All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 25, 2022 - Epoch Times
39:10
CDC Data Suggests 'Myocarditis Cases Could Be 2X Higher After Shots' Than After Contracting Virus
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today's main topic which has to do with this right here, the human heart.
And it goes without saying that the heart is an absolutely vital organ, the beating of which is quite literally what ensures our survival.
However, as you might have seen in some recent news headlines, the hearts of some otherwise healthy individuals just sometimes mysteriously stop beating.
Now, the umbrella term for this condition is called Sudden Adult Death Syndrome, or sometimes Sudden Arrhythmia Death Syndrome, both of which are abbreviated as SADS. Now, most of the people in this country have heard of SIDS before, which is Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, but very few people have heard about SADS. We're good to
go.
Now, even though many people have learned about SADS only recently, it's technically not a new phenomenon.
In fact, the SADS Foundation was established all the way back in 1991 in order to further SADS research, as well as to support the family members of those who've died.
And just a few days ago, in order to learn more about SADS, such as what causes it, how many cases there are per year, and whether or not there's been an uptick since the year 2020, I got a chance to speak with Dr.
Verma, and here's what he said.
So I'm Dr.
Sanjay Verma, Interventional Cardiologist here in Southern California.
And I see adult patients in an inpatient setting who are hospitalized and in an outpatient setting who come for either screening or actually having cardiac symptoms.
So patients with heart attacks, congestive heart failure, arrhythmias, high blood pressure, full gamut of cardiac presentations.
So you're, correct me if I'm wrong, you're the specialist who people go to once, let's say, their primary care physician, where the hospital determines that they have some kind of heart problem, then they get sent to you, correct?
Absolutely.
And as an interventional cardiologist, I'm also the one on call for the emergency room when someone's having a heart attack.
and in need of a stent.
Okay, well then it sounds like your specialty is perfectly in line with what we want to discuss with today.
Maybe to start with, can you sort of break it down for the audience members who maybe have heard the term but they don't know what it really means?
What exactly is myocarditis?
So myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle that can be caused by various different agents, one of the most common ones being viral, and it can also be caused by drugs, medications, autoimmune diseases.
It can also be caused by vaccines.
So inflammation, you mean like basically when you get a scratch on your arm, for instance, it becomes a little bit inflamed, it becomes a little bit red, a little bit sore.
Is that the same type of process that happens in the heart?
Is that what you mean by inflammation?
And that's a very good way to look at it, but we also want to keep in mind that the heart being a vital organ is a little different than the skin in that inflammation can lead to actual muscle breakdown, deterioration of function, what we call cardiomyopathy, and arrhythmias.
Which in many cases is in fact not fatal, but can have fatal complications if it worsens.
So maybe let's look out more broadly than the context of what's been happening for the last two or three years of the vaccines and COVID. Just generally, how prevalent is myocarditis within the general population?
So in the general population, it's about eight per million for all age groups and about 18 per million for adolescents.
And it tends to have a greater prevalence or occurrence in males, where about 66% of all myocarditis cases are males.
So when you said 18 per million in adolescents, you mean people below the age of 18?
Right, so 16 to 17 years old.
There's a very strong age factor in myocarditis, and it tends to peak around the adolescent years, 15, 16, 17 years old.
And then in the adult, young adult, it starts to taper off.
Oh, that's interesting because that was my understanding too.
So myocarditis is more prevalent in the young age categories and then it kind of tapers off as people get older and older.
Is that correct?
Correct.
And then somewhere around age 30 or 40, depending on the study, it pretty much becomes less prevalent where it's similar to other conditions but not noteworthy.
Why is that?
We're not exactly sure.
Some of it could be testosterone-related, and that's why it's more common in men, and around age 30 or 40 becomes less of an impact.
Oh, interesting.
So do we know what causes myocarditis?
I guess you mentioned testosterone might be a supporting factor, but do we know maybe outside, well, maybe including the vaccines, like what actually causes myocarditis?
So it depends on the agent.
So with viruses, one of the most common one being Coxsackie virus.
And in fact, even influenza virus can cause myocarditis.
It would be direct viral damage.
In other instances, it can be an immune reaction.
So most recently, a paper came out showing that there's antibodies to the spike protein that actually attack the heart.
