This article was published on The Defender—Children’s Health Defense News & Views Website on May 1, 2024, and was originally published by Mercola.com

Story at a glance:

• Mounting research suggests a serious side effect of the COVID-19 mRNA jabs could be dementia, and the prions that cause it may be contagious.
• Frameshifting, as we now know occurs in the COVID-19 shots, can induce prion production and lead to neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD).
• Sid Belzberg’s prions.rip website, which collected data on neurological side effects post-jab, found a notably high incidence of diagnosed CJD cases, suggesting an alarming trend.
• A series of articles highlights biases in clinical trials and observational studies, suggesting COVID-19 vaccines’ safety and effectiveness have been massively overstated.
• The Global COVID Vaccine Safety Project study—funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—reveals significant side effects, including myocarditis, pericarditis and blood clots, underscoring the need for reevaluation of COVID-19 vaccine risks and benefits.

According to mounting data, one of the more serious side effects of the COVID-19 mRNA jabs appears to be dementia, and worse yet, this previously nontransmissible disease may now be “contagious,” transmissible by way of prions.

In my 2021 interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., she explained why she suspected the COVID-19 shots may eventually result in an avalanche of neurological prion-based diseases such as Alzheimer’s.

She also published a paper detailing those mechanisms in the May 10, 2021, issue of the International Journal of Vaccine Theory.

As she explained in that paper:

“A paper published by J. Bart Classen (2021) proposed that the spike protein in the mRNA vaccines could cause prion-like diseases, in part through its ability to bind to many known proteins and induce their misfolding into potential prions.

“Idrees and Kumar (2021) have proposed that the spike protein’s S1 component is prone to act as a functional amyloid and form toxic aggregates … and can ultimately lead to neurodegeneration.”

In summary, the take-home from Seneff’s paper is that the COVID-19 shots, offered to hundreds of millions of people, are instruction sets for your body to make a toxic protein that will eventually wind up concentrated in your spleen, from where prion-like protein instructions will be sent out, leading to neurodegenerative diseases.

What are prions?

The term “prion” derives from “proteinaceous infectious particle.” Prions are known to cause a variety of neurodegenerative diseases in animals and humans, such as CJD in humans, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or “mad cow disease”) in cattle and chronic wasting disease in deer and elk.

These diseases are collectively referred to as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. They’re characterized by long incubation periods, brain damage, the formation of holes in the brain giving it a sponge-like appearance and failure to induce an inflammatory response.

In short, prions are infectious agents composed entirely of a protein material that can fold in multiple, structurally distinct ways, at least one of which is transmissible to other prion proteins, leading to a disease that is similar to viral infections but without nucleic acids.

Unlike bacteria, viruses and fungi, which contain nucleic acids (DNA or RNA) that instruct their replication, prions propagate by transmitting their misfolded protein state to normal variants of the same protein.

According to the prion disease model, the infectious properties of prions are due to the ability of the abnormal protein to convert the normal version of the protein into the misfolded form, thereby setting off a chain reaction that progressively damages the nervous system.

Prions are remarkably resistant to conventional methods of sterilization and can survive extreme conditions that would normally destroy nucleic acids or other pathogens, which is part of why prion diseases are so difficult to treat.

More evidence mRNA shots can trigger dementia

Today, there’s even more evidence to support Seneff’s theory. In August 2022, tech entrepreneur Sid Belzberg wrote about prions.rip, a website he’d set up to collect data on the neurological side effects of the jabs. (This site is no longer live.)

Within a few months, the site had received about 15,000 hits and gathered 60 reports from people who got the jab and suffered neurological deficits shortly thereafter, including six cases of diagnosed CJD.

“Normally this disease affects 1 in a 1,000,000 people,” Belzberg wrote.

He continued:

“To get 6 cases you would need 6,000,000 hits to the site assuming everyone reports.

“The chances of getting 1 case in 15,000 hits is 1 in 66. To see 6 cases in 1 group of 15,000 is 1/66^6 or 1 in 82,000,000,000, or 20 times more likely to win a Powerball lottery!

“To reiterate, CJD is an exceptionally rare disease that is now a known and established severe adverse reaction (SAE) from the DEATHVAX™. Injecting this slow kill bioweapon can cause ailments that are about as likely to develop in the real word as getting struck by lightning twice.

“The proof is now irrefutable.”

Frameshifting can result in prion production

In mid-December 2023, researchers reported that the replacing of uracil with synthetic methylpseudouridine in the COVID-19 shots—a process known as codon optimization—can cause frameshifting, a glitch in the decoding, thereby triggering the production of off-target aberrant proteins.

The antibodies that develop as a result may, in turn, trigger off-target immune reactions. According to the authors, off-target cellular immune responses occur in 25% to 30% of people who have received the COVID-19 shot. But that’s not all.

According to British neuroscientist Dr. Kevin McCairn, this frameshifting phenomenon has also been linked to harmful prion production—and that frame-shifted prions, specifically, are infectious and can be transmitted from one person to another.

As reported in the Journal of Theoretical Biology in 2013:

“A quantitatively consistent explanation for the titres of infectivity found in a variety of prion-containing preparations is provided on the basis that the etiological agents of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy comprise a very small population fraction of prion protein (PrP) variants, which contain frameshifted elements in their N-terminal octapeptide-repeat regions.

“Frameshifting accounts quantitatively for the etiology of prion disease. One per million frameshifted prions may be enough to cause disease. The HIV TAR-like element in the PRNP mRNA is likely an effector of frameshifting.”

McCairn explained this mechanism in a Feb. 19, 2023, interview with Health Alliance Australia (see video on childrenshealthdefense.org). In it, he noted:

“Mis-folded proteins caused by prions can impact every level organ and tissue system in the body … [They] bioaccumulate and are resistant to degradation, thereby building up.”

Prions may in fact be the primary molecule that is being “shed” by COVID-19 jab recipients, and if those prions are due to frameshifting, that could be very bad news indeed, considering their implication in dementia.

Another doctor who believes we’ll be facing an “epidemic of prion disease” is Dr. David Cartland. In late February, he posted 13 scientific papers linking the COVID-19 jabs, prion diseases and CJD, noting that was just a “small selection” of what’s available in the medical literature.

Prions implicated in long

COVID as well

According to genomics expert Kevin McKernan, Ph.D., prions are also involved in long COVID (or as McKernan calls it, “long vax”).

In one 2024 study, 96.7% of long COVID sufferers had received the jab.

In an interview with the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), McKernan stated:

“If you frameshift over the stop codons, you’re going to be making proteins that are spike-mito proteins. When I talk to a lot of the long vax patients I hear of all these things that remind me of my time in the mitochondrial disease sequencing space.”

McKernan claims he tried to publish a paper on this in 2021 with Dr. Peter McCullough, but the editor of the journal “stepped in and torpedoed the paper.”

