Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[stickdog99]

https://twitter.com/BYounger13/status/1 ... 2785089537

[Harvey]

https://twitter.com/BYounger13/status/1489283982785089537

^

If Pfizer and the FDA do not release the data on their clinical trials, former Blackrock & Hedge Fund Guru Edward Dowd says he is assuming fraud, and Fraud Eviscerates all Contracts, that’s case-law.

"Pfizer got blanket immunity from liability with the EUA, if fraud occurred which to my mind and what I'm seeing from their refusal to release the data, if there is fraud and it comes out, and we need whistleblowers, it's looking more and more apparent that this product is deadly, fraud eviscerates all contracts, that's case law." Edward Dowd.

[alloneword]

^^ Perhaps a careful reading of the trial protocol would give a good idea of the data that was collected (and hence what might not be presented).

[Harvey]

https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/10/as-covid-crumbles-theyre-already-prepping-the-next-pandemic/

Feb 10, 2022

As COVID crumbles they’re already prepping the next “pandemic” The coronavirus may go but, from cancer to AIDS, the mRNA vaccines are here to stay.

Kit Knightly

The Covid19 narrative is broken, that battle is over. Yes, there are still pockets of token resistance, little embattled squares who aren’t ready to give up the ghost just yet, but for the most part the establishment are letting it go.

Country after country after country are “relaxing” their Covid restrictions, abandoning vaccine passport plans and attempting to “get back to normal”.

It seems every week some new “expert” who spent the last two years predicting we’re all gonna die turns up on the news claiming we should “treat Covid like the flu”.

But just because they’re giving slack on Covid does not mean the agenda behind Covid is gone. Far from it.

In fact, even as they seek to dump this pandemic in a shallow grave, they are already prepping the public for the next health scare – AIDs.

In December Joe Biden claimed it was the aim of his administration to “end the HIV/AIDS epidemic by 2030”. A similar campaign, launched in the UK at the same, uses the same exact phrase, word for word.

Then, just last week it was suddenly reported there was a “new variant” of HIV circulating in Europe, this new strain is allegedly “more virulent”, “more transmissable”, and “progresses to AIDS faster”.

At the same time, papers are reporting that for the first time in years heterosexuals are more likely to contract HIV than homosexuals, and they are “more at risk of AIDS” because they’re “diagnosed late”.

On the back of this “news”, a Guardian opinion piece claims we need a “new strategy” for dealing with AIDS.

Following hot on the heels of this fresh wave of fear is a push for everyone to get AIDS tested as soon as possible, from politicians and celebrities and everyone in between.

Prince Harry is leading the charge, in a video that caused the press invoke the spirit of his mother Princess Diana, Harry insisted we all have a “duty” to get HIV tested “to keep other people safe”, comparing it to the COVID outbreak.

“Know your status“, the video says. Which will probably be a hashtag in the near future. (I just checked, and it actually is already.)

They’re really cranking through the gears on this one.

Even while the problem and reaction are still barely out of the research and development stage, they’re already talking about the solution.

Guess what it is?

If you said “another mRNA vaccine”, well done for paying attention

Yes, Moderna has apparently learned so much from making their rushed Covid vaccine which doesn’t work that they’re already making an HIV vaccine they hope will be just as “safe and effective”.

In a truly startling coincidence, Moderna’s HIV vaccine began clinical trials the exact same day the “new variant” of HIV hit the headlines, and the same week as the NHS’s annual “HIV Testing Week”. Funny old world, isn’t it?

Anyway, everyone get ready to line up for the AIDS shot.

Oh, and the cancer one as well.

The covid battle might be slowly winding down, but the mRNA “vaccine” war has potentially only just begun.

[conniption]

^^^^

RT

Nobel-winning scientist who co-discovered HIV virus dies
French scientist Luc Montagnier has passed away aged 89, local officials said


Luc Montagnier © Massimo Di Nonno / Getty Images

10 Feb, 2022

Professor Luc Montagnier, a French scientist whose Paris laboratory discovered the HIV virus in the 1980s, has passed away aged 89. Montagnier earned a joint Nobel Prize in 2008 for his work in identifying HIV.

