COVID-19
The Tragic Story Of A 14-Year-Old Vaccine Myocarditis Victim — One Of Umpteen Males Misinformed By Health Authorities
Posted with permission from the author, this was originally published in Noble Truths with Rav Arora
Vaccine myocarditis is not trivial, mild, or “rare.” In young men, it’s a far greater risk than Covid hospitalization and death.
Read Part 1 and Part 2 of my investigative vaccine myocarditis series.
On May 12th of last year, school teacher Emily Jo took her 14-year-old son Aiden to get his first Pfizer vaccine dose. The public health authorities and her son’s pediatrician unanimously recommended vaccination, prompting her decision. She knew that mRNA shots caused some number of adverse events, like all vaccines, but was re-assured by the CDC and White House’s public recommendation.
“The talk amongst the mainstream medical community was that vaccine myocarditis was mild and that this was very rare,” she told me.
At that time, despite alarming heart inflammation reports from Israel, the CDC publicly claimed to have found no signal of myocarditis after “intentionally” investigating over 200 million administered doses.
 |
Moreover, Emily Jo was never warned of the myocarditis risk or informed about the risk-benefit profile.
“When I took Aiden to get his vaccines at the drive-through vaccination site, there was no warning about myocarditis. We were not counseled about any side effects to be aware of,” she said.
In the name of public safety, scientific innovation, and personal health, Emily Jo sent out a celebratory tweet proclaiming she and her family are “so thankful” their teenage son was able to get vaccinated.
 |
However, her pride and relief turned out to be tragically short-lived. Two days after her son’s second vaccine dose (which he got a month after his first), he ended up in the hospital after experiencing intense chest pain. He was moved to a room on the acute cardiac floor where he was found to have elevated troponin levels (a key sign of heart damage) and an abnormal electrocardiogram. Every doctor Emily Jo spoke to at the pediatric hospital Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta confirmed her son had vaccine-induced myocarditis.
 |
Given her son’s dire condition, Emily worried Aidan might die or suffer from a catastrophic injury. Thankfully, after four distressful days at the hospital, Aidan troponin levels returned to baseline and he was discharged. However, this didn’t mean he could return to his normal life. Aidan was unable to do physical activity for six months. Sports, hikes, and other forms of exercise were deemed too dangerous for his heart — a typical consequence of myocardial injuries.
“I had no idea how life altering ‘mild’ myocarditis actually is. I have a very hard time with the label ‘mild’ for anything that requires hospitalization and months of inactivity,” Emily Jo said.
The most serious concern with Aidan’s vaccine injury isn’t the harrowing experience itself, but the frequency at which it occurs. Virtually any substance or medication will produce a diverse range of reactions across the human population. As Sam Harris has correctly noted, if you administer peanuts to everyone, there will be some number of fatalities and cases of anaphylaxis.
The rare incidence of life-threatening anomalies doesn’t mean that peanuts produce a net harm or should be banned altogether. Tragic interactions with any kind of externality are often exaggerated and exploited to justify irrational ideological agendas. For example, Minneapolis officer Derek Chauvin’s treatment of George Floyd paved the way for radical “Abolish the Police” initiatives.
In the case of COVID-19 vaccines causing myocarditis, we aren’t dealing with trivial ratios of one in a million or even one in ten thousand. Among the most robust data we have—according to Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg (Florida Health department) and Dr. Marty Makary (Johns Hopkins University)—is from Dr. Katie Sharff (who had her young son vaccinated) and colleagues, who analyzed a wide database from Kaiser Permanente.
Dr. Vinay Prasad on the Kaiser Permanente study
Going beyond other study methods, Sharff found a number of vaccine myocarditis cases that weren’t explicitly labelled as such or were outside the parameters of the CDC’s vaccine safety search. After performing an exhaustive search of the Kaiser medical records, Sharff and colleagues found a 1 in 1,862 rate of myocarditis after the second dose in young men ages 18 to 24. For boys ages 12 to 17, the rate was 1 in 2,650. Countries with active surveillance monitoring of medical data (which suffer from far less under-reporting than the passive system in the U.S)—such as Hong Kong—show virtually identical figures. The risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis remains elevated for men up to the age of 40.
11:26 PM ∙ Jul 19, 2022
One need not be an anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist to recognize these figures are alarmingly high.