World’s largest side effect analysis has been published

In related news, the largest study to date on the side effects of the COVID-19 jabs was published in the journal Vaccine on Feb. 12, and it confirms what I and many other alternative news sources have been saying all along, namely that the mRNA jabs are the most dangerous medical products to ever hit the market.

The study—performed by the Global COVID Vaccine Safety Project and funded by the CDC, Public Health Ontario and the Canadian Health Research Institute—evaluated the risk of “adverse events of special interest” (AESI) following COVID-19 “vaccination.”

Data from 10 sites in eight countries (Argentina, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, New Zealand and Scotland) were included, encompassing more than 99 million jabbed individuals.

Of the thousands of side effects Pfizer listed in its confidential report of post-authorization adverse events submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Global COVID Vaccine Safety focused on 13 AESIs that fall into three primary categories: neurological, hematologic (blood-related) and cardiovascular conditions.

They calculated the AESI risk for each of the 13 AESIs based on the number of observed versus expected (OE) incidents occurring up to 42 days after injection.

The “expected” number of side effects was based on vaccine adverse event data from 2015 to 2019. These rates were then compared to the adverse event rates observed in those who got one or more of the COVID-19 jabs, either Pfizer’s BNT162b2, Moderna’s mRNA-1273 or AstraZeneca’s ChAdOx1.

Largest study to date confirms

COVID jab dangers

The analysis revealed several concerning side effects, including increased risks of myocarditis, pericarditis, blood clots in the brain and various neurological conditions.

Here’s a quick summary of the findings:

Myocarditis and pericarditis:

• Pfizer vaccine—OE ratios for myocarditis were 2.78 and 2.86 after the first and second shots, with the risk remaining doubled after the third and fourth shots.
• Moderna vaccine—OE ratios for myocarditis were 3.48 and 6.10 after the first and second shots. Doses 1 and 4 also showed OE ratios of 1.74 and 2.64 for pericarditis.
• AstraZeneca vaccine—OE ratio for pericarditis was 6.91 after the third shot.

Blood clots in the brain (cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, CVST):

• An OE of 3.23 for CVST was observed after the first AstraZeneca shot.
• A significant increase in CVST risk was also noted after the second Pfizer dose.

Neurological conditions:

• Guillain-Barré syndrome—An OE ratio of 2.49 was observed following the AstraZeneca jab.
• Transverse myelitis—Risk nearly doubled with the AstraZeneca shot.
• Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis — OE ratios of 3.78 (Moderna) and 2.23 (AstraZeneca) were noted.

These findings really underscore the potential for serious side effects from the COVID-19 shots, including conditions that may lead to other consequences in the longer term, such as stroke, heart attack, paralysis and death.

Effectiveness and safety was

wildly exaggerated in trials

Considering those findings, it’s no surprise to find that effectiveness and safety were exaggerated in clinical trials and observational studies.

In a guest post on Dr. Robert Malone’s Substack, Raphael Lataster, Ph.D., wrote:

“An unofficial series of four crucially important medical journal articles, two by me, appearing in major academic publisher Wiley’s Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice reveals that claims made about COVID-19 vaccines’ effectiveness and safety were exaggerated in the clinical trials and observational studies, which significantly impacts risk-benefit analyses.

“Also discussed are the concerning topics of myocarditis, with evidence indicating that this one adverse effect alone means that the risks outweigh the benefits in the young and healthy; and perceived negative effectiveness, which indicates that the vaccines increase the chance of COVID-19 infection/hospitalization/death, to say nothing about other adverse effects.”

Summary of papers

The four papers in question include:

1. “Sources of Bias in Observational Studies of COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness” published in the Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice in March 2023, co-authored by BMJ editor Peter Doshi, Ph.D., statistician Kaiser Fung and biostatistician Mark Jones, which concluded that “case-counting window bias” had a significant effect on effectiveness estimates.

As explained by Lataster, this:

“Concerns the 7 days, 14 days, or even 21 days after the jab where we are meant to overlook jab-related issues, such as COVID infections, for some odd reason as ‘the vaccine has not had sufficient time to stimulate the immune system.’

“This may strike you as quite bizarre since all of the ‘fully vaccinated’ must go through the process of being ‘partially vaccinated,’ sometimes even more than once. To make matters worse, the unvaccinated do not get such a ‘grace period,’ meaning that there is also a clear bias at play.

“In an example using data from Pfizer’s clinical trial, the authors show that thanks to this bias, a vaccine with effectiveness of 0%, which is confirmed in the hypothetical clinical trial, could be seen in observational studies as having effectiveness of 48%.”

2. “Reply to Fung et. al. on COVID-19 Vaccine Case-Counting Window Biases Overstating Vaccine Effectiveness,” authored by Lataster, which discussed how the counting window bias not only affected effectiveness estimates in observational studies but also safety estimates, suggesting a need for reassessment of vaccine safety. The article also addresses “the mysterious rise in non-COVID excess deaths post-pandemic.”

3. “How the Case Counting Window Affected Vaccine Efficacy Calculations in Randomized Trials of COVID-19 Vaccines,” again co-authored by Doshi and Fung, which detailed how case-counting window issues also overestimated effectiveness in Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials.

4. A second article by Lataster, in which he highlighted and summarized the evidence showing that clinical trials were affected by adverse effects counting window issues that led to exaggerated safety estimates.

“Together, these four articles make clear that claims made about COVID-19 vaccines; effectiveness and safety were exaggerated in the clinical trials and observational studies, whilst also finding time to discuss myocarditis and perceived negative effectiveness, meaning that new analyses are very much needed,” Lataster wrote.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.

The post Could COVID shots trigger ‘avalanche’ of a contagious form of dementia? appeared first on Final Call News.

This article was published on The Defender—Children’s Health Defense News & Views Website on April 19, 2024 and was originally published by Mercola.com

Story at a glance:

• Young people who received multiple COVID-19 jabs were significantly more likely to die than those who skipped the shots, according to data from the U.K.’s Office for National Statistics.
• An analysis by The Exposé revealed that, in February 2023, those who received four COVID-19 shots had a 318% higher mortality rate than the unvaccinated group.
• The other months analyzed showed four-shot teens and youth were between 221% and 290% more likely to die than those who didn’t get the shot.
• Another study found that, compared to unvaccinated children, vaccinated children had significantly higher rates of asthma, allergies, eczema, respiratory infections, behavioral issues and other health conditions.
• Separate research showed that “for every life saved, there were nearly 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA [COVID-19] injections.”

Young people who received multiple COVID-19 jabs were significantly more likely to die than those who skipped the shots, according to data from the U.K.’s Office for National Statistics (ONS).

The data include deaths by vaccination status from April 1, 2021, to May 31, 2023, when the COVID-19 shot campaign was in full effect.