His death was confirmed to AFP on Thursday by the mayor of Paris suburb Neuilly-sur-Seine where he had been hospitalized. Montagnier died peacefully on Tuesday surrounded by his children, France Soir reported.

The professor earned worldwide acclaim when his lab team at the Pasteur Institute discovered a previously-unknown virus in 1983. French and American scientists then worked on analyzing the virus, which was christened ‘human immunodeficiency virus’, or HIV, in 1986. Montagnier was co-awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2008 alongside virologist Francoise Barré-Sinoussi for identifying the virus.

He was also the co-founder of the World Foundation for AIDS Research and Prevention and co-directed the Program for International Viral Collaboration. In addition, he received more than 20 awards and honorary titles, including being made a Grand Officer in France’s Legion of Honor, the country’s highest military or civilian award.

However, Montagnier was condemned by his fellow scientists in later years for speaking in favor of homeopathic medicine and for promoting fermented papaya as an alleged cure for Parkinson’s Disease. He was also an opponent of vaccines, a stance he maintained throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. Montagnier also said he believed that Covid-19 originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China.

Later controversies aside, following news of his death Montagnier is being remembered as one of the key figures in researching, understanding, and transforming HIV from the death sentence it was in the 1980s to the survivable illness it is today.

https://www.rt.com/news/548964-nobel-wi ... nier-dies/

~~~

Edited to add -

https://www.globalresearch.ca/memorial- ... cs/5770096

A Memorial for Dr. Luc Montagnier and the Coming Revolutions in Optical Biophysics
By Matthew Ehret-Kump
Global Research, February 11, 2022

On February 8, 2022, Nobel Prize winning virologist Dr Luc Montagnier passed away.

Since the earliest moments of COVID-19’s appearance, Montagnier was slandered and ridiculed for his challenges to the underlying assumptions of the disease’s causes and remedies despite the constant slings and arrows of the deep state which sought to shut the door on all such dangerous discussion.

More important than Montagnier’s claims of laboratory origins of a disease (which appears to have more to do with bacteriological than viral causes), are found in an overlooked domain of optical biophysics which the good scientist completely revolutionized during the last 15 years of his fruitful life.

It is this lesser understood, yet infinitely more important aspect of Montagnier’s contribution to human knowledge which have fallen under the radar of too many analysts and citizens, which I believe he would want to be remembered by... continues...

https://www.globalresearch.ca/memorial- ... cs/5770096

[stickdog99]

[Belligerent Savant]

https://twitter.com/SlowNewsDayShow/sta ... pJMtsbLEOQ

[stickdog99]

https://rescue.substack.com/p/the-rise- ... he-fall-of

Unless one sells vaccines for a living, the overall numbers for the covid-19 variant Omicron will seem wildly encouraging.

Take a California study of 53,000 Omicron and 17,000 Delta cases from November 30, 2021, to January 1, 2022. In every way, Omicron patients did far better—a quarter the hospitalizations of Delta, miniscule admissions to ICU, no ventilation whatever, and a death rate of less than one-tenth of one percent.

The study, by researchers at UC-Berkeley and Kaiser Permanente, suggests, as do others, that Omicron may be the death knell of the pandemic. But, buried deep within its piles of data, it also calls into question the utility of the vaccines themselves.

Beyond showing that the vaccines faltered as Omicron overtook Delta in December, the study lays bare what until now was a heretical assertion.

The share of unvaccinated people hospitalized for Omicron infection was a mere 24 percent—43 of 182 hospitalized patients—compared to 69 percent for Delta.

Put the other way around, the vaccinated have morphed into about three-quarters of hospital admissions for the now-dominant Omicron.

These figures belie the rock-solid mainstream narrative that hospitals are filled with the unvaccinated. Clearly, the “pandemic of the unvaccinated”—always open to question—is no more.

“This is a huge change,” said Juan Chamie, a covid data expert who verified my conclusion from the data. “It is clearly contradicting the ‘99-percent unvaccinated in hospital’ narrative.”

Dr. Mobeen Syed, a YouTube medical educator who favors vaccination of high-risk groups, agreed. The public health message on the hospitalized unvaccinated, he said, was “not up-to-date and transparent enough,” relying on data early in the pandemic when fewer were vaccinated and the variant was different.

