That just indicates there is an increased chance of myocarditis, based on article publication. It does not provide reference to the increased likely hood of myocarditis post covid-19 infection and does not provide reference to underlying conditions, such as previous exposure to Covid-19.
Myocarditis is a serious adverse event that disproportionately affects men under 40, with highest risk among men aged 12–24 who receive a second dose of a COVID‐19 mRNA vaccine … An important safety signal may have been ignored or minimised by failure to stratify appropriately.”
Based on the fact that few if any healthy young males (with zero comorbidities) died of COVID, it is indefensible to use emergency use authorization to justify giving the vaccine to young healthy males given their safety profile.
I looked at this study very briefly, but again, there is no risk vs. benefit analysis, and the study points out the rarity of vaccine related myocarditis, even amongst young males, and its significant association with only one vaccine.
Read the next paragraph. Myocarditis is rare, the risk even after the Moderna second dose is very low, and the authors say the risk should be balanced against the vaccine benefits. Also, delaying the second dose reduces the risk. This doesn't lead to the conclusion that it's politics over science.
This article doesn't support your statement that the vaccine causes more harm than good for young males. It states that vaccinated young males have a greater risk of myocarditis than the overall population. It makes no comparison of harm versus good.
1/
Further, the risk of myocarditis can be reduced significantly, if not virtually eliminated, simply by slightly delaying the administration of the second dose of the vaccine.
2/2
Comments
1/
2/2