Ahahahaha. This is one of their beloved “Peer Reviewed Studies“, so they can’t say shit. They just have to sit back and take this science up the ass.

DOWNLOAD PDF OF STUDY: https://telegrammedia.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/s41467-022-31401-5-1.pdf

Like a herd of retard sheep lining up for their Myocarditis jabs. That’s the state our Clownworld reality has regressed into. Unreal. I guarantee that most of these people who have developed these post-jab complications will STILL go out and get as many more booster jabs as they are instructed to by all the implied authority figures at the CDC, Big Pharma and on TV. Ironically, in many ways I’m actually grateful for that. Grateful for their tenacity and eagerness to euthanize themselves as quickly as possible. Like Klaus Schwab said, “this is a rare opportunity“. I agree Klaus, except I look at it more as an opportunity to cull the world population of all the cringy, whiney, post-modern, entitled, self-victimized, Libtard Hypochondriac scum who have been ruining our society over the past few decades and especially over the past 2.5 years since the onset of Covaids, where we’ve seen an exponentially accelerated intensity level of “Karen’ness” and a staggering increase in just plain ‘ol psychosis. So I encourage all these people to go out and get as many jabs as they are physically able to and as are ultimately needed to put your ass in a wooden box and no longer able to continue-on being a menace to society by making things so much shittier for the rest of us who don’t suffer from the mental illness known as SARS-COV-2 and just want to live our lives without Government or Covidiot interference and NOT have to walk around with moist filthy rags draped over our faces and NOT have to fend off jab after jab of mysterious, synthetic and totally medically unnecessary POISON, forfeiting our body autonomy in the process and all in the name of “Public Health[said w/ a retard slur accent”. If I hear one more Covidiot tell me that the reason the flu has been statistically eradicated is because people are wearing masks now, I might mace them in the hopes that the pepper concentrate seeps into their brain and burns the stupidity out of them.

Most of the Covidiot contingency has been sidetracked throwing tantrums about Roe vs. Wade of late. Lol. I hope this hasn’t caused any of them to miss any of their booster appointments. Did you know that “Roe” in the Roe vs. Wade case was a hardcore drug addict who lied about being raped just to be the defendent in the case? She became a born again Christian years later and admitted to everything! Lol. That’s their case!

RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/v1ayt98-jane-roe-was-a-drug-addict-that-lied-about-being-raped-as-the-plaintiff-in-.html

Getting back on topic, below is the article summarizing the findings of the study as well as a link to the study and a PDF version available for download.

PEER REVIEWED STUDY: Age and sex-specific risks of myocarditis and pericarditis following Covid-19 messenger RNA vaccines | Nature Communications(opens in a new tab) – NATURE.COM

DOWNLOAD PDF OF STUDY: https://telegrammedia.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/s41467-022-31401-5-1.pdf

The Gateway Pundit: Peer Reviewed Study Finds YOUNG Moderna Jab Recipients Have a Jaw-Dropping 44X HIGHER Risk of Developing Myocarditis Than the Unvaccinated

*Peer Reviewed* Study Finds YOUNG Moderna Jab Recipients Have a Jaw-Dropping 44X HIGHER Risk of Developing Myocarditis Than the Unvaccinated

By Julian Conradson
Published July 2, 2022 at 9:15pm

A peer-reviewed study from researchers in France has concluded that both the experimental Pfizer and Moderna vaccines significantly increase the risk of myocarditis compared to the unvaccinated.

While both mRNA therapies were found to be linked to the life-threatening heart condition, the Moderna jabs results were particularly shocking, especially among young adults, as researchers found the risk for myocarditis diagnosis following the Moderna jab was 44 times higher risk for individuals aged 18 to 24 years old.

As for Pfizer’s jab – which fared better, but not by much – the same age group experienced a 13x elevated risk for the serious condition, according to the study that was published last week in the scientific journal, “Nature.”

The new data mirrors several other recent studies that show a link between the treatments and numerous severe medical complications in addition to myocarditis, including, but not limited to, pulmonary embolism, blood clots, and even “sudden” death.

The largest associations are observed for myocarditis following mRNA-1273 vaccination in persons aged 18 to 24 years [Moderna 44x increase, Pfizer 13x increase]. Estimates of excess cases attributable to vaccination also reveal a substantial burden of both myocarditis and pericarditis across other age groups and in both males and females.

Advertisement – story continues below

The risk of myocarditis was substantially increased within the first week post vaccination in both males and females (Fig. 1 and Table S2). Odds-ratios associated with the second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine were consistently the highest, with values up to 44 (95% CI, 22–88) and 41 (95% CI, 12–140), respectively in males and females aged 18 to 24 years but remaining high in older age groups.

