Safe and Effective®

Autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

Through our autopsy-based approach, we identified five cases of lymphocytic (epi-)myocarditis in persons, who were unexpectedly found dead at home within the first week following mRNA-mediated anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunization. According to the Dallas criteria four samples were classified as definitive myocarditis. In the remaining case, comparable inflammatory infiltration of the epicardium, subepicardial fat and myocardium was found, but myocardial infiltration did not exceed the threshold of the Dallas criteria. All cases showed a consistent phenotype: (A) focal interstitial lymphocytic myocardial infiltration, in three cases accompanied by demonstrable microfocal myocyte destruction. (B) T-cell dominant infiltrate with CD4 positive T-cells outnumbering CD8 positive T-cells by far; (C) frequently associated with T-cell infiltration of epicardium and subepicardial fat tissue revealing a similar immune phenotype (CD4 >  > CD8).

A review of the paper by Dr. John Campbell.

115 Replies to “Safe and Effective®”

  1. I watched this podcast a few days ago. It looks like pretty thorough and convincing autopsy data. No wonder politicians didn’t want autopsies done on all those “cause unknown” deaths.

    Sometimes it important to state the obvious :

    1- preventative medicine given to healthy people should not cause their death.
    2- governments should never violate bodily autonomy and medical rights to coerce or force people to take a medical procedure.
    3- governments who coerced or forced people to take a medical procedure that can cause death or permanent disability should be brought up on criminal charges and sued in civil courts.

  2. Full disclosure, I think there were three or four words in that statement that I actually understood!

    However, at least we are seeing more and more truthful reports by qualified people each week. I’m not sure how the turd government can continue with the charade of pushing the goo vax. Even for fools and liars, the truth reaches them at some point right?…………………………….Right?

    Besides all the obvious delinquent traits that the drama queen has, such as his rampant narcissism, his superiority complex, his inability to tolerate reality or sensible policies, a serial liar with his woke, green, lgbtqerty, BLM, WEF attachments ad infinitum, I am starting to realize he may be almost successfully hiding the fact that he is a psychopath! Prove me wrong! I say almost, because he does show his true self often, I just don’t think many people see it. It’s proven he’s uncaring about how his policies affect us, he’s demonstrated fake tears while clutching a teddy bear, the slamming on a peaceful Trucker protest, with the emergency act for no reason other than his dictatorial ruler king tendencies. Is there no end to this madness?

    When will people wake up to the fact that we have a narcissistic psychopath destroying this country?

    1. They’ll applaud, because their pride will not allow themselves to admit that they too are narcissistic psychopaths.

    2. Me: What does all this mean Mr Natural?

      Mr. Natural: Don’t mean shit!

      I don’t understand all the medical jargon either … and I don’t particularly care about it.

    3. “A” narcissistic psychopath”? Just ONE?

      There seems to be an over-abundance of them globally, both the obvious “elected” ones and the vast armies of seemingly-unaccountable “pubic serpents” and churnalists.

      And Karens. (And whatever tee soy-boy equivalent is).

    4. TRUER WORDS WERE NEVER SPOKEN……

      YOU ARE 1000000%. CORRECT

      when will people wake up???

  3. There was more revealed in the Johnson Senate hearing yesterday. Three hours of testimony from Malone, Cory, McCullough, Cole, Thorpe and a host of others.

    https://rumble.com/v1ze4d0-covid-19-vaccines-what-they-are-how-they-work-and-possible-causes-of-injuri.html

    If this doesn’t result in a suspension of all injection programs and a subsequent Grand Jury with accompanying indictments and convictions then we have lost all that we have gained since the Magna Carta.

    1. Antenor, EXCELLENT!!
      Thanks for the link.
      Dr Paul Alexander spoke in this round table. He was in Ottawa with the Freedom Convoy.
      Also, the other great heroes: Drs Mccullogh, Malone, Cole, Kory and more.
      Powerful!!!

    2. Further to my previous post above, I realize that most of you will not take the time to listen to the whole hearing, but in line with the death of the six year old mentioned in some of the posts I would suggest that at the very least click on the link and cue to 2:26:30 and listen for at least ten minutes if not until the end. Then go back and cue to the 1:33:00 mark.

  4. As soon as the feds said “inject yourself with this, or else” I was sold, said no-one, ever, except for 80% of the population.
    Now every city in Canada has tranny story hours at the libraries.
    But Russia is bad.
    But China is bad.
    …and you are all afraid of batteries, “illegal” guns and whatever else you are told to fear. You make me sick.
    SMOD take us now, because if you don’t, someone else will, and even if its the sickened theocratic Saudis or the norks, they’d be hard-pressed to be as screwed up as the west is.

    1. No one asks why China, probably the worlds largest economy now, would rather lock up it’s workforce/ slaveforce sacrificing billions/ trillions in GDP rather than stick their lowly peasants with readily available mRNA vaccines.

      It’s not like China can’t afford to buy or make mRNA vaccines cheaper than dirt. They have the Bio-labs, they can go to the moon – but – stick the slave class with a cheap needle to keep the money rolling in – not a chance.