When The Exposé analyzed the data, they revealed the disturbing finding that those with the most COVID-19 shots fared the worst:

“Our analysis focused on mortality rates per 100,000 person-years from January to May 2023 among residents in England aged 18 to 39, and what we found is truly shocking.

“Initial observations of the data prove that individuals in this age bracket who had received four doses of a COVID-19 vaccine exhibited higher mortality rates compared to their unvaccinated counterparts.”

Mortality rate 318% higher among quadruple-jabbed youth

As noted by Canadian oncologist and cancer researcher Dr. William Makis, “The more mRNA shots you take, the greater the immune system damage,” which can lead to a host of health problems, not the least of which is a greater risk of impaired cancer surveillance and turbo cancer.

The Exposé analysis suggests multiple shots also raise mortality rates among those ages 18-39. In every month, those who received four COVID-19 shots were significantly more likely to die than those who hadn’t received any.

In January 2023, for instance, those who never received a COVID-19 shot had a mortality rate of 31.1 per 100,000 person-years.

But among the quadruple jabbed, the rate was 106 per 100,000 person-years. Even among those who had received one COVID-19 shot, the mortality rate was much higher than the unvaccinated at 53.3 per 100,000 person-years that month.

According to The Exposé:

“For the remaining months, unvaccinated teens and young adults mortality rate remained within the 20-something per 100,000 person-years. Whereas four-dose vaccinated teens and young adults’ mortality rates only went as low as 80.9 per 100,00 in April and remained within 85 to 106 per 100,000 for the remaining months.

“The January to May average mortality rate per 100,000 person-years was 26.56 for unvaccinated teens and young adults and a shocking 94.58 per 100,000 for four-dose vaccinated teens and young adults.

“Meaning on average, the four-dose vaccinated were 256% more likely to die than the unvaccinated based on mortality rates per 100,000.”

In February 2023, however, those who received four COVID-19 shots had a 318% higher mortality rate than the unvaccinated group. The other months showed four-shot teens and youth were between 221% and 290% more likely to die than those who didn’t get the shot.

“These figures are extremely worrying and strongly suggest that COVID-19 vaccination increases a person’s mortality rate, which in turn suggests COVID-19 vaccination may actually be killing teens and young adults in the tens of thousands,” The Exposé reported.

COVID shots killed more people than they saved

Other research has reached similar conclusions that mRNA COVID-19 shots may be deadly. A now-retracted narrative review published in the journal Cureus called for a global moratorium on mRNA COVID-19 shots, citing significant increases in serious adverse events among those who received the injections, along with an “unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio.”

When factoring in absolute risk and the “number needed to vaccinate,” a metric used to quantify how many people need to be vaccinated to prevent one additional case of a specific disease, the review found that “for every life saved, there were nearly 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections.”

As for why the paper was retracted, study author Steve Kirsch said, “It’s about supporting the narrative.” Board-certified internist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, another of the paper’s authors, called the retraction a “stunning act of scientific censorship.”

In addition to calling for a global moratorium on mRNA COVID-19 shots, the authors of the paper — M. Nathaniel Mead, Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., Russ Wolfinger, Ph.D., Jessica Rose, Ph.D., Kris Denhaerynck, Ph.D., Kirsch and McCullough — said the shots should be immediately removed from the childhood vaccine schedule, while boosters should also be suspended.

“It is unethical and unconscionable to administer an experimental vaccine to a child who has a near-zero risk of dying from COVID-19 but a well-established 2.2 percent risk of permanent heart damage based on the best prospective data available,” the paper noted.

The moratorium is warranted based on the shots’ risks of serious adverse events, the mechanisms behind those adverse events, mortality data and issues with inefficacy, vaccine control and processing.

According to the review:

“Federal agency approval of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines on a blanket-coverage population-wide basis had no support from an honest assessment of all relevant registrational data and commensurate consideration of risks versus benefits.

“Given the extensive, well-documented SAEs [serious adverse events] and unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse a global moratorium on the modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.”

Are unvaxed children healthier than vaxed?

Another study that runs counter to the narrative was also retracted. The research, by Dr. Paul Thomas, who had his medical license suspended after he became widely known for supporting informed consent for vaccinations, and James Lyons-Weiler, with The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge, analyzed data spanning a 10-year period within a pediatric practice.

It focused on comparing health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

The data showed vaccinated children had significantly higher rates of:

• Asthma
• Allergies
• Eczema
• Sinusitis
• Gastroenteritis
• Respiratory infections
• Middle ear infection
• Conjunctivitis
• Breathing issues
• Behavioral issues

Further, none of the 561 children who were not vaccinated had attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), while 0.063% of partially and fully vaccinated children did.

“The implications of these results for the net public health effects of whole-population vaccination and with respect for informed consent on human health are compelling,” they wrote.

The study also points out that the rate of autism spectrum disorder in their practice was half that of the U.S. national average (0.84% versus 1.69%). The rate of ADHD in the practice was also about half the national rate.

According to the authors, “The data indicate that unvaccinated children in the practice are not unhealthier than the vaccinated and indeed the overall results may indicate that the unvaccinated pediatric patients in this practice are healthier overall than the vaccinated.”

The researchers call for more studies on this topic to be done independently from the vaccine industry, emphasizing the need for unbiased research in understanding the impact of vaccinations on children’s health.

Makis explained:

“The results were not even remotely close in comparison. It is a total knockout. If you listened to the TV Media you would think that results would be just the opposite of these findings.

“There is a reason in 100 years of Vaccinating Children there have NEVER been retrospective studies.

“Don’t you want to see 5, 10, 15 or even 20 year studies of the vaxxed vs unvaxxed? Wouldn’t that be VERY Helpful? Why has there never been any studies like this?

“They would 100% PROVE without Shadow of a Doubt that not only do Vaccines NOT prevent infections and transmission but they are severely harming children – especially for Allergies, Middle Ear Infections, Autism, Breathing issues, Sinusitis, Respiratory Infections, Eye Infections, Gastroenteritis, Eczema and Behavioral issues.

“IF Vaccines PREVENT Infections then why are infections Significantly Higher in all of Dr. Thomas’ vaccinated children? These are serious life changing chronic conditions.

“Vaccines shift the immune system to Allergy and Autoimmunity, and you have more and more infections of other kinds. In short, what does this mean? It means that Vaxcines DESTROY a Child’s Immune System, every vax is different with different live viruses and toxins and they will really hit a child with a weaker immune system first.”

Other studies show health issues more common in vaxed children

While the mainstream narrative only shares the notion that “vaccines are safe and effective,” several studies have shown this isn’t always the case.

One study looked at health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children from three medical practices in the U.S.

Vaccinated children were much more likely to have several health issues compared to unvaccinated children. Specifically, the chances of being diagnosed with severe allergies, autism, gastrointestinal disorders, asthma, ADHD and chronic ear infections were significantly higher for vaccinated children.