While young people experienced the worst reaction to the mRNA vaccines, researchers demonstrated, as has been done across multiple studies, that the risk was elevated across all age groups and it is highest around 1-week post-vaccination.

Overall, the Pfizer and Moderna jabs were associated with an 8x and a 30x increase in myocarditis risk, respectively, when compared to the unvaccinated, according to the study.

Individuals were also found to be at a greater risk of developing pericarditis, a similar and less severe, but still serious, heart condition. However, the increase was not nearly as high, at 2.9x for Pfizer and 5.5x for Moderna.

Conversely, the risk of myocarditis was also found to be elevated by 9x in those who have been infected with the Covid-19 virus. It is unclear whether or not vaccination status was factored in for this cohort.

We perform matched case-control studies and find increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis during the first week following vaccination, and particularly after the second dose, with adjusted odds ratios of myocarditis of 8.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7 to 9.9) for the BNT162b2 [Pfizer] and 30 (95% CI, 21 to 43) for the mRNA-1273 [Moderna] vaccine.

The association was stronger for the mRNA-1273 vaccine with odds-ratios of 3.0 (95% CI, 1.4–6.2) for the first dose and 30 (95% CI, 21–43) for the second. The risk of pericarditis was increased in the seven days following the second dose of both vaccines, with odds ratios of 2.9 (95% CI, 2.3–3.8) for the BNT162b2 vaccine and 5.5 (95% CI, 3.3–9.0) for the mRNA-1273 vaccine. 

In other words, that ‘cure’ for the virus that’s nominally worse than the seasonal flu (99.95 recovery rate overall, 99.995% among children and young people) is more likely to put recipients into the hospital with a crippling heart condition than keeping them from being hospitalized with Covid.

And, not just a little more likely, either. Another recently published study found that for every one person the Pfizer vaccine keeps out of the hospital, five (!) people will suffer a “severe adverse reaction” – aka. a serious vaccine injury.

It’s worth pointing out that the 5 to 1 ratio is only related to the Pfizer jab and it’s 13x increase in myocarditis risk. At 44x, Moderna’s ratio of severe adverse events would likely be even greater.

Unbelievably, the risk increase for the severe heart condition might even be higher than the data that the new French study shows, as researchers were limited to pulling information strictly from hospital discharge records. These records likely underscored the true number of myocarditis cases because they do not include those whose symptoms were not severe enough to be hospitalized or those who might have died suddenly before checking into a healthcare facility.

What’s more – the study only looked at those with one- and two-dose vaccinations and did not analyze the effect the booster jab had on the risk of myocarditis because it is not yet recommended for young adults in the country. This could also indicate that the true risk increase is higher, as other data has shown that with more mRNA doses, the higher the chance of developing complications.

One of the study’s authors, Dr. Sanjay Verma, even warned as much, stating that the excluded data “may yield even higher risk than reported.”

From Dr. Verma, who spoke with The Epoch Times about the French study:

“There have been reports (pdf) of autopsy-proven myocarditis after vaccination and anecdotal evidence of patients being dismissed by ER and never being hospitalized. Adjusting for these excluded subsets may yield even higher risk than reported in this study. Follow-up of the patients in this study was limited to one month after discharge. However, a previous cardiac MRI study found about 75 percent of patients with vaccine-associated myocarditis can have persistent MRI abnormalities 3–8 months after initial diagnosis.”

Dr. Verma also slammed the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for misleading the public about the true incidence rate of myocarditis and its relation to the experimental vaccine. According to the expert cardiologist, the CDC has been “erroneously suggest[ing]” that the risk of myocarditis after Covid infection is higher than it is following mRNA injection – something his data, and others, have thoroughly disproven.

Nevertheless, the CDC and the public health ‘experts’ refuse to divert from the course.

Dr. Verma continued:

“Both SARS-CoV2 infection and COVID mRNA vaccines have been associated with myocarditis. Knowing the spike protein’s affinity to ACE2 receptors in the heart and spike protein’s injury to cardiomyocytes (cells of the heart), the association of myocarditis with SARS-CoV2 virus or spike protein-based mRNA vaccination was not entirely unexpected.

