million respectively. This incidence exceeds their expected 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization rate at both moderate (August 21, 2021 rates) and high COVID-19 hospitalization incidence.

Looking at the results and conclusions we can easily see there is a greater chance for boys aged 12-17 to get vaccine-induced myocarditis with a Pfizer mRNA vaccine than end up in hospital with Covid.

Given that there are about 25 million children in the age group 12-17 in the US, and approximately half of them are boys, there is a major concern for the health of young and healthy male children, and this is nothing more than the mRNA vaccines which are known for the several health problems they could cause.

In particular the above data suggests that boys aged 12-15 with no underlying medical conditions are almost four to six times more likely to be diagnosed with vaccine-induced myocarditis than hospitalised with Covid over a four-month period. Likewise boys aged 16-17 are two to three and a half times more likely to be diagnosed with vaccine-induced myocarditis than hospitalised with Covid over a four-month period.

The vaccines are not what we will call safe and effective for use and the benefit to risk ratio for every age group has not been established prior to the release of these products for general use. These products are hazardous for young people and could be as hazardous for adults of all ages. The risk here is greater than the benefit. And this is just from one particular side effect from the vaccines. But this is not the only side effect..



www.statista.com...

And the Fauci crowd believes these young men will suffer far greater from having covid and turning into 'long covid' than dying of myocarditis.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

An important bit of context is that all approvals are supposed to consider risk/benefit.

When we add to this that young people were at virtually no risk of death from COVID prior to vaccine deployment, that they are more likely to become ill with future strains after vaccination, and that the vaccines do not prevent illness or transmission, it's clear that people should be answering questions about the approvals under oath.

From the funding of this disease, to the lockdowns, to the poorly reviewed vaccine trial methods, lies paid for by our tax dollars, to the approval for those at no risk, to the human rights violations, this is the largest crime against humanity ever perpetrated.

Considering that the vaccine does absolutely 0 toward preventing covid infection, transmission, or symptoms it's ONLY adding additional risk. Comparing the 2 is moot. Although the vaxx is way riskier.

originally posted by: nugget1
And the Fauci crowd believes these young men will suffer far greater from having covid and turning into 'long covid' than dying of myocarditis.

Indoctrination and brainwash are mainly responsible for this unfortunate situation. Although there are many who are suspicious and have been suspicious in relation to these products.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: Asmodeus3

An important bit of context is that all approvals are supposed to consider risk/benefit.

When we add to this that young people were at virtually no risk of death from COVID prior to vaccine deployment, that they are more likely to become ill with future strains after vaccination, and that the vaccines do not prevent illness or transmission, it's clear that people should be answering questions about the approvals under oath.

From the funding of this disease, to the lockdowns, to the poorly reviewed vaccine trial methods, lies paid for by our tax dollars, to the approval for those at no risk, to the human rights violations, this is the largest crime against humanity ever perpetrated.

The Covid-19 vaccines were approved without knowledge of the benefit to risk ratio in all age groups. This is a scandal at the very least... And as one of the Italian members of the European Parliament said: This is the greatest medical scandal in history.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Oh, they knew. By the time they were looking at approving the vaccine for this age group, it was known. The data sets were out there. I remember because my son is in that age group or was shortly going to be so I was watching it keenly.

They "hid" it by putting the male numbers in with female numbers which massaged the data to make it look like the risk was about the same.

I recall that two of the doctors raised questions about it, but they rammed approval through anyhow.

NIFTY APP FOR BROWSING DATA

I thought this was an interesting addition to your source.

originally posted by: Maxmars
NIFTY APP FOR BROWSING DATA

I thought this was an interesting addition to your source.

Thanks for the link!

It is known that myocarditis in most cases occurs after the second shot which is also recorded in the link you have given. It seems to be affecting mostly the male children in the 12-15 age group and male teenagers in the 16-17 age group.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Oh, they knew. By the time they were looking at approving the vaccine for this age group, it was known. The data sets were out there. I remember because my son is in that age group or was shortly going to be so I was watching it keenly.

They "hid" it by putting the male numbers in with female numbers which massaged the data to make it look like the risk was about the same.

I recall that two of the doctors raised questions about it, but they rammed approval through anyhow.

Yes, for some age groups they did (partially) as they had more time and data to come up to some safer conclusions but the 'massage' is well known on a range of matters. But again the benefit to risk ratio cannot be determined accurately when the medium and long term effects of these vaccines are not known. Even the short term effects were not fully known at that time. What was known is the disproportional effect Covid had in the elderly who have co-morbidities in comparison with the young and healthy.

It is worth noting that in the UK the JCVI committee didn't approve vaccinations for the 12-15 age group, including for both male and female children, which raises questions about how reactions are recorded in the US and the UK and how good the data is, which again raises questions if they really knew the benefit to risk ratio in this particular age group.

Off the top of my head, the infection fatality rate in the 0-19 age group is 0.0003% i.e 3 deaths per one million infections. But the rhetoric made it look like as everyone was at the same risk at every age group. The infection fatality rate is around 0.15% at a global level.


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

a reply to: Asmodeus3

No. Here in the US it was known. One of my conservative blogs got ahold of parts of the presentation given to the recommendation committee. It included that specific data.

