(Note to learners both current and future: About 25 minutes of reading time and 45 minutes of viewing time. By the end you will understand the myocarditis issue as well as we mortals can currently understand it. Make yourself a cup of tea first.)
It was lunchtime on an oddly sunny day in Sydney (we’ve had weeks of non-stop rain) and I was on my way back to the office in Australia Square (the northern, “business centre” of the city) when I young man that I used to work with some 3 years ago saw me and came over to say hello. John is about 25, a very capable, smart young man with drive and manners. He’ll go a long way. He also plays football (soccer) as an amateur but very competitively. We did the usual pleasantries; he was with somebody and had to go back to her, so we couldn’t talk for long, but I decided I wasn’t going to let him go without asking him about the jab and whether he had taken it. In fact, I never do it, but with John I made an exception because I was pretty sure I knew the answer. He said that he had and that he would take the booster, especially if “there was a bit of pressure” and if he needed it to travel.
He asked me if I had taken it, I said no. He asked if any of my family had taken it, I said no. He looked at me a bit strangely and asked why? I just told him straight. They are dangerous and you shouldn’t put that junk into your body anymore. If there is a price to pay, then pay it. He smiled awkwardly.
I told him that if he was interested in knowing more, I’d gladly spend the time to explain things to him. We parted.
I think the odds of him calling me for a longer chat is about 5%. So, I decided to send him an email anyway:
Hi Mate
I’m glad you saw me and came over to say hello…was good to see you.
Did you ever watch The Truman Show? One of my all-time favourite quotes from towards the end of that movie was:
"We accept the reality of the world with which we're presented. It's as simple as that."
I want to show you a bit of a different reality from that with which you have been presented and being an athlete, this will be of interest.
Athlete collapses/deaths following vaccination (substack.com)
This list is from late December for all of 2021 (first full year of injections).
I hope you come and talk to me at some point, and I can explain why it’s happening.
U
He just doesn’t know; he has been brainwashed and nobody is going to tell him. He will keep letting them coerce him into a jab and, god forbid, all that spike protein might catch up to him one day. You can only run through a minefield so many times until you step on one. Let’s see if he comes back to me.
Which brings me to the subject of this article.
I’ve had many thought threads floating around for some time about myocarditis so I’m going to try to stitch many of them together in this piece.
I’ve been watching more of Bret and Heather’s Dark Horse Podcast recently and episode 116 was mostly about myocarditis (definitely worth watching). They also do a Q&A session for each podcast and during Q&A 116 their audience sent in three myocarditis related questions that Bret (mainly) answered. So, I’ve cut out the 3 myocarditis Q&As (about 12 mins total) and that is the clip at the top of this article (I really like Substack’s new video post feature).
I was very frustrated with Bret early on; he was asleep at the wheel about the fascist nature of what was happening, and he argued for WAY TOO LONG about the possibility of “eliminating Covid”…really Bret? But I have long since forgiven him because he had the courage to bring on Malone and Kirsch in June 2021 and I’m pretty sure that was their first major public appearance. Each of them have snowballed that appearance into magnificent resistance work and much larger audiences. That podcast was pivotal for me, it helped me understand the basic, and faulty, mechanism of action of the jabs and led to me writing the letter to my kids which has snowballed into this Substack.
Anyway, back to the three Q&As.
There are some very interesting and important points that Bret touches on. The issue of aspiration and its likely connection with many adverse reactions comes up, something that John Campbell first brought to everyone’s attention (more on Campbell later).
Bret talks about the difference between the heart muscle and other muscles. For evolutionary reasons (that he explains in detail in episode 116) the heart muscle has essentially no repair capacity. The higher the repair capacity the higher the cancer risk. Hence no heart cancer but no repair capacity.
Bret puts forward the hypothesis of temporary auto-immunity against the heart that leads to permanent damage to some of the heart cells. They cannot repair themselves hence reducing the upper limit of its capacity. Athletes, with their surges of adrenaline, are pushing themselves now over that reduced upper limit, hence dropping dead.
