Either COVID-19 Jab-Induced Myocarditis is 'Mild' or a Bunch of Physicians are Incompetent

Article in The Lancet: Child and Adolescent Health Suggests the Latter

Another typically frustrating article about COVID-19 science was published last week; September 21st to be exact. It appeared in the journal called The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health, which is a sister journal to The Lancet. This journal has such a high impact factor that it claims to be “the world-leading paediatrics journal”. These days, however, I cringe whenever I hear that something that has been published in journals like the The Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, and many of their sister journals. These previously prestigious journals have become purveyors of poor-quality COVID-19 science, which sometimes dips into the realms of misinformation and even disinformation.

The article I am referring to is entitled “Outcomes at Least 90 Days Since Onset of Myocarditis After mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination in Adolescents and Young Adults in the USA: a Follow-Up Surveillance Study”. You can find the article at this link. Here is the full citation:

Kracalik I, Oster ME, Broder KR, Cortese MM, Glover M, Shields K, Creech CB, Romanson B, Novosad S, Soslow J, Walter EB, Marquez P, Dendy JM, Woo J, Valderrama AL, Ramirez-Cardenas A, Assefa A, Campbell MJ, Su JR, Magill SS, Shay DK, Shimabukuro TT, Basavaraju SV; Myocarditis Outcomes After mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination Investigators and the CDC COVID-19 Response Team. Outcomes at least 90 days since onset of myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents and young adults in the USA: a follow-up surveillance study. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2022 Sep 21:S2352-4642(22)00244-9. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(22)00244-9. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36152650.

You will note that this study was largely conducted by the United States Centers for Disease Control COVID-19 Response Team. The messaging in this paper follows what has become an all-too-common pattern for those still pushing the singular so-called ‘COVID-19 narrative’. In other words, it is what I like to call a ‘rhetoric sandwich’. There is some important objective data that contradict the narrative but it is downplayed amongst a presentation of the science that seems to make it almost support the narrative.

In this case, the authors found what others have already published, which is that COVID-19 ‘vaccine’-induced myocarditis is not as transient as we were told by public health officials. You can find a good example here. However, the authors try to convince us that it is only a little bit more chronic than what they previously thought. They nurse their data set in a way that makes it seem like most cases of COVID-19 jab-induced myocarditis have resolved by 90 days post-inoculation.

The most important and reliable data in this paper were inconspicuously placed in one of two appendices containing supplementary data. These data are not included in the manuscript. They have to be downloaded as separate files. Most scientists never look at supplementary materials, let alone ‘investigative journalists’ (whatever that means these days). I have noted that this is a common strategy to make it challenging for the average person to access data that fail to paint the COVID-19 narrative in a good light. As soon as I hear that a paper has been published in one of these journals that have lost my respect, one of the first things I do is take a close look at what is ‘de-emphasized’ in the supplementary materials.

Although I could highlight several issues that I have with this particular publication, I will focus on the most important one.

Here is the overall message that the authors want you to take away:

After at least 90 days since onset of myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, most individuals in our cohort were considered recovered by health-care providers, and quality of life measures were comparable to those in pre-pandemic and early pandemic populations of a similar age. These findings might not be generalisable given the small sample size and further follow-up is needed for the subset of patients with atypical test results or not considered recovered.

Now, let’s explore the core data set from the supplemental appendix #1. Here is supplementary figure 2:

This figure contains data from patients in the study for which there were matching reports from both the patient and their physician. In other words, these are the data in which the patients had a ‘voice’ in determining whether they might still be suffering from myocarditis.

I added the red and yellow boxes and their associated text. Panel i shows data for 33 patients that physicians deemed to have not recovered from myocarditis. Interestingly, one of these patients apparently had no relevant signs or symptoms, so I am not sure why they were deemed to have not recovered. This is just an aside.

Much more importantly, panel ii shows data for 195 patients that their respective physicians had defined as having ‘fully’ or ‘probably fully’ (whatever this means) recovered from their jab-induced myocarditis. Really!?! Of those 195 patients, 27 of them had no reported signs or symptoms of myocarditis, but their data sets were incomplete! I highlighted these cases in yellow. They all contain at least one white rectangle, which means the test result was either unknown or unavailable. As such, these patients cannot be incorporated into an accurate analysis. This brings the total number of assessable patients from 195 to 168.

Now, of these 168 assessable patients, only five had received complete evaluations and had no objective evidence of myocarditis (at least based on the eight measurements that were included). This means that a remarkable 163 out of 168 assessable patients had at least one clear sign and/or symptom of myocarditis! That is 97%!

This bears repeating…

97% of patients whose physicians claimed they had recovered from their ‘vax’-induced myocarditis still had clear evidence of having myocarditis!

In many of these cases, the confirmatory results were based on objective assessments of clinical signs, not subjective reporting of symptoms (not that accusing patients of lying about the symptoms they are experiencing would be appropriate anyways).

This leads me to conclude that the physicians who participated in this study had a complete disconnect between what they concluded about their patients and the objective reality of their patients’ conditions. This seems like gross medical incompetence to me. This does not in any way support the misleading concept that myocarditis is the latest ‘minor nuisance’ to be tolerated after getting ‘vaccinated’.

I consider this to be another example of why raw data related to the novel COVID-19 inoculations need to be assessed by independent, objective scientists. Public health messaging has been relying far too heavily on trusting that scientists reporting their own findings have applied correct analyses.

When this ‘high-impact’ paper is stripped down to its most objective and reliable data-imprinted underwear, I deem the take-away message posited by the authors to be either misinformation or disinformation (depending on whether their misleading reporting in the main text of the article was due to incompetence or was intentional).

Here is the only take-away that is actually supported by the data…

Most health-care providers are either unintentionally or willfully ignorant of the fact that their patients with COVID-19 jab-induced myocarditis are still suffering from this condition three months later.

Too many people are suffering from these kinds of serious conditions and public health and government officials, health care workers, and scientists need to stop downplaying it. A video that gives voice to some of these individuals can be found at this link.

---