COVID-19
The Tragic Story Of A 14-Year-Old Vaccine Myocarditis Victim — One Of Umpteen Males Misinformed By Health Authorities
Posted with permission from the author, this was originally published in Noble Truths with Rav Arora
Vaccine myocarditis is not trivial, mild, or “rare.” In young men, it’s a far greater risk than Covid hospitalization and death.
Read Part 1 and Part 2 of my investigative vaccine myocarditis series.
On May 12th of last year, school teacher Emily Jo took her 14-year-old son Aiden to get his first Pfizer vaccine dose. The public health authorities and her son’s pediatrician unanimously recommended vaccination, prompting her decision. She knew that mRNA shots caused some number of adverse events, like all vaccines, but was re-assured by the CDC and White House’s public recommendation.
“The talk amongst the mainstream medical community was that vaccine myocarditis was mild and that this was very rare,” she told me.
At that time, despite alarming heart inflammation reports from Israel, the CDC publicly claimed to have found no signal of myocarditis after “intentionally” investigating over 200 million administered doses.
Moreover, Emily Jo was never warned of the myocarditis risk or informed about the risk-benefit profile.
“When I took Aiden to get his vaccines at the drive-through vaccination site, there was no warning about myocarditis. We were not counseled about any side effects to be aware of,” she said.
In the name of public safety, scientific innovation, and personal health, Emily Jo sent out a celebratory tweet proclaiming she and her family are “so thankful” their teenage son was able to get vaccinated.
However, her pride and relief turned out to be tragically short-lived. Two days after her son’s second vaccine dose (which he got a month after his first), he ended up in the hospital after experiencing intense chest pain. He was moved to a room on the acute cardiac floor where he was found to have elevated troponin levels (a key sign of heart damage) and an abnormal electrocardiogram. Every doctor Emily Jo spoke to at the pediatric hospital Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta confirmed her son had vaccine-induced myocarditis.
Given her son’s dire condition, Emily worried Aidan might die or suffer from a catastrophic injury. Thankfully, after four distressful days at the hospital, Aidan troponin levels returned to baseline and he was discharged. However, this didn’t mean he could return to his normal life. Aidan was unable to do physical activity for six months. Sports, hikes, and other forms of exercise were deemed too dangerous for his heart — a typical consequence of myocardial injuries.
“I had no idea how life altering ‘mild’ myocarditis actually is. I have a very hard time with the label ‘mild’ for anything that requires hospitalization and months of inactivity,” Emily Jo said.
The most serious concern with Aidan’s vaccine injury isn’t the harrowing experience itself, but the frequency at which it occurs. Virtually any substance or medication will produce a diverse range of reactions across the human population. As Sam Harris has correctly noted, if you administer peanuts to everyone, there will be some number of fatalities and cases of anaphylaxis.
The rare incidence of life-threatening anomalies doesn’t mean that peanuts produce a net harm or should be banned altogether. Tragic interactions with any kind of externality are often exaggerated and exploited to justify irrational ideological agendas. For example, Minneapolis officer Derek Chauvin’s treatment of George Floyd paved the way for radical “Abolish the Police” initiatives.
In the case of COVID-19 vaccines causing myocarditis, we aren’t dealing with trivial ratios of one in a million or even one in ten thousand. Among the most robust data we have—according to Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg (Florida Health department) and Dr. Marty Makary (Johns Hopkins University)—is from Dr. Katie Sharff (who had her young son vaccinated) and colleagues, who analyzed a wide database from Kaiser Permanente.
Dr. Vinay Prasad on the Kaiser Permanente study
Going beyond other study methods, Sharff found a number of vaccine myocarditis cases that weren’t explicitly labelled as such or were outside the parameters of the CDC’s vaccine safety search. After performing an exhaustive search of the Kaiser medical records, Sharff and colleagues found a 1 in 1,862 rate of myocarditis after the second dose in young men ages 18 to 24. For boys ages 12 to 17, the rate was 1 in 2,650. Countries with active surveillance monitoring of medical data (which suffer from far less under-reporting than the passive system in the U.S)—such as Hong Kong—show virtually identical figures. The risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis remains elevated for men up to the age of 40.
11:26 PM ∙ Jul 19, 2022
One need not be an anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist to recognize these figures are alarmingly high.
Historically, vaccines with adverse event profiles far lower — but still deemed far too high — than the mRNA myocarditis signal have been withdrawn. The 1976 swine flu vaccine was pulled back because of a 1 in 100,000 risk of Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
An approximate 1 in 3,000 risk of vaccine myocarditis in young males would only be favorable in a cost-benefit analysis wherein the risk of disease would be considerably serious.
