Dr Byram W Bridle
voicesforfreedom.co.nz
Article in The Lancet: Child and Adolescent Health Suggests the Latter
By Dr Byram W Bridle. Read the article HERE
Another typically frustrating article about Covid-19 science was published last week: September 21st to be exact. It appeared in the journal called The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health, which is a sister journal to The Lancet. This journal has such a high-impact factor that it claims to be “the world-leading paediatrics journal”. These days, however, I cringe whenever I hear that something that has been published in journals like The Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, and many of their sister journals. These previously prestigious journals have become purveyors of poor-quality Covid-19 science, which sometimes dips into the realms of misinformation and even disinformation.
The article I am referring to is entitled “Outcomes at Least 90 Days Since Onset of Myocarditis After mRNA Covid-19 Vaccination in Adolescents and Young Adults in the USA: a Follow-Up Surveillance Study”. You can find the article at this link. Here is the full citation:
Kracalik I, Oster ME, Broder KR, Cortese MM, Glover M, Shields K, Creech CB, Romanson B, Novosad S, Soslow J, Walter EB, Marquez P, Dendy JM, Woo J, Valderrama AL, Ramirez-Cardenas A, Assefa A, Campbell MJ, Su JR, Magill SS, Shay DK, Shimabukuro TT, Basavaraju SV; Myocarditis Outcomes After mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination Investigators and the CDC COVID-19 Response Team. Outcomes at least 90 days since onset of myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents and young adults in the USA: a follow-up surveillance study. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2022 Sep 21:S2352-4642(22)00244-9. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(22)00244-9. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36152650.
You will note that this study was largely conducted by the United States Centers for Disease Control Covid-19 Response Team. The messaging in this paper follows what has become an all-too-common pattern for those still pushing the singular so-called ‘Covid-19 narrative’. In other words, it is what I like to call a ‘rhetoric sandwich’. There [are] some important objective data that contradict the narrative but it is downplayed amongst a presentation of the science that seems to make it almost support the narrative.
In this case, the authors found what others have already published, which is that Covid-19 ‘vaccine’-induced myocarditis is not as transient as we were told by public health officials. You can find a good example here. However, the authors try to convince us that it is only a little bit more chronic than what they previously thought. They nurse their data set in a way that makes it seem like most cases of Covid-19 jab-induced myocarditis have resolved by 90 days post-inoculation.
The most important and reliable data in this paper were inconspicuously placed in one of two appendices containing supplementary data. These data are not included in the manuscript. They have to be downloaded as separate files. Most scientists never look at supplementary materials, let alone ‘investigative journalists’ (whatever that means these days). I have noted that this is a common strategy to make it challenging for the average person to access data that fail to paint the Covid-19 narrative in a good light. As soon as I hear that a paper has been published in one of these journals that have lost my respect, one of the first things I do is take a close look at what is ‘de-emphasized’ in the supplementary materials.
Although I could highlight several issues that I have with this particular publication, I will focus on the most important one.
Here is the overall message that the authors want you to take away:
After at least 90 days since onset of myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, most individuals in our cohort were considered recovered by health-care providers, and quality of life measures were comparable to those in pre-pandemic and early pandemic populations of a similar age. These findings might not be generalisable given the small sample size and further follow-up is needed for the subset of patients with atypical test results or not considered recovered.
To see the figures and read the rest of the article, go HERE
