Another Bullshit Pro-Pharma Study: Selects data that shows myocarditis is more Prevalent after infection

Risk of Myocarditis and other AESI > Risk of COVID Hospitalizations (Part 16)

In the interest of fairness and because the media will hype and salivate over these studies to no end as proof that their paymaster’s product is safe and effective and you will die without (somehow 2 asymptomatic infections later) I cover observational studies that claim to find a higher prevalence of cardiomyopathy after infection than injection and particularly the methods and discussion section of such studies that MSM conveniently leaves out. This Canadian multiprovincial retrospective analysis that is currently making the rounds piqued my interest on trialsite which claims to have observed 686 cases of myocarditis/pericarditis following 18.8 million primary series (1 case per 27,493 recipients) complete and 160 following 860,000 infections (1 case per 5,377 infections) . The first obvious limitation imposed on the external validity of these findings by the study’s parameters is that it's time frame, January to September 2021, excludes the vast majority of infections that occurred in Canada after the emergence of Omicron. The National Seroprevalence study for Canada found that only 9% of Canadians had been infected by SARS-COV-2 by November 2021, when omicron first emerged, while 76% had been infected by March 2023 and almost a year later that number is likely even closer to 100%. Aside from excluding all myo/pericarditis cases arising from any of the booster doses, based on the time frame, the study also excluded individuals, from the vaccination cohort, who had received either of their primary series doses outside their province and only received the first dose which accounts for about 20% of shot induced myopericarditis. The study also applies a one year asymmetrical case counting window to the infection cohort by counting myocarditis/pericarditis from infection (from the ancestral wildtype variant) going all the way back to January 26, 2020, a whole 11 months before any vaccine was even available. Obviously, if you count cardiomyopathy arising from infection, and infection from much more virulent variants,for twice as long as those from the shot, excluding vaccinated who got even one shot outside their province you’re going to find shot induced myocarditis and pericarditis at a lower rate. Despite designing the study to select for data that would reinforce the ‘safe and effective’ narrative the study authors still had to concede that the age stratified risk of myocarditis/pericarditis from modRNA products is inverse with 77% of post-infection myocarditis events occurring among those aged 40 years or older while the opposite was true for post shot myocarditis/pericarditis with 38% of cases occurring among recipients 18-29 years old, the least susceptible cohort to severe disease requiring hospitalization. And even though it finds a higher incident rate after infection than injection overall they admit some rather glaring exceptions such as a higher incidence rate of myocarditis and pericarditis following the Pfizer primary series for adolescents 12-17 years of age (rate ratio 1.16) and a higher rate of myocarditis and pericarditis following the Moderna primary series than SARS-COV-2 infection for persons 18-29 years of age (ratio 1.68). In the past I’ve pointed out that these results have been found consistently across the world even in studies designed to minimize the actual risk of cardiomyopathy from modRNA products such as (Part 1) and (Part 5).

What does this study tell us about the relative risk of cardiomyopathy following the XBB1.5 booster compared to the risk following infection from the latest omicron variant JN1? Absolutely nothing, because all omicron relevant data were excluded. SARS-COV-2 mutations have occurred so rapidly that this study is basically anachronistic at publication for missing over two years of its evolution.