Covid Roundup: Myocarditis, Ivermectin, Pandemic Of The Injected?
There’s a lot going on with the Covid Regime. We’ll skip the official developments and turn instead to some newsworthy informational developments (most links h/t TGP and Dr. Malone).
First up is a major study just out in Nature regarding risks of myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmias arising from both Covid-the-disease as well as from the anti-Covid injections. The article is complicated for non-science types, like me, but here’s the link:
Fortunately, there’s a fairly readable summary of the significance of this study, which I’ll excerpt in fairly brief form. Let me just say up front that the major takeaway, as I understood it, is twofold:
Myocarditis is a significant risk of Covid-the-disease and, in the overall population, significantly outweighs the risk of myocarditis associated with the injections. However,
Matters change drastically when you look only at the under 40 age group. In that age group the risk of myocarditis associated with the injections is significantly higher than the risk of myocarditis from the disease.
So, here’s my very brief excerpt summary. Be aware, the author is very pro-injection, but not so much pro-boost.
everything you need to know￼
On December 14th, 2021 Nature Medicine released a study based on a broad population data set analyzed by researchers at Oxford examining the risks of myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmias associated with COVID-19 vaccination and infection1. Interestingly, the literature revealed some eye opening information about myocarditis that will be discussed in this publication. ...
First, some history
What brought things to this point? In other words, why this study examining adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination?
Here's the short story. The reason for the study is simply because the initial vaccine trials were utterly inadequate--virtually guaranteed not to catch the types of side effects we're experiencing (which is not to say that the trials, inadequate as they were, were reassuring).
... As a consequence, myocarditis was not seen during initial testing, but was experienced by the general population after mass vaccination. That is because the number of people inoculated worldwide is [vastly] larger than the number of people studied in the clinical trials.
Next, the author presents four graphs "detailing the occurrence of myocarditis overall, myocarditis in people 40 and younger, pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmias post vaccination." He makes a special point, which needs to be understood clearly, that the second graph (<40) includes both males and females. The significance of this is that it's already well known that the danger of injection induced myocarditis is much greater among younger males than females. In other words, a graph that separated out males from females would have shown even more alarming results--which, of course, explains the restrictions on vaxxing younger males in quite a number of European countries. I would add that it is also possible that restricting the graph to males <30--which is the cutoff for vax restrictions in those European countries--might be gob-smacking. So ...
… The red bar indicates the event per million experienced (myocarditis overall) from COVID-19 infection. Moving to the highest bar on the second graph, you can see in people aged 40 and under, the risk of myocarditis is overwhelmingly higher from 2nd dose Moderna (orange bar) compared to simply getting COVID-19 infection (red bar next to orange bar on same graph). It is important to note, as mentioned in my previous publication, the risk of myocarditis is substantially higher in males 40 and under8. What’s interesting here is that, the 2nd graph below accounts for both males and females 40 and under. All and all, if the graph was reflective of ONLY MALES 40 and under, the orange bar would be much higher. Such a reflection suggests that males 40 and under experience much higher rates of myocarditis after vaccination with Moderna than any another other group.
It seems individuals 40 and under (predominantly males) experience a higher rate of myocarditis after the 2nd dose of Moderna (mRNA-1273) and to a lesser degree Pfizer (BNT162b2) compared to others. Finally, next to no inflammatory heart conditions were seen after administration of AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1).
I'll skip over the author's recommendations--read them fwiw. Instead I'll conclude with the author's warning about the disinformation that's being put out in the MSM regarding the supposedly mild nature of these myocarditis cases:
As a side note, if you listen to the mainstream media enough they’ll have you believing myocarditis is a mild symptom. Let me be clear, by definition, symptoms requiring hospitalization are defined as severe. What’s more, the average mortality rate of non-fulminant myocarditis is nearly 56% which is experienced within 3-10 years. Sadly, that is a consequence of the likely heart failure that develops after the acute phase of myocarditis has resolved. See picture below 👇🏻
All things considered, it is clear that individuals under 40 are at a high risk of experiencing vaccine induced myocarditis.
Think about all this in the context of mandates at colleges, of young people generally, and the push to inject ever younger cohorts. This is sick.
Next, it’s a Merry Ivermectin Christmas, says Dr. Malone:
This will be short because, guess what? Articles in The Journal of Antibiotics tend to be on the highly technical side. I’ll simply slice and dice the opening and concluding portions. The authors tread carefully lest they be canceled by the anti-science watchdogs, but the implication is clear: Given the safety profile of Ivermectin, what reason could there possibly be to prevent doctors from prescribing it—indeed, for distributing it widely and for free?
