5 Comments

This has all the hallmarks of a plan to eliminate millions of people and thereby eliminate a country or a culture, which makes sense if you have millions more from other countries and cultures lined up and ready to replace them.

Expand full comment

I am neither a physician nor a statistician, and I never heard of myocarditis until the current plague. This article seems to assert that in a group of normal unvaccinated people 7.5% will develop myocarditis in a randomly chosen week. If this is true, the real miracle here is that I have never heard of the ailment, because if this goes on week after week sooner or later, mostly sooner, everyone including me will have contracted it. Can this possibly be correct? Wouldn’t we all have noticed this?

Expand full comment

Yes, you have that impression because of my bad writing. That's a relative number conditional on the number of people and shots. The paper, and I, compared relative risks. The "population risk" is something much lower. Which is why you haven't heard of it.

Expand full comment

Miles e Blake says ,”This has all the hallmarks of a plan to eliminate millions of people and thereby eliminate a country or a culture.” I say that the sentence “ That's a relative number conditional on the number of people and shots,” while it is in the form of a sentence in English, conveys no meaning to me at least.

Expand full comment

The stats are in the form of relative difference between vexed and unvexxed. They do not represent "unconditional" risk. Which is not high but non-zero, and therefore still important when the number of shots are huge, as they were here.

The exact numbers can be had in the paper, which is open access.

Expand full comment