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
-
6:28
Daily Insight
1 month agoThe ABC and the UN Ignoring Men
903 -
LIVE
Matt Kohrs
11 hours agoPPI Inflation Report: Stocks Rip Higher (DJT, NVDA & TSLA) || The MK Show
1,291 watching -
LIVE
Wendy Bell Radio
4 hours agoAmerica Needs To Be Democrat-Proofed
11,568 watching -
LIVE
2 MIKES LIVE
11 hours agoTHE MIKE SCHWARTZ SHOW with DR. MICHAEL J SCHWARTZ 01-14-2025
90 watching -
19:15
Clownfish TV
11 hours agoElon Musk Buying TikTok?! TikTok Users FLEE to RedNote!
5653 -
26:35
BonginoReport
4 hours agoCarrie Underwood Shakes Off the Cancel Mob’s Wrath (Ep.118) - 01/14/2025
22.2K32 -
LIVE
Vigilant News Network
14 hours agoBone-Chilling “Conspiracy Theory” Emerges as California Burns | The Daily Dose
1,175 watching -
1:27:16
Game On!
10 hours ago $2.98 earnedJerry Jones SHOCKS the world! Ready to make Deion Sanders head coach of the Dallas Cowboys!
21.7K4 -
8:50
Space Ice
17 hours agoSteven Seagal's Sniper: Special Ops Is His Greatest Achievement - Worst Movie Ever
43.7K25 -
14:57
MichaelBisping
16 hours agoBISPING: The Complete History UFC's Lightweight Division | "Will ISLAM BECOME GOAT after UFC 311?"
67.2K1