The study was under Biden. The warning requirement is under RFK Jr. I maintain my point.

To be crystal clear - the finding under Biden was that there are non-negligible risks of myocarditis after receiving the vaccine.

This exact fact was downplayed by both Pfizer and Moderna during Operation Warp Speed (oh no, that was under Trump so can we trust it?).

A genuine desire to understand reality would lead you to examine this incongruence.

"the vaccine" ... which vaccine?

None the less:

  Long-term follow-up data from a new NCIRS study have revealed low hospitalisation rates, improved health-related quality of life over time and no deaths among individuals with myocarditis associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccination who were followed up over 18 months following their diagnosis. 

  ‘This is the longest and most comprehensive prospective follow-up study of individuals diagnosed with myocarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination to date that includes direct assessment of the individuals’ clinical progression and health-related quality of life.’

  ‘Our study suggests that while a proportion of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis cases remained symptomatic at 12–18 months, they were clinically mild compared with myocarditis caused by viral infections – including SARS-CoV-2 – and the subsequent impact on health-related quality of life was also mild,’ concluded Dr Deng.

~ https://ncirs.org.au/ncirs-study-assesses-clinical-progressi...

From Australia, a country of ~ 25 million where ~ 98% of the population were triple vaccinated for COVID with pre-existing comprehensive population wide medical records going back to at least the 1970s.

Despite the "flood" of vaccine there was no significant increase of myocarditis in the population before | after mass vaccination.

A genuine desire to understand reality would lead you to examine this incongruence.

I think maybe you've missed my point. I'm not sure if you read my initial question (flagged into hidden now), but I was trying to discuss blind faith in big pharma.

You can link to your initial question if you wish (one of the other green accounts?)

I don't have blind faith in big pharma, I don't know anyone who does.

I do trust the epidemiologists I've personally met and worked with, I do see the many separate and independent studies across multiple countries that all conclude mRNA myocardial risk is real but minor, not deadly if addressed, and associated with one class of mRNA vaccine (not all), and conclude that vaccine risk is less than no vaccine risk.

Given Australia ceased using the specific mRNA vaccine that demonstrated a correlation with a very slight increase in hospitalization is moot in any case.

Unlikely. Nobody has blind faith in big pharma so what’s the point in trying to discuss it?