This thesis has legs for me, and we’ll see if it is proven true.
Girardot makes a similar point here:
What happens to those billions of NanoParticles you've become host to? (substack.com)
Some organs won’t regenerate like the heart (myocarditis isn’t mild, once myocytes have been destroyed, you can’t regenerate them) or will take longer like endothelial cells. So, you can have a capacitor effect whereby each injection weakens the organ, or makes the situation worse, increases the inflammations, to a point it snaps: causing a blood clot, a stroke or a heart attack.
More importantly Bret talks about sub-clinical myocarditis (we can call it asymptomatic myocarditis) and its impact on shortened life spans (a reduced life expectancy).
Bret references McCullough a few times and we are going to spend a lot of time with McCullough shortly, but I want to just stay on these two points for a while. The myocarditis that we are “seeing” is the symptomatic version and is just the tip of the iceberg. We don’t yet know how much iceberg there is under the waterline, but we can safely assume it is MUCH larger than the visible tip.
Bret is right to focus on reduced life expectancy. Having been in financial services all of my professional life, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about and discussing life expectancy. I’d like you to think about is as mileage. We each have a certain amount of mileage (or at least actuarial mileage). If we look after our “car” better than the average person we might get some extra mileage out of it, if we don’t, we probably won’t.
Australia has one of the highest life expectancies in the world, third after Japan and Switzerland, at about 84 (82 for men and 86 for women). There is a lot of rounding here, but you get the point.
This against a backdrop of a global life expectancy of 73. So, the average Australian lives 11 years longer than the average global citizen. Hopefully, that comes in handy at your next trivia night, or if you ever make a deep run on Who want to be a millionaire?
So, let’s play around with these numbers a bit.
Let’s look at my 25 year old friend above. He is healthier than most but let’s keep it simple, he has a 57 years of life expectancy left (82-25). I’m going to describe it as 684 months of mileage (MOM).
If Bret is right about asymptomatic myocarditis (and I absolutely believe he is), what are the chances that my healthy 25 year old friend already has a little bit of heart cell damage (non-repairable remember)? With BILLIONS of lipid nano-particles carrying mRNA in his system and TRILLIONS of spike protein, the odds of not a single heart cell damaged is zero, I think. So, he likely has some heart cell damage already, but it’s small and presents no symptoms. But every heart cell damaged has an impact on long term capacity. Long term mileage.
So, let’s ask the question this way: How many of his 684 months of mileage has he unknowingly paid so he can go to the pub with his mates, or so he could travel, or so he could “do his bit for the country”, or…fill in the blank. I know that he still lives at home, so it’s very likely one of his rationales would be that “I did it to protect my parents.” So, if he knew about all this maths, how many “months of mileage” would he be happy to pay to protect mum? A month, 5 months? 17 months?
How many MOMs would his mum want him to pay to protect her?
Here’s a question for all those parents running around jabbing their little kids. A 5 year old girl in Australia has 972 months of mileage. How many months are you happy to take off your little daughter to “protect” your 87 year old mother (her grandma)? What’s the right number?
A key problem with the jab is as a friend once said, “I took my two doses and felt fine, I don’t know what all the fuss is about.” If something is asymptomatic, why would you fuss about it?
Here is a thought experiment for you. The average age of the global citizen is about 30, so they have 43 years of life expectancy or 516 months of mileage (MOMs).
Assuming most of the 8 billion get the jab, how many MOMs do you think we have “paid” to be “safe” and to “keep grandma safe”?
By how much do you think we have reduced our collective global mileage? I have not a shred of doubt that we have reduced global life expectancy.
If you have taken two doses, just stop…no more.
If you have taken three doses, just stop…no more.
Remember that this is a war and only you can stand up for your future self.
Berenson was one of the first to ring the bell on myocarditis back in May 2021. He was right.
In June 2021 they started to acknowledge there was a problem, although the line they took then as now has been to describe it as RARE and MILD, more on that later.
He wrote about it at length in June 2021.