      1. Sundance at CTH theorizes that the Chinese crackdowns exist to stop large corps from being able to influence state policy.

        1. Meh, I’d question why the CCP would fret about large corp influence when they appear to clearly call the shots on Big Corp as with Apple. They do love their money and the influence it buys as much as any greedy anti-capitalist communist would.

          It just seems implausible to take to the scale of their anti-business lock-downs with potential detrimental risks & costs of social uprisings when they could simply poke em with a needle like the west claims to have worked.

          Just say’n, no answers here only speculations based on their obvious aversion of the mRNA vaccines.

          1. I remember when western gov’ts used to think that they called the shots over the corps.
            The Chinese state is smart, focused and utterly ruthless.
            I don’t think they do this because of a virus, they don’t care if 10% die, ergo they have other reasons, and they are not reasons like “they ran out of babies to eat, so they do this in a fit of pique, because evil.”
            No answers here, either, just speculation.

  5. Some of these medical terms seem burdensome to use. Can we agree to call this one a “heart fart from the clot shot”?

  6. Dr. Campbell uses the words “Smoking Gun”. A retired pathologist commenter on the YouTube video called it more than a smoking gun (he witnessed a friend die of a pulmonary embolism shortly after getting a jab). The German pathologist authors of the paper use language that ties the jabs to being the likely cause of sudden death. So, it seems this is a live round prepped for a court room examination for discovery when people start suing. I remember how the Media dismissed most cases of vax caused myocarditis as “mild”. Now it seems all it takes to cause sudden unexpected death is spotty heart damage caused by such mild cases. That kinda opens them up to being accessories, eh?

    1. As Dr McCullough has often stated: “There is no such thing as ‘mild’ myocarditis!”

      Cheers

      Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

      1st St Nicolaas Army
      Army Group “True North”

    2. “I remember how the Media dismissed most cases of vax caused myocarditis as “mild”.”

      So they only “mildly” kicked the bucket?

  7. It doesn’t help much if “most cases of vax-caused myocarditis” if your own case isn’t.

  8. Of course at the end of the day all the adverse effects including death is 100% due to Climate Change and Racism.

        1. Yeppers. It completely & entirely changes the complexion of the data. Some jurisdictions counted 2-3 weeks after the jabs as unvaxxed.

          1. And that D B is proof that the jabs never did work, at least against the dreaded “covid”. They sure as hell are effectively killing people.

        2. It’s difficult to classify them because the vaccine takes weeks to have full effect. In someone who already has COVID, a vaccination shot probably has no beneficial effect whatsoever. It would be reasonable to simply exclude such people from the analysis.

          1. They have zero effect other than destroying immune systems. Zero efficacy, freaking zero. The two week bullsh*t lie was the out for the lack of efficacy and sudden death after the shot.

          2. “They have zero effect other than destroying immune systems. Zero efficacy, freaking zero.”

            Based on what evidence? Present your case.

      1. I just had a look at the Ontario data you linked to. Looking at Figure one and comparing it to the subsequent figures and tables and the discrepancies jump right out at me. Compare hospitalized cases in Table 3 to Figure 1. Note that there was hardly any vaccination from Dec. 14/20 through to mid-July/21. This is because vaccine was limited. Most of the people dying were unvaccinated because of this reason. Larger quantities of vaccine available to the general public didn’t start arriving until May. Yet Table 3 doesn’t make this distinction. It just lumps all these people in as unvaccinated. Now go to the Omicron outbreak that started in mid-December /21 in Fig. 1. Look at the massive amount of blue and yellow – infections in the fully vaccinated and boosted – and compare it to the grey (unvaccinated). There are more hospitalizations in the fully vaxed. Yet Table 3 lumps in all the unvaxed for the full time period even though unvaxed people were unvaxed because there was no vaccine. KM is trying to say there is a difference, yet differences are only comparable once vaccination was 100% available to everyone. Which only took place about November /21, when governments started forcing people to get vaccinated. Before that unvaxed were infected without the vaccine because there wasn’t enough vaccine available, not because people didn’t want vaccination. From Nov/21 onward, more than enough vaccine was available, yet even with 80% vaccination rates we are seeing huge rates of infection in the fully vaxed and boosted.

        And look at Figs 2 & 3. Jesus! The 7 day “averaging” they use completely removes the April 21/21 peak of unvaxed deaths and hospitalizations and reverses the order so the unvaxed numbers appear larger than show in Fig. 1 during the Jan. 22 peak. Why use an “average” instead of total numbers? What was the point? Because they are concealing the fat finger on the scale. To anyone used to looking at numbers and statistics, this is outright chicanery that is blatantly obvious. Who the f…. do they think they are fooling. Oh wait, useful idiots like KM.

        1. That’s just a bizarre critique.

          1. The population that really matters here is the elderly, because that’s where most COVID mortalities have been, and most of them were vaccinated by the summer of 2021.

          2. You don’t have to pay any attention to the graph before the fall of 2021 if you don’t want to. It still tells the same story.

