Discover more from Vigilance per VAERS
Are the modRNA vaccines enhancing SARS-COV-2 associated disease?
VAERS data suggest that COVID-19 modRNA vaccines introduced myocarditis as a disease risk
There is a complete lack of scientific publications about the rate of myocarditis in vaccinated individuals who catch a SARS-COV-2 infection.
An analysis of proportional differences was performed on subsamples of the VAERS data defined by age, gender, number of injections and SARS-COV-2 exposure to fill this information gap.
The reported proportions are significantly higher in all age groups among report subsamples about individuals who were exposed to SARS-COV-2 (p<0.10), with an increase of around 10% in the reported proportions of myocarditis upon infection in the group of reports for males aged 12-17, regardless of which dose was given.
Combining this with the results of an Israeli study that found no COVID-associated increase in myocarditis risk among unvaccinated individuals, I suggest the vaccines are acting as disease enhancers by introducing the risk of myocarditis into the disease.
An Israeli cohort study looked at 196,992 unvaccinated adults who had a COVID-19 infection and another 590,976 unvaccinated adults who had no documented infection and demonstrated that “Covid infection was not associated with either myocarditis or pericarditis.”
A review of 22 cohort studies looked at cohorts of 55.5 million vaccinated and 2.5 million vaccinated infected individuals to come to the conclusion “the risk for myocarditis is more than seven fold higher in persons who were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 than in those who received the vaccine.”
So let’s assume their methodology is flawless and we would now have reliable data for:
Unvaccinated uninfected individuals (Israeli study)
Unvaccinated infected individuals (both studies)
Vaccinated uninfected individuals (meta-analysis)
Then there would still be one group missing:
Vaccinated infected individuals
So I performed my own analysis of the VAERS data to get a clearer picture. I chose to do an analysis of proportional reporting differences for the MedDRA term “myocarditis” in reports of individuals who received either one or two injections with and without documented SARS-COV-2 infection, each stratified into 20 groups defined by age and gender.
I will not bore you with the details of this process in this article, but I will outline it in a simplified manner:
I define 4 report groups:
Reports about people who received 1 shot without mention of viral exposure
Reports about people who received 2 shots without mention of viral exposure
Reports about people who received 1 shot that mention viral exposure
Reports about people who received 2 shots that mention viral exposure
The groups are stratified into 20 groups each according to age and gender
For each of these 4x20 groups I construct an age- and gender-adjusted reference group of reports about adverse events in people who received no modRNA injection and had no documented SARS-COV-2 infection
For these 80 groups I can now determine the proportion of reports that mention the medical concept “myocarditis”
The proportion of each reference group is subtracted from its corresponding proportion in the study group
I calculate the 90% confidence intervals using the Haldane method (1940)
All age groups see an increase in reported proportions…
…from dose 1 to dose 2
with the biggest increase in the report groups for ages 12-17:
+5.945% for SARS-COV-2 naïve males
+3.758% for SARS-COV-2 exposed males
+0.597% for SARS-COV-2 naïve females
+1.466% for SARS-COV-2 exposed females
…from SARS-COV-2 exposure
with the biggest increase in the report groups for ages 12-17:
+11.347% for males who received 1 dose
+9.160% for males who received 2 doses
+0.507% for females who received 1 dose
+1.376% for females who received 2 doses
In the report groups for ages 18-24 this effect is much smaller:
+2.336% for males who received 1 dose
+1.207% for males who received 2 doses
+0.295% for females who received 1 dose
-0.037% for females who received 2 doses (confidence intervals overlap, so I consider this insignificant)
That’s an increase of around 10% in reported proportion of myocarditis upon infection in the group of reports for males aged 12-17, regardless of which dose was given.
Please excuse the unfortunate choice of scaling of the charts displaying the data for female gender. The charts are generated on my website where different genders are presented next to one another and therefore have the same scaling applied for better visual comparability.
The University Hospital Basel conducted a study on it's own employees to determine to what proportion they suffer cardiac damage by measuring the troponine concentration in their blood. Troponines are proteins which serve as highly specific markers for cardiac damage. They found “evidence of temporary mild damage to cardiac cells in 22 of the 777 participants – 2.8% instead of the anticipated 0.0035%”.
I suggest that whatever is triggering this effect is still clinically relevant when the individual becomes infected, especially in the case of individuals who are already susceptible.
A literature review by Flavio A Cadegani concluded that “a hypercatecholaminergic state is the critical trigger of […] myocarditis”:
The […] enzyme that converts dopamine into noradrenaline was overexpressed in the presence of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA, leading to enhanced noradrenaline activity
Catecholamine responses were physiologically higher in young adults and males than in other populations
Catecholamine responses and resting catecholamine production were higher in male athletes than in non-athletes
Catecholamine responses to stress and its sensitivity were enhanced in the presence of androgens
Catecholamine expressions in young male athletes were already high at baseline, were higher following vaccination, and were higher than those in non-vaccinated athletes.
My methodology is explained in detail in the help section of pervaers.com. I just ran the weekly update which consisted of calculating north of 80mio confidence intervals, resulting in 22,614 hits for potential safety signals which are all listed on the website.
I am aware of one weakness that I have yet had the time to fix. I originally intended to search for safety signals based merely on the vaccine administered. As a result of this, I performed the age adjustment within each age group’s reference cohort to match the internal age structure of the age groups in the study cohorts.
I should simply perform adjustment to the standard population based on US census data instead. It would be much less work and will increase comparability. Since I know the data well enough, I will boldly assume that this will not have a very big impact, which is why I decided to release what I have now.
I have performed this analysis for all MedDRA terms and vaccines present in VAERS reports. If you are interested, you can find them on my website perVAERS.com.
It is worth checking out the following terms:
I am new to statistical analysis, so I welcome every criticism of my methodology and will supply the code to anyone who asks for it.
I also welcome all alternative explanations and reports of your own observations and interpretations thereof.
Thanks for reading knowhatamine’s Newsletter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.