We are now in March 2022, and nobody has done more to ring the alarm about jab risk including myocarditis than McCullough. What’s great about him is that he is ALSO a cardiologist.
Here is a short (believe me, this is short) bio of the man:
Dr. Peter McCullough is an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, managing the cardiovascular complications of both the viral infection and the injuries developing after the COVID-19 vaccine in Dallas, TX, USA. Since the outset of the pandemic, Dr. McCullough has been a leader in the medical response to the COVID-19 disaster and has published “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection,” the first synthesis of sequenced multidrug treatment of ambulatory patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the American Journal of Medicine and subsequently updated in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine.
He has 51 peer-reviewed publications on the infection and has commented extensively on the medical response to the COVID-19 crisis in The Hill, America Out Loud, and on FOX NEWS Channel. On November 19, 2020, Dr. McCullough testified in the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and throughout 2021 in the Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, Colorado General Assembly, New Hampshire Senate, and South Carolina Senate concerning many aspects of the pandemic response.
Dr. McCullough has two years of dedicated academic and clinical efforts in combating the SARS-CoV-2 virus. In doing so, he has reviewed thousands of reports, participated in scientific congresses, group discussions, press releases, and been considered among the world’s experts on COVID-19.
Here is a longer bio if you are interested.
Dr Peter McCullough | Cardiologist Dallas, TX | HeartPlace Dallas
McCullough has been relentless in trying to get the message out, from Senate hearings to interviews to podcasts.
What I’m going to do next is take you through a bit of a chronology of what he has been saying for the last few months. The date for each clip refers to the publised date of the clip, I cannot be sure if that is the actual date of the discussion. But you will get the general idea. They are short clips, and all are well worth watching as collectively the paint the picture that we need to see about the difference between Covid induced myocarditis and Jab injury myocarditis.
They are quantitively and qualitatively NOTHING like each other.
Let’s start with this clip that I came across back in December 2021.
Dec 2021 (1+ mins)
Myocarditis from COVID vs the Vaccine: Peter McCullough (rumble.com)
This clip is SO important that I have transcribed most of it.
The myocarditis that occurs with the natural infection is usually those sick enough to be in the ICU, and it's a troponin elevation only. It's very different than the myocarditis that's received with the vaccines which we'll get to. The myocarditis from COVID-19 is mild, is inconsequential and is largely a troponin elevation. I don't want anybody to think that the myocarditis of the natural infection is anything like what we are seeing with the vaccines.
The vaccine is directly there, now there's preclinical studies suggesting the lipid nanoparticles actually go right into the heart. The heart expresses the spike protein, the body attacks the heart. There are dramatic EKG changes, the troponin, the blood test for heart injury with the vaccine myocarditis is 10 to 100 fold higher than the troponin received with a natural infection. It's a totally different syndrome when the kids get myocarditis after the vaccine 90% have to be hospitalized. They have dramatic EKG changes chest pain, early heart failure. They need echocardiograms...they need medications to prevent heart failure.
So, vaccine induced myocarditis is a big deal. And in children, it's way more serious and more prominent than a post COVID myocarditis.
So, the CDC, FDA, MSM, WHO and all the Australian Health Ministries, to name just a few, can stick there “rare and mild” jingle where the sun don’t shine.
Do you really believe by now that they don’t know what we are talking about here?
Let’s pause for a moment and look at the troponin test that McCullough mentions. What is it?
Troponin test: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia
A troponin test measures the levels of troponin T or troponin I proteins in the blood. These proteins are released when the heart muscle has been damaged, such as occurs with a heart attack. The more damage there is to the heart, the greater the amount of troponin T and I there will be in the blood.
So, I think of it as heart cell debris. Damaged heart cells (protein) that are attacked and broken down into debris that then floats around in the body. This is relevant for some later points that McCullough makes.
Dec 2021
Hearts on Fire Fueled by mRNA - America Out Loud
Hoeg and colleagues have demonstrated that the expected rates of myocarditis in young persons aged 12-17 could be as high as 162 cases/million persons injected. This is far greater than the background rate of 4 cases/million/year before COVID-19, as described by Arola and colleagues in Finland. Hoeg demonstrated that a young person is more likely to be hospitalized with vaccine-induced myocarditis than ever be hospitalized from COVID-19 respiratory illness.