So it's more of an immune phenomenon.
So it kind of depends on the agent causing it.
Oh, that's interesting.
So you're saying even in some cases, if you get a viral infection, the antibodies that your own body forms to fight that virus might actually attack the heart as collateral damage, essentially.
Correct.
And coronavirus itself can cause myocarditis.
So with regards to coronavirus and, I guess, COVID as a subsect of that, what is the method of myocarditis being caused by COVID? So the spike protein in the SARS-CoV-2 virus has direct toxin effect to the sarcomeres.
Sarcomeres are the cells of the heart muscle, and that can be mediated by an immune reaction and also cytotoxic intracellular damage, specifically mitochondrial dysfunction.
So you're saying in regards to COVID, it's the spike protein that causes that heart damage.
Is that correct?
Correct.
Is that perhaps why both whether it's COVID itself or the vaccines, which either use the spike protein or have the mRNA create your own version of the spike protein, that's why in both cases myocarditis is a result.
Is that correct?
Absolutely.
And the spike protein has been known since about mid-2020, where research found that it causes what we call endothelial dysfunction.
So in addition to damage to the heart muscle, where I talked earlier about sarcomere damage, the cells of the heart muscle, it also causes endothelial dysfunction, which is the lining of blood vessels, causing damage to the blood vessels, which can be related to stroke, blood clots, or in cases of the heart,
I don't know if you would know the answer to this question, but I guess between the time when COVID first came onto the world and scientists began to study it, isolate it, see its effects on the body, and between there and when the vaccine was actually approved, within the scientific community, was there an understanding of what the spike protein did to the heart?
And therefore, was there any sort of caution against what the, I guess, analogous spike protein in the vaccine would likewise do to the heart?
There were some papers published in mid to late 2020, around the time vaccine development was in process, suggesting there's a phenomenon called antigen mimicry, where the spike protein has a morphology similar to antigens or parts of our own body where autoimmune reactions can be a concern.
So it was a speculative concern even in mid-2020.
And of course, around April 2021, we had early reports from Israel suggesting myocarditis at rates of about 1 in 3,000 or 1 in 6,000.
And now just to pause here for another super quick moment, I wanted to show you this right here.
This right here is an American Walking Liberty one ounce gold coin.
And typically, I order at least one of these from our sponsor, American Heart for Gold, every single month.
The reason I do so is because, I mean, as you likely know, the inflation rate in this country is the highest that has been in, what, the last 40 years now.
Everything like the price of food, the price of housing, the The price of gas is absolutely going through the roof.
And in fact, market experts like the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, he's not only predicting a recession, but he's even using words like unprecedented economic hurricane.
And so listen, I absolutely do not give you any financial advice, but I would recommend that you do what I do, which is pick up the phone and call American Hartford Gold.
Their super friendly staff can help you diversify your portfolio by either getting physical gold and physical silver delivered directly to your doorstep like I do, or deposited directly into your IRA and your 401k accounts that make the entire process super simple.
And actually, besides me, they have an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau with quite literally thousands of satisfied clients around the country.
And best of all, to our viewers, to the viewers of Facts Matter, they are currently throwing in $2,500 worth of free silver on your first qualifying order.
So giving them a call is an absolute no-brainer.
So pick up the phone and call 866-242-2352.
That's 866-242-2352.
Or text Roman to 65532.
The link will also be down in the description box below.
And then let's head on back to the studio.
The CDC suggests that the rate of myocarditis from natural infection is significantly greater than that from the vaccine.
However, you recently published an article questioning that notion.
Can you sort of lay out what your reasoning is?
Sure.
So most of CDC's analysis is based on data from VAERS, the self-reporting system, and they get rates of about 60 per million or 80 per million, depending on Which point we use for the analysis.
But interestingly, in the ACIP Advisory Committee for CDC, in their presentations themselves, they note that although for adolescents the rate can be about 75 per million, when they use VSD, the Vaccine Safety Data Link, then the rates approach 150 per million for the second dose or even 200 per million after the booster.
And then in April 2022, CDC published an MMWR, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, specifically addressing the question comparing myocarditis after infection, meaning COVID infection, versus myocarditis after vaccination.
