Statistics

Turns Out The Vex Likely Caused Myocarditis & Pericarditis After All

Remember how the woke and super-concerned and awfully caring and, most of all, ignorant (I use this word in its technical sense) censors at YouTube, Twitter and all the rest quashed accounts that said myocarditis was likely a prominent side effect of the mRNA viruses? Which, as we’ll see below, it surely was?

Censoring the unwashed is their natural inclination, yet that happy duty was strengthened by Experts in the bureaucracy whose policy was the Noble Lie. Yes—the “L” word. For do you also remember when CDC Director Rachel Walensky, a physician, announced in her most serious voice, “Vaccinated people don’t carry the virus, don’t get sick.”

Update 2 11AM

There are only two explanations. Either she is incompetent, which in our crumbling culture is a live possibility, or she was lying, which I believe. The Noble Lie. Get your vex or starve, peasant! No vex no job! No questions: You will be safe!

One reason for the vociferousness of the lies was because of the hatred the elite have for us. They saw the reluctance on our part, which they took for disobedience. They cannot bear disobedience. So they insisted on the lie, long past the point where the lie was plausible.

They still insist, or rather they still do here in the once United States. The CDC is still requiring foreigners be “fully” vexxed before they allow them in the country. Unless, the CDC excepts, those who wish to come here illegally. They don’t have to be vexxed. In The Science for this policy, the CDC still do not recognize naturally acquired immunity: prior infection counts for nothing. Another lie.

Update 3 1:40 PM (Don’t show the CDC. They might weep.)

Back to myocarditis and pericarditis. Enter the peer-reviewed Nature Communications paper “Age and sex-specific risks of myocarditis and pericarditis following Covid-19 messenger RNA vaccines” by Le Vu and others.

They “analysed all 1612 cases of myocarditis and 1613 cases of pericarditis that occurred in France in the period from May 12, 2021 to October 31, 2021.” Can’t do that here in the States, mostly because the data isn’t available except in spots. And, if it was available, it wouldn’t be available. If you understand me.

Summer and into fall of 2021 wasn’t only the start of the vex mania period for the non-elderly, which lasted well into this year. Keep in mind that this is only five months of data, then, with the bulk still to come.

They looked at doses of Pfizer (BNT162b2) and Moderna (mRNA-1273) vexes, who got them by age and sex, and case-matched these to people who did not get the vex. And then looked at myocarditis and pericarditis.

They found “adjusted odds ratios of myocarditis of 8.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7 to 9.9) for [Pfizer] and 30 (95% CI, 21 to 43) for [Moderna] vaccine” to develop either of these known side effects.

“The largest associations are observed for myocarditis following mRNA-1273 [Moderna] vaccination in persons aged 18 to 24 years.”

Just exactly as we non-elite have been warning.

Let’s look at the results more closely and see what weaknesses there are. The most important results are in Table 2 “Association between myocarditis and pericarditis and exposure to mRNA vaccines within 1 to 7 days and 8 to 21 days.”

First weakness, which they acknowledge, is that about 5% (or fewer) of people who had myocarditis also had pericarditis, so there’s some double counting.

The second is matching for case-controls, which is never a perfect process. But it’s the only process they have. We needn’t believe the logistic regressions to “control” for these matchings (and which boosts the risk from the raw numbers), and can look right at the data, which they helpfully provide in that Table 2.

I’ll walk through one myocarditis one-week-after-first-dose example; you can look up the rest.

I added some corrections here (8:40 AM) to emphasize that this is conditional on the number of shots; that the percents below are conditional and relative chances. I was sloppy in trying to explain the increase in ORs without having the use the logistic regressions the authors did. See MikeW’s comment below.

They had 1,078 cases of myocarditis, which they matched to 13,342 people without, none of whom were vexed. That’s 1078/(1078+13342) = 7.5% or so. That’s a good rough estimate of no-vex “baseline” risk to use as a prediction (for past October 2021 or other localities for populations who causally look like that in France), (correction) conditional on the number of shots given out.

