Normalizing vaccine induced myocarditis is not good medicine nor public health
Normalizing vaccine induced myocarditis is not good medicine nor public health
We can still try to mitigate this side effect
Recently, I came across this shocking ad playing in New York outlets. It is a television ad for myocarditis in a child. She does well after developing it. Watch it.
My first question is: Why is this a young girl? It should be a man between the ages of 16-26, the highest risk demographic.
My second question is: Why are we normalizing myocarditis? I have never seen a TV ad for this condition before, and now there's one. Why are we trying to normalize something that we can easily reduce?
Here's what could have done, and still can do:
Ban Moderna in people under 40
Space the two doses apart
Test lower doses in the high risk demographic group
Reconsider boosters in the high risk demographic group
Allow exemptions for natural immunity
Run better studies on the new bivalent booster, particularly for young men.
No mandates
And yet, the CDC has only tried one of these: Allowing us to space the doses further apart, but this took them a year longer than it needed to. The companies have tons of cash to test variations in dose and schedule to try to optimize the safety in young men. But the administration has put no pressure on them to do so. This administration appears to be working as their marketing arm.
Even the most ardent proponent of vaccination must admit that there's no point in giving it unsafely. If you can achieve the same goal, with less myocarditis, why wouldn't you do that?
Along the way many scientists have said demonstrably false things such as that the risk of myocarditis from infection is always greater than from vaccine. This is demonstrably untrue for any 20-year-old man who received one dose of Moderna, who is about to receive D2 on day 28. Either way, dose two or not, he will have a breakthrough of COVID-19. One way brings the much higher rate of dose two myocarditis to add to his ledger.
The goal of vaccination is to vaccinate safely. It's not to downplay serious safety concerns, as Rochelle Walensky has done. It is also not to create television ads to normalize something that is mutable, fixable, and preventable.
There is something between black and white, and that's called sensible policy. We are not living in that world. This ad was unfortunate.
Myocarditis is one of many adverse events reported with this vaccine. Why are we talking about mitigation of the vaccine adverse events. We shouldn't even be giving this to young people. So now we add the various adverse events due to the vaccine to the problems with covid 19 since the vaccine doesn't prevent the illness. We seem to continue to pretend that this vaccine is safe and effective. It is not. Was there a recent article out of Japan about ADE? Is this page, https://www.jessicasuniverse.com/ , just completely false. This is directly from VAERS. I'm an almost 73 yo who had this virus a couple of months ago, no vaccine, and I think I'm fine afterward. My wife the same. If the VAERS data is typical then there are many more problems than reported.
"Space the two doses Apart.
Test lower doses in the high risk demographic group
Reconsider boosters in the high risk demographic group"
These products do no good, kill people, cause miscarriage and impair fertility, and drive ADE. How are you still promoting them in any form or timing???