          3. “There are more hospitalizations in the fully vaxed.” You are making a base-rate error. The reason there were more hospitalizations among the fully vaxxed was because there were far more people who were fully vaxed, especially among the elderly. It’s the RATE of hospitalizations among the various groups that matters here, not the absolute numbers.

          4. “yet differences are only comparable once vaccination was 100% available to everyone.” I don’t get the logic there. And at any rate, most mortalities were among the elderly, and the vaccines were available to them quite early.

          5. The reason figure 1 looks different than figures 2 and 3 is because they’re showing different things. One is COVID cases and the other two hospitalizations and deaths. Further, Figure 1 is for all people and Figure 2 and 3 are for people 60 years and older.

          No, the moving average didn’t remove spikes. A seven-day moving average is too short to remove such peaks. Smear them a bit is all.

          1. Why use an average? You are deflecting the question.
            Wait, you’re telling me that the curve disappears for people over 60? The people at most risk… and the numbers just evaporate? After telling me “The population that really matters here is the elderly”.
            People died from covid early in 21 and they were unvaxed because there was no vaccine! You cannot use those people to add to your numbers to compare the unvaxed group to the situation where vaccination was fully available, as was the case in Nov. 21. Because Fig. 1 shows the data is completely different early in 21 compared to late in 21 and later. But these government apparatchiks certainly think you can.
            And I’m making a “base rate error”? You gormless idiot. The publication you are using to try and convince us of your point of view is using data that embraces the base rate fallacy because it is using relative ratios and not calculating absolute risk. See!!! I can look this up on wikipedia just like you can!

          2. You apply a smoother to the data because (1) the day-to-day numbers bounce around so much that without a smoother the graph is difficult to look at, and (2) hospitals tend to report their statistics on certain days of the week — thus the use of a SEVEN DAY AVERAGE which removes that effect. It’s not some scheme to distort the information; quite the opposite.

            You’re making up weird objections because you don’t like what the data is telling you. But after you get through with this data, you’ll have to take on data from B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, and 50 other states and provinces because they all tell the same story. There’s a significiantly higher COVID mortality rate among unvaccinated than vaccinated people.

            “People died from covid early in 21 and they were unvaxed because there was no vaccine!”

            Right, so don’t look at that part of the chart. Easy.

            Also, the owner of this blog has asked that there be no insults. She sounded miffed the last time she reminded us.

          3. why apply a “smoother” to the data in figure 2 – its the same data as figure 1? Same time scale on the x axis! What’s the point? It does eliminate the peak for early in 21, though. What else is it doing? How do I know the average is just an average and doesn’t smooth anything else. Where is the calculation to derive the average? It isn’t included, is it. If it’s the average, where are the error bars? Everything in this publication is couched as relative risk vaxed to unvaxed without including absolute numbers for vaccine effectiveness at the population level. Without including those numbers Ontario is just misrepresenting the data. And so are you. And I did post several responses to your other comments further below explaining this with linked references – and then watched them disappear. Who am I really dealing with here?

          4. You seem obsessed over smoothing filters. It’s just bizarre. There’s nothing nefarious about them. They don’t hide anything except to remove very high frequencies. The trends remain the same, and peaks occuring over one week or more will still be there.

            But we simply can’t get away from it. The data from numerous regions show that vaccines do reduce COVID mortality. Like in California…

            https://covid19.ca.gov/state-dashboard/

            And no, I didn’t remove your posts. The blog owner has said that posts with links sometimes get thrown into moderation. More than two or three links in one post seems to do it. It’s hilarious that you think I have the power to remove your posts, but you can take off your tinfoil hat. People probably are out to get you, but not me.

    1. KMs “scientific” papers are from “our world in data”, a known shill for the Gates Foundation, and a state website, from a state that still pushes the jab.

          1. Show me the data where “people like me” are dying. I produce citations till the cows come home and you produce nothing. Prove your case.

            Prove your case.

          1. So scientific papers, and data collected by government health departments, are f*****g lies.

            You must have a better source of information. What is that, precisely? Serious question. What are you basing your opinions on?

          2. Re: scientific papers (bearing in mind this was as of Sep, 2021):

            There have been 154 retracted COVID studies. The damage may already be done

            https://fortune.com/2021/09/02/retract-covid-papers-the-capsule/amp/

            Re: data.

            Data is merely data. It cannot be wrong. How it is collected (accuracy, etc.), how it is interpreted (confirmation bias, etc.), how it is manipulated (see Globull Warming, esp. Hockey Sticks), how it is presented (types of graphs, etc.), is everything.

            Excluding the recently jabbed from the “vaxx”-injured file creates a tremendous bias in the data. That is a lie.

            When politicians & doctors are either being paid by drug companies to promote their product or have investments in said companies (or both), a wee bit of bias kicks in.

            When your job depends on promoting the lie, you promote the hell out of it. Many hospitals were paid a premium per covid case. Think every cough, sore throat & runny nose that walked in the door was the coof? No? Then why did seasonal flu all but disappear in the last two years?

          3. “So what’s your point?”

            You hold scientific papers up like they’re some sort of holy grail. They’re not. Especially if you have a vested interest in promoting a particular narrative. Again, see Globull Warming.