The pre-vaccine Covid infection fatality rate for people under 30 was 0.003%.
The vaccine myocarditis risk after dose two (0.03%) is ten times higher than the fatality rate.
Today, since the vast majority of young Americans have been previously infected with Covid once or twice, the calculus has shifted. Putting aside the question of whether it makes sense for unvaccinated people to get the primary series targeting outdated variants, the myocarditis risk (in young males) from even one dose eclipses that of hospitalizations from re-infection. Josh Stevenson — a data analyst who has co-authored multiple peer-reviewed studies on vaccine myocarditis — has designed the following bar graph comparing risks:
Using Covid hospitalization statistics instead of deaths is a more accurate comparison since Covid deaths are virtually nonexistent in healthy, young populations. Still, the differences are massive. For example, the risk of myocarditis from dose one in males ages 18-24 is 15 times higher than hospitalization from Covid re-infection. For dose two, the risk differential is a stunning 61 times greater.
Unless a young male is immunocompromised, obese, or suffering from other serious health conditions, taking any mRNA Covid vaccines carries far more risk than benefit. The best data indicate this is a fact — though this is hardly considered in mainstream media.
***
Cases such as Aidan’s have prompted many honest voices in the public health community to reflect on the CDC’s top-down vaccine recommendations. Dr. Anish Koka—a renowned cardiologist with his own clinic in Philadelphia—believes medical experts should have been “more careful about recommending this to low-risk patients from the very outset.”
Koka Cardiology
As he explained to me over email, “Clinical myocarditis is never mild—a recent paper of 12–29-year-olds found 25% of myocarditis patients end up in the ICU, and 1 patient needed ECMO (a modified heart lung machine) to stay alive.”
“The long term impacts of the persistent scars that are apparent in follow-up on cardiac MRI are also unknown,” he added.
Koka believes it was “apparent by April (of 2021) there was a real safety signal,” and he questions why public health authorities “didn’t make decisions starting then to at least inform the public about this potential side effect at that point. ”
Instead of mitigating risks by further spacing vaccine doses, recommending Pfizer over Moderna, and being honest about near-zero risks of severe outcomes in younger, healthy groups, Big Pharma in collusion with the government recklessly opted for universal decrees.
Looking back on the CDC and Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) possible negligence and recklessness, Khoka stated the harm perpetrated was “unconscionable.”
More and more medical professionals are now speaking out on the strong likelihood that vaccine-induced myocarditis seems to occur at a rate that far exceeds deaths and hospitalizations in healthy, naturally immunized men under 40. Johns Hopkins public health professor Marty Makary recently wrote in a tweet:
“Last y[ea]r, the NEJM described a 22-yr-old that died from vax-induced myocarditis & I’ve heard of many more cases. I have never heard of a young healthy person with nat[ural] immunity dying from Covid. Our gov’t doctors have not been honest about the risks:benefit in young healthy people.”
2:00 PM ∙ Sep 27, 2022
I had been frankly hesitant to make such a statement since it isn’t scientifically rigorous, but since this topic is becoming less taboo, I will say it now: I have heard (without deliberately seeking) of several vaccine myocarditis cases in healthy, young people but have heard of zero hospitalizations and deaths.
This observation is in line with real-world statistics. According to UK databefore Omicron—when the virus was deadlier—the COVID-19 death rate was just over 0.001 percent in unvaccinated 30-year-olds. For unvaccinated people in their 20s, the risk was more like 0.0001 percent. Hospitalization figures (from, not with COVID-19) are similarly infinitesimally low. Compare that with a vaccine myocarditis risk of 0.03 percent in young men.
It makes little coherent sense why young males were not only permitted and recommended to get the mRNA vaccine series, but mandated by the state (as I wrote at length here). This injustice is even more egregious now that we know vaccines confer little to no long-term protection against infection.
Aidan’s mother recently came across a new scientific paper showing dismal vaccine efficacy in adolescents and tweeted the following:
Thinking about the fact that Aidan got myocarditis for 30.6% transient efficacy is pretty infuriating…This Pfizer vaccine was initially sold as 95% effective. Big change.
Fast-forward to today, Aidan is far from his physical condition before getting double-vaccinated. After advising him against even going on for a walk for the first four months post-vaccination — and eventually allowing a return to exercise after six months — Aidan’s cardiologist has cleared him for all physical activity. However, “he tires more easily and has lower endurance,” Emily says.
“He used to be able to run around and play for hours….now it’s like 20-30 minutes and he gets exhausted,” she added.
More than a year later, Aidan is still recovering from a vaccine that had little to provide him in the first place. Though some have shamed Emily for getting her son vaccinated, she is hardly to blame for trusting in taxpayer-funded health agencies whose sole function is to keep the public healthy and safe.