Advertisement – story continues below

For the cases of myocarditis after SARS-CoV2, CDC uses officially confirmed PCR+ ‘cases,’ even though their own seroprevalence data demonstrates that far more people have been infected than officially conformed PCR+ ‘cases.’ For example, seroprevalence data as of Feb 21, 2022, reveals 75 percent (about 54 million) of all children have been infected compared to 12 million officially confirmed PCR+ ‘cases’ (i.e., the actual number of kids infected is 4.5 times greater than PCR+ ‘cases’). Therefore, calculating the risk of myocarditis after SARS-CoV2 infection, the rate noted by CDC would therefore need to be reduced by 4.5 times. Thus far, CDC has not adjusted its COVID-19 morbidity and mortality data accordingly.”

To download the new *peer-reviewed* French study, it can be found here.

https://t.co/xFCtTaCI4l

— 𝔪Ⓥ𝔯𝔱𝔞𝔩 (@net__void) June 29, 2022

DOWNLOAD PDF OF STUDY: https://telegrammedia.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/s41467-022-31401-5-1.pdf

s41467-022-31401-5-1

References

1. Meeting highlights from the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) 3–6 May 2021. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/meeting-highlights-pharmacovigilance-risk-assessment-committee-prac-3-6-may-2021 (2021).
2. Gargano, J. W. et al. Use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine after reports of myocarditis among vaccine recipients: update from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices — United States, June 2021. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 70, 977–982 (2021).CAS Article Google Scholar 
3. Surveillance of Myocarditis (Inflammation of the Heart Muscle) Cases Between December 2020 and May 2021 (Including). https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/01062021-03 (2021).
4. Oster, M. E. et al. Myocarditis cases reported after mRNA-Based COVID-19 vaccination in the US From December 2020 to August 2021. JAMA 327, 331–340 (2022).CAS Article Google Scholar 
5. Mevorach, D. et al. Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against Covid-19 in Israel. N. Engl. J. Med. 2140–2149 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2109730 (2021).
6. Witberg, G. et al. Myocarditis after Covid-19 vaccination in a Large Health Care Organization. N. Engl. J. Med. 2132–2139 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737 (2021).
7. Husby, A. et al. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and myocarditis or myopericarditis: population based cohort study. BMJ e068665 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-068665 (2021).
8. Barda, N. et al. Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Setting. N. Engl. J. Med. 1078–1090 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475 (2021).
9. Lai, F. T. T. et al. Carditis after COVID-19 vaccination with a messenger RNA vaccine and an inactivated virus vaccine. Ann. Intern. Med. https://doi.org/10.7326/M21-3700 (2022).
10. Patone, M. et al. Risks of myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmias associated with COVID-19 vaccination or SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nat. Med. 1–13 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01630-0 (2021).
11. EMA. Signal assessment report on Myocarditis, pericarditis with Tozinameran. https://www.ema.europa.eu/documents/prac-recommendation/signal-assessment-report-myocarditis-pericarditis-tozinameran-covid-19-mrna-vaccine_en.pdf (2021).
12. Le tableau de bord de la vaccination. https://solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/grands-dossiers/vaccin-covid-19/article/le-tableau-de-bord-de-la-vaccination (2021).
13. Enquête de pharmacovigilance du vaccin COVID‐19 VACCINE MODERNA. https://ansm.sante.fr/uploads/2021/10/22/20211021-covid-19-vaccins-moderna-focus-1-2.pdf (2021).
14. Bozkurt, B., Kamat, I. & Hotez, P. J. Myocarditis with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Circulation 144, 471–484 (2021).CAS Article Google Scholar 
15. Klein, N. Myocarditis Analyses in the Vaccine Safety Datalink: Rapid Cycle Analyses and “Head-to-Head” Product Comparisons. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-10-20-21/08-COVID-Klein-508.pdf (2021).
16. Dagan, N., Barda, N. & Balicer, R. D. Adverse effects after BNT162b2 vaccine and SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to age and sex. N. Engl. J. Med. 2299 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2115045 (2021).
17. Klein, N. P. et al. Surveillance for adverse events after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. JAMA 326, 1390–1399 (2021).CAS Article Google Scholar 
18. Diaz, G. A. et al. Myocarditis and pericarditis after vaccination for COVID-19. JAMA 326, 1210–1212 (2021).CAS Article Google Scholar 
19. Su, J. R. Myopericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination: Updates from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-10-20-21/07-COVID-Su-508.pdf (2021).
20. Lane, S. & Shakir, S. Reports of myocarditis and pericarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccines: A review of spontaneously reported data from the UK, Europe, and the US. 2021.09.09.21263342 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.09.21263342v1, https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.09.21263342 (2021).