        1. “You hold scientific papers up like they’re some sort of holy grail. They’re not.”

          I have never claimed anywhere at any time that scientific research is perfect. I am an editor for a (nonmedical) scientific journal. I am painfully aware of the deficiencies in the process.

          They are, though, the best thing we’ve got, and through the years the scientific method has produced spectacular results. Till something better comes along, I’ll tend to side with the science. If you have something better, I’m all ears.

          1. Whose “science”? You throw out accusations of confirmation bias willy-nilly while never once looking in the mirror.

            If, indeed, you are a science journal editor, then you’ve read reputable research illustrating the other side of the argument.

          2. “you’ve read reputable research illustrating the other side of the argument.”

            There are a few studies showing that COVID vaccines are ineffective or overly dangerous. Given that there are now over 100,000 scientific papers on COVID, that’s to be expected. But these papers tend to be poorly done, with small sample sizes and poor controls, and a few have been retracted. The overwhelming evidence is that the vaccines are strongly beneficial.

            But I’m willing to be convinced. Please cite some of this “reputable research”.

  9. It’s no secret that the vaccines can cause mycarditis. There are plenty of papers on it. The rate seems to be about 1 in 10,000 cases after vaccination.

    https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(22)00842-X.pdf

    But (1) COVID infection presents a far greater risk of mycarditis than the vaccine, and (2) getting vaccinated both reduces your chances of getting infected, and reduces your chances of getting myocarditis if you do get infected.

    1. 1) There’s zero actual evidence of that, and nobody tied myocarditis to COVID until after people started dying from mRNA-related side effects, and 2) the evidence is now overwhelming that neither of those things is true. Even mainstream medical sources are acknowledging that the mRNA treatment increases your chance of COVID-19 infection. Keep shilling, Baghdad Marmot.

      1. // nobody tied myocarditis to COVID until after people started dying from mRNA-related side effects, //

        Myocarditis Associated With COVID-19
        Received August 31, 2020;
        Am J Med Case Rep. 2020; 8(12): 498–502.

        Abstract
        Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly evolved into a global pandemic, with affecting to-date over 23 million people and causing over 800,000 deaths around the globe. The major pathogenetic mechanisms include inflammation, vasoconstriction and thrombogenesis. Infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) typically manifests as fever, cough, shortness of breath, and exhibits radiographic evidence of bilateral pneumonic infiltrates.
        Recent meta-analyses have shown that myocardial injury, including viral myocarditis, is prevalent among infected patients,
        especially in patients requiring ICU level care.

        Related: //A first generation of COVID-19 vaccines is expected to gain approval as soon as the end of 2020 or early 2021.//

        1. All cause deaths are still rising, worse than they were during the height of the pandemic, in places where the mRNA jab was administered.
          We all know that mRNA in nano-lipid particles are not vaccines.
          Vaccines are weakened or dead versions of the virus.
          Coronavirii like the common cold mutate faster than, say, HIV does, and there is still no HIV vax.
          The world has been lied to, on a scale previously unknown, for fun and profit, and death.

        2. Curious that the “experts” were so quick to allegedly associate myocarditis w/ the coof (a matter of months), yet, nearly two years later, are still in denial about it’s relationship with the jab…

      2. “the evidence is now overwhelming that neither of those things is true.”

        Prove it. Produce data and scientific studies supporting your allegations.

    2. Even if that were true, why would you or anyone else vaccinated care if other people choose the “risks” of not being vaccinated?

      I believe we can agree that the “vaccines” don’t prevent spread, and that they don’t prevent infection. At best they are a symptom reliever for those that become infected – like an aspirin for a headache.

      Let the investigations roll,if there is nothing to hide then all governments and their Health departments should encourage independent studies to autopsy the handling of these “safe & effective” vaccines and the processes of their roll-out from lab to slab.

      1. I don’t care if you don’t get vaccinated.

        I do care if my mother reads a lot of horse crap on the internet and decides not to, but fortunately she has common sense.

        1. So spreading your own misinformation without the full scientific knowledge to others helps save your mother. Got it.

          Well hopefully your not wrong and smart enough to keep your opinions hidden behind the keyboard until the science is truly settled, or there may be allot of very pissed of young parents with a beef.

          1. The science is never settled, but the consensus opinion is one’s best bet. Never a sure thing, but definitely the preferred approach.

            Let me ask you what I have asked many others. I base my opinions on scientific studies. What do YOU base your opinions on? What do you have that’s better than the science? Why is it more trustworthy?

            It’s a sincere question. I’m not trying to score points. I’m trying to discover the justification for strident anti-vaccine sentiments when the science is so clear on the issue.