In light of the FDA and CDC’s outrageous push to vaccinate everyone with the new “bivalent” booster—despite explicitly “unknown” myocarditis risks—hopefully more people will wake up and re-evaluate their blind faith in institutions who have far abandoned their ostensible mission of keeping us safe and healthy.
Rav Arora is a 21-year-old, independent journalist formerly writing for top publications such as The Globe and Mail and New York Post before critically covering vaccines and state mandates. Please consider supporting his fearless journalism, focusing on tragic stories of vaccine myocarditis, by becoming a paid subscriber. Read his in-depth vaccine myocarditis series here.
Consider becoming a paid subscriber to help fund future vaccine injury investigations:
Thank you for reading Noble Truths with Rav Arora. This post is public so feel free to share it.
Business
Trudeau gov’t threatens to punish tech companies that fail to censor ‘disinformation’
From LifeSiteNews
A report from the House of Commons Heritage Committee claimed that ‘some individuals and groups create disinformation to promote political ideologies including extremist views and conspiracy theories or simply to make money.’
A report from a Canadian federal committee said MPs should enact laws to penalize social media and tech companies that don’t take action to quell so-called “undesirable or questionable” content on the internet.
MPs from the ruling Liberal, New Democratic Party (NDP), and separatists Bloc Québécois party on the House of Commons Heritage Committee summarized their opinions in a report.
“The Government of Canada notes some individuals and groups create disinformation to promote political ideologies including extremist views and conspiracy theories or simply to make money,” reads the report titled Tech Giants’ Intimidation and Subversion Tactics to Evade Regulation in Canada and Globally.
“Disinformation creates ‘doubt and confusion’ and can be particularly harmful when it involves health information,” it continues.
The report notes how such “disinformation” can cause “financial harms as well as political polarization and distrust in key institutions,” adding, “The prevalence of disinformation can be difficult to determine.”
As noted in Blacklock’s Reporter, the report claims that many of Canada’s “major societal harms” have come from “unregulated social media platforms relying on algorithms to amplify content, among them disinformation and conspiracy theories.”
Of note is the committee failed to define what “disinformation” or “conspiracy theories” meant.
Most of the MPs on the committee made the recommendation that Google, Facebook, and other social media platforms, which ironically have at one point or another clamped down on free speech themselves, “put mechanisms in place to detect undesirable or questionable content that may be the product of disinformation or foreign interference and that these platforms be required to promptly identify such content and report it to users.”
“Failure to do so should result in penalties,” the report stated.
As it stands, the federal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has plowed ahead to push laws impacting free speech online.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, Canadian legal group The Democracy Fund (TDF) warned that the Liberal government’s Bill C-63 seeks to further clamp down on online speech and will “weaponize” the nation’s courts to favor the ruling federal party and do nothing but create an atmosphere of “fear.”
Bill C-63 was introduced by Liberal Justice Minister Arif Virani in the House of Commons in February and was immediately blasted by constitutional experts as troublesome.
Jordan Peterson, one of Canada’s most prominent psychologists, recently accused the bill of attempting to create a pathway to allow for “Orwellian Thought Crime” to become the norm in the nation.
Conservative MPs fight back: ‘A government bureaucracy should not regulate content’
Conservative MPs fought back the Heritage Committee’s majority findings and in a Dissenting Report said the committee did not understand what the role of the internet is in society, which is that it should be free from regulation.
“The main report failed to adequately explore the state of censorship in Canada and the role played by tech giants and the current federal government,” the Conservatives wrote in their dissenting report, adding, “Canadians are increasingly being censored by the government and tech giants as to what they can see, hear and say online.”
The Conservative MPs noted that when it comes to the internet, it is “boundless,” and that “Anyone who wants to have a presence on the internet can have one.”
“A government bureaucracy should not regulate which content should be prioritized and which should be demoted,” it noted, adding, “There is space for all.”
LifeSiteNews reported how the Conservative Party has warned that Trudeau’s Bill C-63 is so flawed that it will never be able to be enforced or become known before the next election.
The law calls for the creation of a Digital Safety Commission, a digital safety ombudsperson, and the Digital Safety Office, all tasked with policing internet content.
The bill’s “hate speech” section is accompanied by broad definitions, severe penalties, and dubious tactics, including levying pre-emptive judgments against people if they are feared to be likely to commit an act of “hate” in the future.
Details of the new legislation also show the bill could lead to more people jailed for life for “hate crimes” or fined $50,000 and jailed for posts that the government defines as “hate speech” based on gender, race, or other categories.