Sadly, there are 15,424 confirmed myocarditis/pericarditis cases in the US CDC VAERS system. The explosion of sudden cardiac death among high-level athletes has drawn attention to the possibility that COVID-19 vaccination forced upon the players may induce a subclinical or perhaps denied syndrome of myocarditis that can last for months.
Feb 2022 (3+ mins)
Dr.Peter McCullough: Myocarditis in boys after COVID jab is not "Mild and Rare" (rumble.com)
Feb 2022 (3+ mins)
Senate hearing held by one of the very few political heroes, Ron Johnson from Wisconsin.
Dr. Peter McCullough talks about vaccines causing myocarditis (rumble.com)
In this clip McCullough tears up when talking about the death of a child of someone that was at the hearing. He says, “one death is too many” and this time this is true.
Do you remember when Cuomo said his infamous line back in April 2020 as he was destroying New York, “If it saves just one life”?
Two very different men said basically the same things 2 years apart.
One destroyed lives and the other is trying to save them.
McCullough also says here:
“under no circumstances, under any circumstances should a young person ever receive one of these vaccines, let alone ever be pressured to receive a vaccine.”
Feb 2022 (9+ mins)
Is Covid Causing Myocarditis? | Dr. Peter McCullough | Covid Conversations III (rumble.com)
This is a very important recent clip.
McCullough makes the point that in a recent paper from Washington University, they went looking for myocarditis in Covid cases with detailed imaging, troponin testing and biomarkers, and basically couldn’t find it. They debunked the Covid causes myocarditis.
This is a profoundly crucial point. They have stretched the clinical meaning of the word “myocarditis” and lowered it well below its previously accepted clinical definition to be able to claim that Covid is causing myocarditis on scale. Just because you have slightly elevated troponin that doesn’t mean you have myocarditis.
Why am I surprised, they have changed the meaning of plenty of other words, so why not myocarditis also. It’s yet another instance of linguistic engineering to control reality and create a “new reality.”
At about minute 6:12 McCullough mentions a paper by Shower and colleagues about asymptomatic myocarditis. They discovered cases of heart damage in young people with NO myocarditis symptoms. What we see and know about is just the tip of the iceberg.
“I would not assume that ANY child is free of myocarditis.”
At moment 3.40 the video briefing cuts to Matt Le Tissier, and he sighs heavily as McCullough says that the peak age of jab injury myocarditis 18-24 in men.
Indulge me for a moment while I acknowledge Matt Le Tissier. Having played football for most of my life and followed English football particularly, I know about Le Tissier, arguably when the best, most gifted, English players ever.
Here is his debut goal as a 16 year old (minute 2:05). This is arguably the most stunning debut goal in English football history and he was only 16!
Sorry, I digress.
He is one of the only (maybe THE only) high profile footballer in England that is awake and calling out the liars:
And talking about jab injury.
Unlike some, yes, I’m looking at you Aguero.
I love Matt.
Mar 2022 (1+ mins)
Dr. McCullough Provides an Explanation as to Why Athletes Are Collapsing on the Pitch (rumble.com)
"When you have a surge in adrenaline, and you have vaccine-induced myocarditis... that's what triggers the sudden death."
Mar 2022 (6+ mins)
Dr. Peter McCullough Raises the Alarm on Vaccine-Induced Myocarditis (rumble.com)
Here McCullough talks about:
How it is far more common and far more serious than we ever thought.
The background rate was 4 per million. The highest risk group is men 18-24 where the rate is over 500 cases per million.
“The highest risk group is men ages 18 to 24, where the rate is over 500 cases per million (greater than 1 in 2000)... This is an astronomical number of people sustaining heart damage.”
VAERS myo/peri-carditis in 34,000 individuals (without URF-Under Reporting Factor).
