I’m behind on vaccine injury research. I’ve come to find the topic very depressing, and we all already know what’s going on. Still, this is still the plague chronicle, and I owe you at least brief remarks on these developments.
This Swiss study on sex-specific differences in myocardial injury incidence after COVID-19 mRNA-1273 booster vaccination has already made the rounds on John Campbell’s YouTube channel and at friend-of-the-blog Alex Berenson’s substack. The authors looked at troponin T levels in 777 employees of the University Hospital Basel three days after receiving the Moderna booster jab. While there were no anomalous ECG results and no major adverse cardiac events in study participants, one in 35 of the 69.5% female cohort showed evidence of cardiac injury. Twenty of these injuries occurred in women, and two in men. While many prior studies have found that serious cases are concentrated in young males, it seems that milder vaccine-induced myocarditis may be more common in women. Moderna is the highest-dosed and therefore the most dangerous Covid vaccine on the market, and it just boggles the mind that it is still on offer to anyone, let alone the young and healthy.
Berenson has also covered the nationwide Korean study on COVID-19 vaccination-related myocarditis. It’s a retrospective analysis that only looks at the most severe hospitalised cases and deaths, necessarily overlooking milder injuries. Of 21 vaccine-related myocarditis deaths, eight were identified only upon autopsy, and all of these were in Koreans aged 45 or younger. These easily overlooked stealth cases comprise a solid majority of the 12 myocarditis deaths in this age group. I will go out on a limb and suggest that these are people who developed post-vaccination subclinical heart injuries of the kind detected in the Swiss study, and then died suddenly, probably during exercise or some other kind of exertion. The vaccines are super safe and super effective and super cool and nobody cares about the fact that they cause high rates of totally-transient-not-a-big-deal-bro cardiac problems in young people.
Finally, there is this older Scandinavian study on clinical outcomes of myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in four Nordic countries from back in December. The authors look at all 7,292 myocarditis diagnoses which occurred in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden between 2018 and mid- late-2022. 530 or 7.3% of these were a side-effect of Covid vaccination, and 109 or 1.5% were associated with Covid infection; the remaining 6,653 (91.2%) were baseline myocarditis cases.
Over 56% of the relatively few Covid-associated myocarditis cases were aged 40 or older, while 64% of the vaccine-induced cases were aged 39 or younger (38% in the 12–24 age group). The authors conclude, optimistically, that “Compared with myocarditis associated with COVID-19 disease and conventional myocarditis, myocarditis after vaccination with SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines was associated with better clinical outcomes within 90 days of admission to hospital.” I find this to be not very comforting, as vaccine-induced myocarditis is concentrated in young healthy people, while other myocarditis is concentrated in older and sicker groups.
In February, Matthias Nikolaidis in the online German magazine Tichys Einblick noticed that the study showed vaccine-induced myocarditis rates were nearly five times higher than myocarditis associated with Covid infection. This provoked a truly reprehensible debunking from the Deutsche Presse-Agentur.
Scandinavian researchers are said to have proven that Covid vaccinations are more dangerous to the heart than Corona infection. But this is a clear misinterpretation of the study results from Northern Europe.
Since the first indications of extremely rare cases of heart muscle inflammation emerged, the issue has been used regularly to stir up animus against the Covid vaccines. At the beginning of February 2023, a study from Scandinavia has been used to warn against the allegedly immense risk of this complication. Supposedly, there have recently been “five times more cases of myocarditis” after vaccination than after a Covid infection. But this is a complete misinterpretation of the research results.
Assessment
False. The study does not permit this conclusion. The fact that myocarditis cases are registered more frequently after vaccinations than after infections is not surprising at all, since, there are many more vaccinations than Covid cases – in Sweden, for example, the number is about nine and a half times higher.
Where do you even begin with lies like this?
First of all, the study concluded in late 2022, long after Omicron took off and the official case numbers – which were always a minority of infections – ceased to be representative everywhere in Europe. Second of all, it just has to matter that the vast majority of “non-conventional” myocarditis cases in Scandinavia are vaccine related. The vaccines don’t stop infection, so you’re not trading one risk for the other here. Third of all, the study shows that there are almost no Covid infection-related myocarditis cases at all – a mere 109 for the first two and a half years of the pandemic, compared to 530 since the vaccination campaign began. The Covid-associated cases are concentrated in older age cohorts, differing in no way from the false category of Covid-unrelated “conventional” myocarditis that the authors have created.
This piece originally appeared on Eugyppius’s Substack newsletter. You can subscribe here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
First class report.
“Better to have questions without answers, than answers without questions,” as Professor Feynman used to say.
In more sceptical moments, I sometimes think old-school empirical science took a mortal hit around the time of the Feynman Lectures…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
…Just as mainframe computers started to proliferate. Sixty years later it’s been a digital hop, skip and jump to the “well-correlated neighbouring stations” cited in Chris Morrison’s latest excellent article showing up Met Office settled science for the feebleminded yarn it actually is.
Thanks also for the educational diligence of Paul Homewood and other citizen scientists probing away behind the scenes.
“well-correlated neighbouring stations”
It is a fundamental principle in scientific investigation that if multiple measuring instruments are to be used and their data combined, they must all be calibrated against the same, standard reference instrument whose accuracy is known. Then the error of each is the same and known and allowance made, and not compounded.
There is no common reference instrument against which the temperature instruments around the World used for “the global temperature record” are calibrated. Combining – correlating (!) – their data has an unknown, incalculable compounded margin of error.