Then they saw in the first week after the first dose of Moderna, 9 cases of myocarditis and 48 matched cases who were fine. That’s 9/(9+48) = 15.8%, again conditional on the number of shots. It was lower for the time after the second dose.

So Modern boosts the chance of myocarditis (assuming all is well with this data and no other hidden causes) from 7.5% to 15.8%, or 2.1 times in the first week. Double. It’s similar for Pfizer. Of course, the numbers are not large here, so there’s some plus or minus to this when using these numbers as predictions. There is no plus or minus in what happened.

Then for the first week after the second dose of Moderna they had 106 cases of myocarditis and 51 who were fine. That’s 106/(106+51) = 67.5%.

So the second dose of Moderna boosts the chance of myocarditis from 7.5% (same “controls”) 67.5%, or 9 times in the first week.

That “in the first week” is important, because the numbers dropped pretty quick by the second week. Well, they would, too, since so many got it the first week.

They also found the obvious: those with a history of myocarditis or pericarditis were even more likely to get it again after the vex. Of those with a history, there were 126 cases and 9 who were fine, or 126/(126+9) = 93.3%. That’s 12.5 times higher.

Even more hilarious—if you have a black sense of humor—are the folks who had already been infected with the doom. I should say were known to have been infected by the doom, because Experts charged headlong into the storm ignoring naturally acquired immunity, a medical first. Add to that that not everybody who was infected, especially the young, knew they are infected, and we have noisy data.

Even still, of those who were known to have had infections, 64 got either myocarditis or pericarditis and 107 didn’t, or 64/(64+107) = 37.4%, which is still higher than that 7.5%, again all conditional on the number of shots. And which is likely too low: some of those 107 should be in the 64 group, if you understand me, because prior infection wasn’t always measured.

What about age and sex? This:

Men more than women, young more than old. Again, just exactly as dissidents have been saying.

I’ll give the authors the last word:

There are several factors that support the hypothesis of a causal relationship between exposure to mRNA vaccines and the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis. First, the associations remained strong, even after adjusting for a history of these conditions or recent SARS-CoV-2 infection, and in a period during which most common respiratory viruses were not widely circulating

Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here; Or go to PayPal directly. For Zelle, use my email.

Categories: Statistics

19 replies »

  1. Briggs, you appear to be using the Base Rate Fallacy to inflate your percentages. If we refer to the study’s base rate tables of excess cases per 100,000 doses, it appears that the excess chance of contracting x-carditis from the BNT162b2 vaccine is about 1 in 100,000, or .001%. If I have a concern about x-carditis, I might reasonably incur that risk in an attempt to protect myself from the assuredly higher risk of contracting a much more serious case of x-carditis if I am unvexxed and become infected with the live virus itself.

  2. MikeW,

    Right, dammit. I was not clear. I’ll fix. Thanks.

    Update I added this comment to the main article, and emphasized the conditional nature. My fault for going too fast. Thanks again.

    “I added some corrections here (8:40 AM) to emphasize that this is conditional on the number of shots; that the percents below are conditional and relative chances. I was sloppy in trying to explain the increase in ORs without having the use the logistic regressions the authors did. See MikeW’s comment below.”

  3. Looking at the graph it appears that a sinister cabal tricked millions into poisoning themselves and then started World War Three to cover up their monstrous crime. Odd, I never read about that in the New York Times. Okay, just checked the Times website, sure enough, here’s the headline:

    Sinister Cabal Poisons Millions — Starts WWIII as Cover Up — Media Complicit

  4. Briggs, another flaw:

    They did not take into account the cases of clot formation and other vascular accidents in people who had already had in the past similar vascular accidents in other parts of the body, not only in the heart (common in veins of legs, for instance). I kown or heard about a few of these. So, having a direct personal interest given the facts that I had a infaction at 42 (now I am 70) and clotting in several coronaries, I started to wonder if there has not been a degradation of quality of life in older people like me, as my situation is not at all uncommon in people of my age. Most probably, the majority of those losses (of life, of quality of life, other vascular accidents,…) were not discarded as explained by the previous condition of the patients. That would turn criminal the bureaucraatic, blind forcing of the vex to, priority to, older older, “more fragile”, people without taking into account their medical past. That is why I refused the vex: I have good reasons to think (professional life working on epidemiology of plant diseases) that the risk of vex side effects is in my case much greater than the risk of a well cared C-19 infection.

