Vaccine myocarditis is not trivial, mild, or "rare." In young men, it's a far greater risk than Covid hospitalization and death.

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."

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.

Not this again.

Masks and social distancing should be mandated or encouraged in public to protect people from possible "long COVID", according to a new report commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services.

A new study published in Diabetologia (the journal of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes [EASD]) finds that outdoor artificial light at night (LAN) is associated with impaired blood glucose control and an increased risk of diabetes, with more than 9 million cases of the disease in Chinese adults being attributed to LAN exposure. The study is by Dr Yu Xu and colleagues at the Shanghai Institute of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.

People are buzzing about the new documentary "Died Suddenly." I had a chance to listen to it on my commute yesterday. It made me angry. Here's why.

There is some great information in this movie. Information that could — potentially — open people's eyes and minds. In particular, the interviews with the embalmers and morticians are incredible. The long, white fibrous material they have been finding in dead people's arteries and veins after the vaccine rollout is truly horrifying. It isn't new, but it's presented all in one place in a highly compelling way, especially the scene where you see it being removed from a dead body during an embalming session. The movie would have been far more effective if it had just focused on that (and dug deeper to show what they're made of, etc.). But unfortunately it tainted that and other good information (such as presented by Dr. Ryan Cole, Steve Kirsch and Dr. James Thorp) by covering it with a lot of garbage. Here are five examples of the garbage that stuck out and that I remember. There may be more:1

1. The coverage of the DMED data (the military's medical database). Mathew Crawford looked into the DMED data and discovered that the original whistleblowers had made a simple mistake in comparing 2021 with previous years: what they essentially did is to count every office visit instead of every diagnosis. So if you were newly diagnosed with, say, myocarditis, every visit you had with the military health system (more or less) was added up and compared to how many individuals had been diagnosed with myocarditis in previous years. (The details are a bit more nuanced, but that captures the basic gist of the error.)

This means that, although there WAS a sizeable increase in many different health diagnoses, it was not nearly as large as those whistleblowers thought and that Thomas Renz brought to people's attention with his testimony at the 'Second Opinion' hearing by Sen. Ron Johnson, which appears in the movie.

The weirdest thing about this is that none of the people involved in bringing the DMED scandal to light have shown the slightest interest in correcting their mistakes, and so these falsehoods continue to be repeated and now amplified by Stew Peters.

Remember, Peters is the guy who brought us the now totally discredited film that tried to make the case that COVID was deadly because it had similarities to snake venom and was spread through tainted water. I no longer trust anything this guy says or does. He and his team are either terrible at vetting reliable information or they are engaged in a deliberate campaign to discredit the health freedom movement. And it is truly a shame in this case because there is much valuable, true information in the film that is now tainted by being mixed together with so much false information.

Background:

The COVID-19 period highlights a huge problem that has been developing for decades, the control of science by industry. In the 1950s, the tobacco industry set the example, which the pharmaceutical industry followed. Since then, the latter has been regularly condemned for illegal marketing, misrepresentation of experimental results, dissimulation of information about the dangers of drugs, and considered as criminal. Therefore, this study was conducted to show that knowledge is powerfully manipulated by harmful corporations, whose goals are: 1/financial; 2/to suppress our ability to make choices to acquire global control of public health.

Methods:

Pharmaceutical industry techniques for manipulating science and COVID-19 reporting were reviewed. Several sources of official documents were used: PubMed; National Institutes of Health resources; pharmaceutical companies; policy documents; national newspapers and news agencies; and books by prominent professionals (scientific and legal). A few studies have not been published in peer-reviewed journals; however, they have been conducted by reputable scientists in their respective fields.

Results:

Since the beginning of COVID-19, we can list the following methods of information manipulation which have been used: falsified clinical trials and inaccessible data; fake or conflict-of-interest studies; concealment of vaccines' short-term side effects and total lack of knowledge of the long-term effects of COVID-19 vaccination; doubtful composition of vaccines; inadequate testing methods; governments and international organizations under conflicts of interest; bribed physicians; the denigration of renowned scientists; the banning of all alternative effective treatments; unscientific and liberticidal social methods; government use of behavior modification and social engineering techniques to impose confinements, masks, and vaccine acceptance; scientific censorship by the media.

Conclusion:

By supporting and selecting only the one side of science information while suppressing alternative viewpoints, and with obvious conflicts of interest revealed by this study, governments and the media constantly disinform the public. Consequently, the unscientifically validated vaccination laws, originating from industry-controlled medical science, led to the adoption of social measures for the supposed protection of the public but which became serious threats to the health and freedoms of the population.

The majority of Americans dying from Covid are vaccinated according to a new study, prompting a leading health policy nonprofit to concede that "we can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated."

According to an analysis conducted for The Washington Post by Cynthia Cox, vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, 58 percent of August 2022 Covid deaths were people who were vaccinated or boosted.

The underreported story of the entire pandemic is excess deaths — not from Covid, but from other health conditions which were so brutally pushed to one side. There have been huge rises in the number of people dying from causes unrelated to the virus, accelerating throughout the year and showing no signs of slowing down.

To begin with, it was driven by diabetes, cardiac issues and a handful of other concerns — but recently the number of people dying from cancer is starting to increase considerably above what is expected. Will this continue? Nobody can say for sure, but I suspect it will for many years to come.

When I outlined the scale of the cancer crisis previously on Twitter, various voices took great pleasure in pointing out that cancer deaths weren't rising — I don't hear from them anymore. Indeed, many of the more vocal lockdown commentators are actively drawing attention to the problem now.

Cancer is slow, but it's relentless. An undiagnosed tumour won't cause severe complications in days or weeks. But if it's left untreated for a year or two then the odds of survival drop precipitously. I fear that those lockdown delays are now starting to bite.

Ivermectin has been hailed as a "wonder drug" and, according to the UNESCO World Science Report, a critical component of "one of the most triumphant public health campaigns ever waged in the developing world."

However, since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and affiliated health authorities have vociferously recommended against ivermectin as a potential treatment for the virus.

Though the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved ivermectin for human use in treating conditions caused by parasites, it has also insisted that ivermectin "has not been shown to be safe or effective" when it comes to treating COVID-19.

An Israeli study found that antibody levels after a fourth dose of the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine returned to similar levels as after the 3rd dose after about four months.

The study, conducted among health care workers at the Sheba Medical Center, the largest hospital in Israel, found that the immunological protection of the 4th dose "was much smaller and had waned completely by 13 weeks after vaccination."

It found "no substantial additional effectiveness over a third dose at 15 to 26 weeks after vaccination."

A recent study found a higher incidence of myocarditis or pericarditis in patients following COVID-19 vaccination, which was greater following the second dose compared with the first dose; however, the study noted that the risk for these conditions is significantly lower than the health risks seen in patients with COVID-19, highlighting the need for a risk-benefit analysis in certain patients. The increased incidence of pericarditis or myocarditis was noted mainly in those who received BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines and no increased risks were found in other types of COVID-19 vaccines.


"Compared to those who did not receive COVID-19 vaccine, those who received either the first or second dose had a significantly increased risk of myocarditis or pericarditis," the study authors wrote. "In addition, those who received the second dose of COVID-19 vaccine had a higher risk of myocarditis/pericarditis compared with those who received only the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine."