Who Knew?* Case Reports of Vaccine Injuries Actually Prove Vaccine Safety. Literally.

Layperson/caveman language translation of the title: case reports of severe vaccine injuries that bizarrely** claim to demonstrate vaccine safety

* Besides Fauci & Walenski

** According to the uninformed backwards notions of unenlightened uneducated science deniers

---

Over the past 2+ years, us ignoramuses and laypeople who have dared question any part of The Narrative have been roundly castigated as illiterate luddites intent upon returning the world to the primordial darkness of the Stone Age. (Although we are also told that ridding the world of human technological advancements is a practical and moral positive in order to save the planet from the scourge of man-made climate change, which seems at least mildly contradictory.) Unfortunately, us illiterate rabble are apparently narcissistic elitists who think they know everything, and therefore have trouble grasping that only scientists know how to read and parse the delicately sophisticated and nuanced nature of esoteric scientific catechisms like the infinite spectrum of gender manifestation or the responsiveness of viral kinetics to the innate moral value of different behaviors¹. That’s why we need scientists to be the interlocutors between the sacred texts of Science and the masses, who unlike non-scientists are able to read the text of a study and divine its meaning and implications².

This crucial precept is illustrated by the following case reports. If a plebe like you or I would read a case report about a vaccine injury, we would (very mistakenly) think that it shows that the vaccines might not be entirely fully 100% safe for everyone. It takes a fully credentialed expert scientist to comprehend that such studies actually in fact demonstrate the amazing safety of the vaccines, such as the enlightened Earls of Erudition who authored the following disquisitions:

Lung squamous cell carcinoma with hemoptysis after vaccination with tozinameran (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech)

Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34612003/

SCIENCE Lesson: The vaccines are obviously overwhelmingly beneficial for cancer patients. Also, the vaccines are so safe that extra caution needs to be exercised in order to make sure the cancer patient doesn’t suddenly hemorrhage to death as a byproduct of the overwhelmingly safe & beneficial vaccine.

In summary, the benefits of vaccination exceeded the risks of adverse events in a patient with cancer. However, in conditions such as after chemoradiation, especially in patients with radiation pneumonitis wherein the vasculature is vulnerable, patients should be carefully monitored for hemorrhagic events after vaccination.

Cardiogenic shock temporally associated with COVID-19 vaccination after prior COVID-19 infection: A case report

Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35282400/

SCIENCE Lesson: The possibility of life-threatening cardiogenic shock “does not detract from the overwhelming benefit of vaccination”. This is indeed counterintuitive to a non-scientist, who (very delusionally) thinks that suffering heart failure might detract a little from the overall vaccination experience.

While this report does not detract from the overwhelming benefit of vaccination from COVID-19, clinicians should be aware of this possible relationship in the future.

Newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenia in a pregnant patient after coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination - PubMed

Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34420249/

SCIENCE Lesson: Safety is determined before safety surveillance. This is a fundamental concept of modern pharmacology & pharmacovigilance, and the subject of intense disinformation by malicious propagandists who spuriously claim absurd conspiracy theories such as that we need time to observe if there are unexpected safety concerns to know if there are unexpected safety concerns³.

Another critical insight gleaned from here is that in order to appreciate the wonderous nimble or flexible nature of the vaccines’ safety, you have to see the novel & unexpected thrombocytopenia for yourself. As the saying goes, “seeing is believing”, and there’s nothing like witnessing that vaccine safety firsthand that makes a better advocate on behalf of vaccine safety!

We advocate that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the risk of infection in pregnancy and that pregnant women should be included in clinical trials. Closer post-vaccination surveillance may be warranted in the pregnant population pending further data.

The very low risk of myocarditis and pericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination should not discourage vaccination

Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34668687/

SCIENCE Lesson: It is very important to have a title that clearly communicates what your study is about. Case in point: this masterpiece of scholarship “aims to guide physicians in the early diagnosis and management of suspected myocarditis following mRNA COVID vaccination.” A layperson would conclude from this description that the study is about how to clinically manage a case of vaccine safety failure of myocarditis. That would be dead wrong however. What this study really is about is that myocarditis is such a negligible clinical outcome that of course 14-yo teens should get double boosted⁴! In other words, the remaining 98% of the study that comes after the title and first two sentences of the abstract discussing how to diagnose & manage a case of vaccine myocarditis - the part that ignorant lay-rubes absurdly hyper-focus on to the exclusion of the main point - has little to do with the actual study.

The benefits of vaccination - regarding COVID-19 infection and transmission, as well as COVID-associated complications - clearly outweigh the potential risk of vaccine-associated inflammation of the heart and other adverse events. Given the current state of knowledge, the outcome of myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination is generally good. This review aims to guide physicians in the early diagnosis and management of suspected myocarditis following mRNA COVID vaccination.

In-Depth Evaluation of a Case of Presumed Myocarditis After the Second Dose of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8340727/

SCIENCE Lesson: This demonstrates the oftentimes counterintuitive nature of Scientific Logic. An uneducated person would simply presume - without any basis - that you can’t extrapolate vaccine safety from the occurrence of vaccine myocarditis in a patient who didn’t have “underlying heart disease or cardiomyopathy” to a person with underlying heart disease or cardiomyopathy⁵. Thankfully, we have this study to teach us a profound diagnostic hermeneutic: It follows that from a case of vaccine myocarditis in a patient without a history of any heart conditions we can derive that the vaccine is 100% safe & effective for people with every conceivable assortment of heart conditions.

Clinicians should be aware that myocarditis may be present in patients exhibiting cardiac signs and symptoms 2 to 4 days after COVID-19 vaccination. However, we emphasize that this report of a rare potential vaccine-related adverse event does not change the highly favorable risk/benefit of COVID-19 vaccination, including in patients with underlying heart disease or cardiomyopathy. Additional surveillance of such adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination will help to identify whether there are subgroups who are at higher risk for this vaccine-related effect, and if so, whether additional precautions are necessary.

1. Such as distinguishing riots protests from funerals, or densely packed casinos from cavernous church chapels

2. In much the same way that priests served as the interlocutors between the masses and Heaven by virtue of their exclusive ability to read the Bible

3. This particular logic was famously embodied in the timeless apothegm uttered by Speaker Pelosi, “We have to pass the bill so that [we] can find out what is in it”

4. Annually

5. The logic of the uneducated person here is difficult to identify with precision, because there are multiple logical fallacies in play here potentially committed by the non-scientist:

The first fallacy is to assume that myocarditis itself - even though it is mild transient safe & effective myocarditis - is in any way a failure of vaccine safety.

The second fallacy is to assume that even though the occurrence of vaccine myocarditis is not a failure of vaccine safety in someone without a prior heart condition, it does not follow that the myocarditis will be similarly safe & effective in someone with a prior history of heart conditions.

Of course there are apt to be other fallacies laypeople fall for, but it is impossible to enumerate them all, as the capacity for laypeople to distort deductive logic is as variated as pronoun choices.