That no one thinks it was known shows you how well it was hidden.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Asmodeus3

No. Here in the US it was known. One of my conservative blogs got ahold of parts of the presentation given to the recommendation committee. It included that specific data.

That no one thinks it was known shows you how well it was hidden.

My question was a little different. Can you determine the benefit to risk ratio if you don't know the medium and long term effects?

Yes the data shows that for some specific groups vaccination isn't the best possible route as risks outweigh benefits.

In my link there is only one specific risk covered, that of myocarditis. There are many other risks which if they put altogether create a different picture in terms of the risk to benefit ratio.

It was known from the beginning that children are at a very low risk from Covid. The vast majority of Covid deaths have occured to people over 65 with co-morbidities.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
Considering that the vaccine does absolutely 0 toward preventing covid infection, transmission, or symptoms it's ONLY adding additional risk. Comparing the 2 is moot. Although the vaxx is way riskier.

If you are not in a high risk group then you need to think it seriously whether to take a chance with these products which are not the most safe and effective interventions created for preventing an infection or preventing a disease.

We know they don't prevent transmission and infection and don't significantly reduced them either.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Looking at the results and conclusions we can easily see there is a greater chance for boys aged 12-17 to get vaccine-induced myocarditis with a Pfizer mRNA vaccine than end up in hospital with Covid.

You missed out the part where the myocarditis was mild, and simply caused slight breathlessness or a feeling similar to anxiety.

The actual risk of serious myocarditis is around 1:50,000, and even then 80 percent of those who have serious myocarditis will simply get over it because myocarditis is a common side effect viral infections and people have it without knowing it.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
Considering that the vaccine does absolutely 0 toward preventing covid infection, transmission, or symptoms it's ONLY adding additional risk. Comparing the 2 is moot. Although the vaxx is way riskier.

Source for that, please.

In fact, a simple explanation of how it could possibly be true would be nice.

Vaxxed people are infectious for shorter periods of time than unvaxxed people purely because they start fighting the infection sooner, so it has a shorter duration. Please explain how someone who is infectious for a shorter period of time has an equal transmission rate to someone who is infectious for longer?

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Looking at the results and conclusions we can easily see there is a greater chance for boys aged 12-17 to get vaccine-induced myocarditis with a Pfizer mRNA vaccine than end up in hospital with Covid.

You missed out the part where the myocarditis was mild, and simply caused slight breathlessness or a feeling similar to anxiety.

The actual risk of serious myocarditis is around 1:50,000, and even then 80 percent of those who have serious myocarditis will simply get over it because myocarditis is a common side effect viral infections and people have it without knowing it.

Myocarditis is a serious condition and not mild as described in many papers and articles. You may have milder symptoms but inflammation of the heart is rather serious.

In addition the paper above shows that there is a much greater risk for 12-17 aged boys to get vaccine-induced myocarditis with a Pfizer mRNA vaccine than end up in hospital with Covid.

The above don't take into account that myocarditis is one of the serious adverse reactions. There are many more and there nobody knows yet the medium and long term effects.

As said on many occasions there in no need to get involved in vaccine apologetics and Pfizer defending.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
Considering that the vaccine does absolutely 0 toward preventing covid infection, transmission, or symptoms it's ONLY adding additional risk. Comparing the 2 is moot. Although the vaxx is way riskier.

Source for that, please.

In fact, a simple explanation of how it could possibly be true would be nice.

Vaxxed people are infectious for shorter periods of time than unvaxxed people purely because they start fighting the infection sooner, so it has a shorter duration. Please explain how someone who is infectious for a shorter period of time has an equal transmission rate to someone who is infectious for longer?

How do you know the above?
It would be great to have some data and mathematics on how much longer unvaxxed people are infectious in comparison to vaxxed people.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Can you determine the benefit to risk ratio if you don't know the medium and long term effects?

Except that the long term risks are well known. The risk factor drops off exponentially with time in line with the natural decay of the mRNA payload. In most people the risk factor drops of to a level that's mathematically equivalent to zero within two months due to the degradation of the payload.

Your risk factor at 3 months and your risk factor at 3 years are statistically equivalent.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
Considering that the vaccine does absolutely 0 toward preventing covid infection, transmission, or symptoms it's ONLY adding additional risk. Comparing the 2 is moot. Although the vaxx is way riskier.

Source for that, please.

In fact, a simple explanation of how it could possibly be true would be nice.

Vaxxed people are infectious for shorter periods of time than unvaxxed people purely because they start fighting the infection sooner, so it has a shorter duration. Please explain how someone who is infectious for a shorter period of time has an equal transmission rate to someone who is infectious for longer?

How do you know the above?
It would be great to have some data and mathematics on how much longer unvaxxed people are infectious in comparison to vaxxed people.

As always, sources are in my signature. As you absolutely 100 percent already know as you've absolutely 100 percent already read them from start to finish. Right?

Because it would be completely normal for a person to read through the links provided before responding.

But if you insist, try these link

Link
Link
Link
Link

I can't decide if I should laugh or cry that there are people who still think the "vaxxine" is worth a sh*t.