“They want to scare,” he told me. “They should have the courage to look at the data and say, ‘Hey guys, the risk (with Omicron) is reducing. Become happy, become more comfortable.’”

While the concept of hospitals packed with the unvaccinated has long been deceptive—as it was in a recent Los Angeles Times article—Omicron clearly and decisively has tipped the balance, the California data shows.

But this is happening elsewhere, too.

Alberta, Canada, has seen a sea change in hospitalized patients. Before Omicron, unvaccinated patients averaged 70 percent of hospitalizations. They are now 29.9 percent, according to government figures. Across Canada, 31 percent of hospital admissions from early December to mid-January were among the unvaccinated, an investigation by a British news site called The Expose found. And in Scotland, the share of unvaccinated admitted to hospitals was 22 percent in late December, dropping to 17 percent in mid-January, according to government figures.

Three realities have emerged about Omicron. Vaccines are faltering badly. The unvaccinated—though still at higher risk than the vaccinated—are doing much better. And Omicron illness, in the vast majority of cases, is a mild upper respiratory disease like other common coronaviruses, begging a question: Is a vaccine even needed for most people?



‘A New Epidemic’

On February 1, The Telegraph dubbed Denmark “The land where covid is now no worse than a cold.” That’s when it became the first nation to declare the pandemic over, lifting all restrictions even as Omicron cases still surged.

“This is a new epidemic situation,” wrote the nation’s health minister, Magnus Heunicke, in a letter to Parliament, “in which a high and increasing infection does not to the same extent as previously translate into hospitalizations.”

Consider what covid-19 was just a few months ago compared to what it is now, according to figures from the California study:



In real terms, there was just one death in 52,967 Omicron cases compared to 14 fatalities in the smaller group of 16,982 Delta patients—a rate that is eight times higher. Omicron is “associated with substantially reduced risk of severe clinical endpoints and shorter durations of hospital stay,” the paper concluded.

Dr. Been, as he is known, devoted three recent lectures to what he called the “good news” about Omicron, especially for the young and unvaccinated. “If someone is unvaccinated, I would say, ‘your risk has reduced,’” he told me. “You’re six times less prone to being hospitalized with this.”







In view of this, Dr. Been sees little need for vaccines and boosters for the vast majority under Omicron.

Yes, he says, the unvaccinated still have a statistically greater chance of infection than the vaccinated—but with a virus that imparts essential natural immunity and wreaks far less havoc than previous covid iterations.

“This was for me interesting to see that lower, younger ages, even unvaccinated, are actually at zero (mortality risk),” he told viewers in one lecture. “So I can’t understand why would it be important to go to them and say, ‘Make sure that you are vaccinated.’”

This is especially true in light of how vaccines work, and don’t, against a new-age variant for which they were not designed: Omicron.

Vaccines Unravel

Vaccines are the focus of this article because they are, unfortunately, the single-minded focus of U.S. and first-world covid policy. Any discussion of how the vaccines perform—and don’t—needs a twin disclaimer: Early treatment, with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for example, could have controlled the scourge of covid-19, saving many thousands of lives. As well, a targeted vaccine program, for the old and health-challenged, would have led to fewer people suffering from what the government calls “adverse events” from the vaccine—events that it has done little to seriously investigate.

Since the vaccine rollout a year ago, public health officials have pivoted on their plan to end covid by vaccination. Two shots and a booster later, we are told that the jabs’ highest calling is to spare the infected from hospitalization and serious illness.



But new research is rapidly undermining the vaccine’s rationale. Consider this:

* In Ontario, Canada, vaccine efficacy plummeted within two months of second doses, from 89 percent against Delta to 36 percent against Omicron. Two doses “provided no protection after ≥180 days,” that study of 16,000 Omicron cases found.

* The California study shows vaccines flagging in every way. Under Delta, half of people who tested positive were unvaccinated; under Omicron, they were a quarter. Even double- and triple-jabbed patients did worse when the new variant arrived. Two-dose patients were 39 percent of Delta cases; they rose to 53 percent of Omicron. Three-dose patients were 4.6 percent of Delta and 13.4 percent of Omicron, though these figures should be read with some caution because of the small number and general poor health of the boostered population.