  5. “… myocarditis was likely a prominent side effect of the mRNA viruses.”

    I think you mean the experimental mRNA vaccines.

    Whatever one thinks of China, it’s using traditional inactivated-virus vaccines for Covid-19 and not the experimental mRNA vaccines. I suspect that they know.

  6. Briggs wrote: They found “adjusted odds ratios of myocarditis of 8.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7 to 9.9) for [Pfizer] and 30 (95% CI, 21 to 43) for [Moderna] vaccine” to develop either of these known side effects.

    Here is the first of two factors. Variation between batches. It is established from investigation that the rates of adverse events (at least in the United States) vary wildly between production lots.

    We also know that the “active ingredient” of the Oxford/AZ product varied from about 30% to 60% between batches. By the way, what happened to this vaccine? I don’t know of any case where a “highly successful matter of national pride” pharmaceutical (as the Oxford/AZ injection was described by government, scientists and media) just quietly vanished from the face of the planet never to be heard of again.

    On to the second factor. Placebo batches. Investigations in different countries (at least the Pfizer product) have found no evidence of phosphorus. No phosphorus, no lipid nano particles (they are reportedly phosphorised by Pfizer) and no mRNA (as phosphorus is the backbone element of both DNA and RNA).

    Where am I heading with this? Some suspect that certain batches could be, in effect, placebos. Why would this be done; to hide the adverse events signal? Or is there some larger and longer term agenda afoot? Asking for a friend.

    So these myo-peri rates could be wildly at odds with reality, without knowing fully what was in the injections that were given to each participant, undoubtedly, given in different batches. In other words, the entire study is based upon the assumption that the composition of each injection for each participant was consistent across lots. We now know this to be highly unlikely.

  7. There is another awkward dentin the article. One cannot get myocarditis “again”, it is a permanent condition. Pericarditis is inflammation which can be treated and one can get it again.

  8. How the heck does “sentence “ turn into “dentin”?? Is there a way to turn auto-correct off? I’ll own up to my own mistakes but not someone/thing else’s errors.

  9. MikeW: “I might reasonably incur that risk in an attempt to protect myself from the assuredly higher risk of contracting a much more serious case of x-carditis if I am unvexxed and become infected with the live virus itself.”

    As the injections have shown no benefit against acquiring and transmitting the virus, (and as time passes, there is less and less evidence it reduces severity of illness) then the risk is higher for the injection AND infection by the live virus, as is the likely outcome, not either/or.

    I know many people in my region, who are now three times injected, and have caught the live virus two or three times. Several are sick with it as I write.

  10. From comment: “carditis, I might reasonably incur that risk in an attempt to protect myself from the assuredly higher risk of contracting a much more serious case of x-carditis if I am unvexxed and become infected with the live virus itself.”

    Does the virus itself cause these problems? I thought it was the vexes and the boosters

    God bless, C-Marie (am unvexxed).

  11. @C-marie,
    Any thing that induces immune system activity may cause inflammation at sites well remote from the site of initial damage. So, yes, the natural infections, which include any respiratory virus, can cause myocarditis, pericarditis, or endocarditis. What isn’t known, in part due to the horribly corrupt numbers, is what the true rate is for either the virus or the injections, or both.

  12. These things are multifactorial and teasing out true cause from mere coincidence is not easy. Add to this the politics of the West now; and you’ll get ‘results’ that are mistaken at best and deliberately used to harm others at worst. God, please have mercy upon us.

  13. “There are only two explanations. Either she is incompetent, which in our crumbling culture is a live possibility, or she was lying…”

    Or both, which is a distinct possibility. Often people lie because they are incompetent, and do not understand the practical value of truth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.