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
-
6:36
Daily Insight
11 months agoConflicting Unborn Child Laws in Australia
2853 -
8:38
MattMorseTV
11 hours ago $5.55 earnedThe Operation is NOW UNDERWAY.
5.46K26 -
1:12:29
PandaSub2000
1 day agoSonic Galactic | GAME ON...ly! (Edited Replay)
2183 -
19:15
Nikko Ortiz
1 day agoOstrich Gets A Taste For Human Blood
72.2K18 -
24:26
GritsGG
9 hours agoGiga-Big Duo Game w/ Mr. Poff! Most Winning Duo EVER!
46 -
21:54
The Pascal Show
8 hours ago $0.05 earned$1.5 MILLION HIT?! Candace Owens Drops More Shocking Info On Her France Hit Plot THIS IS INSANE!
902 -
LIVE
Lofi Girl
3 years agolofi hip hop radio 📚 - beats to relax/study to
188 watching -
1:29:13
ThisIsDeLaCruz
8 hours agoRunning Sound for 1.6 MILLION PEOPLE!!! Madonna In Rio
301 -
2:18:52
FreshandFit
12 hours agoBlack Girl Gets Triggered After We Said THIS....
174K35 -
1:46:40
Badlands Media
13 hours agoBaseless Conspiracies Ep. 160: The Kosovo Organ Harvesting Cover-Up
68.5K17