3 ms·

So your hypothesis is that the FDA correctly identified dozens of mild cases of myocarditis through their surveillance and reporting, while simultaneously faili

So your hypothesis is that the FDA correctly identified dozens of mild cases of myocarditis through their surveillance and reporting, while simultaneously failing to notice hundreds of deaths? Do you see why that sounds implausible?

incrudible 5y ago
The Myocarditis cases aren't all mild, they have led to heart failure and at least some of them are likely to lead to premature death. Consider that the JCVI (UK) does not recommend the second vaccine dose for children, due to this risk. Secondly, I'm not saying that this has happened, there is no way for me to know. I'm saying that it is possible to identify such cases and still dismiss them. Sudden cardiac death in youth isn't that rare and even hundreds of excess cases could fall under the radar. I'd also argue that the incentives are such that a dismissal is likely, now that the CDC has recommended the vaccine for children. The CDC used VAERS data in this assessment, which is incomplete to some degree and the window within which a possible side-effect is considered is small (two weeks).