Historically, vaccines with adverse event profiles far lower — but still deemed far too high — than the mRNA myocarditis signal have been withdrawn. The 1976 swine flu vaccine was pulled back because of a 1 in 100,000 risk of Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
An approximate 1 in 3,000 risk of vaccine myocarditis in young males would only be favorable in a cost-benefit analysis wherein the risk of disease would be considerably serious.
The pre-vaccine Covid infection fatality rate for people under 30 was 0.003%.
The vaccine myocarditis risk after dose two (0.03%) is ten times higher than the fatality rate.
Today, since the vast majority of young Americans have been previously infected with Covid once or twice, the calculus has shifted. Putting aside the question of whether it makes sense for unvaccinated people to get the primary series targeting outdated variants, the myocarditis risk (in young males) from even one dose eclipses that of hospitalizations from re-infection. Josh Stevenson — a data analyst who has co-authored multiple peer-reviewed studies on vaccine myocarditis — has designed the following bar graph comparing risks:
 |
 |
Using Covid hospitalization statistics instead of deaths is a more accurate comparison since Covid deaths are virtually nonexistent in healthy, young populations. Still, the differences are massive. For example, the risk of myocarditis from dose one in males ages 18-24 is 15 times higher than hospitalization from Covid re-infection. For dose two, the risk differential is a stunning 61 times greater.
Unless a young male is immunocompromised, obese, or suffering from other serious health conditions, taking any mRNA Covid vaccines carries far more risk than benefit. The best data indicate this is a fact — though this is hardly considered in mainstream media.
***
Cases such as Aidan’s have prompted many honest voices in the public health community to reflect on the CDC’s top-down vaccine recommendations. Dr. Anish Koka—a renowned cardiologist with his own clinic in Philadelphia—believes medical experts should have been “more careful about recommending this to low-risk patients from the very outset.”
Koka Cardiology
As he explained to me over email, “Clinical myocarditis is never mild—a recent paper of 12–29-year-olds found 25% of myocarditis patients end up in the ICU, and 1 patient needed ECMO (a modified heart lung machine) to stay alive.”
 |
“The long term impacts of the persistent scars that are apparent in follow-up on cardiac MRI are also unknown,” he added.
Koka believes it was “apparent by April (of 2021) there was a real safety signal,” and he questions why public health authorities “didn’t make decisions starting then to at least inform the public about this potential side effect at that point. ”
Instead of mitigating risks by further spacing vaccine doses, recommending Pfizer over Moderna, and being honest about near-zero risks of severe outcomes in younger, healthy groups, Big Pharma in collusion with the government recklessly opted for universal decrees.
Looking back on the CDC and Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) possible negligence and recklessness, Khoka stated the harm perpetrated was “unconscionable.”
More and more medical professionals are now speaking out on the strong likelihood that vaccine-induced myocarditis seems to occur at a rate that far exceeds deaths and hospitalizations in healthy, naturally immunized men under 40. Johns Hopkins public health professor Marty Makary recently wrote in a tweet:
“Last y[ea]r, the NEJM described a 22-yr-old that died from vax-induced myocarditis & I’ve heard of many more cases. I have never heard of a young healthy person with nat[ural] immunity dying from Covid. Our gov’t doctors have not been honest about the risks:benefit in young healthy people.”
2:00 PM ∙ Sep 27, 2022
I had been frankly hesitant to make such a statement since it isn’t scientifically rigorous, but since this topic is becoming less taboo, I will say it now: I have heard (without deliberately seeking) of several vaccine myocarditis cases in healthy, young people but have heard of zero hospitalizations and deaths.
This observation is in line with real-world statistics. According to UK databefore Omicron—when the virus was deadlier—the COVID-19 death rate was just over 0.001 percent in unvaccinated 30-year-olds. For unvaccinated people in their 20s, the risk was more like 0.0001 percent. Hospitalization figures (from, not with COVID-19) are similarly infinitesimally low. Compare that with a vaccine myocarditis risk of 0.03 percent in young men.
It makes little coherent sense why young males were not only permitted and recommended to get the mRNA vaccine series, but mandated by the state (as I wrote at length here). This injustice is even more egregious now that we know vaccines confer little to no long-term protection against infection.