    3. Horse Hocky KM. I think 1 in 10,000 number you quote is cherry picked trash.

      This is from a Thai clinical study of Pfizer vaxxed adolescents (Aug.19/22): “We enrolled 314 participants; of these, 13 participants were lost to follow-up, leaving 301 participants for analysis. The most common cardiovascular signs and symptoms were tachycardia (7.64%), shortness of breath (6.64%), palpitation (4.32%), chest pain (4.32%), and hypertension (3.99%). One participant could have more than one sign and/or symptom. Seven participants (2.33%) exhibited at least one elevated cardiac biomarker or positive lab assessments. Cardiovascular manifestations were found in 29.24% of patients, ranging from tachycardia or palpitation to myopericarditis. Myopericarditis was confirmed in one patient after vaccination. Two patients had suspected pericarditis and four patients had suspected subclinical myocarditis. In conclusion, Cardiovascular manifestation in adolescents after BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccination included tachycardia, palpitation, and myopericarditis.”

      So, nearly 3 in 10 adolescents in the study experienced a cardiovascular manifestation following the vax. And 6 in 301 or 2% of the 301 adolescents analyzed had suspected myocarditis & pericarditis (some previous studies estimated adolescent boys getting myo/pericarditis at a rate ~1 in 2500 – HUGE DIFFERENCE OF 50x!). These cardio manifestations aren’t just happening in kids. The 25 German stiffs didn’t even know they had myocarditis (5 of those were between 46 and 70 yrs). The incidence of cardiovascular manifestations is clearly underreported and judging from all the denial going on from Gov’ts & the Media it seems intentional. If you can’t admit, in the face of obvious proof, that this is a HUGE problem then you’re either beyond delusional or a liar. As mentioned earlier, there is no such thing as mild myocarditis. Idiot.

        1. You can Google, no? That’s what I did. But if you want to get jabs until one finally gets you be my guest.

          1. Now why wouldn’t you provide a link to a paper that you’re so familiar with that you can quote from it? I can only assume you don’t want people reading it except for those bits you want to provide. It certainly suggests you’re playing games. But I figure this is the paper:

            https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202208.0151/v1

            I don’t actually think children should be vaccinated, because the vaccine side effects can be severe, the disease relatively mild for them, and the vaccines are less able to prevent infection as the virus has mutated. It’s those who are truly at risk of mortality from the disease who should be vaccinated, as the vaccine reduces the severity of the symptoms. Like all vaccines, it’s a matter of balancing risks versus benefits.

            Unfortunately this paper isn’t very good. 314 is a woefully small number of particpants to draw conclusions from. Further, the word “suspected” doesn’t instill confidence in the conclusions.

            Also you neglected to quote “all cases fully recovering within 14 days”.

      1. I recommend you not call people “idiot”. The blog owner as repeatedly warned people not to hurl insults.

        1. “Go ahead and prove your case”. You think 314 isn’t statistically significant as a focused clinical study? 25 is statistically significant and this study is more than 10 times that. You can’t use Google? You throw out a BOGUS 1 IN 10,000 number that is clearly a LIE. People are dying from the EFF’N JAB! I have people close to me that lost jobs over their refusal to take the clot shot. After three years of madness I’ve had it! If a lifelong conformist health researcher like Dr. Campbell can become angered over people unexpectedly dropping dead what the hell does that say about ‘SAFE AND EFFECTIVE”? The data shows that the jabs are not. And how dumb does one have to be to quote “all cases fully recovering within 14 days” when the damage caused by myocarditis and pericarditis is permanent. Maybe symptoms have subsided, but the heart muscle is scarred – likely shortening their lives. So maybe I was a little out of line to call someone I don’t know personally an idiot. But you sure as heck sound like one. Jordan Peterson says not to throw one’s pearls before swine. I can’t get it out of my head that is the mistake I’m making here.

          1. “And how dumb does one have to be to quote “all cases fully recovering within 14 days” when the damage caused by myocarditis and pericarditis is permanent.”

            So you support the conclusions of this paper except those parts where you don’t. Okay.

          2. You spend your days walking into walls KM? Care to show me proof that scarred heart tissue heals? If you can’t then shut up.

          3. “You throw out a BOGUS 1 IN 10,000 number that is clearly a LIE.”

            https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(22)00842-X.pdf

            To quote: “The absolute risk of myocarditis or pericarditis, calculated as the incidence rate within 1–7 days of vaccination, for men aged 18–25 years after a second vaccination dose was 2.17 per 100,000 person-days.”

            That’s a rate of about one in 6000. Other studies have found somewhat different rates.

          4. KM, you challenge others to PROVE their comments. Yet you’re playing fast and loose with the numbers. Double standard, no? So, 1 in 10,000 now becomes 1 in 6000. Pfft. And the best part is you’re deaf, dumb and blind to the very subject matter of this post. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad. That 25 people died unexpectedly, at home, from undiagnosed heart damage caused by myocarditis as a result of taking the vax. The German pathologist study absolutely shreds any confidence in past studies that based their findings only on reported cases. It’s obvious that there’s many more people with undiagnosed vax caused myocarditis. Is it 2% like the Thai Adolescent Clinical Study found? It’s sure as heck a whole lot more than 1 in 10,000 or 6,000 or whatever bogus number you’re peddling from lazy papers that database mine only “reported” cases and make zero attempt to close the gap with how many could be undiagnosed.