Averaging data introduces a margin of error. Average global temperature (there isn’t one) or temperatures is meaningless particularly when claims of warming in small fractions of tenths or hundredths of a degree are made.
The truth is nobody knows with any accuracy how much global warming there has been “since records began” (1860 as the Little Ice Age ended) or in fact how much the climate system is currently warming in the context of the last 10 000 years, other than in general terms, slowly and small, irregular increments.
The only true “climate scientists” are geologists, because climate is part of the Earth’s history which can only sensibly be analysed retrospectively over long periods, and geologists are the Earth’s historians who carry out this analysis.
Understood (and far better explicitly stated than my hand-waving).
I wonder if “well correlated” means the same time? If so the wind speed across the distance must be accurately know, because this causes a correlation time delay. See my other comment, the whole process has huge error bands (uncertainty). More useless alleged data!
Thanks for the Feynman link. I winced when he mentioned ‘computers that can churn out new guesses’ – exactly the ‘science’ of models used as ‘proof’ which we’re being subjected to.
There’s a huge difference between someone who thinks scientifically and someone who can learn a bunch of scientific detail. The first has humility and conducts an ongoing quest for truth. The second arrogantly believes they’ve learned all there is to know.
Cue another quote from 60 years ago (same goes for Profs):
“It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot irreverence to their studies; they are not here to worship what is known, but to question it.”
Jacob Bronowski (1908-1974)
An excellent quote, demolishing that whole bogus concept of “settled science”. Real science can never be “settled”. New discoveries challenge old assumptions, and at some point everything we now believe to be true has to be re-evaluated. Do we still believe the Earth is flat? Do we still believe that all matter is a combination of fire, air, water, earth and aether? But it takes a great deal of determination to push against the inertia of accepted ideas.
The MET office is as usual mathematically inept, probably deliberately. The only scenario where intermediate data can be derived between two points is where the exact function (this may be a curve or straight line but must be both a continuous function and have a continuous second derivative) is known. As temperature with wind movements is not a function like this, the intermediate temperature profile cannot be estimated and any data is worthless. Not even class 5, worthless! I can suppose that a straight line is used, so as to not tax the brains in the MET office too much! Worthless!
More excellent work by Chris. Thank you.
The whole argument of generating ‘assumed data’ for between datapoints does strike me as a bit mad
If my house was worth £500k, but ten miles away there is a house worth £1m, does that make houses five miles away worth £750k.? Data is only as reliable as the assumptions that you make about it.
A datum is a fact assumed from direct observation. Triangulation and extrapolating/averaging from data points is not direct observation and does not produce data, it produces numbers, as does computer modelling.
When the numbers produced from this jiggery-pokery are presented with a degree of accuracy greater than the actual input data, which is the case in climate “science”, we are in the realm of the absurd and make-believe.
Consider that in some countries ‘gridding’ can be done over the distance from London to Edinburgh.
Yes JXB, but it is much worse than that, see my other comments. The gridding process is mathematically so flawed that it can only produce nonsense. I suppose if you are willing to average everything over a long time period the errors might be smaller, but as maximum temperature probably only lasts for a very short period, this is useless too!
So the MO own the science do they? Presumably this proprietory climate science is different from the science that is accessible to the rest of the world.
Well yes, we know it is different because it is not based on old-fashioned measurements but on the new, improved, presumably AI enhanced, climate modeling.
It’s based on smugness, delusion, self importance and make believe
Brilliant reporting Chris and from your sources too.
Can we please get the torpedoes in the water and sink these rusting hulks of climate measuring organisations?
Perhaps we could hack into their weather stations and recalibrate them.
I think ‘smoke’ and ‘mirrors’ is being kind the criminal ecoactivists and the Met Office – ‘bull’ and ‘shit’ might be more accurate.
Those with long memories may recall that prior to the Typhoon Record the MetO were overjoyed when a non-MetO weather station as Cambridge Botanic Gardens claimed a new record. They tried to restrain the eagerness and said they needed to check the equipment first. Note equipment and not site. And of course the equipment was fine so pop the champagne corks. Then the ordinary honest folk got to work and came up with a site rating of WMO 3 to 5.
It is interesting that they transitioned from an idea of an impending ice age to one of the planet being burned up. I remember at school it was all about the impending ice age. It is interesting how you can flip the narrative 180 degrees as if no one notices.
Another thing that seems to go unmentioned and which is yet self-evidently extremely important is the decline in insect numbers over the last few years. Virtually no one notices. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening. It is very dramatic and doesn’t presage well for larger creatures. Open your eyes this stuff isn’t brain surgery. Painful to look at but you have to look.
I’ve noticed it too.
True but there are enormous uncertainty as to why. With Bees it is probably disease, with butterflies it might be very wet weather. However, saying that this is due to anthropogenic climate change is ridiculous! With more greening of the Earth there ought to be more flowers and thus more flying insects, a degree of temperature change has not done this before, so why now? It might well be our mild winters have failed to kill of preditors, or allowed disease to flourish in less hardy stock. Farmers love hard winters, they kill lots of pests.
You have to tune into nature properly and listen to its woes and you can do that anywhere. You can choose not to listen but then you will bring about a constipation of the world spirit. Forget all the worldly human nonsense and have some respect for attentiveness. This makes a big difference.
All these estimates and fakery also extends to the Energy Performance Certificates or EPCs demanded when a house is sold. According to this research the consumption is overestimated and most properties are about C rating. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378778823002542
The EPC software is far from fit for purpose, It is designed not to work properly, for example a heat pump gives extra good points!
Well done Mr Morrison.
The Met Office: Making Estimated Twaddle.