A causal link between COVID mRNA vaccines and myocarditis?

A new review argues in favor of the connection between COVID vaccines and some serious adverse events.

A recent, nearly over 300 page document has been published in the National Academies Press, a journal dedicated to publishing work from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

Although the institutions receive funding from the government and were established by Congress they are argued to be independent operators with large influence regarding many policies within the sciences and medicine.

All this to say it’s rather surprising to see such a committee releasing such a dense document with arguments suggesting an association between COVID vaccines and some adverse events.

Click on the image above for a link to the document.

The committee was put together by The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) in order to review potential harms, and was comprised of various people from different fields to evaluate the available evidence.

The committee reviewed the available evidence for all vaccine platforms. However, given the limited literature available for some platforms such as the adenoviral vaccines, as well as the relatively recent approval of some vaccines such as Novavax’s vaccine, the review had evidence predominately examining adverse events related to the mRNA vaccine platforms.

When looking at a total of 85 possible adverse events the committee argued there to be sufficient evidence to draw conclusions for 20 of these adverse events. Note that conclusions may argue in favor or in rejection of a link between an adverse event and a vaccine platform.

Conclusions of causal links were separated into the following categories. Pay attention to some of the language here:

“Further research is unlikely to lead to a different conclusion.”

That is, in cases where the committee argues that the available evidence establishes a causal link between vaccine platform and injury then it’s not likely that further evidence will come to refute this link.

In summary, the committee concluded that there is enough evidence to establish a causal link between the mRNA vaccines and myocarditis. In addition, the committee also concluded that there is sufficient evidence to accept a causal relationship between the adenoviral vaccines and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) as well as Guillain–Barré Syndrome.

Again, this would mean that further research regarding the link between the mRNA vaccines and myocarditis are not likely to refute these conclusions- well, that will likely depend on how much weight and influence the committee’s conclusions make within a wider context.

I haven’t looked at the document in full and so any interpretation of the document comes from a cursory glance.

The summary of the committee’s evidence is as follows, which appears to include evidence that has been mentioned by other vaccine skeptics already as possible mechanisms of harm:

Note the comments made at the end which also emphasize that certain platforms may favor different adverse events, and likely may be related to differences in vaccine components.

But there are also a few additional things worth considering.

For instance, the committee makes a comment that the limited information regarding the adenoviral vaccines may be tied to their approvals being revoked.

This is something I commented about in which I argued that the revoking of the EUA serves as a double-edged sword. Although this may mean fewer COVID vaccine products available to the public, it also means fewer vaccine products available for research and incentive for investigation into adverse events.

So one has to contest with the fact that the limited data on adenoviral vaccines may be due to the lack of availability of the adenoviral vaccines vaccines, and therefore possible links between these vaccine platforms and adverse events may be missed.

And there’s also something that evokes even further questioning. The committee also looked into shoulder injuries related to the vaccines, but instead of citing the typical pain and soreness the committee examined other injuries.

Here, the conclusions are rather shocking:

Note that both bone and nerve injury are included above, and also clarifies possible injury from direct injection into bone and nerve.

Now, remember that prior discourse regarding vaccine adverse events have included possible injection of vaccines into blood vessels, with circulation of vaccines being a possible reason for some of the harms seen. However, not much talk has come about regarding possible injection into bone and nerves, which themselves may be responsible for a variety of adverse events as well.

Thus, such conclusions by the committee pose even more questions to the extent that it may not be vaccine platform that may explain some adverse events, but that improper injection site may also be responsible for some adverse events. Again, I haven’t reviewed the document so I can’t make any opinion regarding the evidence used to support establishing the causal relationship between vaccination and bone/nerve injury.

Nonetheless, this possible scenario has crossed my mind during the first period of vaccine rollouts. Consider a person whose sole job is to administer vaccines all day, who may also need to operate as a vaccinator for days or weeks on end. Although most vaccines may be intramuscular there may be the off chance that some may be intravenous or may even be administered into the bone or nerves of a vaccinee, and this risk may increase with fatigue and redundancy of tasks. There’s also a question regarding how well some people may be trained as well as other variables.

All to say that it’s quite possible that some of these adverse events may not be related to the vaccine itself but possibly due to iatrogenic-related events, and may be an important variable that has been overlooked.

With the release of this report there’s no doubt more writers will pick apart its content. This serves more as a superficial glance into some of what was investigated, and hopefully more clarity will provide more things worthy of investigation.

---

If you enjoyed this post and other works please consider supporting me through a paid Substack subscription or through my Ko-fi. Any bit helps, and it encourages independent creators and journalists such as myself to provide work outside of the mainstream narrative.

Click on the image above or visit the website at https://ko-fi.com/moderndiscontent