OP title: "American Heart Association Journal: 98% of young people with heart damage took the clotshots"

I'm sympathetic, but that's not what the AHA article cited in the healthimpactnews says. At all.

Please pause think and comment thoughtfully before you share this kind of study.

Otherwise, it only discredits any criticism of the shot.

I gave this a quick read and need to go back, but this is what I saw.

This study looked at a sample of 140 events (some confirmed, most suspected) from 139 young people only after they reported heart episodes. It does not offer any clue about what percentage of all people who took the shot got heart problems.

It is not peer-reviewed and two of the authors are Pfizer consultants.

1. The authors demonstrate that reported cases need to be taken seriously. Over 75% of people examined had an irregular heart image using cMRI.

2. The authors indicate that heart problems in young people after the shot are real.

3. The authors are desperate, maybe because they have to say it to have any hope of being published, to say all the problems are temporary and there is nothing to see here. They say that with basic treatment, symptoms like chest pain go away. I see no convincing data that this kind of heart damage magically heals itself, especially in the long-term.

4. What I find interesting is that a lot of studies, even when they reveal serious problems with the shots, almost always have to include some kind a line that says "get the shot!" or "nothing to see here!"

Be especially careful with AHA publications. I keep seeing "bombshell" headlines pointing to conference abstracts. That probably just means researchers found something interesting, and they want feedback before they submit it for peer-review in a journal.

Also, don't be impressed by a long list of authors in the sciences. You have to go the university site if applicable to get a sense of who was listed just for prestige or to help students get a publication, and who actually did the work.