[ExI] etymology of just a piece of paper

Tue Aug 18 18:32:15 UTC 2026

From: John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, 18 August, 2026 11:17 AM
To: spike at rainier66.com
Cc: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>; Kelly Anderson <postmowoods at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: etymology of just a piece of paper

On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 11:10 AM <spike at rainier66.com <mailto:spike at rainier66.com> > wrote:

>there was a known elevated risk of myocarditis and endocarditis in young people who took the vaccine

>…The misinformation never ends! 

ME: Somebody told me that before the Covid vaccine was approved for wide scale use there was already a known elevated risk of myocarditis and endocarditis in young people who took the vaccine. Is that true?

John you inserted the word “already.”  If you wish to use Grok as an arbiter of truth, just copy/paste exactly what I wrote.  

With the past tense “was” I mean at the time Dr. Fauci received the memo from Janet Woodcock, which was well after they started giving the vaccine to young people, they had already observed adverse effects, and had noticed at the time what plenty of us heard: the first injection didn’t do anything bad.  The second one did.

Well OK then.  Just take the first one and let it go.  Perhaps the dosage is wrong.  Or take the first one, wait six months, then take the second one.  Or split the dose into smaller and more frequent doses.  That approach makes the most sense from the theory of immune system response to mRNA: cut the dose into twelve and take them monthly.  If the patient still experiences problems, cut the dose into 52 portions and take them weekly.  

If you wish to let Grok chew on that one, go ahead.  But do be careful with quotes.

spike

GROK: "No. The elevated risk of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in young people—particularly adolescent and young adult males, most often after the second dose—was not known before the vaccines received emergency use authorization (EUA) for wide-scale use. It emerged as a post-authorization safety signal after millions of doses had already been administered.

Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) received FDA EUA on December 11, 2020 (initially for ages ≥16), and Moderna (mRNA-1273) on December 18, 2020 (for ages ≥18). Clinical trial data supporting these authorizations did not identify myocarditis or pericarditis as safety concerns. The trials were large but still underpowered for very rare events, and no associated cases were reported in the pre-EUA clinical development for Moderna; similar findings held for Pfizer in the main adult trials.

Reports of higher-than-expected myocarditis/pericarditis cases first appeared in early 2021 after widespread rollout:

*	Initial signals came from Israel (around February–April 2021, with investigation of cases in Pfizer recipients noted by April), the U.S. Department of Defense (military members), and other surveillance systems.
*	Broader recognition and investigation accelerated in May–June 2021 as more data accumulated from VAERS, other countries, and active surveillance. The CDC’s ACIP and FDA reviewed evidence showing a likely association, concentrated in younger males shortly after dose 2.
*	FDA updated EUA fact sheets with warnings about myocarditis and pericarditis in late June 2021 (around June 24–25). CDC/ACIP affirmed that benefits still outweighed risks in recommended populations while emphasizing awareness and monitoring.

This timeline aligns with how rare adverse events are typically detected: clinical trials catch common or moderately rare issues, but very rare ones (on the order of tens of cases per million doses in the highest-risk subgroups) often require large-scale post-authorization monitoring. Subsequent observational studies confirmed an elevated risk relative to background rates, highest in males roughly 12–29 years old (especially after dose 2 of mRNA vaccines), usually mild/resolving with supportive care in most cases, though still a genuine and labeled risk.

Note that “endocarditis” (infection/inflammation of the heart valves/lining) is distinct and was not the primary signal; the documented association is with myocarditis and pericarditis. COVID-19 infection itself carries a substantially higher risk of myocarditis than vaccination in comparative data.

In short, the claim that an elevated risk was already known before approval/EUA for wide-scale use is not supported by the regulatory and scientific record. The signal was identified and acted upon after rollout, leading to label updates and ongoing surveillance".

John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260818/2fa07656/attachment.htm>