But it's a completely reasonable assumption to make until there is data to say otherwise.

Why should there be a presumption in favor of that hypothesis though?

It's not like it's some sort of special kind 'vaccine'-induced myocarditis where the cells in your heart are only mostly dead. They're dead. They're never coming back. And the effects of having parts of your heart being DEAD are likely to be the same, regardless of why parts of your heart DIED.

I think there is a huge difference between the risk for someone who has a myriad of health and heart problems, including myocraditis, and someone who only has that. Now, if all these people had heart problems following, like some people who suffered after taking the vaccine have, it would be a different matter. It does not seem to be like that.

You made a bad call on this so-called vaccine

What was my bad call?

You can turn it around at any point by just saying, "oh hey, maybe we should have given these jabs a little bit more scrutiny before mandating that everyone on the planet be injected with them?"

How is that a 'turn'? I've always opposed mandates.