I don't think you can overstate how bad this is, so I'll just put a couple of snippets here and you can follow the link for the whole deal; Steve certainly deserves to get both the credit and reads for it:
In a study (not yet published) of 177 people in Puerto Rico (97% of whom were vaccinated), cardiac injury was objectively measured in 70% of the people measured (ages 8 to 84).
Oh, that's not good. Want worse? Here's a highly medically supervised group of people, which makes this sort of news much worse:
In the US military, they did a thorough investigation of a large number of soldiers and found markers of cardiac injury in 68% of our soldiers. This was kept under wraps, but I am friends with the doctor who did the study.
That is nasty because the correlation in injury rate is very high. If there was no common denominator or, in the alternative, one or both of the studies was trash, with two studies where each was performed by different and unrelated researchers you'd expect materially-different outcomes but that's not what you got in two distinct sets of people who had reasonably-similar jab rates.
If you recall my "base case" rate for you're ****ed was (and remains) 3%. I defined "****ed": Seriously disabled or dead. I am not yet persuaded that this is not a reasonable expectation but it is, at this point, appearing to be a lower boundary rather than a midpoint. That's not so good.
When the first indications of myocarditis showed up (which were in the original trials) I pointed out that the obvious study to run was to take a thousand people who were interested in getting jabbed (thus no harm potential analysis was required from an ethics board since they're self-selected as intending to take it anyway), pull troponin and d-Dimer tests (both cheap off a blood draw) before they were jabbed and then pull that again a week and two weeks post-event. If you find statistical elevation you know damn well something very bad is going on. This would have cost well under a million dollars to do which in the realm of the tens of billions thrown around was chump change and could have trivially been completed and published by the spring of 2021, well before most of the population was involved. Further, if no signal was present then you'd have a very solid statistical basis in telling people to calm down about their fears, at least with respect to cardiac compromise.
Lots of people can take some objective cardiac damage and not do the Fauci Flop. A huge percentage of people are sedentary and the majority of the remainder are only modestly or moderately active. The percentage of 50+ year old Americans who get off their ass and put their heart rate intentionally into Zone 4 or 5 on a regular basis is almost-certainly in the single-digit percentages and it is there where you are most-likely to provoke trouble, as we know happens every year when some people who had no clue they had cardiac trouble try to shovel the driveway and thud right there. That happens every year.
But two of those groups above are very highly medically supervised. The military is one of them, at least at the time of induction and, if there's reason to have concern, right now. That's obvious; you want a fighting force that can, well, actually fight; you're supposed to die by being shot or blown up in the military, not by heart attack while attempting to get into position to shoot the "bad guys." The latter can get your entire company killed so there's a strong incentive to monitor for those sorts of problems.
The other is professional and, to a somewhat-lesser extent, college-age athletes. The former is a simple money thing; that person is a large investment and the last thing you want is for them to fall over dead on the field of play, which incidentally happens to be where millions of people will see it. The latter is a reputational risk if not a monetary one.
The odds of you making it onto an NFL team with any ECG abnormality approach zero. ECGs are not particularly sensitive to minor damage but anything significant is likely to show up there, and if it does, well, no contract for you. The same is true for any other professional sports league; individual sports (e.g. golf or tennis) not so much because there you have no league and thus no team that has the reputational hit before them as a risk.
These are objectively nasty numbers and reality is that cardiac damage does not heal; you're stuck with it. How limiting that winds up being is an open question but what is not an open question at this point is that this is wildly beyond -- by an order of magnitude or more -- the risk of death from the disease itself even in highly-compromised individuals and is two orders of magnitude or more beyond the risk of someone healthy and under 50 dying from an actual viral infection. I remind you that in the case of infection you take the risk once and we now know that provides quite-durable and solid, but not perfect, immunity. We never had reason to believe it would be otherwise either because every other respiratory viral infection leads to the same quite-durable and solid, but not perfect, immunity. Those who wished to argue otherwise had the burden of proof and didn't even bother trying to make said case; they just yelled at you.
Are these (unpublished thus far) studies conclusive? No, they're not.
I can't vouch for the quality of this work since I can't see the actual studies and data myself. Without that all I have is an entry on a Substack.
But in no sane world would such a finding not be immediately released and a hard stop be called on whatever might be causing it until and unless it can be conclusively ruled out. The problem is that the studies were not done before widespread use among the world's population occurred (which was ridiculously STUPID and in violation of every drug-testing protocol) so now if you publish these immediately upon detection you're admitting you screwed twenty percent, a third or even half of the population who took them.
Think about the implications and it ought to be obvious why they're not at all interested in immediate publication of any of this study work.
"May you live in interesting times."