[flagged]
The shots were quite effective at curbing spread by lowering the time people shed the virus, and also substantially lowering mortality among infected.
If that's ineffective I think... You had the wrong expectations?
I'd really appreciate sources for your extraordinary claims.
it was said to "stop the spread" and "prevent infection", both it did not live up to.
there are many, here's one study from Basel:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978
discussed by someone that discusses these things more often here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd_RTf_ForA
A meta analysis about the vaccines' safety record with around ~99 million subjects over different analysed studies: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X2...
The conclusion from the article you shared also says the resulting myocarditis doesn't seem to be alarming:
> mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated myocardial injury was more common than previously thought, being mild and transient
More common than previously thought doesn't equate to your claim of "myocarditis through the roof".
As much as I liked to watch Dr. John Campbell in the beginning of the pandemic I verge on trusting more meta analysis covering dozens to hundreds of studies than a single person reviewing a few studies. If a slight increase in transient myocarditis gives me a huge boost in immune response against COVID I will take the transient myocarditis 100% of the time (which I had as a side-effect of the vaccine, got no complications from that after being assessed).
"No definitive case of myocarditis was found. However, the two participants (both women) with vaccine-associated myocardialinjury and chest pain met the Brighton Collaboration case defini-tion Level 2, indicating probable myocarditis in those patients (0.3%[95% CI 0.1–0.9%])"
So 2 of the participants had a .3% possibility?
Every result reported in the paper follows that same pattern: "[N] participants had [result] ([% of participants], [95% confidence interval])".
And note that your own link said that the .3% of participants were those that could possibly show signs of myocarditis, they didn't actually contract that disease. So what does your paper show that is damning evidence to you?