* In the United Kingdom, patients given two doses of Pfizer or Moderna vaccines had about 10 percent protection by twenty weeks; the Astra Zeneca vaccine’s efficacy virtually disappeared. Boosters suffered the same fate, dropping to 45 to 50 percent within ten weeks. “In all periods,” a government report said, “effectiveness was lower for Omicron compared to Delta.”

Even Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla owned up about Omicron on January 10. “Two doses of the vaccine offers very limited protection, if any,” he said, “Three doses with a booster offer reasonable protection.”

Dr. Been is one of millions of Americans urged to get boosted, receiving a text message in California like the one I got in New York. Noting the shots were available for ages twelve and up, the health department told me, “Get yours today!”

I declined. He was still considering it when he got covid. “My body has just proved I can become infected, and I can recover,” he said.

While Dr. Been stresses that boosters are helpful for at-risk people—like those suffering from cancer, HIV, cardiovascular illness, diabetes, and renal disease—he and others see little role for a sustained series.

“Trying to boost our way out of Omicron is the immune equivalent of heroin addiction,” Dr. David Wiseman, a PhD scientist and experimental pharmacology expert, told me. “The idea is that you have less and less benefit for more and more chance of harm.”

“The whole point about the Omicron wave, and why it’s such a good thing, is it’s giving us huge amounts of natural immunity,” Dr. John Campbell, a retired UK nursing educator and YouTube podcaster told his viewers recently. “We can’t keep vaccinating ourselves every few months.”



Bait and Switch

Having tried everything else, the New Jersey Department of Health is now pitching boosters in a way that undermines the previous message that vaccines would keep people out of hospitals.

“A recent survey of NJ hospitals,” its new come-on states, “showed that 93% of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 had not received a booster.” But typical of such claims, the department’s media office declined requests for the data, referring me to a website “dashboard” that offered nothing on the unboosted hospitalized.

Instead, I was bombarded by vaccine messages. People with weakened immune systems may need four doses, I was informed; children five to eleven (seen arm-in-arm and smiling broadly) are eligible for the Pfizer vaccine.

This drumbeat of pro-vax messages aims to drive ever more jabs. A Washington Post opinion piece recently called for an end to mask mandates but remained steadfast on the need to vaccinate. In upholding the government’s nursery-school-to-nursing-home vaccine program, however, the article pointed to statistics with little relevance to the overall population, noting that unvaccinated people sixty-five and up “are 52 times more likely to be hospitalized.”

Indeed, covid has hit the unvaccinated elderly hard. Unvaccinated people eighty years and older died at a rate fifteen times higher, the Alberta data shows, than 80+ people who received boosters. (This data covered the last 120 days so is predominantly Delta-driven.) But covid generally is a Boomer disease, with three-quarters of deaths in people age sixty-five and over.

Why, then, when the United States death toll passed 900,000 on February 4, did President Biden implore, "Get your kids vaccinated.”

Did he know that Omicron poses a very low threat to children, with just five children under eighteen, among 7,856 cases, hospitalized in the California study? Figures like that are routinely called “rare” for vaccine reactions like myocarditis in adolescents.

Did he know that not a single Omicron death has been reported, regardless of vaccination status, in children in Switzerland or Chile, to name just two?

And while pediatric Omicron hospitalizations rose in the UK, a review “found those admitted were not severely unwell.” The Royal College of Paedatrics assured parents that the increase in respiratory infections “was usual for this time of year,” and very few “children and young people…needed intensive care.”

In the United States, by contrast, there is fear generated at every turn, rather than reassurance that Omicron is a good development—all in the service of vaccinating.

Elephant in the Room

Covid-19 deaths in the United State are 63 percent higher than nine other industrialized nations. “In recent months, the United States passed Britain and Belgium to have, among rich nations, the largest share of its population to have died from Covid over the entire pandemic,” according to a New York Times analysis.

