The government has published this document on post-vaccine myocarditis.

Read between the lines folks, and note the things they gloss over......

They major on this being apparently "rare", but fail to mention that complications from Covid in younger age groups are also incredibly rare.

At least they don't repeat the ludicrous claim that myocarditis is more frequent after infection.

Choice of word "majority" is interesting. Remember these documents are written by committees. They are political, it's all about how far can they go to appease political masters without actually lying.

"Majority" is very different from "small proportion".

I doubt they wanted to admit the fibrosis point but the evidence from the US was quite clear on this.

Ditto - no follow-up is available.

Hence they have to admit we have no idea what happens to these poor young people.

In terms of incidence, this is MUCH lower (certainly for dose 2) than previously estimated from US and Israeli data, as confirmed in documents submitted to the FDA:

In terms of the dose 2 point...has anyone remembered that JCVI could not recommend these injections AT ALL for healthy 12-15 year olds?

But now apparently the JCVI is discussing dosing intervals between doses 1 and 2.

Where's the reasoning and recommendation for dose 1?

Another bizarre statement which would be of absolutely no comfort to parents of a child suffering this.

Some more detail here on the misrepresentation of incidence rates, thanks to @ClareCraigPath


• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Jonathan Engler 🐭

Jonathan Engler 🐭 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jengleruk

Aug 1
Fascinating essay citing a paper the lockdowners would much rather was forgotten forever.

Essentially, it shows that SARS-COV-2 had spread throughout Lombardy and cases were well on their way down several weeks before lockdowns (with associated panic) were instituted.

This has been noticed in other places as well - most notably the UK, where there were zero excess death prior to lockdowns, which were then immediately followed by regionally synchronous sharp excess death curves:

Taking Milan as a further example: this is a city which saw no excess deaths at all during the rise and fall in cases in February - they only started in March.

Read 7 tweets
Aug 1
Now this is interesting.....

The CDC used to say this - see this archived version dated 4 Jan 2022:
They have - without comment - removed the 3rd bullet point in that section.

The latest version of that page is dated 15 July 2022 and now just says this:
H/t to an anonymous person on a Telegram group for this.
Read 5 tweets
Aug 1
The twitter-banned epidemiologist Andrew Bostom here blogs about an interesting study out of Tuscany.

The study set out to compare myocarditis incidence during a period prior to covid (1 June 2018 to 31 May 2019) vs a period during covid: 1 June 2020 to 31 May 2021.

The latter period avoided the lockdowns and also ended prior to the bulk of mRNA injection of the young.

The data shows a fall in myocarditis rates in the younger at-risk age groups.

This may be due to the reduction in circulating viruses known to cause myocarditis, especially flu, as SARS-CoV-2 took over the ecological niche.

Read 5 tweets
Jul 31
Please could @VirusesMDPI confirm:

Are you claiming - as implied below - that it was Hui Jiang who contacted the editorial office?

Retraction: Jiang, H.; Mei, Y.-F. SARS-CoV-2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In ...…

If not, please can you state who you mean by "the first author"?

Can you also explain why the wording in the notice of retraction is so ambiguous and misleading?

I am sure you will agree that absolute transparency in these matters is essential.

Many thanks.

Read 4 tweets
Jul 30
You really don't need to follow any of the science involved here to see that something really weird is going on.

This is, in fact, only the latest such example of many strange incidents in academic publishing over the past few years.

Take a look at this notice of retraction.

Who do you think the originator of the retraction was, the person who "contacted the editorial office"?

Hui Jiang, right?

Obviously that seems pretty clear to anyone reading this.

But take a look at the "expression of concern" which preceded the retraction, in which "one of the authors has raised concerns".

Do they mean authors of the original paper or authors of the expression of concern?

Or are they deliberately obfuscating the true meaning?

Read 10 tweets
Jul 25
This chap added up all CV deaths over the last 8 wks in NSW & found hardly any were unjabbed.

The main argument against this is age-confounding, in that nearly all the deaths are in the older groups which contain zero (or close to zero) unvaccinated.

Put differently, all or nearly all the unjabbed are in the younger groups in whom CV deaths are in any event very rare.

He makes the argument that even factoring this in, unjabbed deaths in the young are under-represented.

The numbers are actually too small, and the (unreported) comorbidity status too important to imply from this that the jabs increase the risk of dying from Covid.

(This is notwithstanding that the totailty of data elsewhere suggests they might be.)


Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!