Is it though?
No one is arguing it couldn't happen and perhaps the kid was killed by myocarditis or some other ailment, my whole point is that it's irresponsible
reporting (of you want to call it that) to presume it was
that or that the vaccine caused it - before the autopsy. I get it though, you glom on to any sliver of negative press, even if it's presumptuous and unverified. If you wait for the autopsy and it's not myocarditis, then the opportunity to slam the vaccines is lost. It's a pretty transparent strategy...
Anything to keep the narrative alive. ANYTHING.
It really lends to your credibility. When you take a circumstance like this and add it to your suppositional rants in the "big lie" thread - you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel of wanting to be taken seriously.