Yesterday, Florida’s Surgeon General issued a new guidance regarding mRNA vaccines: he said that young men between the ages of 18 and 39 should not be given such vaccines for covid:

This analysis found that there is an 84% increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males 18-39 years old within 28 days following mRNA vaccination. With a high level of global immunity to COVID-19, the benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in this age group. Non-mRNA vaccines were not found to have these increased risks.

As such, the State Surgeon General recommends against males aged 18 to 39 from receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

An 84% increase in cardiac-related death is stunning, although in this age group the numbers would be low. As I understand it, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are mRNA, while the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines are not.

The analysis on which this guidance was based is here. Its conclusion:

In this statewide study of vaccinated Florida residents aged 18 years or older, COVID-vaccination was not associated with an elevated risk for all-cause mortality. COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a modestly increased risk for cardiac-related mortality 28 days following vaccination. Results from the stratified analysis for cardiac-related death following vaccination suggests mRNA vaccination may be driving the increased risk in males, especially among males aged 18 – 39. Risk for both all-cause and cardiac-related deaths was substantially higher 28 days following COVID-19 infection. The risk associated with mRNA vaccination should be weighed against the risk associated with COVID-19 infection.

Given the tiny risk that covid poses to young men, it seems reasonable for young men to avoid covid vaccines altogether, pending further information.

I don’t know whether the findings of the Florida study will hold up, or how the debate over the risks and benefits of various types of vaccines will ultimately be resolved (assuming it is resolved at all). But what should be blindingly obvious is that it was outrageous for the Centers for Disease Control, the federal government generally, and the government’s social media minions to try to suppress discussion of the need for, efficacy of, and risks associated with, covid vaccines. The idea that the public health establishment knew all there was to know about covid vaccines in a flash of revelation, and that any dissenting opinion or any pointing to contrary data constituted “misinformation,” is an affront to the scientific method. This is also a valuable reminder of why free speech is so important.

By pretending to omniscience and suppressing all dissent, while constantly revising the party line, our country’s public health establishment has forfeited the confidence of Americans. The current issue of Thinking Minnesota, now in the mail, includes poll data on the public’s trust in various institutions. Our poll, conducted by Meeting Street Research, finds that confidence in a broad range of institutions has plummeted.

Among the worst is the public health establishment: only 36% of Minnesotans express “a great deal” or “quite a bit of confidence,” while 62% express either “not much confidence” or “no confidence at all” in our public health establishment. This finding is a well-deserved repudiation of what we have seen from Dr. Fauci and his colleagues over the last two and a half years.

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...