Breaking the COVID Psyence-Op Matrix
as always, the devil is in the details
The latest public health illusion is trying to convince us that we need to get the shot because they claim people who get infected are more likely to get myocarditis than people who get vaccinated.
Let’s break that spell right now.
American Heart Association News published an article titled “COVID-19 infection poses higher risk for myocarditis than vaccines”. It’s a BigPharma heads I win, tails you lose study if you take the time to read it.
The title kind of makes you think you’re better of getting vaccinated, doesn’t it?
It has a “the virus is more dangerous than the shot” vibe.
But is that really the case?
From the article:
The overall risk of myocarditis – inflammation of the heart muscle – is substantially higher immediately after being infected with COVID-19 than it is in the weeks following vaccination for the coronavirus, a large new study in England shows.
The detailed analysis of nearly 43 million people was published Monday in the American Heart Association journal Circulation.
Wow! That’s a big study…
"We found that across this large dataset, the entire COVID-19-vaccinated population of England during an important 12-month period of the pandemic when the COVID-19 vaccines first became available, the risk of myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination was quite small compared to the risk of myocarditis after COVID-19 infection," the study's lead author, Martina Patone, said in a news release. She is a statistician at the University of Oxford Nuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences in England.
So, the conclusion you will read in headlines and hear from the experts is “the risk of myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination was quite small compared to the risk of myocarditis after COVID-19 infection.”
But what does that even mean? Why are we comparing jabbed to infected when the jab doesn’t stop infection?
When we arguments like this, we tend to assume it’s a vaxxed vs. unvaxxed scenario. But it isn’t. This is really a study of temporal associations (which is interesting considering temporal associations tend to be ignored when it comes to vaccine-injury).
… across this large dataset, the entire COVID-19-vaccinated population of England…” (emphasis mine)
I went back to the original study to make sure I was reading it correctly, and sure enough…
In other words, there are ZERO UNVACCINATED people in this study.
What the study actually demonstrates is, if you think the risks of getting myocarditis after the shots are unacceptable, just wait until you get infected anyway.
Because, yeah, these folks got infected anyway. And then got myocarditis.
This study found an increased risk of myocarditis after each shot, but an amplified risk post-infection. So the shots don’t just fail, they backfire.
But what about the unvaccinated?
Do they also experience higher rates of myocarditis from COVID-19 infections? At least one study says no.
According to The Incidence of Myocarditis and Pericarditis in Post COVID-19 Unvaccinated Patients-A Large Population-Based Study:
Post COVID-19 infection was not associated with either myocarditis (aHR 1.08; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.56) or pericarditis (aHR 0.53; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.13). We did not observe an increased incidence of neither pericarditis nor myocarditis in adult patients recovering from COVID-19 infection.
So is it misinformation or disinformation when it’s being used to try to get people to get more shots???
Wouldn’t be surprised if similar trolls have infiltrated Nextdoor.
..... and in the end, the facts