If Omicron is such good news—and studies universally agree it is—why is mortality here so stubbornly high?

The answer is beyond the scope of this article but among the theories posited:

* Some deaths are still occurring among patients infected with the more virulent Delta variant.

* High rates of obesity and other conditions, along with poor access to healthcare for many Americans, drives up mortality.

* The inclusion of people who died from covid along with those who incidentally tested positive for it inflates the death toll.

* The almost universal use in American ICUs of the drug remdesivir, which is known to cause kidney and liver damage and has little efficacy, may lead to death by treatment rather than by covid. (That’s perhaps the most stunning theory but one for which I believe there is support.)

The lack of vaccination and boosters for many older, vulnerable people likely plays a role, as the Times article points out. But the vaccine explanation fails to see the bigger picture.

As the US approaches the 1 million mark in deaths, it is clear that the response to this pandemic has been tragically flawed. Public health officials have sown fear and earned distrust. They have failed to treat.

Because the power structure refuses to recognize Omicron for what it is—a way out through natural immunity—those mistakes continue.

[stickdog99]

The COVID-19 S1 protein by itself (you know, the "harmless" protein that mRNA vaccines instruct our cells to manufacture) causes amyloid clotting.

SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 induces fibrin(ogen) resistant to fibrinolysis: implications for microclot formation in COVID-19

TEG ®, Microclot and Platelet Mapping for Guiding Early Management of Severe COVID-19 Coagulopathy

Erythrocyte, Platelet, Serum Ferritin, and P-Selectin Pathophysiology Implicated in Severe Hypercoagulation and Vascular Complications in COVID-19

Covid-19: The Rollercoaster of Fibrin(Ogen), D-Dimer, Von Willebrand Factor, P-Selectin and Their Interactions with Endothelial Cells, Platelets and Erythrocytes

Now, don't get me wrong. COVID-19 outcomes could be even worse that getting micro-clots from mRNA gene therapies. And Delta outcomes were no joke. So you may well have made the right choice when you vaccinated yourself, depending on the likelihood of your contracting COVID-19 and your risk of death or another severe outcome.

But don't you think you went overboard when you encouraged young and healthy people at little risk from COVID-19 to inject themselves with instructions to manufacture a protein that causes micro-clotting?

And don't you think that the lack of severity of Omicron to young and healthy individuals make the continuing efforts to vaccinate and boost them with instructions to manufacture a protein that causes micro-clotting and that effectively no longer even exists in the wild?

[stickdog99]

https://twitter.com/hollandcourtney/sta ... 8829614081

[DrEvil]

Long-term cardiovascular outcomes of COVID-19

Yan Xie, Evan Xu, Benjamin Bowe & Ziyad Al-Aly

Abstract

The cardiovascular complications of acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are well described, but the post-acute cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 have not yet been comprehensively characterized. Here we used national healthcare databases from the US Department of Veterans Affairs to build a cohort of 153,760 individuals with COVID-19, as well as two sets of control cohorts with 5,637,647 (contemporary controls) and 5,859,411 (historical controls) individuals, to estimate risks and 1-year burdens of a set of pre-specified incident cardiovascular outcomes. We show that, beyond the first 30 d after infection, individuals with COVID-19 are at increased risk of incident cardiovascular disease spanning several categories, including cerebrovascular disorders, dysrhythmias, ischemic and non-ischemic heart disease, pericarditis, myocarditis, heart failure and thromboembolic disease. These risks and burdens were evident even among individuals who were not hospitalized during the acute phase of the infection and increased in a graded fashion according to the care setting during the acute phase (non-hospitalized, hospitalized and admitted to intensive care). Our results provide evidence that the risk and 1-year burden of cardiovascular disease in survivors of acute COVID-19 are substantial. Care pathways of those surviving the acute episode of COVID-19 should include attention to cardiovascular health and disease.

Continued at link:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3

[stickdog99]

Long-term cardiovascular outcomes of COVID-19

Yan Xie, Evan Xu, Benjamin Bowe & Ziyad Al-Aly

