New Study: Myocarditis Still Present in 80% of Cases at 6 Months
More evidence that vaxxx-induced heart inflammation is not as "mild" and "temporary" as officials claim...
Since the rollout of the COVID gene therapies, cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have risen markedly, especially in young folks - a group in which this ailment is normally quite rare.
A key strategy of the subsequent whitewash has focused on the claim that most of these myocarditis and pericarditis cases are “mild” and “temporary.”
When “Safe & Effective!™” Becomes “Mild & Temporary!™”
Some countries are acknowledging the cardiovascular dangers of the new gene therapies. Japan, for example, requires a label on these drugs warning of the increased myocarditis risk.
In much of the West, however, the focus remains on downplaying and concealing the very real cardiovascular dangers presented by these drugs.
The US CDC - that hopelessly corrupt, industry-funded, vaccine company masquerading as a public health agency - claims post-vaxxx cases of myocarditis and pericarditis "have rarely been reported."
"Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis," they continue, "who received care responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly ... Patients can usually return to their normal daily activities after their symptoms improve."
A clue that these serious conditions are not so benign is provided when the CDC drops in the following Cover Your A** statement: "Those who have been diagnosed with myocarditis should consult with their cardiologist (heart doctor) about return to exercise or sports."
You bet they should, because sudden death has skyrocketed among otherwise healthy, fit, young athletes ever since the vaxxx rollout, and it sure as heck isn't due to a post-vaxxx increase in global temperatures or severe physiological reactions to referee's whistles or [insert other patently ridiculous rationalization here].
Associated Press, meanwhile, claims “Myocarditis, inflammation of the heart muscle, is a mild, temporary condition in the vast majority of cases, according to experts.”
Ah yes, the ‘experts’ - that global consortium of compliant mouthpieces that have fed us a steady stream of utter nonsense over the last 3 years. “Two weeks to flatten the curve,” they told us, shortly after the WHO declared a “global emergency” that lasted almost three-and-a-half years. They got it wrong (or deliberately lied) about lockdowns, masks, social distancing and the safety and efficacy of the new gene therapies.
Sorry folks, but it’s well past time to stop blindly trusting experts. Especially ones that profit from the sham.
The Reality
Post-vaxxx cardiovascular damage is not as rare as authorities are pretending. In January 2022, JAMA published a paper by Oster et al, who wrote:
“Based on passive surveillance reporting in the US, the risk of myocarditis after receiving mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines was increased across multiple age and sex strata and was highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males and young men. This risk should be considered in the context of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination.”
It should be noted that the passive surveillance systems of countries like the US, UK and Australia are voluntary and greatly under-utilized, and therefore greatly under-report the true incidence of adverse vaccine reactions.
Judging by the results of a new study, this damage is also nowhere near as temporary as authorities are claiming.
In a recent Science Immunology paper, Barmada et al report on 23 young patients hospitalized for vaccine-associated myocarditis and/or pericarditis. The subjects were predominately male (87 percent) with an average age of 16.9 years (ranging from 13 to 21 years). Patients were generally healthy before vaccination and "had largely noncontributory past medical histories" (i.e. there was nothing to suggest any preexisting propensity for cardiac problems). Most of the patients had symptom onset 1 to 4 days after the second dose of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer) mRNA vaccine.
Six patients either first experienced symptoms after a delay of more than seven days after vaccination or were incidentally positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR testing upon hospital admission—these six patients were thus excluded from further analyses. Excluding the first group was a little odd, the second exclusion was understandable because the researchers were trying to separate the effects of vaxxxination and alleged Sars-Cov-2 infection.
The remaining cohort of 17 patients showed no evidence of recent prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Patients were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and some also received steroids and intravenous immunoglobulin. Patients were discharged home with improving symptoms and clinical laboratory findings after 1 to 6 days.
All good then, right?
No.
The researchers then write: “Although patients showed rapid resolution of clinical symptoms with improved laboratory findings, most of them maintained some imaging abnormalities.”
Below is a figure from the study showing the number of patients who had recovered at an average 199 days (191-201 days):
After more than 6 months of follow-up, only 20% of cases were considered “resolved.” The other 80% were still showing abnormalities, with 20% having experienced no improvement.
As Dr Peter McCollough notes, “This paper raises questions: 1) is there ongoing heart damage and inflammation at six months? 2) does the LGE in 80% represent a permanent “scar” putting these children at risk for future cardiac arrest? These data strongly call for large scale research into this emerging problem given the large number of potential young persons at risk.”
This is a large-scale experiment in progress, the intentions of which were always malicious. I have to seriously wonder at the mental competency of parents who would allow their children to be subjected to a dangerous and potentially deadly treatment that offers no tangible health benefit whatsoever.
The Mandatory “I Ain’t Your Mama, So Think For Yourself and Take Responsibility for Your Own Actions” Disclaimer: All content is provided for information and education purposes only. Individuals wishing to make changes to their dietary, lifestyle, exercise or medication regimens should do so in conjunction with a competent, knowledgeable and empathetic medical professional. Anyone who chooses to apply the information on this substack does so of their own volition and their own risk. The owner/ and contributors to this substack accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm, real or imagined, from the use or dissemination of information contained on this site. If these conditions are not agreeable to the reader, he/she is advised to leave this substack immediately.