Kaiser non-permanente?
Do we have some friends at old KP?
There’s a paper that found it’s way to me via many different sources on the med pre-print server called: “Risk of Myopericarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in a Large Integrated Health System: A Comparison of Completeness and Timeliness of Two Methods”.1 I read it immediately and understood pretty quickly that the authors had identified specific ways that myocarditis cases were not being counted and thus not included in subsequent analyses or reports to U.S. advisory committees. Whoopsie doopsie. The authors represent Kaiser Permanente - an organization consistently feeding the narrative that these COVID-19 products are safe and effective, so I am still pondering whether or not this paper represents a whistle being blown or something more akin to a preemptive face-saving fess up. Sort of like, ‘hey, we messed up let’s fix this’ rather than ‘hey, those guys we work with have been lying intentionally let’s fix this’. In any case, the good news is, we can fix this! And isn’t the the real end game in all of this? To expose the stinky shit and turn it into fertilizer? I do declare: it is.
Their strategy went like this: They looked at data from people:
who got at least one injection of the Moderna or Pfizer products between December 2020 and October 2021
who were aged 12 to 39 (they found 153,438)
who were insured by Kaiser Permanente Northwest
They followed them for 30 days following their second injection (146,785 got a second injection) and checked for peri, myo or perimyocarditis. They checked for ‘carditis using one of 2 methods:
The first method included a search in the database for a brief text description using ICD-10-CM code I40.9 which is defined as ‘acute myocarditis, unspecified’. They call this the ‘encounter methodology’.
They also did something akin to what I do with VAERS which is to run my MedDRA code keyword search not just over the SYMPTOM columns but over the SYMPTOM_TEXT column, to cover any potential missed reports. They checked the text description of all in and outpatient encounter diagnoses for myo or pericarditis.
The second method is the brainchild of the CDC used for the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) database which employs a search for emergency department visits or hospitalizations with a select set of discharge ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes like our myocarditis I40.9 code.
So in the encounter methodology, they found 14 people who reported myo, peri or myopericarditis within 21 days of injection. Three of these were missed by the VSD methodology whereby the I40.9 code - the one specific to myocarditis was not captured (unlike KP) - indicating that the list of ICD-10 codes is incomplete and that delays in hospital claims data results in loss of data. Basically, they wouldn’t have qualified since they were diagnosed/classified properly during a follow-up visit and not during their original hospital stay within the 21 days post injection. Claims delays were on average 33 days but went as high as 64 days.
It is very clear from Figure 1 that the males aged 18-24 have the highest reporting rates of myocarditis within the larger cohort. I would personally like to have access to the total numbers (Ns) of age and dose-specific sub-cohorts so that I can verify their calculations but for now, I will take them at face value. They report 537.1/1,000,000 boys ages 18-24 which flies in the face of the 75.3/1,000,000 reported by the CDC this past October by our old pal John Su. Peter McCullough recently ‘tweeted’ that this rate may be as low as 67 but in any case, not the same as reported by these Kaiser people using more careful methodologies.
I would also really like to see them check out the younger ages where the rates of myocarditis are known to be even higher. The highest frequency reporting for myocarditis in the context of the COVID-19 injectable products is in boys aged 15 following dose 2, as determined from VAERS data. This has been both reported and published and remains true up to and including the most recent VAERS update for December 31, 2021 as shown in Figure 2.2
So in conclusion, they calculated a myocarditis rate of 95.4/1,000,000 12-39 year olds who got dosed twice and this rate more than doubles if you look at only males (195.4/1,000,000). When you break the cohort down further by age and dose, the statistics get even worse.
All-in-all, I agree with their final conclusion and applaud their efforts.
The true incidence of myopericarditis is markedly higher than the incidence reported to US advisory committees. The VSD should validate its search algorithm to improve its sensitivity for myopericarditis.
Yes. It is. And yes. It should.
Did you know that Kaiser is the German word for Emperor? Perhaps the Emperor needs a change of clothing?
(P.S. I will always be the child pointing out that egotistical power-hungry thieves are actually naked portly imposters.)
Stay tuned for another summary of a paper that claims Omicron has mouse origins.
Katie A Sharff, David M Dancoes, Jodi L Longueil, Eric S Johnson, Paul F Lewis. Risk of Myopericarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in a Large Integrated Health System: A Comparison of Completeness and Timeliness of Two Methods. medRxiv 2021.12.21.21268209; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.21.21268209
Jessica Rose PhD, MSc, BSc , Peter A. McCullough MD, MPH , A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products, Current Problems in Cardiology (2021), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2021.101011
It doesn’t seem there is any number that would stop the continued rollout of these jabs. No amount of deaths or permanent injury. We know the media and FDA are bought and paid for, and those making decisions at the FDA are just looking for their big pay checked job at pharma when they leave government. I’m not sure the fDA has actually ever had the safety or health of the people in mind, in its entire history, as they seem to do more harm than good.
Jessica, I really appreciate your informative content but the deep purple background is off-putting and difficult to comfortably read. Simple black text against a white background is much easier on these eyes of mine.