You’re smuggling in the assumption that the vaccine induced myocarditis is the same underlying phenomenon, with the same risk profile, as the viral induced one.

You’re smuggling in the assumption that the vaccine induced myocarditis is the same underlying phenomenon, with the same risk profile, as the viral induced one. Let’s say, hypothetically, that what was going on here was some % of vaccines were being injected intravenously in error, leading to massively localized spike protein buildup in the heart over a few hour period, with dynamics highly divergent with the progressive, broad way it would run with actual disease, causing a different set of possible outcomes like instant death being very much on the table. In this hypothetical scenario, can you see why your analysis about immunological response being similar, and myocarditis being caused by the disease and vaccine being relevant, would turn out to have in fact been missing the point? And that by failing to do so, we missed a simple protocol change that could have saved many lives counterfactually? I’m not saying that is what is going on. But what I am saying is if that scenario is logically coherent to you, can you extrapolate why the kinds of responses you are giving here could be falling into the the same trap you’d have recognized if the above scenario was actually what was happening? You’re telling me that I should stop thinking something bad is going on here, that we can stop, and am making nonsense arguments like the one you raised with the smallpox vaccine. I reject that - this is important and we should figure it out.