And they report approximately 60 per million after infection and 26 per 100,000.
On first glance, that would suggest that myocarditis after infection is quite a bit greater.
But that data is based on PCR-positive confirmed cases of COVID infection.
But CDC's own seroprevalence data, meaning how many people have antibodies to COVID who may or may not have ever had PCR testing, suggests that for children 0 to 17 years old, 75% of the population had already been infected at the time of that MMWR,
which is about four times more So when you adjust the denominator for myocarditis in COVID vaccine and divide it, adjust it by a factor of four, then you see that actually myocarditis cases after vaccine can be twice as high as myocarditis cases after infection.
I just wanted to sort of summarize for the audience just to make it clear and also maybe to clarify with you.
So what you're saying is that the CDC's own weekly report, the Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, it had a study published that said that, correct me if I'm wrong, for natural infection, the rate of myocarditis was 60 per 100,000.
Is that correct?
And for the vaccine it was 26 per 100,000.
But what you're saying is that the natural infection data that they're using is only people who had a positive PCR test versus let's say your kid brother or your cousin They missed school for a week.
They didn't really take a test.
They just stayed at home, ate soup.
They got better.
They went back to school.
They wouldn't be included because they never got a positive PCR test and they never went into the system.
And you're saying that if you add those people, that number would be four times as much, meaning that essentially the number of people experiencing myocarditis for vaccination versus infection would be skewed towards vaccination.
Is that correct?
Absolutely.
UK, where they did a comprehensive insurance healthcare system database comparison, and they found that for people under 40 years old, especially men, the incidence of myocarditis after vaccination was indeed greater than after infection.
When you were discussing this data, you mentioned two, I guess, databases, right?
The VAERS database, which I think most people are familiar with.
And if not, maybe you can actually explain what that is.
But also you mentioned the VSD. Can you explain what those two databases are?
So VAERS is a voluntary reporting system where patients or healthcare providers, nurses, doctors can report any adverse effects after a vaccine.
And that process or that database is maintained by Joint efforts with CDC and FDA to verify the data.
Their process involves collecting medical records and following up to assess or what they call to confirm if the reported side effects are in fact as reported in the self-reporting.
The VSD or vaccine safety data link across about 10 sites is a little more not entirely active.
And what I mean by active surveillance is In a prospective phase three trial, investigators would be actively interviewing participants to solicit side effects.
So VSD is a little more active in looking at a database rather than someone self-reporting, so medical records database or insurance database, but it's still not fully active in investigators soliciting interactively with patients.
So it's better than VAERS and more comprehensive, but not as comprehensive as The April 2022 MMWR that I referred to was actually a database survey of 40 insurance databases.
So that's pretty comprehensive.
Yeah, I would imagine the insurance companies are very tight with their data because money's involved, right?
So you mentioned that one report.
Is there any sort of analogous data that's coming out from different countries or the scientific communities in different countries that are showing this disparity between vaccine-induced myocarditis versus infection-induced myocarditis?
Yes, there's a few studies.
We have a study out of Ontario, Canada, We have a study out of Hong Kong that looks at incidence rates in especially adolescents or younger adults.
And we have studied, as I just mentioned, by Patone out of UK that directly compared incidence of myocarditis after COVID vaccination versus infection.
And the preponderance of evidence from Israel, a Nordic study, Ontario, Canada, Hong Kong, UK, the preponderance of evidence suggests that the incidence of myocarditis after vaccination Especially in people under 40 years old, especially males, is in fact higher than after infection.
Is there sort of an average between those different studies of how much higher it is?
The method by which the studies report the data varies a little bit because the age cutoffs, it's not always 16 and 17.
There's overlap in age groups.
But roughly speaking, probably twice as much in younger people, twice as much after vaccination versus infection.
And it's worth noting that in heterologous dosing, and what we mean by that is, for example, if someone had Pfizer dose one and Moderna dose two, it can actually be three to four times greater than after infection.
What do you think owes to that?
Part of it is, even though they all use spike protein, the dosing is different.
The interval is different.
So if the dosing is different, there's a hypothesis that the amount of mRNA that's produced by Pfizer versus Moderna might be different.
And we have, in fact, studies that show that the mRNA spike protein can be found in circulation, meaning in the blood circulation, beyond the injection site, four weeks or even four months after injection.
