In Brief
- The Facts:
- A new advertisement by New York Presbyterian Hospital, in collaboration with Weill Cornell Medicine and Columbia University, suggests myocarditis in children is always simple to treat.
- Multiple doctors, including cardiologists, have expressed their concerns with this, suggesting this is normalizing the condition.
- Several countries halted their COVID-19 vaccination recommendations for children over the concern that the inoculations could pose more of a threat to their health than a COVID-19 infection.
- Reflect On:
- Has there been a balanced inquiry in exploring injuries from COVID-19 vs vaccine induced injuries?
- Has a proper cost/benefit analysis been done with regards to vaccines in all ages?
- Why is discussion of vaccine injuries censored while mainstream media paints a black and white, one size fits all picture for vaccine policy?
With the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, the risk of vaccine induced myocarditis in children and young adults quickly became a topic of discussion around the world. Because of these concerns, multiple countries like Finland, France, Germany Sweden, Norway, and Thailand halted or altered their vaccination programs for the younger cohorts.
In many countries COVID-19 vaccines are not recommended for children due to the fact that, for them, COVID-19 may pose less of a health risk than the inoculations themselves. Some children have died as a result of these inoculations, and serious injuries have been recorded not only within vaccine injury surveillance databases, but also from the clinical trials themselves.
Amongst these facts are ad campaigns talking about myocarditis in children. Here is an ad below released by New York Presbyterian Hospital in collaboration with Weill Cornell Medicine and Columbia University.
This began to turn the heads of some doctors out there. Dr. Vinay Prasad, hematologist-oncologist and Professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California San Francisco, posted the following.
“Recently, I came across this shocking ad playing in New York outlets. It is a television ad for myocarditis in a child. She does well after developing it. Watch it. My first question is: Why is this a young girl? It should be a man between the ages of 16-26, the highest risk demographic. My second question is: Why are we normalizing myocarditis? I have never seen a TV ad for this condition before, and now there’s one. Why are we trying to normalize something that we can easily reduce?”
Dr. Vinay Prasad, hematologist-oncologist and Professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California San Francisco.
A number of top cardiologists — such as Dr. Aseem Malhotra, Dr. John Mandrola, Dr. Amy Kontorovich, and Dr. Venk Murthy — have publicly spoken out against minimization of vaccine-induced myocarditis. They feel the message being portrayed by Big Media and government is suggesting myocarditis is not a big deal, and not something to be considered so serious.
According to Dr. Kontorovich, professor of Medicine and Cardiology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai,
“[M]any of those affected are young people who were previously healthy and are now on three or more heart medications and potentially out of work due to symptoms, even if their heart function is ‘back to normal.’”
University of Michigan cardiologist Dr.Venk Murthy has also noted,
“People with myocarditis are usually counseled to limit activity, placed on 1 or more meds and are at lifetime increased risk of cardiac complications. This can have profound consequences.” “[They] are typically told to limit activity for several months, sometimes longer. This means no sports. Some kids are told not to carry books to school.”
According to cardiologist Aseem Malhotra,
“Although vaccine-induced myocarditis is not often fatal in young adults, MRI scans reveal that, of the ones admitted to hospital, approximately 80% have some degree of myocardial damage. It is like suffering a small heart attack and sustaining some – likely permanent – heart muscle injury. It is uncertain how this will play out in the longer-term, including if, and to what degree, it will increase the risk of poor quality of life or potentially more serious heart rhythm disturbances in the future.”
Malhotra has also pointed out at the fear some research have of publishing this type of data, given the fact that they may lose their funding.
An analysis of relative myocarditis risk by Oxford researchers who published a paper in Nature Medicine on December 14th. The authors find higher rates of vaccine-induced myocarditis than myocarditis from infection in males ages 16 – 39 across multiple vaccine doses: Pfizer dose 2 & 3 and Moderna dose 1 & 2.
With regards to this paper, Prasad brings up the point that, if the researchers used more accurate seroprevalence data for viral infection (which would increase the denominator) and analyzed the risk in younger males ages 16-24 specifically (the highest risk group), the risk-benefit ratio would swing further against the administration of the aforementioned vaccine doses in this population.
A study from Israel found that males aged 16 to 29 faced the greatest risk, with around 11 in 100,000 males developing post-vaccination myocarditis. A pre-print study last year comparing risks of infection versus vaccination found that boys aged 12 to 15 were four to six times more likely to develop myocarditis from the vaccine than become hospitalized with any Covid-related condition
Incidence of myocarditis rocketed from spring 2021 when vaccines were rolled out to the younger cohorts having remained within normal levels for the full year prior, despite COVID-19 with the most up-to-date evidence. The paper from Israel found that the infection itself, prior to roll-out of the vaccine, conferred no increase in the risks of either myocarditis or pericarditis from COVID-19.
The Latest Paper
In the video below, Prasad explores and breaks down a new paper published in The Lancet that asked the question, how are kids and young adults doing 90 days after vaccine induced myocarditis?
Safety Signals Ignored
Researchers in Israel found that many serious side effects from COVID-19 vaccines were in fact long-term, including ones not listed by Pfizer, and established a causal relationship with the vaccine. Yet, instead of publishing the findings to the public, the Ministry of Health withheld the findings for nearly two months. When it finally released in an official document, it misrepresented and manipulated the findings, minimized the extent of reports, and stated that no new adverse events (“signals”) were found. It further stated that the events that were detected were not caused by the vaccine, even though the researchers themselves said the exact opposite.
Epidemiologist Tracy Beth Høeg, M.D., Ph.D and researcher Marty Makary, M.D., M.P.H. have published a paper that includes anonymous testimonies from CDC officials about the lack of science taking place at the CDC when it comes to COVID-19. Many scientists are frustrated and embarrassed by the lack of science to support recommendations being made by the CDC.
One high-level CDC official—whose expertise is in the evaluation of clinical data—joked: “You can inject them with it or squirt it in their face, and you’ll get the same benefit” with regards to COVID-19 vaccines and children.
The things is, it’s been hard for proper research and information that opposes government narratives to be properly heard. The extent to which government and social media “fact checkers” have gone to censor and smear information, especially quite early on in the pandemic, is almost unbelievable.
Early on in the pandemic Jonas F. Ludvigsson, a paediatrician at Örebro University Hospital and professor of clinical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute, published research showing that out of nearly 2 million school children, zero died from COVID despite no lockdowns, school closings or mask mandates during the first wave of the pandemic. After he published his research he was bombarded with an onslaught of intimidating comments. As a result Ludvigsson quit his research which led the Swedish government to strengthen their laws on academic freedom.
There are now many examples of self censorship. How many doctors and scientists felt one way about COVID, but when they spoke about it and shared their thoughts gave the opposite answer in fear of being stigmatized?
Key Takeaways
The fact of the matter is, governments are no longer capable of portraying an honest and transparent perspective with a balanced look at current events. Political and corporate agendas plague our societal systems. In this case, politics within federal health regulatory agencies and the stranglehold corporate ‘health’ has on politics is clear.
How can we continue to rely on these agencies to provide accurate information and provide recommendations with so much corruption and influence from rogue interests? The truth is, it seems this has been happening since agencies like the FDA and CDC were established.
They are rooted in and thriving off of this type of behaviour primarily because our systems of commerce incentivize this behaviour. Without addressing the core of these issues, can we expect it to be any different? Radical changes in our systems need to occur.