For example, vaccinated children had over four times the risk of severe allergies and over 20 times the risk of ADHD compared to unvaccinated children. The vaccinated children who were not breastfed or delivered by cesarean section had the highest risk of negative health outcomes.

Another study found that children vaccinated before their first birthday had a higher chance of experiencing developmental delays, asthma and ear infections. The more vaccine doses the children received, the higher their risk for these health issues became.

Further, when the scientists looked at developmental delays over time, the risk increased as children got older, from 6 months up to 24 months of age.

The risk for four health conditions — developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders — also increased when they extended the age for possible diagnosis from at least 3 years to at least 5 years.

In another example, researchers looked into the health of U.S. children who are homeschooled, comparing those who had been vaccinated with those who hadn’t.

While the vaccinated children were less likely to have had chickenpox or whooping cough (pertussis), they were more likely to have had pneumonia, ear infections, allergies and neurodevelopmental disorders such as a learning disability, ADHD or autism.

A particularly high risk of neurodevelopmental disorders was found in children who were both born prematurely and vaccinated, with these children being 6.6 times more likely to have neurodevelopmental disorders compared to other children.

The fact that no link was found between premature birth and neurodevelopmental disorders among the unvaccinated raises the disturbing possibility that the vaccination schedule for premature babies could be responsible for the neurological disorders some premature babies exhibit, which have been previously assumed to be simply a result of premature birth.

Past research published in the journal Human & Experimental Toxicology also showed infant mortality rates correlated with childhood vaccination rates, with high-uptake countries having higher child mortality.

A reanalysis of the study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Cureus in February 2023, reaffirmed the positive correlation between the number of vaccine doses and infant mortality rates.

As it stands, the childhood vaccine schedule shouldn’t be considered safe and effective for all — and mRNA COVID-19 shots’ association with increased mortality and other significant health issues should give everyone pause.

If you’ve developed unusual symptoms after a COVID-19 shot or other vaccination, seek out help from an expert.

The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, or FLCCC, also has a treatment protocol for COVID-19 shot injuries. It’s called I-RECOVER and can be downloaded from covid19criticalcare.com.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.

The post Multiple COVID shots linked to higher mortality rates in 18- to 39-year-olds appeared first on Final Call News.

This article was originally published by The Defender—Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website on November 28, 2023.

Story at a glance:

• Pfizer financed consumer, medical and civil rights organizations that lobbied for COVID-19 jab mandates, thereby creating the false appearance of broad support.
• Moderna controls the vaccine debate and influences vaccine policy by working with a third-party nongovernmental organization (NGO) called Public Good Projects (PGP), which monitors and censors online discussions about COVID-19 shots on Moderna’s behalf.
• Moderna has also retained an online monitoring company called Talkwalker that uses artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor and flag vaccine-related conversations across 150 million websites across the globe.
• Oftentimes the information flagged and/or censored as “misinformation” is factually accurate. It’s flagged/censored simply because it has the potential to create “vaccine hesitancy” or contradicts the “safe and effective” narrative.
• As vaccine resistance grows, Moderna is ratcheting up its surveillance operation, with a focus on coercive or forced vaccination policies. Documents show Moderna is tracking elected officials who object to vaccine mandates, as well as new laws that restrict vaccine mandates.

In late April, investigative journalist Lee Fang published evidence showing financed consumer, medical and civil rights organizations that lobbied for COVID-19 jab mandates, thereby creating the false appearance of broad support.

Special interest groups paid by Pfizer to push for mandates and other coercive vaccine policies included the Chicago Urban League (which argued the jab mandate would benefit the Black community), the National Consumers League, the Immunization Partnership, the Advertising Council and a long list of universities and cancer, cardiology, rheumatology and medical science organizations.

The coercive measures and subsequent mandates—which have since been reversed by the courts —allowed Pfizer to become the first drug company in history to break $100 billion in annual sales.

Moderna uses NGO to censor vaccine discussions

In a Nov. 20 Unherd article cowritten with journalist Jack Poulson, Fang turns his attention to Moderna, detailing what Moderna is doing to control the vaccine debate and influence vaccine policy.

Just like the federal government has been working with the Stanford Internet Observatory and NewsGuard to circumvent First Amendment free speech rights, Moderna has been secretly working with a third-party NGO called PGP to monitor and censor online discussions about the COVID-19 shots—anything that might hurt Moderna’s bottom line.

According to documents seen by Fang and Poulson, PGP works closely with social media platforms, government agencies and news websites to identify and shut down “misinformation.”

“With PGP, Moderna is monitoring a huge range of mainstream outlets, as well as unconventional ones, such as the Steam online gaming community and Medium,” Fang and Poulson write. 

PGP has had a particularly robust influence over Twitter. Before Elon Musk bought the company, PGP had backdoor access to Twitter’s data. It also helped Twitter formulate its pandemic-related speech policies. Internal Twitter emails show PGP’s misinformation team was in frequent contact with Todd O’Boyle, then-director of Twitter’s public policy team.

“Their intention, as we have gleaned from the emails exchanged, was not only to combat misinformation, but also to affect the content and tenor of public debate,” Fang and Poulson write.

Fang and Poulson continued:

“While PGP identified some obvious falsehoods … many tweets flagged as misinformation were simply critical of vaccine passports and other policies designed to coerce vaccination.

“Moderna’s corporate intelligence and marketing team has worked closely with PGP again this year in its bid to shape the vaccine discourse as take-up drops off a cliff.

“The partnership expanded again in October with an official training program, developed by Moderna and PGP, alongside the American Board of Internal Medicine, to help healthcare workers identify medical misinformation.

“The online course, called the ‘Infodemic Training Program,’ represents an official partnership between biopharma and the NGO world. But none of PGP’s recent work with Moderna is disclosed on its website or in the Infodemic Training Program.”

Moderna uses AI to flag and erase bad PR

Moderna has also retained an online monitoring company called Talkwalker that uses AI to monitor and flag vaccine-related conversations across 150 million websites. And, as we’ve also seen with the federal government, the information flagged and/or censored on Moderna’s behalf is often factually accurate.

According to Fang and Poulson, none of the Moderna reports “makes any attempt to dispute the claims made. Rather the claims are automatically deemed ‘misinformation’ if they encourage vaccine hesitancy.”

They continue:

“According to one report we have seen, Musk is deemed to be ‘high risk.’ Specifically, a Musk video that ridiculed media and government officials who claimed the Covid-19 vaccine was ‘100% effective’ against the virus.

“The report did not identify any false statements, but warned that his video highlighted the fact that ‘deception by health authorities and health care providers during the pandemic’ would ‘lay the groundwork to sow distrust in credible sources on vaccine safety and effectiveness.”