So would that mean that if the mRNA is prevalent in the body, I guess it's for some people, right?
Not everyone, but when you look at a broad population, are you saying that maybe the spike protein is continuously being produced and that's why there's higher prevalence of myocarditis is because there's more opportunity for the spike to do damage?
Is that it?
Correct.
That's a hypothesis that hasn't been proven, but if the spike protein is found after injection up to four months later, that also raises the concern That CDC's cutoff for most of their data is either 7 days after vaccination or maybe 21 days after vaccination.
The study out of UK that I referenced earlier by Patone actually went 28 days after hospital discharge and even found increased mortality, which we can touch upon later.
Wow.
You know, I've been probably not as closely as you, but I've been following these studies as well, and I'm sometimes a little frustrated how you find a study like this one, which finds that this spike protein in some people, not everyone, of course.
I mean, it's kind of a graph with some outliers, but it does seem to continue past a certain date.
But then you look on the CDC website, and they have a cutoff for their reporting.
So it's like, I mean, maybe this will eventually catch up to the reporting, but it is a bit frustrating, right, that you can't actually get this kind of analogous data.
Correct.
And part of it is reporting, meaning there's an impetus to publish.
And so having a cutoff that sooner allows for more precise data collection and analysis.
And so that's somewhat forgivable.
But we are now over a year and a half into a mass vaccination program.
So having follow-up data beyond 28 days would definitely be meaningful.
There was a study out of Israel that compared myocarditis after COVID infection.
As many have suggested is a significant concern if you remember how initially there was concern for myocarditis after COVID infection in college athletes, right?
And the study out of Israel didn't stop at seven days or 21 days.
It went out six months and it found that in fact COVID infection did not have a statistically increased risk of causing myocarditis when looking at a six-month period of time In 200,000 people.
Versus the vaccine, which did?
Well, vaccine data we only have up to 28 days.
There's very few, to the best of my knowledge, there is no data on vaccines beyond 28 days.
That's published.
There's, of course, anecdotal evidence, but we want to be careful about that.
In your own experience in practice, did you see an increase in myocarditis cases starting in 2020 and or 2021?
Absolutely.
And to be fair, I think that most of us are appreciative of the fact that coronavirus itself, a COVID infection, can cause heart damage, which sometimes gets confused and lumped together As being myocarditis, but the heart damage from sepsis or severe infection is a little bit different than myocarditis itself.
But in answering your question, in 2020, certainly, especially those patients in the intensive care unit, we saw a rise in patients who had troponin elevation, suggesting heart damage.
But later in 2020, we saw published studies comparing ICU patients pre-pandemic with infections like influenza, comparing it to COVID infection, and found that the percent of patients with troponin elevation with COVID-19 infection was actually comparable to influenza.
The difference being, it's the first time in about 100 years we've had this many people infected with the same virus in such a short span that we now see more cases.
Now in 2021, absolutely, in the hospital and in my outpatient setting, Started to see more cases of vaccine-associated myocarditis.
And in talking to colleagues throughout the country, in Florida, in Texas, in New England, other cardiologists, as we communicate on the internet, we're also reporting increased number of myocarditis after vaccination.
Sometimes to the extent that cardiologists would report, for example, I have seen more myocarditis cases this month than I have in the entire years Cumulatively before that.
So it was a pretty significant and notable increase.
Wow, that's shocking.
You mentioned earlier that the VAERS system could be anywhere between three to four times underreporting the real number.
The report that you mentioned earlier, the CDC's mortality and morbidity weekly report, did that take that sort of margin of error into consideration when they were putting together their data?
The report that you're referring to It's number of 267 per million compared to VAERS, 80 per million.
So you can see it's about three times more.
They didn't include that adjustment in their analysis, if that's what you mean by did they take it into account.
So, for example, just two days ago in Lancet, CDC published their paper on VAERS data looking at all the cases, and they still limit their analysis to VAERS without adjusting for the insurance or Health care system database three to four times factor.
So it just sounds like from what you're describing, whether it's the underreporting of people who have actually been infected and just never went to the hospital, never got tested, and then you also include the people who are not actually marked as having myocarditis because somehow they didn't get into the VAERS system.