            And hey, nitpicker, did you find proof yet that scarred heart tissue from “mild” myocarditis heals?

          5. “Yet you’re playing fast and loose with the numbers. Double standard, no? So, 1 in 10,000 now becomes 1 in 6000.”

            The 6000 number is based on a Lancet paper for men between the ages of 18-25 years. Different demographics have different numbers, and different research studies also have different numbers. If you’re looking for absolute precision and perfect consistency you won’t find it, because it’s not possible in the real world. This is basic. I shouldn’t have to explain this.

            Also, I don’t know what the “German pathologist study” is supposed to be. As I mentioned elsewhere, over 100,000 COVID papers have been published. If you want to refer to a paper, link to it or at least give the title. Vague allusions are nonsense.

          6. “I don’t know what the “German pathologist study” is supposed to be.”??? Really? Watch the link for Dr. Campbell’s review in this post. Hint: It’s ALL ABOUT the German Pathologist Study. If you bother to actually watch it, you might get a clue but I’m not optimistic that will be the outcome. Wow, so you’ve just been commenting here without even looking into the content of this Post? You obviously don’t believe that vax caused adverse effects are underreported or it doesn’t matter a hoot to you. Yep, Mr. Peterson’s right. Pearls before swine.

            Still no proof about how damaged heart tissue from mild myocarditis heals? Smh.

    4. KM….check out the link that Antenor posted.
      Your assumption that “covid presents a far greater risk” is entirely wiped out by the many brave doctors in the room.

      1. Looks like Senator Johnson rounded up a bunch of vaccine skeptics, who remarkably came to the conclusion he was hoping for. Quelle surprize.

        I haven’t listened to the entre thing, but I imagine the good senator didn’t bother inviting scientists making the opposite case.

        1. It’s not a vaccine, it’s an experimental gene shot. They changed the legal definition to include an untested new form of treatment.

          1. It’s a vaccine. It reduces your chances of being infected with COVID. It also reduces the severity of symptoms if you do get infected.

            By your definition, many vaccines are “experimental”. You don’t wait for years on end to test an influenza vaccine before releasing it, as by that time the disease has mutated into another strain and the vaccine is less effective.

          2. It’s a vaccine only in the sense that the definition of vaccine has recently been changed.

            It’s like broadening the definition of black to include white. Suddenly everything is black.

          3. Further, there is little enough evidence, if any, to support your conjecture it lessens infection.

            As to your claim of reducing severity, I’m calling an official bullshit. There is no possible scientific way to measure that. Each person’s physiological response to an infection is unique & subjective.

          4. “There is no possible scientific way to measure that. Each person’s physiological response to an infection is unique & subjective.”

            Unique yes, but so what? Death is not subjective, nor is diagnosed pneumonia. These things are measurable.

          5. “Unique yes, but so what?”

            Unique as in impossible to compare against others, that’s what. That’s why your claim of being able to compare the severity of the disease between jabbed & un-jabbed is bunk.

            Death is not subjective…

            You do go on, don’t you? I can envision the headline already:

            Patient’s Covid death was less severe due to 5th vax

            “These things are measurable.”

            Sure. Check off the “pneumonia” box. Now what? How are you going to compare that to millions of other cases in a meaningful fashion that accurately quantifies the difference between jabbed & un-jabbed? Again, it can’t be done.

            If it could, you’d hear it shouted from the rooftops by the jab promotors in a further effort to convince purebloods to submit to the “vaxx”. Unless, of course, the data showed otherwise…

          6. Of course it’s possible.

            You can record who gets hospitalized for COVID, who comes down with pneumonia, who gets put on ventilators, and who dies. And you know what their vaccination history is, their age, their sex, and so on.

            And from this data, you can determine, with the proper analysis, whether vaccines help prevent serious symptoms in COVID patients.

            Sorry if you have trouble wrapping your head around this, but it’s not fundamentally complicated, although executing such studies is no small feat.

          7. No, it’s not possible. Too many subjective variables. A brief list below.

            1. The criteria for admittance to hospital are very subjective. Who is the doctor? How full is the hospital? What are the symptoms?
            2. The advice from the medical community re: Covid has been the same from day 1: Stay at home until you’re sick enough to come to the hospital. Again, subjectivity.
            3. Who gets put on ventilators is also very subjective. Who is the doctor? What are the symptoms? How many ventilators does the hospital have?
            4. Has the patient been on a preventative protocol (Vit D, Vit K, Zn, etc.)? For how long? Has the patient been treated in any way (Ivermectin, HCQ, etc.)? For how long? Are they a day or a week into the illness? What about their diet?
            5. COD is also subjective. Did they die of Covid or with Covid? Recently there were major reworks of COD stats being done for that precise reason.

            It is impossible to design a statistical method around a dozen or more subjective variables & expect meaningful results.

          8. There’s no particular reason to think that those effects are correlated with vaccination status. Thus with enough cases, that random noise averages out, leaving the signal (do vaccines help or not?) exposed.

            This is why the best studies involve hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions, of cases, and studies involved 314 cases are questionable.

          9. “This is why the best studies involve hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions, of cases, and studies involved 314 cases are questionable.”