Basically, Moderna accurately points out that when health authorities lie and deceive, people stop trusting them. The answer Moderna comes up with, however, is not to quit lying and deceiving. Rather, it’s to bury those who point out that we’ve been lied to and deceived. That way, the liars can continue to deceive and still be held up as paragons of credibility.

What’s so particularly disturbing about this whole COVID-19 jab debacle is that our government and health authorities deceived us in order to benefit Big Pharma.

As Aaron Kheriaty, a bioethicist and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, told Fang and Poulson:

“What often flies under the banner of combating disinformation is … nothing but corporate public relations, trying to spin public narratives in directions favorable to the corporation’s interests.

“Does anyone really want to live under a regime where their social media feed is essentially curated by government or by multinational corporate interests that stand to profit, influencing opinion on these issues?”

Email correspondence also shows Moderna provided a network of 45,000 healthcare professionals with talking points and “advice on how to respond when vaccine misinformation goes mainstream.”

Meanwhile, no one has been keeping healthcare workers abreast of the latest data on COVID-19 jab-related injuries and deaths, not even our public health agencies.

On the contrary, both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been caught hiding, manipulating and lying about those data, which when viewed with a clear eye show the COVID-19 shots are the most dangerous medical products ever released to the public.

Intelligence agencies now work with and for Big Pharma

Moderna’s information control network also includes an internal “global intelligence” division, run by Nikki Rutman, whose curriculum vitae includes 19 years as an intelligence analyst for the FBI and other intelligence agencies.

She’s also served as an adviser on terrorism to the director of National Intelligence and as a counterintelligence analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Rutman joined Moderna in March 2022. During Operation Warp Speed, she worked at the FBI’s Boston office, which held weekly “cybersecurity” meetings with Moderna.

Other former law enforcement agents have also joined the vaccine maker in the wake of Operation Warp Speed.

As noted by Fang and Poulson:

“The involvement of former law enforcement reflects a wider trend in the misinformation-space, as the Department of Homeland Security and FBI have increasingly leaned on social media platforms to shape content decisions as a national security issue.”

Indeed, factually stating that the COVID-19 shots have serious side effects and are killing people now earns you the label of “domestic terrorist,” simply because such statements might make someone else think twice about getting the jab, and getting everyone injected is a top “national security” concern.

The whole thing is ludicrous, considering COVID-19 has a lethality on par with or lower than seasonal influenza. There’s no medically valid reason to inject every man, woman and child, nor are there any valid national security reasons to do so since COVID-19 doesn’t have the ability to decimate the American population. On the contrary, the shots are doing that and most people can now see it.

Moderna ratchets up surveillance in face of growing resistance

However, even though COVID-19 booster uptake has dropped into the low single digits and childhood vaccine exceptions are at an all-time high, indicating there’s a growing resistance to the entire concept of vaccinations, Moderna is not letting up.

Instead, it’s “ratcheting up its surveillance operation,” according to Fang and Poulson.

Its primary interest now is “anything relating to policies designed to coerce vaccination.”

For example, documents show Moderna is tracking elected officials who object to vaccine mandates, as well as new laws that restrict vaccine mandates.

Fang and Poulson write:

“‘Politicians attempting to ban COVID-19 mandates—or at least claiming to—signals growing resistance to COVID-19 mitigations,’ reads one of the Moderna alerts. Given the company avoided publicly commenting on the mandate debate, this is revelatory. …

“[D]espite the growing backlash against social media censorship, the network of fact-checking nonprofits has grown at an industrial pace, providing opaque opportunities for private and public interests to take subtle control over the public discourse.

“Such sophistication in blending public-health messaging and corporate advertising should concern anyone with an interest in how government controls free speech. ‘This is an interesting peek behind the disinformation industry, what it actually does,’ said Kheriaty, the bioethicist.

“‘It’s about controlling a narrative, controlling the flow of information, controlling how people think about public policy, like the vaccine mandate, and how people think about a particular product that a corporation is profiting from,’ he added. ‘It’s deeply disturbing.’”

Big Pharma PR company funds biased speech police

Big Pharma is also manipulating and censoring public discourse via another third party — the PR firm Publicis. The Publicis Groupe is one of the world’s largest communications groups. It represents most major drug companies and tech firms.

Publicis is a partner of and the largest corporate investor in NewsGuard, which rates websites on criteria of credibility and trustworthiness, ostensibly to guide viewers to the “most reliable” sources of news and information.

NewsGuard has influential connections to The Paley Center for Media, which is composed of every major media in the world. NewsGuard is also partnered with the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Department of Defense and the World Health Organization.

Publicis, meanwhile, is partnered with Google, which allows it the ability to bury undesirable views that might hurt its clientele, and the World Economic Forum that is leading the call for a “reset” of the global economy and a complete overhaul of our way of life.

One of NewsGuard’s CEOs, Louis Gordon Crovitz, is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), yet another key player behind The Great Reset. Since its inception, the CFR’s goal has been to undermine U.S. sovereignty and national independence to usher in an all-powerful one-world government.

Over time, it’s become quite clear that NewsGuard’s role in The Great Reset is not only to barricade unpopular truth and differences of opinion behind closed gates but also to force alternative media out of business.

They do that by rating sites as “fake news” and drying up ad revenue by putting them on the BrandGuard exclusion list that Publicis shares with all its advertising clients.

Publishers such as myself, who are critical of the drug industry, have a particularly large target on our backs, even when the information we share is backed up by published research and expert analyses.

The fact that NewsGuard is funded by Publicis makes its low ratings of alternative health sites highly suspect. Basically, Publicis is using NewsGuard to blacklist competitors to Big Pharma (its clients) with the intent to bankrupt them. Conversely, NewsGuard props up those willing to unquestioningly regurgitate drug industry PR.

WebMD is but one example. In February 2021, WebMD and Medscape (a division of WebMD Health Corp.) joined HealthGuard’s VaxFacts campaign “to identify and counter misleading vaccine information.”

HealthGuard is the health- and medicine-specific version of NewsGuard. It makes you wonder how much Publicis might be paying WebMD—one of the largest health websites in the world —to “guard you” from anyone with a differing opinion about how to get and stay healthy.

Transparency is the answer

The sad reality is that those who disagree with the mainstream narrative have now become “terrorists” that must be eradicated, lest the plan for the global technocracy’s control over the population—body, mind and soul—get pushed off-track by an unwilling public.

The answer to this situation is transparency. We must expose the machinations that allow this agenda to be pushed forward. Part of that exposure is looking at the role big PR companies like Publicis play in this scheme.

Another part is exposing how the censorship industry is being restructured into a “middleware model” where “content curation” (censorship) is simply outsourced to third-party organizations.

This way, a “legal” disinformation compliance market is created while governments and big industries alike can claim they have nothing to do with the control of information.

