> Myocarditis rates have quantifiably increased over time as more data comes in. Why would you make assumptions that a booster of the same substance would be an

> Myocarditis rates have quantifiably increased over time as more data comes in. Why would you make assumptions that a booster of the same substance would be any different? Because Myocarditis rates have dropped on the 3rd shot. Don't blame my assumptions. Just look at the data. I posted the link earlier. If you are unwilling to accept the simple reality on an issue this simple, we are done here. You must act on the real data that exists, not in the political data that exists in your imagination. Inject booster shots into people, then test for Myocarditis. Done. The rates dropped. Therefore, boosters are safer than the 2nd dose (which has the highest Myocarditis rate). It also turns out that the 2nd shot was necessary to build immunity. The immunity gained from dose 2 grossly outweighs risks. Since the risk of Myocarditis drops on 3rd dose, it's an even easier decision. Less risk means better idea. ------- Data is pending on the 4th dose risks. I expect 4th dose risk to be less than 2nd dose risk, maybe even less than 3rd dose risk.