            Vax caused injuries are grossly under-reported and there seems to be concerted efforts to severely restrict such reporting in many countries. So, studies that rely on incomplete databases, even involving “hundreds of thousands”, to draw conclusions are by definition untrustworthy. GIGO. Whereas a focused clinical study containing hundreds of named participants that are tracked in real time and give medical researchers far more detailed data can give a more nuanced analysis. And a focused study of 314 IS ABSOLUTELY STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT. That you insist on calling it a small number isn’t just stupid. It’s dishonest. I don’t call 3 in 10 experiencing cardiac manifestations “noise”.

            Btw you commented here that everyone in the Thai study “fully recovered” including the 6 participants suspected of myocarditis / pericarditis. I’ve never been told by anyone medical that heart tissue damaged by myocarditis and pericarditis heals. I’ve heard the opposite, that such damage is permanent. I know why you said it – because you’re trying to make the case that vax caused cardiac manifestations in the study were no big deal and therefore the whole study should be dismissed. You don’t like that study. I get it. It interferes with all the many thousands of studies relying on biased databases that say “Safe and Effective”. That’s not what I call the Scientific Method. It’s dishonesty.

          10. “you commented here that everyone in the Thai study “fully recovered” including the 6 participants suspected of myocarditis / pericarditis.”

            Incorrect. I reported that the study itself stated that. It wasn’t my opinion. You didn’t want to give a link to the paper, and I suspected there were some parts you didn’t want quoted. I was right.

            But you can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim the study is terrific, but that some parts are nonsense.

            And now I got one guy claiming that random effects can not be compensated for and therefore COVID studies are useless, and another telling me that 314 cases is more than enough to overcome random effects and reach definitive conclusions. You guys should get your stories straight.

          11. “I don’t call 3 in 10 experiencing cardiac manifestations “noise”.”

            Most of those manifestations were heart palpitations. Heart palpitations are extremely common, and can be caused by eating & drinking, caffeine, anxiety, and so on. We all have them, but they are rarely serious. In this study they might have been caused by the anxiety of being medically examined, or being in a medical building, or a belief that COVID vaccines could harm them. And yes, they may have been caused by the vaccine. We don’t know.

            It’s a good reason why double-blind controls would have been valuable in this study, where some patients were given the vaccine and some distilled water, and where the researchers themselves did not know which was which until afterwords.

    5. KM, take your propaganda garbage and shove it. There are many posters here, that have not and WILL NEVER TAKE ANY CLOT SHOT! But you are welcome to take my 5 shots and the shots from everyone else here, it should satisfy your irrational Covid fears.

      The best thing about being a ‘conspiracy theorist’, is NOT having myocarditis. Or Bell’s Palsy. Or Neuropathy. Or Strokes, Embolism or Thrombosis. Or Organ Failure. Or heart attacks. Or Died Suddenly.

      Get it yet?

      1. I don’t have propaganda. I have published scientific studies.

        What do YOU have? How are your opinions supported? Show us.

        1. All of your scientific studies come from compromised sources, on the payroll of the very people pushing the jabs, like the Lancet, the CDC, Our World in Data, etc.
          A wee bit of research into who is funding what would tell you that, mister “statistician”, but, for some reason, you prefer to quote these “authorities” without telling anyone of their antecedents and/or funding.
          In other words, you suck, and are a bald-faced liar.
          Now is the time for you to cry to mommy because of the mean man.

          1. So every conceivable scientific source that might refute your opinions is compromized. You’ve built yourself an impenetrable fortress where science, research, and data cannot intrude. You know your opinions are true because you just know.

            Unfortunately for you, the inability to be proven wrong is not the same as being correct. Usually the opposite, actually.

        2. “I don’t have propaganda. I have published scientific studies.”

          Yes. Too bad that it is political science, though…

          1. “Yes. Too bad that it is political science, though…”

            Translation: I don’t like their conclusions.

  10. But (1) COVID infection presents a far greater risk of mycarditis than the vaccine?.. I dont buy it.. If they had a shred of anything that wasn’t computer model BS.. Like the unvaxxed are falling over from heart attack’s.. We would not only heard about it we would have also experienced the zeitgeist of it..

    It didn’t happen..

    Then it follows up more computer model BS on how the not a vaccine works.. Stick to your guns.. Get your booster.. Its your life..

  11. When you watch Dr. Campbell regularly, you can see how successful Youtube is in intimidating content providers.

    Campbell is scared shitless to express an opinion. He limits his info to direct quotes from “approved sources” only.

    It’s actually sad to watch how it cramps his style.

    1. Thats why I ignored him early in.
      I look to Dr. Ryan Cole and Dr. Kelly Victory now for some insight.

    2. I find it fascinating how Dr. Campbell communicates between the lines. That’s actually how the Progressive Left’s been communicating for decades. I know exactly what he’s getting at even if he can’t be explicit. It’s the data with Dr. Campbell’s level knowledgeable interpretation that brings the value to his vids. He’s an excellent educator and makes it easy to come to your own conclusions.

