Nature Medicine paper revisited: And it is shocking
It is also important to note, in regards to the risk/benefit analysis, that myocarditis not the only adverse event that could result from these vaccines being administered to young adults.
For me, the problem was always Warp Speed, which was Trump's "Business approach to red tape". Well, that "red tape" was designed to stop this very insanity - hasty clinical trials, rushed to market without enough studies, etc.. And there you have it. Crappy, leaky vaccines which - in lower age groups - may do more harm than good (albeit therapeutic for those at risk).
I am not quite sure the world has realized just what this means: it means our governments have forced people to get an unnecessary second shot that seems quite clear to do more harm than good... That provides immunity so short that this barely did anything to prevent the spread of covid.
For me, this has been clear ever since I started hearing over a dozen stories among people I know of post-vaccine heart attacks, strokes, and death. Something didn't seem right but the folks who pushed the vaccines on people insisted "it's just a coincidence. The virus is riskier."
This is now clearly not true.
Those forced into the double shot regime are victims of this. Those who had prior immunity and were nevertheless forced to take the shots are also victims.
THIS is why people have been calling for Nuremburg trials. THIS is exactly the horrific thing you might expect when you force a rushed and poorly tested medical therapy on a population that does not need it.
vinay: I think you need to really push to end these mandates. I think you gotta convince your buddy Zdogg to speak up about this too. It's one thing to force a good therapy on people... but to force that second shot on the under 40 males... I'm sorry but that IS a crime against humanity. Full stop.
you need to start using words to recognize the severity of what has happened here. We need consensus that the forced second shot in the young must stop.
Does anyone not see how much of a profound fuck up the forced vaccinations have been in light of this data?
Had to add this thread b/c many some still don't see it
Vinay: would you speak to my local representative about this? I am singly vaccinated and chose not to get the second vaccine precisely due to the cost benefit analysis with respect to myocarditis risk. At the time the data seemed clear to me that a second dose was unnecessary and likely harmful. This is further confirmation of this.
However, because of this, I am not allowed to fly in my country (Canada) which has an extremely restrictive vaccination policy for flying.
I really don't think the officials here WANT to mandate a harmful vaccine. I just think they don't understand the nuance of the data here. Hearing from a doctor might help.
Vinay-This may be a stupid question, but why is this information not in the lay press? Hopefully you can use your connections to get it out there so patients can make informed decisions. Thank you for your skill at analyzing data like this.
I’d like to see the data on this for 40 and up as well…at what age does the risk of heart issues from the vaccine become less than from the virus? I hope these researchers will continue to probe, and you will share.
Sadly nobody is listening
And this is for *one* adverse effect. What does the risk:benefit ratio look like when all the other adverse effects are considered? BAD, I'm sure.
Oh my gosh - I don’t know about any of Dr. Prasad’s other supporters here on Substack, but I have been getting all kinds of hatred on my Twitter handle for sharing Dr. Prasad’s findings and most of the hatred is coming from other doctors and pharmacists and professors who are telling me that I’m brainwashed and that Dr Prasad is not an expert - they say that he blocks anyone who disagrees with him and ask me if I’m okay following a “grifter” whatever that means. I’ve been arguing back and forth with them but more and more are jumping up on their side to bad mouth me… is anyone else experiencing this? I am only a physical therapist and follow Dr. Prasad because he is an expert in my eyes, and so is Dr. Zuni Demania, who I also support - I just am starting to doubt if my judgement is off or if I am just letting the naysayers get to me? My biggest back and forth in my head has been whether or not to get my 17 year old twins (boy/girl) boosted - both play soccer and both are active, and healthy, so I believe that having them vaccinated with two doses of the Pfizer vaccine is enough. My son does have asthma and has had a chronic cough for the past year, but none of the specialists he’s seen from UCLA can figure out what is causing the cough - which is mostly at night right before bed. Because they are not boosted, however, high school now treats them in the same category as the unvaccinated because they are not boosted. Was hoping for some others to chime in here as I am not a doctor and both my kids’ pediatricians are “following CDC guidelines” and recommending the boosters… I stand with Dr. Prasad because I feel he dissects these complex studies so eloquently and I trust his expertise and wisdom - but all of these other doctors criticizing me has gotten me riled up and doubting myself… I do my best to be alt-middle, to try to find the truth, but I’m so confused… any advice? Thanks ahead of time!!🙏🏼❤️
Thank you. I recently was in conversation with a mother of a 6 year old boy who vaccinated him because she feared myocarditis was worse from infection. People have lost their minds and propaganda and science are being confused.
We should note as well that this data could have even more confounders that would make this look even worse for the vaccines.
1. There could be significant undercounting of post-vaccine myocarditis, especially mild cases that resolve on their own (but that could still cause long term cumulative damage to the individual). Remember the rollout of vaccination occurred at a time of public messaging about hospital overruns AND of taboos against being an anti-vaxxer.
2. There may be a "healthy person" bias in the decision to get vaccinated. Which could mean that that group should have a lower underlying risk of myocarditis. Hence the baseline adjustment done to get the "excess cases" data could have adjusted down too much.
Of course, a thoughtful reader could probably also think up confounders that would make the vaccine look better here.
Nevertheless, this data DOES NOT look good for getting the second dose. Especially if we combine that with information about the efficacy of the first dose.
Vinay: I wonder if you would join the chorus that, at the very least, mandatory DOUBLE vaccinated of the under 40 males is not okay. Indeed, a forced BENEFICIAL vaccination may be justified under some circumstances, but a net harmful clearly crosses a boundary.
Can anyone make the case that the second shot is a net benefit in light of this information? What data do you rely on to determine that?
This is bombshell level information. Thank you Vinay. Question - what do you think is the risk of first doses in kids who are exposed? Like post exposure prophylaxis? Is this going to lower long covid risk or increase acute myocarditis risk, or both? Gracias
In addition to the numerator/denominator questions you ask, it would be interesting to segment by differences in underlying health states among those experiencing myocarditis from any cause.
How big of an issue is myocarditis in this context? I think it's inflammation of the heart, which sounds scary, but how scary is it?
I seem the term "mild myocarditis" used but how mild is mild in this case?
What happens to someone, such as a child, if they get this type of myocarditis?
I commonly hear people deride conversations such as this involving pre-print studies. As this is a further analysis of the data in the study these authors published in Nature, do you see any reason to doubt it’s veracity?