It seems like there's a lot of factors which could actually spike that ratio quite heavily towards the vaccine causing a lot more myocarditis.
In regards to myocarditis, you mentioned earlier that there's an increased risk of sudden death for people who have myocarditis.
Can you sort of explain to the audience how that works and what that elevated risk actually is?
So we don't have that quantified, but studies have shown that myocarditis, inflammation of the heart, does lead to, for the next six months, increased risk of sudden cardiac death after aerobic activity, and that's why the Bethesda guidelines on myocarditis do...
Recommend three to six months of activity restriction from competitive sports or severe exertion.
And that's something that has been lost in all the public messaging, where, as the patient I referred to earlier, who went to the emergency room, had symptoms, had an elevated troponin, put it all together, it's probably myocarditis.
She was actually training for a half marathon, but did not receive the recommendations to refrain from competitive sports.
Until I met her.
So the exact mechanism isn't entirely known.
Some of the hypotheses are myocarditis leads to scar formation, which can result in increased risk of fatal ventricular or the lower chamber of the heart, ventricular arrhythmias like ventricular tachycardia, and ventricular fibrillation.
And CDC's recent publication in Lancet actually does report those who had cardiac monitoring, there was increased association After vaccine myocarditis with arrhythmias, especially if the MRI showed inflammation.
More and more focus due to news reports about this phenomenon called SADS, sudden adult death syndromes.
Maybe just to start with, can you explain to the viewers who might have never heard of it, what exactly is SADS? It's a very good term to explain because I dare say online chatter in the various social media discussion groups, many physicians hadn't heard of it before The recent phenomenon.
So sudden adult death syndrome is basically saying the patient, and I actually have patients who report family members who died in their sleep, or they're doing something without any precipitating cause, meaning they did not have a severe infection like pneumonia,
they did not have an accident, they did not have a heart attack, they did not have congestive heart failure, there's no known use of Drug abuse like cocaine or methamphetamine, which can also cause cardiac arrest.
So without having any precipitating cause, the patient has a sudden death that is not able to be explained otherwise.
It's kind of anecdotal data, but there have been a lot of news reports recently that say that this person died suddenly of SADS or this person died suddenly of SADS. They're typically attributed to other causes like climate change, sometimes even in a rise in temperatures or depression, isolation from the pandemic, etc.
And I also had an interview with the president of the SADS Foundation, Dr.
Michael Ackerman, and he said that just based on the data he has access to, about 5,000 people per year die suddenly of this kind of unexplained heart condition, and it's lumped into this SADS umbrella term.
And he said that generally he did not see a signal after the rollout of the vaccine or even after the start of the pandemic.
As to an increase in the number of SADS deaths.
What do you make of that?
Is that really the case that there has not been a spike in the number of sudden adult deaths due to the heart?
I remember seeing that video.
It was actually very informative, and I know that you have interviewed him.
One challenge to the analysis that he provided is, like VAERS, the SADS Foundation, as I understood the way he described it, is voluntary reporting.
It's not an active surveillance of data looking at For example, CDC debt certificates, which the National Center for Health Statistics does, or actuary data from life insurance companies, or International Olympic Committee.
So, voluntary reporting from physicians or coroners would be dependent on their awareness to report the data.
And there's been, for a variety of reasons, We can probably speculate, but one thing I respect about your show is that facts matter.
We're not here to speculate.
But there's a variety of reasons early on in vaccine rollout, the medical community was actually quite dismissive of any association, saying things like, well, you can't prove it, or even if it is, it doesn't change our management.
So that contributed to under-reporting, under-discussion, under-diagnosis, getting back to SADS, It wouldn't be surprising if people aren't reporting the cases because there's a little bit of a disconnect with the common refrain that CDC and FDA have already assessed these products to be safe and effective.
So, what we have seen in not published in any scientific peer-reviewed literature, but available data, for example, in 2009 in Circulation, which is American Heart Association's premier journal, there was a summary of Sudden deaths in athletes.
And from 1960s to about 2004, we saw about 35 deaths per year.
In around 2005, 2006, it went up to about 65 to 75 per year.
And now, in 2022 alone, we may have seen, and I'm not exaggerating, 500 this year alone.
