Thailand Cardiac/Vaccine study quietly shaking world
Now published in peer-reviewed journal; already two "fact check" rebuttals
On August 9, I wrote about this simple and well-executed clinical study. The essence of my commentary was that this was the study that Pfizer and Moderna and all of the vaccine makers should have done prior to widespread public release. Very simple design:
1)test patients’ hearts prior to vaccination; educate patients regarding potential cardiac side effects and encourage them to self-monitor for symptoms,
2) vaccinate,
3)re-test patients’ hearts.
The results should have confirmed what the CDC, Health Canada, the FDA, and others have endlessly repeated: that the vaccine is safe, and that cardiac problems are rare and mild.
I was temporarily banned from Twitter on July 15th, and permanently banned on August 4, 2022, for addressing the connection between myocarditis and covid vaccines. This was four days before the Thailand study aired (August 8), reported by Dr Tracy Hoeg on Twitter (August 9). Although this study confirms what I and many others have been reporting data on since March 2021, its main contribution was in casting serious doubt on the notion that cardiac problems post-vaccination are rare.
The study showed that rather than being rare, cardiac problems are common:
Associated Press Fact Check
August 18. Its main refutations were:
1) the study was unpublished and not yet peer-reviewed.
Well, that was true on August 18. It is false as of August 19:
2) AP’s two chosen experts, Dr Eric Adler and Shane Crotty PhD, have objections to the quality of the study.
Due diligence on these experts follows in a separate post.
Reuters Fact Check
1) Reuters appears to take issue with the “one third” number:
2) People quoting the study are not mentioning “mild and self-limited” context:
Elsewhere in their factcheck, Reuters refers to the patient with myocarditis, whose cardiac MRI was found to be normal five months later. Presumably this is the same patient who was admitted to the ICU, although it is not clearly indicated. It is mentioned that two patients were hospitalized following receipt of the vaccine.
Evidently hospitalization for the effects of a vaccine is considered a mild outcome by the fact-checkers.
3) Reuters makes at least one large quantitative error in its fact-check. Regarding co-morbidities, Reuters errs in saying 44 percent, when in the study, it is 44 people:
In the study, the data is:
4) Reuters takes issue with the study design, at one point writing that patients did not have their hearts tested prior to vaccination:
At this point, it must be mentioned that the study was examining the effects of the second mRNA vaccination on the heart of adolescents. Reuters appears to be taking issue with the fact that testing was not done prior to the first vaccination. An interesting point, whose implications are probably not quite what the fact-checkers would desire.
This concern is odd because earlier in the fact-check, they note that pre-testing prior to the second mRNA vaccination was done:
Here is the study:
There is more dissection and due diligence possible, both of the original study and of the so-called fact-checks. However, for now I will content myself with saying that this study called forth hasty efforts from Reuters and Associated Press.
It would be interesting to see how many other accounts that called attention to the mRNA vaccine — heart connection were banned from Twitter at the same time.
This study is quietly shaking the world. A world that was already showing signs of awareness of the myocarditis-mRNA vaccine connection.
I would not have pursued Mansanguan 2022 if Reuters and AP hadn’t pursued these rather half-baked fact-checks. That both organizations did so is an indication to me that this paper is actually a serious problem for jurisdictions that wish to maintain the rare/mild fiction.
The 1/3 widely cited on social media refers to *any* cardiovascular effect. The Reuters "factcheck" then refers just to "rapid heartrate or abnormal heart rhythm" and finds that this is closer to 1/6. So what? That's a *different* fact. The 1/3 figure is still correct, and it would undoubtedly be closer to half, if the numbers were broken down by sex and we were referring just to males. The would-be Reuters debunking is so obviously bogus. Who takes them seriously?