COVID-19
Blue Cross Blue Shield forced to pay $12 million to Catholic worker fired for refusing COVID shots
From LifeSiteNews
A jury ruled that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan committed religious discrimination against 30-year IT specialist and Catholic Lisa Domski when it denied her a religious accommodation from the company’s COVID shot mandate.
A former IT specialist for Blue Cross Blue Shield has been awarded $12 million in damages and lost wages for her lawsuit over being fired for refusing the COVID-19 shot, in a major victory for religious liberty.
Newsweek reports that the insurance company fired 30-year employee Lisa Domski in 2021 after she sought a religious exemption to their jab mandate and was turned down. The insurer reportedly questioned the sincerity of her religious objections as a Catholic, but denied religious discrimination in the trial.
Domski further maintained that the rationale behind mandating the shot didn’t apply in her case, as 75% of her work was remote before the pandemic and had shifted to fully remote during it, meaning she could not possibly have endangered others even if the shot did prevent transmission, which has since been admitted to not be the case.
“Our forefathers fought and died for the freedom for each American to practice his or her own religion,” declared her attorney Jon Marko. “Neither the government nor a corporation has a right to force an individual to choose between his or her career and conscience. Lisa refused to renounce her faith and beliefs and was wrongfully terminated from the only job she had ever known. The jury’s verdict today tells [Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan] that religious discrimination has no place in America and affirms each person’s right to religious freedom.”
In response, the company said it was “disappointed” in the jury verdict and would be “reviewing its legal options and will determine its path forward in the coming days.”
Many religious and pro-life Americans like Lisa Domski have a moral objection to using medical products whose existence is owed in some way to abortion.
According to a detailed overview by the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute, Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson all used aborted fetal cells during their vaccines’ testing phase; and Johnson & Johnson also used the cells during the design and development and production phases. The American Association for the Advancement of Science’s journal Science has admitted the same, and even the left-wing fact-checking outlet Snopes acknowledges the statement “that such cell lines were used in the development of COVID-19 vaccines is accurate.”
Moral qualms are just one of the reasons for the ongoing controversy, next to a large body of evidence identifying significant risks to the COVID shots, which were developed and reviewed in a fraction of the time vaccines usually take under the first Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed initiative.
The federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports 38,068 deaths, 218,646 hospitalizations, 22,002 heart attacks, and 28,706 myocarditis and pericarditis cases as of October 25, among other ailments. U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) researchers have recognized a “high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination,” leading to the conclusion that “under-reporting is more likely” than over-reporting.
An analysis of 99 million people across eight countries published February in the journal Vaccine “observed significantly higher risks of myocarditis following the first, second and third doses” of mRNA-based COVID shots, as well as signs of increased risk of “pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis,” and other “potential safety signals that require further investigation.” In April, the CDC was forced to release by court order 780,000 previously undisclosed reports of serious adverse reactions, and a study out of Japan found “statistically significant increases” in cancer deaths after third doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 jabs and offered several theories for a causal link.
All eyes are currently on former President Donald Trump, who last week won his campaign to return to the White House and whose team has given mixed signals as to the prospects of reconsidering the shots for which he has long taken credit. At the very least, Trump has consistently opposed mandating them and is expected to fill more federal judicial vacancies with jurists favorably inclined to the rights of employees in similar lawsuits.
Meanwhile, some hope that legal action can succeed in bringing accountability on the issue by legally targeting the companies for misrepresentation rather than their products directly. In Florida, an ongoing grand jury investigation into the shots’ manufacturers is slated to release a highly anticipated report on the injections, and a lawsuit by the state of Kansas has been filed accusing Pfizer of fraud for calling the shots “safe and effective.”
-
National2 days ago
Liberals, NDP admit closed-door meetings took place in attempt to delay Canada’s next election
-
Digital Currency2 days ago
Conservatives urge Canadians to reject mandatory digital IDs proposed by Liberal gov’t
-
COVID-192 days ago
Blue Cross Blue Shield forced to pay $12 million to Catholic worker fired for refusing COVID shots
-
Canadian Energy Centre1 day ago
Ignoring the global picture and making Canadians poorer: Energy and economic leaders on Ottawa’s oil and gas emissions cap
-
Energy1 day ago
Federal government’s ’carbon-free’ electricity target far-fetched
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
President Of Country Hosting UN Climate Summit Defends Fossil Fuels, Slams Media And Green ‘Hypocrisy’
-
Disaster1 day ago
FEMA skipping homes in disaster areas lures calls for federal probe
-
espionage1 day ago
Breaking: Hogue Commission Will Hear From New Safety-Protected Witnesses On PRC Targeting of Chinese Candidates