New JAMA Pediatrics Study: Myocarditis is MORE Common than Mental Health Problems and Obesity in Kids Who Had a Positive Covid Test

And you thought that the pandemics of mental health and obesity in children were a problem.....

JAMA Pediatrics just published the latest installment in the train of pandemic molestations of science that is by now long and thick enough to wrap around Pluto like a rubber band and slingshot it into the sun. Heaven knows, the crescendoing propaganda endeavoring to panic parents into vaccinating their kiddies does not seem to be working, so the powers that be seem to be working overtime to churn out new intellectual debauchments faster than Fauci SCIENCE evolutions in the hopes that one will stick.

Alex Berenson @AlexBerenson

New @CDCgov data on mRNA vaccines for kids. What’s astonishing isn’t just that 95% of kids under 5 haven’t received any shots, but that 99% haven’t gotten two. The gap suggests even the tiny hard core of parents who started the process now know they’ve been conned…

So here we are with a new doozy of a study allegedly alleging (not a typo) that - to quote the MedPage headline referring to this study - ‘Myocarditis a Common Long COVID Condition in Kids’:

The actual title of the study suggests that the official objective of the study is to characterize what the long covid conditions are, and how frequently they occur.

But the language used inside the study suggests that the mission of the authors is to portray the massive constellation of long covid conditions (PASC) as an extremely common and significant risk to kids.

And boy oh boy did they do a spectacular job of employing sensationalized language to that end. Language that one might even consider to be propaganda.

Myocarditis is MORE Common than Mental Health Problems & Obesity in Pediatrics (!?!?!)

The most absurd claim of the study - and what is further distorted by the MedPage headline - is the following claim:

Language these days can be so confusing and intimidating, so here are the dictionary definitions of ‘most¹’ and ‘common’:

So, most + common = the one with the greatest number or highest frequency [of incidents].

Ergo, what the authors are saying is that myocarditis occurred more than every other systemic condition they included in their analysis, which included the following:

Yup, myocarditis is apparently more ‘common’ than:

• ARDS - which is a bit funny because covid is primarily a respiratory disease, so you’d think that respiratory distress would be more common in covid survivors than myocarditis.

• Mental Health Issues that required treatment - if this is true, than holy cow, we know that there is a pandemic of pediatric mental health problems that is in unprecedented duress, but hey, who knew, myocarditis is gonna kill them all first.

• Obesity - This might be an even bigger stunner. Put it this way: A full 5% of kids are obese per this study’s definition of obesity as “body mass index z score in the 95th percentile or higher any time before cohort entrance”, yet myocarditis is even more common?!?

Are you really gonna believe your lyin’ eyes, or will you trust The SCIENCE??

I can already hear some people saying “They used imprecise language, that’s not what they meant or intended to say, you’re being overly nitpicky and making a big deal out of nothing.”

Firstly, if this is the case, it would amount to incredibly sloppy and callous linguistic imprecision that should horrify any scientist.

But I daresay that it is not, and that the choice of language here was a conscious and deliberate choice.

This is the introduction to the study before the abstract, where the authors summarize the basic points:

Notice the different language: “with the strongest associations” with infection, not “most common” or “most commonly diagnosed”.

In other words (pun intended), they managed to accurately communicate the content and meaning of their data in their introduction to the study. It was only once they got to the formal part of the study text inside the Abstract section that they switched from the accurate language of “strongest association” to the grossly deceptive and blatantly false language of “most common” PASC condition.

The fact that they switched the language for the rest of the study suggests that this was not merely a clumsy choice of words - they already had the right language.

So what gives?

I suspect that the ‘most common’ language was used in order to provide media with a juicy soundbite that could be used to manipulate the results of the study to claim that children are at precipitous risk of developing myocarditis if they had covid, even if the covid itself was mild or asymptomatic.

Without this language, to quote the authors (blue box in above screenshot), “PASC in children appears to be uncommon”. Not exactly the type of discovery that will freak parents out and send them scurrying to subject their children to the benevolent prick of Pfizer’s needles.

“Myocarditis is the most common systemic feature" of long covid on the other hand, well that not only in a picture-perfect Orwellian application inverts the study’s central finding, but also allows for the media to bastardize this ‘finding’ even further, which leads to a headline like… “Myocarditis a Common Long COVID Condition in Kids” - something even the study itself didn’t claim outright.

Ultimately, when you look at the actual data they present, it is patently obvious that ‘most common systemic condition of PASC’ is an explicit lie:

According to the ‘most common’ language, myocarditis would be almost 2x as prevalent as mental health issues, and almost 3x as prevalent as obesity (defined as >95th percentile of BMI, not the sort of ‘excessively rotund’ proportions that most of us associate with clinical obesity).

🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄

Myocarditis would also barely edge out ARDS, although the upper boundary of the CI for ARDS exceeds the upper boundary for myocarditis so maybe this is a toss-up. This would be surprising, as you would expect acute respiratory damage to be more prominent than acute cardiac damage following a respiratory disease that attacks the lungs directly and often leaves scarred lung tissue in its wake, especially in people with a more severe clinical course of disease - something that this study found correlated to increased PASC conditions/symptoms.

The truth is that anyone remotely familiar with scientific graphs and charts will recognize immediately that this forest plot is depicting the relative increased odds of the incidence of these conditions, not the quantity of how many cases of each occurred.

In fact, I looked through the entire study and its supplementary materials, and could not find anywhere the raw numbers of how many cases of myocarditis or any other condition they found in their dataset.

(Personally, I suspect something else is the cause for the vanishingly few cases of myocarditis from 2020 that the scientific establishment is trying to pin on covid/long covid, which will be the topic of a forthcoming article.)

Corrupt government or establishment scientists have long since figured out how to play this game with the media where they publish a study or model and include a tidbit that is far more extreme than anything in the actual study, such as oblique language hinting at the possibility of some terrible calamity, or has an apocalyptic “worst case scenario”, knowing that the media will focus on the sensational bit that is a .00001 probability or is a hyper-sensationalized conjecture without any actual evidence backing it up, and frame the entire study or model around the “we’re all gonna die!!!!!” piece to the exclusion of the actual findings of the study. When someone complains to the scientists that their study did not in fact show what the media portrays it as showing, the scientists demur “well it’s not our fault that they ran with the most extreme and unlikely scenario in our model”. (This is the story of practically every single climate study, the media runs with the worst case apocalyptic scenario that is roughly about 0.0000000000000001% probability of happening, whereas the studies are forecasting that the highly probable scenarios are far more mild and less threatening than the prognosticated planetary destruction.

Same idea here, this language is a little tidbit that misrepresents the study, and as we can see from the MedPage headline, it successfully manipulated the media (who are willing and eager accomplices in the fraudulent depiction of research to terrify the population).

There’s much more to say on this study, but that will wait for a separate article as this one is long enough as it is.

“They looked from science to propaganda, and from propaganda to science, and from science to propaganda again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

1. Perhaps the authors intended ‘most’ as a pronoun (see screenshot), in the sense of subjectively determined identification, and assumed a personal identity of myocarditis being the most common systemic diagnosis. You never know these days. 🤔🤔🤔