And will the people responsible - scientists, Big Pharma, politicians- pay for for their venality and stupidity? Probably not.

WTF?

Also according to the study cited:
"Hs-cTnT-elevations were mild and only temporary. No patient had ECG-changes, and none developed major adverse cardiac events within 30 days."

According to the WHO:
"These myocarditis cases typically occurred within a few days after vaccination, are generally mild, respond to conservative treatment, and are less severe with better outcomes than classical myocarditis or COVID-19 related myocarditis."

That appears to be agreement to me not a contradiction as the author suggests.

These mild reactions where there is full recovery probably doesn't " shed some light upon the “sudden death syndrome’ of athletes around the world over the past couple of years, and the unusual high rates of excess deaths around the world, over the last 18 months." as the author suggests.

So of the 5.1% of the group that showed these systems a majority were women and I hope there is more research into why that might be.

Perhaps if the study had been done prior to the Moderna vaccination, the inconclusive results may have been similar?
Alan B.

Dear WTF?,

Indeed.

What is also notable was the fact that: "blood draws were performed only after the vaccination" so a person who might already have had some Hs-cTnT-elevations prior to the vaccination were not ruled out.

Enough there perhaps for further study, especially with women, but hardly worth the beat-up the author is indulging in.

Hello Alan B.,

I am at a bit of a loss understanding what you mean by "inconclusive results".

To me the results were very conclusive:

The recent Swiss study showed that myocarditis cases after Moderna Covid vaccination were mild and temporary.

This is exactly the same conclusion that the WHO reached.

The article that the author cites is highlighting the differences between how males and females responded to the vaccination.

Myocarditis occurred in 3.8% of women in the study and 0.8% of men.

The study draws no conclusion as to why this is the case but suggests further study.

Hello SteeleRedux,

Thanks for the response.

I think we both know what's going on here.

The author is citing a Swiss study that show differences in responses for males and females after vaccination.

Reaction rates were found to be "more common than previously thought" but were mild.

Rather than highlight the sex-specific finding the author states that the results contradict the WHO.

They do not. They are in complete agreement about the mild and temporary responses.

He then suggests that this might have something to do with increased deaths.

It does not. The Swiss study clearly states that but this was omitted from the author's article.

I think this author wrote this article just to get a reaction from those who are suspicious of the WHO and science in general.

It looks like he reeled one in too.