At minute 3.30 he mentions two boys in same family dead after second dose of Pfizer.
Multiply 34,000 by our lowest URF (Under Reporting Factor of 41) and you have 1,394,000 in the US, and this is without considering the asymptomatics!
TIP OF THE ICEBERG!
Mar 2022 (4+ mins)
Bigtree To McCullough: Are You Concerned About Vaccine Injuries Being Covered Up? (rumble.com)
Let’s pause for a moment to sprinkle in some MSM lies:
Myocarditis: COVID-19 is a much bigger risk to the heart than vaccination (theconversation.com)
As you come to better understand the myocarditis issue, you will see how unforgivably corrupt and treacherous the propogandists are on this issue particularly.
They also did their best to sabotage studies that were pointing to the problem. Here was a “retracted” study in Sept 2021.
So, to counter this lie I want to spend some time in a recent article by Kendrick.
A few thoughts on COVID19 vaccination | Dr. Malcolm Kendrick (drmalcolmkendrick.org)
Maths malfeasance: differences in observation period
I looked for the highest rate of (reported) post-viral infection myocarditis, in younger people. I believe it can be found here. ‘Risk of Myocarditis from COVID-19 Infection in People Under Age 20: A Population-Based Analysis’
Here, the reported rate was around four-hundred-and-fifty cases per million. On the face of it, this is much higher than the fifty-six cases per million post-vaccination. Approximately ten times as high. But … there are, as always, several very important buts here. There were two key factors that alter the equation.
First, in the JAMA post-vaccine study, the time period for reporting myocarditis was limited to seven days after vaccination. Any case appearing after that was not considered to be anything to do with the vaccine and was thus ‘censored’. In the study above, the time period was far longer. Anything up to ninety days post-infection was counted. A period thirteen times as long.
In addition, although it is difficult to work out exactly what was done from the details provided, the four-hundred-and fifty study only looked at young people who attended outpatients at hospital. These would have been the most severely affected by COVID19, or who had other underlying medical conditions. So, they represent a small proportion, of a small proportion …. of everyone who was actually infected. The vast majority of whom would only have suffered very mild symptoms, or none at all.
In short, we are not remotely comparing like with like here. I find that we very rarely are. We are not only going to vaccinate a small proportion, of a small proportion, of the population who are at high risk of myocarditis. We are going to vaccinate virtually everybody. So, the two populations are completely different.
Leaving that to one side, where else can we look for a comparison between the risk of post-vaccine myocarditis vs post-infection myocarditis. The CDC published this statement.
‘During March 2020–January 2021, patients with COVID-19 had nearly 16 times the risk for myocarditis compared with patients who did not have COVID-19, and risk varied by sex and age.’
Their figure appears to have been entirely derived from a paper published in the British Medical Journal: ‘Risk of clinical sequelae after the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection: retrospective cohort study’. Different age groups were studied here which, again, makes any direct comparison tricky.
This study found a sixteen-fold increased risk, rather than a four hundred and fifty-times risk. A sixteen times risk is around half of the post-vaccination myocarditis risk reported in JAMA, in the eighteen-to twenty-four-year-old group.
Again, though, there were major differences. In the BMJ paper the observation period for inclusion of myocarditis considered to be ‘caused by’ COVID19, was one hundred- and forty-days post infection, not seven days. Twenty times as long for cases to build up.
Equally, after looking at nine million patients records over a year, slightly over two hundred thousand were diagnosed as having had COVID19. Of these, only fourteen thousand had post-infection problems, known as clinical sequelae. In this sub-group, which represents, one point two per-cent of one per-cent of the total, population there were so few cases of myocarditis that they didn’t even appear in the chart published in the main paper. You had to go to supplemental tables and figures.
So, in summary, they observed and counted myocarditis from Covid for 140 days, while observing and counting myocarditis from jab injury for 7 days.
Let that sink in. If you got jabbed and then went to the doctor on day 8, your injury didn’t get counted. You didn’t get it quick enough.
This is the basis for the global propaganda campaign that says myocarditis from Covid is worse than from the jab.
