[ransomnote]

Out of curiosity, I decided to look into a different approach entirely that I’m interested in hearing others’ feedback on.
What if it’s not a pre-existing condition? What if it is normal growth from puberty?

I did a cursory Google search on papers regarding body growth (specifically heart growth) during puberty, and the results were interesting. Certain organs grow at different rates, some grow at a constant rate, others grow in an accelerated spurt and then slow down again. Muscle growth in boys is faster than with girls, while body fat grows faster in girls than in boys.

I’m wondering if what we’re seeing in these cases with boys is not a pre-existing heart condition, but rather, early growth of the heart muscle during puberty relative to the growth of the rest of the body, such that it appears to be a heart condition when it is really not.

I have no medical background so I can only ask the questions. Others will have to provide the answers in a straight-forward way. But, could this explain why we’re seeing clusters of heart reactions in boys but not girls? Could the idea of a growing heart due to pubescent hormonal changes explain why boys’ hearts appear to be more susceptible to reactions from the vaccine rather than labeling it as a pre-existing heart condition in so many young boys?

-PJ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the US, the CDC has used VAERS to track adverse events following vaccination. For some reason, the ‘normal growth from puberty’ you propose has never occurred in these numbers following vaccination for any other vaccine.

[Political Junkie Too]

What I'm asking is if it's possible that when people say the boy had a pre-existing condition of an enlarged heart, it was actually a normal growing heart that was in the midst of a pubescent growth spurt and not a pre-existing condition at all?

-PJ