Considering the urgency of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, detection of new mutant strains and potential re-emergence of novel coronaviruses, repurposing of drugs such as ivermectin could be worthy of attention. This review article aims to discuss the probable mechanisms of action of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2 ...
Although several drugs received emergency use authorization for COVID-19 treatment with unsatisfactory supportive data, ivermectin, on the other hand, has been sidelined. Nevertheless, many countries adopted ivermectin as one of the first-line treatment options for COVID-19.
With the ongoing vaccine roll-out programs in full swing across the globe, the longevity of the immunity offered by these vaccines or their role in offering protection against new mutant strains is still a matter of debate. Thus, the search for new, effective antivirals continues.
Ivermectin has rapid oral absorption, high liposolubility, is widely distributed in the body, metabolized in the liver (cytochrome P450 system), and excreted almost exclusively in feces . Following a standard oral dose in healthy humans, it reaches peak plasma levels at 3.4–5 h, and plasma half-life has been reported to be 12–66 h. Despite its widespread use, there are relatively few studies on the pharmacokinetics of ivermectin in humans. Ivermectin binds strongly to plasma proteins in healthy subjects (93.2%). Such an “avid binding” can be beneficial when administered in countries where malnutrition and hypoalbuminemia are common, leading to increased availability of “free fraction” of ivermectin. Hypoalbuminemia is a frequent finding in patients with COVID‐19 and it also appears to be linked to the severity of lung injury. Therefore, ivermectin could have sufficient bioavailability when used in such a setting.
We have summarized published results on the inhibition of multiple viral and host targets that could be involved in SARS-CoV-2 replication and the disease COVID-19. Although multiple antiviral and host target activities have been reported for ivermectin in SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, it is still unclear if any of these activities will play a role in the prevention and treatment of the disease. The controlled clinical trials that are underway will reveal if these activities will translate into clinical efficacy.
And finally …
I’ll try to keep this next part relatively brief, but the topic—whether we’re seeing evidence from data around the world of a pandemic of the vaxxed—is fraught with interest. Dr. Malone flags a very interesting article, which is blessedly non-technical:
As we all know, the UK produces some excellent, fairly transparent data on SARS-COV-2 and COVID-19; some of the best in the world. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) produces an infection survey, every couple of weeks or so, which shows the characteristics of people testing positive for COVID-19. Up until the latest release, the results were consistent with a vaccine that worked, albeit one who’s efficacy was waning quickly. Those who received one does were less likely to test positive for COVID-19 than those not vaccinated. People who reported receiving three vaccinations (including booster vaccinations) were even less likely to test positive than those who had a second dose more than 90 days ago.
That was until Omicron showed up and the latest survey was released today (21 December 2021). This only has a small dataset … but combined with data emerging from Denmark and Canada, the trend is worrying. El Gato Malo has written about the Danish study here and Alex Berenson about Canada here so I will focus on the UK’s data.
If you are new to the concept of Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE) or Original Antigenic Sin (OAS), then Eugyppius has some very good articles on this subject. In a nutshell, ADE occurs when suboptimal antibodies actually enhance entry into host cells, i.e. they act as a trojan horse to allow the virus an easier pathway into your cells. OAS, on the other hand, is where your immune response is primed to the very first time you encountered a virus. The next time you encounter the same virus or a variant, your immunological memory will only produce antibodies to the original virus your body was primed for. Therefore, the immune system is unable to mount an effective response to new variants because it is “stuck” producing antibodies to the original variant.
These are both issues which have caused problems in previous coronavirus vaccine trials and which many people have been warning about from the beginning of the vaccine rollout.
So, what does the data from the UK tell us today. Firstly, those who have been infected with COVID-19 and become reinfected are more likely to test positive for an infection compatible with the Omicron variant, compared with those who test positive with their first infections. More shockingly, when you delve into the data itself, THE MORE YOU VACCINATE, the more likely you are to get Omicron.
Is this ADE or OAS rearing its ugly head, there is much debate about that online. Is this just a small dataset producing weird results? Maybe but the Danish and Canadian data suggest otherwise.
These data only indicate likelihood of infection, not serious disease or death. However, if this is OAS, is this the New Normal to expect with the most vaccinated individuals most likely to get infected with new variants?
Right. Reread that last sentence. What have the mad scientists of the injection cult wrought? What were they thinking? And what happens if a variant nastier than Omicron comes along? Hmmm.