1 in 200
If, in this model, we then include the possibility that post-vaccination myocarditis is as damaging as post-viral infection myocarditis, it means that one in four hundred eighteen to twenty-four-year-olds could be dead five years after vaccination.
Do I think that this is likely? I have to say that no, I don’t, really. Although this is where the figures, such as they can be relied upon, inevitably take you. Just to run you through the process a bit more slowly.
· Relying on the VAERS system, JAMA reported a thirty-three-fold increase in myocarditis post COVID19 vaccination. An increase from 1.76, to 56.31 cases per million (in the seven-day period post vaccination)
· It has been established that VAERS may pick up only one per cent of all vaccine related adverse effects
· Therefore, the actual number could be as high as five-thousand six-hundred cases per million ~ 1 in 200.
· Myocarditis (post viral infection) has a mortality rate of 50% over 5 years. So, we need to consider the possibility that post-vaccination myocarditis will carry the same mortality.
· Therefore, the rate of death after five years could be one in four hundred (males aged 18-24)
There are approximately sixteen million men aged between eighteen and twenty-four in the US.
Total number of deaths within five years (men aged eighteen to twenty-four in the US)
16,000,000 ÷ 400 = 40,000
(Divide by five for the UK) = 8,000
On this analysis the myocarditis rate is much higher then even the numbers used by McCullough. I suspect that has to do with McCullough not being able to speculate about the URF or being incredibly conservative with it.
At the beginning of this article, I mentioned aspiration and its suspected importance. Here is Girardot writing about a recent study:
What could go wrong? - by Marc Girardot (substack.com)
Two leading Universities in Hong Kong and in Munich undertook to study the respective impact of intravenous injections (IV) of the vaccines. They found drastic differences between intramuscular and intravenous injections, IV mimicking precisely the generation of myocarditis, pericarditis, thrombocytopenia, hepatocyte and myocyte degeneration/necrosis…They also found T-cells attacking heart cells! And the pericardium calcified… Wondering why these athletes are falling like flies: their heart are literally stoned in.
A comparative study between Norway - who dropped the aspiration technique - and Denmark - who uses it - highlighted that Norway had 2.4 times more myocarditis than Denmark. QED
This means:
It is the combination :· on one side, of novel technologies that turn your own cells into antigen factories and triggers an immune reaction to destroy all these cells;
· and, on the other side, the abandonment of a decades-old injection technique to ensure an intramuscular product isn’t accidentally shot into the blood stream, that causes these massive advert events and explains the Safe/Unsafe conundrum.
As I was writing this today, Kirsch published this relevant piece.
Why the CDC still can't find any safety signals in the VAERS data (substack.com)
In 2021, the CDC changed the instructions given to the contractors that they employ to look for safety signals.
It used to be “protect the patient.” So, if you find anything that looks suspicious, you bring it up.
In 2021, they changed it to “protect the vaccine.” So, if you find anything that looks suspicious, you ignore it.
They made a small change. Changed “patient” to “vaccine” in their policy.
In short, people were paid to review the reports and only bring up the most egregious examples where the death was impossible to explain any other way. Then the CDC would slow roll the investigation.
How do I know this? Because a friend of a friend is a contractor for the CDC who does this.
They told her the new rules this year and she declined to participate because she thought it was unethical. I’m trying to get an on-camera interview with her.
No words. Institutional failure of the highest order. They changed the rules to serve their political and financial masters…not the patient…you.
And lastly, I want to end with a note about Dr. John Campbell.
In the video, Campbell clearly shows that he is not happy with the lack of transparency. He is not happy with the safety signals disclosed in this document. Not happy at all. He concludes “This has just destroyed trust in authority” (watch @21:55). Bingo!
Kirsch is right when he says that this is important. Campbell has a huge online following, he is a good guy, but has had a blind spot for jabs. He believed “them” when they told him they were “safe.” Looks like he has finally woken up.
Welcome to the club John.
Myocarditis: Breaking Hearts and Reducing Mileage