So, although it's not published in a peer-reviewed study, When you have sudden debts collected anecdotally that are possibly quite a few magnitude increased compared to previous years from 1966, right?
We're talking about 60 years of data has now been surpassed.
And then we also have actuary data from insurance companies showing that there was a spike in debts September 2021.
And just to quantify that, in CDC's data on all-cause mortality, September 2019 and September 2020, there's about 60,000 deaths throughout the country.
But in 2021, that went up to 90,000.
And I'm rounding the numbers.
It's like 66,000, 56,000, right?
But to average it out over two years, it was about 60,000 in 2019 and 2020.
And then in 2021, September month, it was about 90,000.
I'm sorry, these are non-COVID related deaths, right?
All cause mortality, right?
But a good percentage of those was in fact non-COVID. And if you look at the COVID surges, you know, CDC dashboard has monthly deaths.
That spike did not correlate to the highest peak in the pandemic.
So it's not necessarily all COVID related.
And what's more concerning is Especially by the insurance actuary data, it's mostly in 18 to 64 years old.
Whereas for COVID infection, 75% of all deaths throughout the pandemic have been over 65 years old.
You know, you alluded to it earlier, and I think that's something that a lot of people maybe outside the medical community don't think about, which is that there's sort of outside pressures, perhaps, on physicians to, let's say, not make a big fuss, I guess, about sudden adult death syndrome because they might think they could even get lumped into the, you know, conspiracy theorist type of camp.
Can you maybe explicate a bit further on that?
Is that really true?
Like, how much does that influence what a physician says or even writes in his reports?
We'll start with, in social media, there's a clear censorship of physicians who, or anyone who talks about SADS, as if it's definitely related to the vaccine.
In patient interaction, it would probably vary based on person, but in California alone, they just recently passed, I believe it's still waiting, Governor's signature, AB 2098, which would actually punish physicians for saying anything contrary to CDC recommendations.
On COVID-19 vaccination safety and efficacy data.
So clearly there's an overall climate discouraging, transparent discussion of risks and benefits, which is contrary to all our notions of medical ethics, which requires informed consent and quantified discussion of risks and benefits.
Do you foresee any study or anything published in the near future which could pull from all these different sources?
Like you mentioned, the CDC death certificates data, some of the actuary data, even some of these rise in athlete deaths.
Maybe do a meta-analysis of all of that and publish it to kind of give an actual scientific view of whether there is an increase in sudden death.
Sort of, you know...
Not, what's the word, sort of agnostic of what's happening politically.
Just take a look at it.
Do you foresee that happening in the next several months, in the next year?
It would be a great challenge.
There was, for example, a paper by Dr.
Tracy Hogue looking at risk stratification by age and gender.
It was one of the first papers that looked at the myocarditis data, whereas before that, it had all been lumped together across all age groups.
And when papers like that do get published, they get a lot of negative results.
Commentary by national medical societies, critiquing them.
And there actually have even been a couple papers that were retracted by editors.
So to answer your question, do I sincerely expect a paper like that in the near future?
No.
That's a shame.
I guess the last topic I wanted to discuss was that recently the CDC came out with a recommendation urging everybody above the age of six months old to get the vaccine regardless of anything.
I mean I'm sure there's maybe you know speak with your physician if you have some really allergic reaction to some ingredient in the vaccine maybe they would recommend against it but generally that's their overall recommendation.
What's your opinion on that recommendation?
It's interesting because the public seems to have already cast their vote On that topic, where I believe only about 1% people have been vaccinated at the very young age.
And so the vaccine uptake in the younger group is much lower than had been expected.
And the trials were problematic, meaning the clinical trials used to justify emergency use authorization were small-scale, did not have any hard clinical endpoints, improving reduction in hospitalizations, let alone deaths.
So the data for that is incredibly limited.
And even someone of the stature of Dr.
Paul Offit, who's a vaccine developer, he's on the Vaccine Safety Committees, even he questioned the appropriateness of such young people getting primary vaccination, let alone a booster.
Actually, I was reading through some of the recommendations and some of the FAQs on the CDC's website, and it seems for their recommendations, specifically for young people, they seem to still be using the vaccine efficacy numbers that were true, I believe, back in early 2021 when they were saying that the vaccine is 99% effective at preventing infection, etc.
