A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Association Between SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Myocarditis or Pericarditis

[Goldhedge]

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Association Between SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Myocarditis or Pericarditis​

Abstract​

Introduction: There have been reports of potential negative cardiovascular effects from the COVID-19 vaccine, such as myocarditis or pericarditis. This study sought to ascertain the risk of myocarditis/pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination by conducting an extensive meta-analysis of published cases.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Association Between SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Myocarditis or Pericarditis - PubMed

Study results indicate that a higher incidence of myocarditis or pericarditis was found after COVID-19 vaccination. In addition, the risk of developing myocarditis or pericarditis was greater after the second dose than after the first dose. Nevertheless, the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Bigfoot]

Right there in the esteemed "Pub Med", hidden in plain sight. Great find, Hedge.

 

[Voodoo]

So the bottom line is you have a ~2% risk of developing myocarditis from the PFE jab and even higher ~4% risk from MRNA jab. For no benefits and certainly NO risk to kids from the so called virus.

Edit: And it's really worse than that because this only compares the 2nd shot to the 1st. I don't think they considered any boosters. I would expect non-linear increases to the risk with every subsequent jab.

 

[Voodoo]

Also I believe the study's had a total of 58,000,000+ people. Do the math and you have well over 1 million people who now have a life expectancy <10 years. Man I can't type anymore, must be that covid brain fog.

 

[Bigfoot]

So the bottom line is you have a ~2% risk of developing myocarditis from the PFE jab and even higher ~4% risk from MRNA jab. For no benefits and certainly NO risk to kids from the so called virus.

And that's just for the myocarditis. There are a whole host of illnesses, including cancers, that are occuring because the shots are leaving people in an immunosuppressed state.

 

[pmbug]

I skimmed through the full write up of the study (it's available for free here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9510095/ ) and still don't quite understand exactly how they calculated their results. I did notice that much of their base data was pulled from China. It wasn't clear from the write-up if the patients in the Chinese databases were receiving the same vaccines as patients in the Medline or other US/European databases. Was China distributing Pfizer and Moderna vaccines? A quick search of the internets and it looks like the answer is no. It looks like (at least initially) they rejected non-Chinese vaccines and made their own. I'd need to do more digging to really understand the timelines and facts.

 

[Oldmansmith]

Of course they have to put this in: “Nevertheless, the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in COVID -19 vaccine recipients are still significantly lower than the health risks observed in patients with COVID -19.”

That would actually be relevant information if the quack vax actually did anything to prevent you from getting COVID 19, which it doesn’t.

 

[Voodoo]

These are the studies they choose...

"Eight17 , 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 of these studies compared the incidence of myocarditis or pericarditis before and after COVID-19 vaccination, and 332 , 39 , 40 studies analyzed the effect of different doses of vaccination on the incidence of myocarditis or pericarditis. "

17, 32, 36, 38 appear to be US, 35 is Israeli, 39 is from Europe, 40 from Hong Kong.

 

[Voodoo]

Of course they have to put this in: “Nevertheless, the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in COVID -19 vaccine recipients are still significantly lower than the health risks observed in patients with COVID -19.”

That would actually be relevant information if the quack vax actually did anything to prevent you from getting COVID 19, which it doesn’t.

That's the complete failure of "peer-reviewed" crap. If you don't put that in you are never gonna get published. Which really nullifies anything they say but the data is still interesting.

 

[Goldhedge]

That's the complete failure of "peer-reviewed" crap.

Peer review has its place in the world... unless it's been usurped, which it seems to be and the only people who haven't figured that out yet are the same ones that believe in 'peer review'.

I can hardly wait til they wake up and figure it out.

It will be a revelation similar to when the people woke up to discover the election system was completely rigged and not in their favor.