Special Report,Dainik India News ,New Delhi, May 22, 2025 — Claims that were once labeled as “conspiracy theories” during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic are now resurfacing in light of official validation. On May 21, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a formal report acknowledging that mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna may be associated with increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis—two inflammatory conditions affecting the heart. These risks are notably higher among young adult males, particularly those aged between 16 and 24.
The report cites post-marketing surveillance data and peer-reviewed studies from sources such as the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and independent cardiovascular research. While the FDA maintains that the benefits of vaccination continue to outweigh the risks, it admits that these adverse events are “plausibly related” to the vaccines and that public awareness and informed consent are essential.
Back in 2020, during the initial phases of vaccine development, a few alternative medicine proponents and independent medical experts had voiced concerns over potential long-term side effects. Among them was Dr. Tarun Kothari, who publicly questioned the safety and necessity of both vaccines and prolonged mask usage, referring to COVID-19 as a “planned pandemic” or “plandemic” aimed at global psychological control.
Similarly, Dr. Biswaroop Roy Chowdhury, known for promoting natural immunity and holistic treatments, consistently warned against mass vaccination and advocated for traditional Indian medicine systems like Ayurveda. Acharya Manish also launched awareness campaigns against what he described as “blind trust in experimental mRNA technology.”
At the time, these voices were widely condemned as unscientific or even dangerous by mainstream medical institutions and social media platforms. Several of them faced censorship, loss of medical affiliations, and defamation.
The FDA’s recent admission lends a degree of legitimacy to these previously marginalized concerns. Although the agency emphasizes that most myocarditis and pericarditis cases are mild and resolve on their own, its acknowledgment is seen by many as a potential turning point in public health policy. Notably, a 2022 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine had already reported an elevated incidence rate of post-vaccine myocarditis in young males—particularly after receiving the second dose of mRNA vaccines.
This development raises fundamental questions about the management of scientific dissent during public health emergencies. As official agencies begin to accept certain vaccine-related risks, many experts now argue that independent scientific debate and multidisciplinary reviews should be institutionalized. Suppressing dissent in the name of consensus, they say, may undermine public trust and delay the recognition of critical scientific insights.