Abstract

The cardiovascular complications of acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are well described, but the post-acute cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 have not yet been comprehensively characterized. Here we used national healthcare databases from the US Department of Veterans Affairs to build a cohort of 153,760 individuals with COVID-19, as well as two sets of control cohorts with 5,637,647 (contemporary controls) and 5,859,411 (historical controls) individuals, to estimate risks and 1-year burdens of a set of pre-specified incident cardiovascular outcomes. We show that, beyond the first 30 d after infection, individuals with COVID-19 are at increased risk of incident cardiovascular disease spanning several categories, including cerebrovascular disorders, dysrhythmias, ischemic and non-ischemic heart disease, pericarditis, myocarditis, heart failure and thromboembolic disease. These risks and burdens were evident even among individuals who were not hospitalized during the acute phase of the infection and increased in a graded fashion according to the care setting during the acute phase (non-hospitalized, hospitalized and admitted to intensive care). Our results provide evidence that the risk and 1-year burden of cardiovascular disease in survivors of acute COVID-19 are substantial. Care pathways of those surviving the acute episode of COVID-19 should include attention to cardiovascular health and disease.

Continued at link:



https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3

Heart Problems After Covid Are Much Worse for the Vaccinated, Nature Study Shows – But It’s Hidden in the Appendix

[alwyn]

friend of mine, black male, just got his first moderna shot, ended up in the hospital vomiting blood. They actually admitted it was a vaccine reaction but said he was in the 1%

[stickdog99]

friend of mine, black male, just got his first moderna shot, ended up in the hospital vomiting blood. They actually admitted it was a vaccine reaction but said he was in the 1%

"It would have been far worse had he not gotten vaccinated."

[stickdog99]

https://thefederalist.com/2022/02/10/fo ... rt-health/

Former Senior FDA Official: Manufacturers, FDA Negligent In Not Investigating Covid-19 Vaccine Risks To Heart Health

Manufacturers, FDA, and CDC must investigate serious cardiovascular incidents related to the Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines.

From day ,one the U.S. Food and Drug Administration knew the Covid-19 vaccine was linked to serious heart trouble in recipients. The FDA medical officer review of Pfizer’s original Covid-19 application notes “clinically important serious adverse reactions [included] anaphylaxis and myocarditis/pericarditis”—that is, severe allergic reactions and inflammation of the heart and or the sac containing the heart, respectively. As of this writing, FDA has not released its review of the Moderna “Spikevax” mRNA vaccine application despite having granted emergency use authorization well more than a year ago and full approval late last month.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), jointly run by FDA and the Centers for Disease Control, lists a long and impersonal number of cardiovascular-related events in young, healthy people. Without reading the underlying narratives submitted with the reports, it’s hard to establish the precise causal links regarding these adverse events. Still, there are thousands of reports of heart attacks, myocarditis, and pericarditis in the United States alone, which should have spurred manufacturers and the FDA into full investigation mode.

Studies acknowledged by FDA officials show that the FDA’s various safety databases only collect an estimated 1 to 13 percent of all adverse events that occur. Multiple FDA drug safety epidemiologists have stated during official FDA presentation that it only takes a single well-documented adverse event to justify a safety signal investigation and in turn to warn the American public of the potential risk.

Historically, the FDA has sought safety warnings on labels, up to and including a “black boxed warning” and a prescribing restriction known as a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for much less. For instance, in 2008, after fewer than 200 spontaneous VAERS reports of tendon rupture following administration of the class of antibiotics known as fluoroquinolones, FDA added a “black box warning” and REMS prescribing restrictions.

Yet thousands of serious, debilitating, and deadly safety VAERS reports following Covid vaccines and boosters are not being held to the same regulatory standards. If approximately 1 to 13 percent of adverse events are reported, extrapolating those numbers means the actual number of adverse health events could easily be in the hundreds of thousands in the United States and many millions worldwide.

