CDC and its captured physician researchers trick the public into believing myocarditis is more common after the disease than the vaccine

Eight of the authors are CDC employees.  One author is Grace Lee, the chairperson of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), whose committee is asked to approve the rollout of all vaccines.  I guess she gets research money in return.  Other ACIP members also coauthor similar bogus research articles in CDC's self-published, non peer-reviewed rag, the MMWR.  Here is the study:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7114e1.htm#contribAff

Remember, CDC has a database of every vaccination administered in the US, so there is no need for CDC to get these numbers so wrong.

But by choosing the wrong databases to study, and asking the wrong questions, CDC was able to get the answers it sought.

There are so many things wrong with this so-called study.  The first is that among the 15 million plus people captured by electronic health records, the numbers do not add up:

"The study population consisted of 15,215,178 persons aged ≥5 years, including 814,524 in the infection cohort; 2,548,334 in the first dose cohort; 2,483,597 in the second dose cohort; 1,681,169 in the unspecified dose cohort; and 6,713,100 in the any dose cohort"

Reading that I don't know how many people were vaccinated, but it seems at least 6.7 million out of a total 15.2 million.  Yet:

"EHR data in this study captured ≥1 dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for 28% of persons aged ≥5 years. Nationally, 82% of persons aged ≥5 years were reported to have received any COVID-19 vaccination."

So CDC says only 28% of people  aged 5 and up, captured in their data, were vaccinated.  But the numbers suggest it was at least 44% (6.7 over 15.2).  But whether it is 28% or 44% or some other number, if in fact 82% of Americans over 5 received some vaccine, assuming the 15.2 million are representative of the general population, then somewhere between a half and two thirds of the vaccinations given were not recorded in the electronic health records being used.  

Since the early vaccinations were mostly administered at pop up sites, often in stadiums, it makes sense that they were not recorded in most patients' electronic medical records. 

Knowing that, why would CDC use electronic health records that failed to capture most vaccinations for a study about the role of vaccination vs illness wrt myocarditis?

CDC knew that a large chunk of subjects being labelled unvaccinated were in fact vaccinated.  

Why would CDC waste time and money to do a study in which possibly/probably most of the subjects had their vaccination status misclassified?

Because CDC is like Alice in Wonderland:  Sentence first, verdict later.  It has so many different databases running.  It probably tries out lots of ways to investigate an issue, then decides to publish the method that provides the answer CDC wants.

There are plenty more problems with this "study" but I think this is enough.  You get the idea.  No sane or honest person would ever use this database to study vaxxed versus unvaxxed.  But a whole lot of people, sponsored by our premier public health agency, just did.  

For the express purpose of fraudulently jamming this vaccine into preschoolers.  Maybe this week.