21. Chua, G. T. et al. Epidemiology of Acute Myocarditis/Pericarditis in Hong Kong Adolescents Following Comirnaty Vaccination. Clin. Infect. Dis. Off. Publ. Infect. Dis. Soc. Am. ciab989. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab989 (2021).
22. Mevorach, D. et al. Myocarditis after BNT162b2 vaccination in Israeli adolescents. N. Engl. J. Med. 998–999. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2116999 (2022).
23. Kytö, V., Sipilä, J. & Rautava, P. The effects of gender and age on occurrence of clinically suspected myocarditis in adulthood. Heart 99, 1681–1684 (2013).Article Google Scholar 
24. Fairweather, D., Cooper, L. T. & Blauwet, L. A. Sex and gender differences in myocarditis and dilated cardiomyopathy. Curr. Probl. Cardiol. 38, 7–46 (2013).Article Google Scholar 
25. Heymans, S. & Cooper, L. T. Myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination: clinical observations and potential mechanisms. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-021-00662-w (2021).
26. Tschöpe, C. et al. Myocarditis and inflammatory cardiomyopathy: current evidence and future directions. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 18, 169–193 (2021).Article Google Scholar 
27. Launay, T. et al. Common communicable diseases in the general population in France during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLOS ONE 16, e0258391 (2021).CAS Article Google Scholar 
28. Li, X. et al. Myocarditis following COVID-19 BNT162b2 vaccination among adolescents in Hong Kong. JAMA Pediatr. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.0101 (2022).
29. Hernán, M. A. Causal analyses of existing databases: no power calculations required. J. Clin. Epidemiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.028 (2021).
30. Semenzato, L. et al. Chronic diseases, health conditions and risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization and in-hospital mortality during the first wave of the epidemic in France: a cohort study of 66 million people. Lancet Reg. Health – Eur. 8 (2021).
31. Bezin, J. et al. The national healthcare system claims databases in France, SNIIRAM and EGB: powerful tools for pharmacoepidemiology. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 26, 954–962 (2017).Article Google Scholar 
32. Hékimian, G. et al. Diagnostic et prise en charge des myocardites. Médecine Intensive Réanimation https://doi.org/10.1007/s13546-017-1273-4 (2017).
33. Adler, Y. et al. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of pericardial diseases: The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Pericardial Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)Endorsed by: The European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur. Heart J. 36, 2921–2964 (2015).Article Google Scholar 
34. Rey, G., Jougla, E., Fouillet, A. & Hémon, D. Ecological association between a deprivation index and mortality in France over the period 1997–2001: variations with spatial scale, degree of urbanicity, age, gender and cause of death. BMC Public Health 9, 33 (2009).Article Google Scholar 
35. Rothman, K. J., Greenland, S. & Lash, T. L. Modern Epidemiology. (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008).
36. Coughlin, S. S., Benichou, J. & Weed, D. L. Attributable risk estimation in case-control studies. Epidemiol. Rev. 16, 51–64 (1994).CAS Article Google Scholar 
37. Greenland, S. Variance estimators for attributable fraction estimates consistent in both large strata and sparse data. Stat. Med. 6, 701–708 (1987).CAS Article Google Scholar 
38. Steenland, K. & Armstrong, B. An overview of methods for calculating the burden of disease due to specific risk factors. Epidemiology 17, 512–519 (2006).Article Google Scholar 
39. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/ (2019).
40. Therneau, T. A package for survival analysis in R. 96 (2021).
41. Le Vu, S. myope2. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6583550.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. EPIPHARE Scientific Interest Group in Epidemiology of Health Products, (French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products – ANSM, French National Health Insurance – CNAM), Saint-Denis, FranceStéphane Le Vu, Marion Bertrand, Marie-Joelle Jabagi, Jérémie Botton, Jérôme Drouin, Bérangère Baricault, Alain Weill, Rosemary Dray-Spira & Mahmoud Zureik
2. Faculté de Pharmacie, Université Paris-Saclay, 92296, Châtenay-Malabry, FranceJérémie Botton
3. University Paris-Saclay, UVSQ, University Paris-Sud, Inserm, Anti-infective evasion and pharmacoepidemiology, CESP, Montigny le Bretonneux, FranceMahmoud Zureik

Contributions

S.L.V., M.B., A.W., R.D.S. and M.Z. conceived the study. A.W., R.D.S. and M.Z. supervised the project. M.B. and J.D. carried out the clinical data collection and data curation. S.L.V. and M.B. designed and performed the statistical analyses with M.J.J., B.B. and J.B. providing input. S.L.V. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors interpreted the results, provided critical revision of the manuscript and approved its final version for submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stéphane Le Vu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Communications thanks Ian Wong and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Peer Review File

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions