Premium Only Content
Vaccine and Infection Myocarditis Risks Contrasted
Recently, YouTube removed one of my videos due to its “medical misinformation policy”. If you try to click on its link, you’re met with this screen. So in this video, I’d just like to set the record straight using data and information publicly available from official and respectable sources.
Yesterday, 25th October 2022, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) published an article titled, “Vaccine and infection myocarditis risks contrasted”. It can be found on Google News. Do not read other news articles on Google as they may be spreading dangerous misinformation.
In the RACGP article, they state, “A new Immunisation Coalition chart illustrates the much higher myocarditis risks following COVID-19 infection compared to vaccination.” Clicking on the chart, according to the Immunisation Coalition, we can see the risk of myocarditis per million people by age, gender and vaccination status, although only two genders have been included, which is not very inclusive. You may wish to pause this video if you’d like to take a more in-depth look. The chart shows us that the risk of myocarditis is much higher post COVID-19 infection. In terms of the vaccinated cohort, teenage males and males in their 20s were at elevated risk of myocarditis for both Pfizer and Moderna, as well as for teenage females who took two or three doses of the Moderna vaccine. Although the risk of myocarditis post vaccine is still lower than the risk post COVID infection, at least, according to this chart by the Immunisation Coalition.
In the interests of full disclosure, I think it’s important we take a look at who the Immunisation Coalition are, as I honestly had never heard of them. On their website, they state that they are an “independent not for profit organisation. We collaborate with like-minded organisations such as Primary Health Networks (PHNs), Public Health Units, Government health departments and other groups that fight vaccine hesitancy.” As they are not-for-profit, they must receive funding from somewhere, so on the same page further down they do address this. They state they get funding from “sponsors, grant givers and in-kind supporters”, and “sources of revenue include healthcare and pharmaceutical industries”. They list their In Kind Supporters which include Google, and their Sponsors & Supporters include Moderna and Pfizer. Of course they do.
Any surprises there? Anybody?
MUSIC
Melancholia by Godmode
-
4:14
Daily Insight
1 year agoLabor’s Awful Misinfo Bill Rightfully Quashed
2183 -
LIVE
SOLTEKGG
1 hour agoLIVE - NOT LOSING A MATCH - NEW PC - !pc
432 watching -
1:32:46
Glenn Greenwald
3 hours agoHillary Blames TikTok for Anti-Israel Sentiment; MAGA Sycophants Gain Pentagon Press Access; Who Should Win Anti-Semite of the Year? See the Top 10 Finalists | SYSTEM UPDATE #552
85.9K58 -
LIVE
Flyover Conservatives
20 hours ago100% Chance the Grid Fails: Why No One Is Fixing It (and How Easy It Is) - Tommy Waller | FOC Show
265 watching -
LIVE
JDubGameN
2 hours agoStarlink Network Test Stream! | Road to 100 Followers
35 watching -
2:17:31
The Daily Signal
5 hours ago $2.76 earned🚨BREAKING: Tennessee Congressional Election Results, Minneapolis Police to "Intervene" Against ICE,
7.02K4 -
LIVE
megimu32
1 hour agoON THE SUBJECT: Christmas Vacation Is UNTOUCHABLE!
111 watching -
LIVE
Sarah Westall
2 hours agoNeurostrike, Cognitive Targeting & the New Tech Arms Race w/ Professor Armin Krishnan
182 watching -
2:52:28
Nikko Ortiz
4 hours agoNo More Gear Fear... | Rumble LIVE
11.7K1 -
LIVE
Razeo
2 hours agoTopside carnage with some fries.,
31 watching