WTMWD #68: Kevin McKernan on the Dr. David Martin video and how patent law really impacts research
Sanctuary Jurisdictions for Medical Freedom - tomorrow at 1pm Pacific Time

A Quick Look at that Myocarditis Study - and the Larger Problem with the Conversation

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." Thomas Pynchon.
 

There's a not-yet-peer-reviewed study going around now, that claims to have found that "(y)oung males infected with the (SARS-Cov2) virus are up 6 times more likely to develop myocarditis as those who have received the vaccine."
 
So... is that what the study in fact finds? 
 
I took a quick look, and here are my thoughts:

It looks like these folks did as good a job as they could of gathering data on myocarditis with Covid-19 in this age group. And they are pretty up front about the limitations of what they found.
 
Here's the problem: The numbers they use to compare their findings to, the numbers for myocarditis associated with the vaccine - are from VAERS. VAERS is a passive surveillance system, and is well known that adverse events are very much *underreported* to VAERS. By some estimates, only 1% of AEs are reported to VAERS (although I doubt it is that low right now, given the heightened awareness of the system now) - whatever the number is though, we do know that it is some fraction of actual AEs. So a comparison between data of the kind that this study came up with, and data coming from VAERS, is not very meaningful.
 
There's also this (from the study):
 
"Whatever the true hospitalization rate [for those with myocarditis associated with covid-19] was, it was considerably lower than that reported in the VAERS, where more than three-fourths of reported cases of myocarditis were hospitalized.16. Cases have been described as generally mild." (Above this, they note that the hospitalization rate from their database was 10%, but that it may actually be higher.)
 
The point here being that the comparison between the data in this study and the data from VAERS is a comparison between apples and oranges: The myocarditis cases that have been reported to VAERS are clearly more serious on average than are the cases associated with covid-19 from this study.
 
This could be because vaccines create a more severe form of myocarditis than the virus does, or it could simply be that only the most serious cases of myocarditis end up getting reported to VAERS. We don't know.
 
And that is my point here: WE DON'T KNOW how many cases of myocarditis have been caused by, or associated with, the vaccine. We don't have good data that can give us a good idea of what that number is. So any comparison between vaccine-induced myocarditis and covid-19-induced myocarditis is not very meaningful.
 
 
The bigger problem.
 
But there's a larger problem here, and it is this:

The way the issue of vaccine safety is presented in the media, and in a great many studies such as this one, it's as if there are only two choices available to people worried about Covid-19: Either take your chances with the virus, or get the vaccine.
 
That's it. There's nothing else to be done. No other conceivable way of protecting yourself from this scary scary virus (assuming that's what one believes it to be.)
 
But of course that's not true. What has been true all along is that there are many ways of fortifying one's own system against this virus and other viruses, and what became clear pretty early on in this debacle is that there are also ways to treat Covid-19 that are pretty safe and pretty successful.
 
Vitamin D is one of those things. Hydroxychloroquine is another. Ivermectin is another.
 
None of these treatments come with anything like the (still not entirely known) risks of harm that we are seeing from the vaccines. 
 
But none of them are good for business. Not one of those things you can do to protect or treat yourself are under patent protection and so they don't stand to make the folks who run the medical establishment tons of money. And so we have witnessed, over the past year and a half, an almost unbelievably transparent effort to suppress information about these other things. 
 
On the flip side of that censorship is the language that is used to present the information those folks do want you to hear.
 
And this study - or rather, the question implicit in the study's design, and what that says about the way the entire conversation has been framed by the people who believe it is their job to frame our conversations for us - is a very clear example of that. It is an example of someone responding in all earnestness to the only question the conversation allows: Is it more dangerous to get the vaccine, or to not get the vaccine - while doing nothing else to protect yourself, because the rules of this conversation are that we cannot discuss anything else that might be done to protect against this virus.
 
Do you see how this works? The people whose job it is to make sure that you think the things their bosses want you to think have put an awful lot of effort into framing the conversation a certain way, and in making sure that unwanted questions don't make their way into that conversation.
 
But here's the thing: As much power as these people have, as much of the mainstream media and of medical research their view dominates, as much as they are able to buy politicians who then throw their weight around and get the social media companies to do their bidding, and even as much as they really do have the power to craft the conversation that the vast majority of the population swallows unthinkingly... as much as they really do have that impressive amount of power, they don't actually have the power to control the conversation. You and I have that. 
 
Because even the people who unthinkingly swallow what the mainstream news tells them, who happily accept the conversation as it is given to them by the conversation crafters, even those people have the ability to think for themselves and to decide for themselves what the conversation will be about. Whether they will do it or not is another question. But they do have the capacity to do it - we all do.
 
And there are a few of us - a very few it seems sometimes - who are aware of this capacity, aware that our conversations and our information are being manipulated, and who insist on asking our own questions and framing our own conversations. Short of killing us, or locking us away, there is nothing they can do to stop us from thinking and from speaking out about what we think. They can destroy us - any brute can destroy. But they really truly cannot control us. And I think that fact scares the hell out of them.
 
 
 

Comments