In addition to VAERS, the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink indicates an excess risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in recipients following the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. The cardiovascular risk after any mRNA vaccine is high, but with Moderna it’s approximately four times higher than Pfizer’s.

Other public health agencies with much tinier budgets and staff compared to our FDA’s took action on this months ago. In October, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden suspended the use of the Moderna vaccine for young people, but it’s still full speed ahead here in the United States.

Since then, more data has been released affirming the same: On Jan. 25, 2022, a CDC and FDA study published in JAMA shows the risk of myocarditis following any kind of mRNA Covid vaccination is greater than the background risk in the population, with the largest proportions of cases of myocarditis occurring among white males.

A comprehensive study out of Britain from December 2021 examined data from more than 42 million people who have taken a Covid-19 shot found a noteworthy increase in myocarditis with mRNA vaccines that persisted and increased with every dose and booster. “An association between Covid-19 infection and myocarditis was observed in all ages for both sexes,” the study’s abstract states. “These findings have important implications for public health and vaccination policy.” Indeed they do—especially in light of the questionable way the FDA approved vaccines in kids from 5 to 13 years old, and the pending FDA applications to approve vaccination in babies starting at 6 months old.

The FDA, CDC, and manufacturers have access to VAERS and additional high-quality denominator-based vaccine safety systems including the Biologics Effectiveness and Safety Initiative (BEST) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), respectively. Have manufacturers and our health agencies used these tools and others to fully investigate the cardiovascular health risks of the vaccine? There is reason to doubt, given the political pressure the Biden administration has put on the agencies to advocate for taking the vaccine while almost never mentioning safety.

Myocarditis and pericarditis have historically been rare. They are defined as inflammation of the heart muscle or layers of the pericardial sac, respectively. Both conditions cause easily recognizable ECG changes and have ambiguous symptoms that include shortness of breath and chest pain. Myocarditis and pericarditis can easily be diagnosed clinically with echocardiograms and can be treated by inexpensive pharmacology and bedrest, but for that to happen, people need to know to seek medical diagnosis and care.

Therein is the problem: providers and patients are not being adequately warned to monitor for cardiovascular symptoms despite the increased incidence. Since there is a failure of manufacturers and the FDA to address this and other untoward effects of mRNA utility and mandates, outside drug safety experts need to publicly address mRNA Covid vaccine safety immediately.

On February 4, 2022, a CDC advisory committee proposed extending the gap between Covid-19 shots to mitigate the cardiovascular damage of the vaccine. This indicates the federal government is aware of the serious risk. Yet rather than addressing the risk head-on by communicating the facts to the public, they seem to be taking a “half measure” of changing the interval and hoping to mitigate risk without evidence it will have any effect on outcome.

In the very recent past, anyone warning about the exact same cardiovascular risk that this advisory panel spoke about less than a week ago were shamed and banned on social media by “big tech” “fact checkers.”

Vaccines are one of the most important inventions in human history, having saved millions of lives. That does not mean every person should get every vaccine. Also, like every drug out there, it is critically important to quickly detect and report safety problems. Now we have a federally mandated vaccine that is clearly no longer effective, and potentially causing additional illness and death.

The failure to adequately monitor and warn for Covid vaccine adverse events has served to harden not only Covid vaccine hesitancy but has shredded the credibility of public health authorities. The failure to openly talk about known adverse reactions erodes trust.

In the 1950s physicians used to not tell patients when they had terminal cancer because they thought it was for their own good. We are long past the day when hiding information from the public is considered good for public health. It never is. It is not only unethical and insulting, it’s dangerous.