But is that still the case?
Is that still the case within young people, or have they not updated the website?
I didn't quite understand that.
It's absolutely not the case, and I would actually argue it was never the case.
Meaning, when I say never the case, I'm not at all suggesting anyone lied.
But Peter Joshi from BMJ published an editorial, and I absolutely agree with him.
This was over a year ago, early in the rollout, that vaccine efficacy is really best assessed over a season.
And all the early data from phase three trials to get to Submit the application for emergency use authorization.
Had a minimum follow-up of 60 days.
So it is true that in short-term follow-up, in healthy volunteers, in small sample size, there was 95% efficacy.
And then of course we probably all remember 100% effective against severe disease.
Right?
And then subsequent, there's been this year alone, early in the year, There's been at least three different studies looking at children and adolescents showing that at about 60 days, the vaccine efficacy dramatically drops, sometimes to as low as 30%.
And as you go further out, it drops even lower.
And the same is the case with the boosters, where some studies have shown that after about four weeks, this vaccine efficacy after a booster is dramatically reduced.
Wow.
But then why haven't they updated their numbers on their own website?
That's a good question for them.
Well, actually, so I said earlier that that was the last question.
I have one more question.
So we here at the Epoch Times, we've been kind of like reaching back and forth, having this dance with the CDC about some of their PRR numbers, because in January of 2021, the CDC put out a few different documents saying that they're going to be doing a PRR analysis, which is a proportional reporting ratio analysis on They're VAERS system, basically in order to compare the prevalence of myocarditis for, let's say, the Pfizer vaccine or the Moderna vaccine versus all vaccines to see what that prevalence data shows.
And after about a year of going back and forth, they initially told us that they were doing it, then they told us they weren't doing it, then eventually they said they only did it for a period of three months, and that took about a year for them to admit that they were doing it, but they never actually gave us the data.
We're still fighting for that.
Let me ask you, in terms of this PRR analysis, which is the proportional reporting ratio analysis, we're still fighting to get it.
Is there a way that we can do it ourselves, this PRR analysis, or it has to be done by the CDC because they have special access to the numbers?
Can you sort of shed some light on that?
You can access VAERS and do your own searches.
The method by which you do that is not the easiest.
It does require a little bit of sophistication to do that.
We want to be cautious with any such interpretation.
So to answer your question, yes, we can do it ourselves.
VAERS database has the ability for any public person to put in a query, define the fields, search by vaccine type and adverse outcome and even date range and compare to prior vaccines like influenza or smallpox.
But we also want to be careful that as social media smartphones have become more prevalent and As 2020, we had mass shutdowns of the labor force.
There is the possibility that more people are using digital tools to share information, so the awareness is more.
So that's a caveat that we want to be mindful of whenever doing our own analyses.
What's the concern there?
Well, if you do a search in VAERS, there's in fact an increased report of myocarditis.
after the mRNA vaccines compared to prior vaccines.
But is that increased reporting because there are more cases or people are more aware of how to use their smartphones and Internet?
And after three to six months of shutdowns, there was a heightened international and international collaborative effort for data.
Yeah.
Wow.
That's a great point.
In fact, everything you said is quite interesting, and it makes me really doubt that there's just so much nuance in these numbers, right?
It's very easy to say, well, this is the number, this is the number here, and it's like, well, there's about 20 different factors that are very hard to account for, right?
Like even this one, the last one we just mentioned, is also...
A great example, people are just, they were at home.
They had nothing better to do.
They weren't rushing around, and maybe just by sitting at home, they realized, like, oh, wait a minute, is my heart not feeling normal?
Whereas before, maybe if they were just constantly going to work, maybe they would have just assumed there was a stress from their job or something like that, right?
That's just another compounding factor.
Well, Dr.
Verma, thank you so much for this enlightening discussion.
For any viewers who want to actually get deeper, I'll throw all the links that we discussed, all the studies that you mentioned.
I'll throw the links to them down in the description box below.
That way you can comb through them for yourself.
And, Dr.
Verma, thank you so much for your great work.
And maybe in the next few months, when there's something else happening in this regard, we can have you back on the show to talk about it.
▲
Export Selection