As previously reported, what we’re looking at is the emergence of organized corporate censorship where AI will scour the internet for undesirable views, down to the least-read blog.

Soon, the internet will be completely homogenized, and you simply won’t be able to find information that conflicts with or provides any nuance to the official narrative on a given topic.

To have any chance of thwarting this plan, we must continue to push back against any and all efforts to legalize, standardize and normalize censorship. To vocally object, to refuse to use middleware like NewsGuard, and to boycott any company or organization that uses middleware or engages in censorship of any kind.

Originally published by Mercola.com

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.

The post How Pfizer and Moderna control the vaccine narrative and influence health policy appeared first on Final Call News.

– WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” but WHO’s expert JECFA committee still says it can be safely consumed 

– At least six out of 13 JECFA panel members have ties to ILSI, a longtime Coca-Cola front group 

– A symbiotic relationship exists between AND, the AND Foundation and junk food corporations like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills and Kraft 

– Trade group American Beverage launched a coordinated campaign to downplay WHO’s aspartame-cancer finding by paying registered dietitians and other health professionals to promote aspartame on social media

Foods that are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are passed off as the gold standard or, at the very least, safe. Meanwhile, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), which claims to be “your source for science-based food and nutrition information,” is deemed the “authority” on food policy and the development of U.S. dietary guidelines.

But if you rely on FDA and AND seals of approval to guide your food choices, you’re likely to be led astray. Both entities—and other preeminent public health organizations—represent textbook cases of corporate capture. Beholden to industry, they’re unable to represent the best interests of the American, and global, public. Just look at what happened with aspartame. 

WHO Sends Mixed Messages About Aspartame 

In May 2023, the World Health Organization released a new guideline advising not to use non-sugar sweeteners (NSS), i.e., artificial sweeteners, for weight control because they don’t offer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children. 

What’s more, the systematic review suggested “potential undesirable effects from long-term use of NSS, such as an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and mortality in adults.” Bladder cancer was also among the potential risks. 

Then, July 14, 2023, WHO released its hazard and risk assessments of aspartame, in which WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” I warned about aspartame’s cancer-causing potential in an article I wrote for The Huffington Post, now HuffPost, back in 2010. It’s since been deleted — but you can see just how long this danger has been known. 

U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) has also compiled decades of science showing that aspartame poses serious health risks. The Joint WHO and Food and Agriculture Organization’s Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), which was in the process of updating its aspartame risk assessment, however, released a recommendation that doesn’t line up. 

Despite its possible carcinogenicity, JEFCA reaffirmed that aspartame could be safely consumed at an acceptable daily intake of 40 mg/kg of body weight. 

Coca-Cola Sways WHO Aspartame Review 

“Why the split decision?” asked Gary Ruskin, USRTK executive director. “One possible answer: at least six out of 13 JECFA panel members have ties to the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), a longtime Coca-Cola front group. Both the chair and vice chair of the JECFA panel have ties to ILSI.” 

ILSI is a nonprofit organization founded by former Coca-Cola senior vice president Alex Malaspina. Coca-Cola has also contributed funds to ILSI. According to a case study published in Public Health Nutrition: 

“Previous research shows that ILSI has been an important vehicle for Coca-Cola to exert influence around the world, on policy, researchers, events, policymakers and practitioners, taking a role in promoting messaging that can further commercial interests. 

ILSI supported 30 of the events we identified. Sometimes, ILSI offered to act as a conduit to reimburse public health scientists through Coca-Cola by having them deliver presentations with selected topics.” 

ILSI has been exposed as a shill for the junk food industry, and internal documents revealed ILSI embedded itself in public health panels across Europe and the United Nations in an effort to promote its own industry-focused agenda to raise profits at the expense of public health worldwide. 

With Coca-Cola behind ILSI, and aspartame being the sweetener used in Diet Coke, anyone with ties to ILSI should not have been involved in the JECFA aspartame ruling. Yet, here we are. Ruskin says: 

“JECFA panelists ruling on a chemical that is important to Coca-Cola should not be affiliated with a longtime Coca-Cola front group. This is an obvious conflict of interest. Because of this conflict of interest, JECFA’s conclusions about aspartame are not credible, and the public should not rely on them.” 

U.S. Nutrition Guidelines Are Corrupted by Corporations 

In the video above (see link to this article at the bottom of next page for access to video) , James Li, host of 51/49 with James Li and a contributor to Breaking Points With Krystal and Saagar, also details the blatant conflicts of interest that have sabotaged Americans’ health by corrupting dietary advice and guidelines. This includes corporate capture of nutrition professionals via AND. 

USRTK, along with public health scholars, conducted a five-year investigation into AND’s uncomfortably close ties to junk food manufacturers like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills and Kraft, among others. 

Published in Public Health Nutrition in October 2022, the analysis included documents from 2014 to 2020 obtained through freedom of information requests. A symbiotic relationship between AND, the AND Foundation (ANDF) and corporations was revealed, with industry giants assisting AND and its foundation with financial contributions. 

Not surprisingly, AND acts as a pro-industry voice as a result, one that cannot, in this capacity, represent the best interests of Americans’ health. According to the study: 

“The AND, AND Foundation (ANDF) and its key leaders have ongoing interactions with corporations. These include AND’s leaders holding key positions in multinational food, pharmaceutical or agribusiness corporations, and AND accepting corporate financial contributions.

We found the AND has invested funds in corporations such as Nestlé, PepsiCo and pharmaceutical companies, has discussed internal policies to fit industry needs and has had public positions favoring corporations.” 

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Supports Aspartame 

Given this information, can you guess what the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics had to say about aspartame? While announcing that IARC had classified the artificial sweetener as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” it stood behind it nonetheless, stating in a news release: 

“The Academy will continue to support the recommendations of registered dietitian nutritionists, the food and nutrition experts, who accept the use of nonnutritive sweeteners, including aspartame, by their patients and clients within accepted daily limits until further evidence can be generated … No one ingredient or food increases cancer risk.” 

It’s not as though aspartame is an essential nutrient the body needs. It’s a food additive that can easily be excluded from the diet—one that may cause cancer. So why would any nutrition authority suggest people take the risk of consuming it? 

The fact is that the junk food culture runs deep at AND, beginning in academic institutions and continuing on through regular appearances at corporate conferences and direct monetary contributions. 

From 2011 to 2017, AND received more than $4 million in donations from junk food and ultraprocessed food companies like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestlé, Hershey, Kellogg’s, and Conagra. AND also invested in junk food industries, supporting the very corporations at the root of failing public health in the U.S. In one example from 2015 and 2016, AND had stock in PepsiCo, Nestlé and J.M. Smucker valued at more than $1 million. 

“You could argue free market but, funny enough, emails once again obtained through FOIA revealed that some of the Academy’s leadership were aware that this presented a potential conflict of interest,” Li says. 