  12. An interesting study: the histological “phenotype” will be useful.

    A bit of the discussion:
    // Besides pneumonia, myocarditis is another manifestation reported during SARS-CoV-2-infection [24].
    It is under debate whether myocarditis in COVID-19 is primarily caused by the viral infection or whether it occurs secondary as a consequence of the host´s immune response,[…]
    Thus, it seems possible that a molecular mimicry between the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 and self-antigens may trigger an anti-myocytic immune response in predisposed individuals[…]
    it is at least tempting to speculate that inadvertent intravascular vaccine injection may be contributive.

    The nature of our autopsy study necessitates that the data are descriptive in quality and does not allow any epidemiological conclusions in terms of incidence or risk estimation.
    The reported incidence of (epi-)myocarditis after vaccination is low and the risks of hospitalization and death associated with COVID-19 are stated to be greater than the recorded risk associated with COVID-19 vaccination //

    1. LOL.
      All those sudden/unknown deaths(biggest cause of death in places that keep stats) in the last year are from covid, but they’re not telling us, because reasons, even as they continue to push the jab.
      Liars and obfuscators like you are responsible for more deaths now than all anti-vaxxers throughout history.
      You are un-effin-real.

    2. Dizzy, you do see the “cover-your-ass” words in your comment, right? “The reported incidence” is obviously not the actual incidence of post-vax myocarditis. Given that these 25 unexpected “suddenly died” autopsy subjects died from the same ventricular fibrillation causing undiagnosed heart injury the obvious conclusion is the actual incidence is much higher. That then affects the stated conclusion that the risks of Covid illness are greater than the vax risks. It’s all a big house of cards with one lie supporting another. Thankfully this German pathologist study, imo, shakes the whole table under those cards enough to bring it down. Throw in the Thai clinical study that shows 3 in 10 adolescents suffering from cardiac manifestations post vax and the link between the heart and the vax is clear and common. Remember that 50 people dying from the Swine flu vax in the 70’s was enough to stop that program. What about a heart scarring life shortening side effect affecting potentially 2% of the ~5 billion people that according to “Our World in Data” have at least two shots. That’s 100 MILLION PEOPLE or just under 3 Canada’s. And that doesn’t take into account the Cancer epidemic. Or all the neurological diseases and sudden strokes in young people. How the heck did the World go from stopping at 50 to damning hundreds of millions in less than 50 years? The World needs to stop Admiring their dictatorship.

      1. There’s a bit of ambiguity in the word incidence. Sometimes it refers to a number,
        but more regularly it is a rate or proportion.

        Their study was of 25 sudden deaths, and they found some relation to the vaccine.
        The study said nothing about total numbers, which is why they
        said “reported”, [giving a reference:

        Myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination: clinical observations and potential mechanisms
        // the incidence of COVID-19-associated cardiac injury or myocarditis is estimated to be 100 times higher
        (1,000–1,400 per 100,000 people with COVID-19) than that of COVID-19 mRNA-vaccine-related myocarditis7.//
        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41569-021-00662-w

        1. dizzy your estimate of actual incidence of 1000 to 1400 per 100K ppl is in pretty decent agreement with the 2% rate the Thai adolescent clinical study found for myocarditis and pericarditis incidence. And those numbers ARE about 100X HGHER than what K-Marmot gave as a reported incidence. The implications of such a high rate of heart injuring disease on the 5 Billion people that were at least double vaxxed is massive. That’s around 100 Million people affected.

    1. As the propaganda er advertising on the Durham County buses in Ontario stated a while back, myocarditis in young children is peeeeerfectly normal.

  13. Remember when the jab fans were telling us we’re gonna die, and kill grandma, and how happy they were that we’re gonna die, and how they wanted to ostracize us all?
    Now all cause mortality is higher than it ever was in the worst wave of the scamdemic, and guess whose dying now? It ain’t the unjabbed.
    Now those clowns get to die, and they did it all by themselves, call it MAiD.

  14. I’ve got asymptomatic covid, and will have for as long as I can get away with. Whenever some guy bugs me, I just tell him I’ve got covid. It’s like a hex to keep aholes away.

  15. Medical question: How long after receiving the “vaccine” is one susceptible to myocarditis? 3 months? A year? No one knows?

    Legal question: Where do I apply for my vaccine mandate reparations?

    1. Re: Medical question. Quickly.

      A Late Presentation of COVID-19 Vaccine-Induced Myocarditis

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8504680/

      “…there have been few case reports of acute myocarditis within 3-5 days following the second dose of the vaccine.”

      VAERS Data Confirm Myocarditis Risk After mRNA Vaccine

      https://www.physiciansweekly.com/vaers-data-confirm-myocarditis-risk-after-mrna-vaccine

      “Symptoms associated with the heart muscle inflammation disorder were typically diagnosed within days of vaccination.”

  16. I’ve been offline, so sorry if I’ve missed this, but has Saskatoon’s Leigh-Ann Dale’s 9 minute covid injury video been posted here? I just saw it this morning, and am curious to her current status, especially with her struggle with the gov of Sask.

Navigation