Vaccination against Covid increases the risk of severe heart inflammation by up to 120 times, according to a major Scandinavian study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
But we are the camplottari… JAMA is considered a MAIN JOURNAL. That is a scientific journal of reference for SCIENZAH!
The study looked at over 23 million medical records covering populations over the age of 12 in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden since the vaccine's launch in December 2020 through October 5, 2021.
For young males aged 16 to 24 within 28 days of the second dose, the study found onset of severe myocarditis (requiring hospitalization) about five times more prevalent after Pfizer and 14 times more prevalent after Moderna.
This would correspond to six events per 100.000 people after Pfizer and 18 events per 100.000 after Moderna.
A second dose of Moderna administered after a first dose of Pfizer (crazy "trial in trial", squared trial, of drugs called "HETEROLOGIST") Presented an even higher risk: a 36-fold increased risk, corresponding to 27 events every 100.000 people. The Moderna vaccine has a dose of mRNA three times higher than that of the Pfizer vaccine, which the authors say is behind the increased risk.
Do you remember the friend Bassetti and colleagues on TV who reassured us that the HETEROLOGIST was even more effective ???? DO YOU REMEMBER IT? Now look at it ... HE KNOWS THE DATA WELL ...
However, the study fails to establish how many severe myocarditis events actually occurred in total. In Table 2 below, in the left column, it indicates that 85 + 34 + 53 = 172 events occurred after a second dose.
In the text, however, it says:
During the 28-day review period, we observed 105 cases of myocarditis after the first dose of BNT162b2 [Pfizer] and 115 cases of myocarditis after the second dose. We also observed 15 cases of myocarditis after administration of the first dose of [Modern] mRNA-1273 and 60 cases of myocarditis after the second dose.
So 115 + 60 = 175 events after the second dose. Even further down, however, there is a third figure: "Of the 213 cases of myocarditis in the 28-day risk window after a second dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination, 135 events occurred within the first week."
So how many cases of severe myocarditis occurred within 28 days of a second dose of mRNA vaccine: 172, 175 or 213?
Using the larger figure, the authors note that with 135 out of 213 occurring within the first week - more than half - the risk in that week is remarkably high. Among males aged 16 to 24, the risk was approximately 13 times greater during the week after a second dose of Pfizer and 38 times greater after a second dose of Moderna.
For a second dose of Moderna where the first dose was Pfizer the risk was 120 times higher !!!!
It is worth noting that the bar for myocarditis here is very high, the study in fact excluded from the data those who receive medical treatment on an outpatient basis, not to mention "light" myocarditis.
Too bad that even the mildest cases, however, can cause long-term damage.
A MYOCARDITIS IS FOREVER!
The study found that the risk of severe myocarditis following Covid infection was negligible, with only one event in excess of approximately every 100.000 within 28 days of infection and a confidence interval that included zero.
For some reason the study didn't look at risk outside the 28-day window after vaccination, so we don't know if the elevated risk persists beyond that time.
It is worth remembering that risk estimates are "adjusted" and based on models that take into account potential confounding factors: gender, age group, health worker status, nursing home residence and some of the comorbidities listed. Unadjusted risk estimates are not reported and we do not know how good the adjustments are. It is unclear why modeling had to be used to accommodate these factors rather than, for example, simply providing results stratified by gender and age and excluding health care workers, nursing home residents and people with comorbidities, at least from some of the findings. Modeled adjustments are often 'obscure', especially when unadjusted estimates are not provided, while stratified results are generally clear.
The results were summarized as follows:
Among 23.122.522 Nordic residents (81% vaccinated by the end of the study; 50,2% female), 1.077 incident myocarditis events and 1.149 incident pericarditis events were identified. Within the 28-day period, for males and females 12 years of age and older combined who received a homologous schedule [two doses of vaccine of the same type], the second dose was associated with a higher risk of myocarditis, with adjusted IRRs [incidence ratios] of 1,75 (95% CI [confidence interval], 1,43-2,14) for BNT162b2 [Pfizer] and 6,57 (95% CI, 4,64-9,28, 1273) for mRNA-16 [Modern]. Among males aged 24 to 5,31 years, the adjusted IRRs were 95 (3,68% CI, 7,68-162) for a second dose of BNT2b13,83 and 95 (8,08% CI, 23,68 -1273) for a second dose of mRNA-5,55 and excess event numbers were 95 (3,70% CI, 7,39-100.000) events per 162 vaccinated after the second dose of BNT2b18,39 and 9,05, 27,72 (100.000-1273) events per XNUMX vaccinated after the second dose of mRNA-XNUMX. Estimates for pericarditis were similar.
Here is the complete table of results for severe myocarditis in the 28-day window. Note that the risk is considerably high for many subgroups, particularly males under 40 (not only aged 16-24) after a second dose of Moderna, but also in other cases. However, the large confidence intervals make the results uncertain in many subgroups other than males under 40.
The authors conclude that the risks "Should be balanced with the benefits of protection against the serious COVID-19 disease".
However, given the extremely low risk of Covid for healthy young males and the considerably high risk of severe myocarditis after vaccination - plus the risks associated with other adverse, short- and long-term effects - it is difficult to see how it might be worth it, or why these vaccines have not yet been withdrawn for the younger age groups.
In Italy alone 40 deaths from no correlation in the last 5 days!
After all, if you use a drug designed for a "virus" that doesn't even exist, you can't expect who knows what results ...
FOLLOW US ON OUR TELEGRAM CHANNEL! @ evolutely.it
Daily updates on the fake pandemic!
Do you think these pandemics are real? Do you know it's all a bumblebee? Did you know that viruses are not the cause of the disease? What kind of disease is COVID then? How can we defend ourselves? How is the disease actually transmitted? How do they explain these mysteries?
THE MYTH OF THE CONTAGION you can only find it on Amazon or on our shopping thanks to the courage of the writer who published it for his very small publishing house
The update BREAKING THE SPELL it very clearly describes the “control experiment” which demonstrates in an engineering way that there is nothing lethal in the air that if we breathe it we risk being intubated or even dying.
In practice: disinfecting your hands only serves to massacre the natural microbiome of the skin and bombard itself with endocrine disruptors and chemicals, wearing masks is ridiculous (as well as very dangerous for health - CO2 intoxication other than global warming ...), to keep us apart it massacres our psyche, greeting us with an elbow or a fist is abominable. But above all these "obligations" are hateful and totally useless. At least forget about the children.