In the video, he presents an email from AND spokesperson Donna Martin, who wrote, “Everything looks good to me. The only flag that I saw was that PepsiCo is one of our top 10 stocks. I personally like PepsiCo and do not have any problems with us owning it but I wonder if someone will say something about that.” 

“Well Donna, it’s not a great look,” Li says. Additional egregious findings include the following, reported by USRTK: 

– AND received millions of dollars from companies in the food, pharmaceutical and agribusiness industries. In exchange for these gifts, AND “had policies to provide favors and benefits in return.” 

– AND leaders have acted as employees of or consultants for multinational food, pharmaceutical and agribusiness corporations.

– AND discusses policies to “fit the needs of its food, agribusiness and pharmaceutical industry sponsors.” 

Registered Dietitians Paid to Promote Aspartame’s ‘Safety’ 

There are influencers on social media for just about every conceivable product — including food. Among them are registered dietitians promoting artificial sweeteners and other junk foods while on the industry’s payroll. 

Some of these health professionals are spreading the hashtag #safetyofaspartame, while blasting WHO’s aspartame-designation as “clickbait” and “fear-mongering headlines.” A joint investigation by The Washington Post and The Examination revealed this wasn’t coincidence but a coordinated campaign by trade group American Beverage, which resulted in at least 35 social media posts from health professionals. According to The Washington Post: 

“The trade group paid an undisclosed amount to 10 registered dietitians, as well as a physician and a fitness influencer, to use their social media accounts to help blunt the WHO’s claims that aspartame, a mainstay of Diet Coke and other sodas, is ineffective for weight loss and “possibly carcinogenic.” 

The campaign, which the beverage group acknowledged organizing, highlighted a little-known tactic the multibillion-dollar food and beverage industry is using to sway consumers faced with often-contradictory health messages about popular products.” 

The investigation found that out of 68 dietitians who had 10,000 or more followers on social media, about half had promoted food, beverages or supplements to about 11 million followers over the last year. Messages included those encouraging the consumption of candy and ice cream while minimizing the health risks of ultra processed foods. 

While The Federal Trade Commission tells social media influencers to disclose when they’re being paid for promotions, the investigation found that many influencers weren’t making their corporate ties clear. 

Marlene Schwartz, the director of the University of Connecticut’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health, told The Washington Post, “They’re getting these dietitians to essentially do their marketing for them.” Li showed another example in the video—an article published on the Food Network, written by a registered dietitian, that’s titled, “This Dietitian Wants You to Eat More Processed Food.” 

“This is how the whole processed food industry tunnels in and gets legitimacy for the standard American diet that is causing us so much pain and suffering,” Ruskin says. 

Since you can’t rely on conflicted public health agencies like AND and their registered dietitians or the FDA to provide unbiased nutrition advice, seek it out from sources that put human health ahead of profits. And support those who are working to raise awareness about the widespread corruption tainting public health. Li says: 

“Whether you think the academy is or isn’t able to stay independent and objective given their close financial ties to Big Food, Big Pharma and other agribusiness corporations, the fact is Americans are getting sicker year after year. Obesity, skyrocketing. Type 2 diabetes—on the rise. Cardiovascular disease, after a brief decline, it’s on the rise again. 

All the while, definitely not coincidentally, health care is quickly becoming America’s largest industry. 

… we must continue to advocate for transparency—support the work of organizations that worked tirelessly to obtain documents previously hidden from the public—to arm ourselves with knowledge and to seek the unvarnished truth, because our health literally depends on it.” 

The post Junk Food Shills: Why FDA-Approved Food Can Be Poison appeared first on Final Call News.

Story at a glance:

• Data from 2000 to 2016 revealed rising numbers of people aged 50 years and younger were having heart attacks. Many of those younger than 40 had a lower rate of hypertension than their older counterparts, but their long-term outcomes were similar.
• Outside of the medical literature, a 2023 National Geographic article appears to equate the rising number of athlete deaths from cardiac arrest to the increasing number of young adults with heart attacks resulting from a lack of oxygen supply to the heart muscle.
• Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough notes that a surge of adrenaline can trigger cardiac death in those with myocarditis. One natural surge happens between 3 a.m. and 6 a.m., which corresponds with many cases of people who have died in their sleep, and the other happens during athletic activity.
• During an interview in January, just days after Damar Hamlin went into cardiac arrest on the football field, McCullough discussed the rising number of elite and well-conditioned athletes who have experienced cardiac arrest during practices or games.
• Although the Big Ten schools began a rigorous testing program for myocarditis before the COVID-19 shot, they dropped the program and didn’t reinstate it despite regulatory agencies publicly stating the shot, which all programs mandated for athletes, caused myocarditis in young men, and guidelines before COVID-19 forbade players with myocarditis to play.

Data have revealed that more people are having heart attacks and that more of those people are younger than 50 years. This is notable as this trend appears to have started well before COVID-19.

Your heart is about the size of your fist and beats roughly 100,000 times every day. This little muscle pumps about eight pints of blood through your circulatory system.

The heart has three layers: The endocardium is a thin layer that lines the four chambers; the pericardium is a thin layer that surrounds the heart; the myocardium is the muscle in the middle that pumps blood.

Your heart also has a unique electrical system, the function of which is to stimulate the heart to beat. Each of these factors and more must work together so that oxygen and nutrients are delivered to your body.

When things don’t work right, it’s called heart disease, which is the leading cause of death in men and women.

Increasing heart attacks in young adults began before COVID

In the 2019 study, researchers evaluated 2,097 consecutive patients who were 50 years old or younger and admitted with a Type 1 myocardial infarction (heart attack). The data revealed that 20.5% of the patients were 40 years old or younger.

When data from those patients were compared with older counterparts, they had similar risk profiles with two exceptions. The younger individuals had a higher rate of substance use but a lower rate of hypertension.

The patients were followed up for a median of 11.2 years and the researchers concluded that despite being approximately 10 years younger with a lower prevalence of hypertension, the “very young myocardial infarction patients had similar one-year and long-term outcomes when compared with those aged 41 to 50 years at the time of their index infarction.”

In other words, despite the advantage of age, their long-term outcomes were the same as those who were 10 years older.

A 2023 opinion piece in JAMA also identified a growing number of adults 40 years and younger with premature heart attacks.

The data show that the numbers of heart attacks in this age group have been increasing by 2% every year. The commenters believe the rising prevalence is related to cardiovascular risk factors, such as obesity and hypertension.

The authors caution that the data reveal an “urgent need to refocus cardiovascular disease prevention efforts on young adults.” This trend is also being reported outside of medical literature.

A 2023 article in National Geographic notes there is a rising number of young adults with cardiovascular disease leading to heart attacks.

In a confusing juxtaposition of facts, the National Geographic article appears to equate the rising number of athlete deaths from cardiac arrest to the increasing number of young adults with heart attacks.

