Leading Heart Journal Completely Ignores Probability of Vaccine Myocarditis.
The Australian regulatory authorities have reversed their position on ivermectin, partially and in a sly manner. Ivermectin is permitted to be used from June as a physician may see fit. It is emphasised that ivermectin should not be used as a prophylactic; if used in a COVID patient, little harm will come to the patient who is already immunised. This is the same regulating agency that insulted the finest tennis player alive some months ago for not being vaccinated. And now it has quietly suspended use of the Astra Zeneca vaccine. They still do not concede what the entire world knows: that vaccines are incapable of preventing infection, transmission, hospitalisation, or even death. Moreover, far from having any salutatory effect, vaccines damage immunity.
One saving grace for all of us is that the prevailing sublineages are far less pathogenic despite being significantly more infective and immune-evasive. A patient will recover even if not treated. There is no need for fancy protocols; just ivermectin alone is more than enough. At least, this has been my experience throughout almost the entire pandemic.
That the times are strange is a no brainer. It is virtually impossible to speak out against any aspect of this pandemic. Worse, many write their stacks with little clinical experience behind them, and many do not hesitate to milk the pandemic under the guise of combating the official narrative.
I don't understand how RFK Jr. will explain why vaccination status was demanded of guests at his party. A very paradoxical situation. But then I have absolutely no interest in the American elections; I am a citizen of India.
I pity those who demand RCTs on ivermectin and also those busy tweeting about the inadequacies of these trials. The plain truth is that RCTs can be rigged with impunity when you have to sell your vaccines. The argument that a Nobel Prize was awarded to the scientists who discovered ivermectin does not apply because that was for parasites and not the COVID virus. The reality is that the big machine trampling the world can generate thousands of RCTs on the lack of efficacy of ivermectin. The trick is to check the money trail and the fiscal inputs into these studies.
Why bother to discuss RCTs on ivermevtin when you have treated hundreds or thousands of COVID patients successfully with ivermectin? After all, real-time, hands-on experience by a clinician is worth much more than the opinion of a journalist or even a scientist who has never treated a patient with COVID.
Getting a study reporting the safety and efficacy of ivermectin published in a major peer-reviewed journal is out of the question. Similarly, reporting a case of vaccine-induced myocarditis can be a monumental task. The manuscript will be dismissed in the blink of an eye. You will be vilified and dismissed if you speak about such a case in public. The climate is such. Let's face it.
According to an intriguing study involving 511 young professional soccer players, only 17 of them experienced new ECG changes after contracting COVID. Of these 17 cases with abnormal ECGs, fifteen demonstrated inflammation on cardiac MRI. Thirty asymtomatic soccer players did not have MRI changes. On follow-up (median of 270 days), not a single soccer player with ECG or MRI changes had a cardiac event. Crucially, the study includes cases between March 2020 and May 2022. This was the period when most, if not all, of these professional soccer players must have been vaccinated. The vaccine mandates were being imposed with great ferocity and vigour in 2021 and 2022.
The study was published by the British Medical Journal in its issue of the journal "Heart". Heart is a pure cardiac journal. Why would a heart journal of such repute agree to publish a paper on COVID-induced myocarditis without a word, phrase, or sentence on the status of vaccination in these professional soccer players? This beggars belief. Who are the people who reviewed the manuscript? Who are the editors who permitted publication?
The issue is not whether myocarditis is more likely post-infection or after vaccination. The complete denial of the probability of vaccine induced myocarditis by a heart journal published by the BMJ is a matter of serious concern. We are staring at a credibility and integrity problem. The in-your-face charade refuses to stop.
Anyone reading this paper in twenty years will have no idea about the suffering that vaccine myocarditis causes today. This is the obliteration of history.