Right. And guess what else this study DIDN'T say:Below are the statements that the actual paper made about vaccinations. As you'll see, they didn't actually make a comparative statement between vaccinated and unvaccinated. Furthermore, if you drill down into the tables, the numerical differences weren't that striking. Maybe I'm reading it wrong but the reporting on the report makes it seem like the differences are far more significant than the paper and data actually suggest.
1. "Our analyses censoring participants at time of vaccination and controlling for vaccination as a time-varying covariate show that the increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis reported in this study is significant in people who were not vaccinated and is evident regardless of vaccination status."
2. "Risk of myocarditis and pericarditis without COVID-19 vaccination
Because some COVID-19 vaccines might be associated with a very rare risk of myocarditis or pericarditis, and to eliminate any putative contribution of potential vaccine exposure to the outcomes of myocarditis and pericarditis in this study, we conducted two analyses. First, we censored cohort participants at the time of receiving the first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine. Second, we adjusted for vaccination as a time-varying covariate. Both analyses were conducted versus both the contemporary and historical control groups. The results suggested that COVID-19 was associated with increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in both analyses (Supplementary Tables 21–24)."
Remember all of the warnings about how the spike protein damages the heart?
That was like, my point, and stuff, Kemosahbee.