The article mentions the cardiac arrest that 18-year-old Bronny James, son of NBA star LeBron James, experienced during basketball practice at the University of Southern California.

The writer then states that cardiac arrest is different, but that it can be caused by several conditions, such as “cardiomyopathy (thickened heart muscle), heart failure, arrhythmias (irregular heartbeat) and, yes, heart attacks.”

While technically correct that a heart attack can trigger cardiac arrest, during which the heart stops beating, it is very rare for highly trained athletes to have health conditions that trigger a heart attack and then cardiac arrest.

The article then lists some of the biggest risk factors for heart disease at a younger age, including “high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol and obesity, all of which can clog and damage the arteries and blood vessels that carry oxygen-rich blood to the heart.”

Finally, there are two paragraphs about COVID-19 and heart health, concluding:

“However, it’s still not clear why younger adults appear to be more vulnerable to COVID’s cardiovascular complications.”

Rising athlete deaths linked to abnormal electrical events

No mention is made in the National Geographic article of the thousands who have had heart attacks or myocarditis from the COVID-19 shot.

In June 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) acknowledged that Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 shots increase the risk for myocarditis and pericarditis.

According to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), as of July 28, there were 27,343 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis, 20,505 heart attacks and 35,726 deaths, all connected with the COVID-19 shots.

One year after the shot was released, a January 2022 JAMA study of 192,405,448 persons, concluded:

“The risk of myocarditis after receiving mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines was increased across multiple age and sex strata and was highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males and young men. This risk should be considered in the context of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination.”

Then, in May, a Yale University press release called the 27,000-plus cases of myocarditis reported to VAERS “rare” events.

During an interview with Peter Sweden, cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough describes the relationship between myocarditis and abnormal electrical events in the heart that lead to cardiac arrest.

McCullough said:

“Here’s the relationship: the COVID-19 vaccines cause myocarditis, the FDA and all the regulatory agencies agree. Now as a cardiologist, I can tell you if somebody has myocarditis, we can’t let them play sports because the surge of adrenaline will trigger a cardiac arrest.

“Our guidelines before COVID said don’t let somebody with myocarditis play sports. So now athletes have taken the vaccine, they’re developing myocarditis, they’re playing sports and for some unfortunate ones, it triggers a cardiac death. This is a straightforward relationship. This is not controversial.”

McCullough also notes that there are two times when there is a natural surge of adrenaline or epinephrine.

One of those is between 3 a.m. and 6 a.m. in the morning, which corresponds with the many cases of people who have died in their sleep from sudden cardiac death. The second normal surge is during athletic activity.

Accountability and transparency have been lost

McCullough was interviewed by Children’s Health Defense TV in January, just after Damar Hamlin, a football player for the Buffalo Bills, experienced a cardiac arrest on the field.

At the start of the interview, he discusses a recent paper in which he and his colleague found a significant increase in cardiac arrests after the release of the COVID-19 shot.

“Recently I published with Dr. [Panagis] Polykretis from Europe, that before COVID-19 vaccine the average number of cardiac arrests in all of the European soccer and football leagues, which is way more players than the NFL, the average number of cardiac arrests were 29 per year, that’s before the vaccines.

“The vaccines were ushered in in 2021 and since that time the tally now for cardiac arrest on the field with professional sports players in Europe is 1598; 1101 of them have been fatal cases.”

McCullough goes on to discuss myocarditis with interviewer Aimee McBride. He notes that in more than half the cases, there is no initial presentation and there are no symptoms, although scarring is visible on MRI.

The scar that forms on the heart is the setup for an abnormal electrical rhythm that can lead to sudden adult death syndrome.

In his initial analysis of the playback, McCullough rules out several conditions, among them commotio cordis.

Commotio cordis is a condition that can trigger cardiac arrest when the breastbone (sternum) is struck in just the right place.

As McCullough describes, football gear protects the breastbone and while this condition is seen 20 to 30 times a year in baseball players, it has not been seen in NFL players, likely because of the protective gear they wear.

McCullough and McBride expressed hope that the case of Damar Hamlin would open the floodgates and create a situation in which the “silence and gaslighting” about the safety of the vaccine would come to an end because Hamlin’s event was publicized on national television, or “the world stage,” as McBride put it.

In the past, an athlete’s vaccine history was silenced, but since the NFL mandated the shot, it was hoped this event would be enough to trigger an investigation.

Unfortunately, their hope was in vain as Hamlin announced in April, that his condition was caused by commotio cordis, with no mention of his vaccination status being made in the media, despite the NFL statistics that at least 80% of the athletes took the shot by July 2021, and that some teams had greater than 90% of the players taking the shot.

In a recent article on Substack, McCullough notes two studies, one that conclusively shows the myocarditis induced by the COVID-19 shot can be fatal, and another that found in young people with MRI-confirmed heart damage, there was 58% residual abnormality to the heart after one year—which suggests that the damage is forming a scar on the heart muscle and may be permanent at a year.

Interestingly, of the 40 adolescents (mostly boys) evaluated, 73% had no cardiac symptoms. Without an evaluation, parents would not have known the child had heart damage.

VAERS likely doesn’t show the whole picture

McCullough notes a 1992 study that demonstrated a coronavirus infection could cause myocarditis in animals.

When COVID-19 first appeared in 2020, approximately 30% of the Big Ten athletes got sick. The Big Ten programs instituted testing programs that included EKGs, echocardiograms, MRIs and blood work checking for cardiac troponin.

After finding just six players with myocarditis out of the thousands tested, the testing program was abandoned.

Yet, once the vaccine was released and myocarditis became a real problem, the screening programs were not reinstated.

According to McCullough, none of the NFL and college football organizations are using advanced biomarkers to detect athletes with myocarditis, even after mandating that all athletes receive the vaccine and despite knowing the FDA and other regulatory agencies have acknowledged that myocarditis is a very real side effect. McCullough calls this a giant misstep of testing.

The VAERS system is supposed to identify vaccines that trigger an abnormal number of side effects, or lots of shots that cause problems.

However, as McCullough notes, you must enter detailed information into VAERS with all the necessary information to file a report, including the vaccine lot number.

He believes this is a significant reason for underreporting in VAERS since, without the vaccine card associated with that patient, you can’t begin the report.

While anyone can make a report to VAERS—a component that critics use to claim that VAERS can contain errors and even false claims—due to the lengthy and complicated submittal process, adverse events are notoriously under-reported, not over-reported.

Originally published by Dr. Joseph Mercola. Dr. Mercola is an osteopathic physician, as well as a best-selling author and expert in the field of natural health. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.

The post Heart Attacks in People Under Age 50 Were on the Rise Before COVID, But Not in Athletes —Until the Vaccines Rolled Out appeared first on Final Call News.