Aidan’s mother recently came across a new scientific paper showing dismal vaccine efficacy in adolescents and tweeted the following:
Thinking about the fact that Aidan got myocarditis for 30.6% transient efficacy is pretty infuriating…This Pfizer vaccine was initially sold as 95% effective. Big change.
Fast-forward to today, Aidan is far from his physical condition before getting double-vaccinated. After advising him against even going on for a walk for the first four months post-vaccination — and eventually allowing a return to exercise after six months — Aidan’s cardiologist has cleared him for all physical activity. However, “he tires more easily and has lower endurance,” Emily says.
“He used to be able to run around and play for hours….now it’s like 20-30 minutes and he gets exhausted,” she added.
More than a year later, Aidan is still recovering from a vaccine that had little to provide him in the first place. Though some have shamed Emily for getting her son vaccinated, she is hardly to blame for trusting in taxpayer-funded health agencies whose sole function is to keep the public healthy and safe.
In light of the FDA and CDC’s outrageous push to vaccinate everyone with the new “bivalent” booster—despite explicitly “unknown” myocarditis risks—hopefully more people will wake up and re-evaluate their blind faith in institutions who have far abandoned their ostensible mission of keeping us safe and healthy.
Rav Arora is a 21-year-old, independent journalist formerly writing for top publications such as The Globe and Mail and New York Post before critically covering vaccines and state mandates. Please consider supporting his fearless journalism, focusing on tragic stories of vaccine myocarditis, by becoming a paid subscriber. Read his in-depth vaccine myocarditis series here.
Consider becoming a paid subscriber to help fund future vaccine injury investigations:
Thank you for reading Noble Truths with Rav Arora. This post is public so feel free to share it.
From LifeSiteNews
Data from Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program shows that to date, only 138 of the 2,233 claims have been approved by a medical board for a payout.
Canada’s program for those injured by the COVID vaccines, which the federal government still insists are safe, has only paid out 6 percent of the claims made.
A look at the data from the nation’s Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) shows that to date, only 138 of the 2,233 claims made to the program have been approved by a medical board for payout.
Some 2,069 claims have had an “administrative review completed” with 1,825 being deemed “admissible,” but remain in the process of “being depersonalized and prepared to move forward to a preliminary medical review.” Some 620 claims have been assessed by the Medical Review Board but are still under review.
Total payouts so far stand around $11.2 million, with the number of people filing claims to the program growing steadily.
LifeSiteNews recently reported that the Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s recently tabled 2024 budget earmarked an extra $36 million for the program.
Some people who were successful in getting payouts from VISP have said that the compensation awarded was insufficient considering the injuries sustained from the COVID shots.
As reported by LifeSiteNews last year, 42-year-old Ross Wightman from British Columbia launched a lawsuit against AstraZeneca, the federal government of Canada, the government of his province, and the pharmacy at which he was injected after receiving what he considers inadequate compensation from VISP.
He was one of the first citizens in Canada to receive federal financial compensation due to a COVID vaccine injury under VISP. Wightman received the AstraZeneca shot in April 2021 and shortly after became totally paralyzed. He was subsequently diagnosed with Guillain-Barré Syndrome.
Whitman was given a one-time payout of $250,000 and about $90,000 per year in income replacement, but noted, as per a recent True North report, that he does not even know if those dollar amounts “would ease the pain.”
“Given the extent of the permanent life-changing injuries, a couple hundred thousand dollars isn’t much, that’s for sure,” he said.
All Canadian provinces except Quebec are covered by VISP, who has its own vaccine compensation program that also appears to be slow at paying out to applicants.
Yesterday, LifeSiteNews reported about a 30-year-old Quebec man who developed a severe skin condition after taking Moderna’s mRNA experimental COVID-19 shot. He still has not heard anything from the provincial government regarding compensation through its vaccine injury program despite the debilitating nature of his condition.
Despite the need for a federal program to address those injured by the vaccines once mandated by the Trudeau government, Health Canada still says “[I]t’s safe to receive a COVID-19 vaccine following infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. Vaccination is very important, even if you’ve had COVID-19.”
The federal government is also continuing to purchase COVID jabs despite the fact the government’s own data shows that most Canadians are flat-out refusing a COVID booster injection.
Indeed, records show the federal government has spent approximately $9.9 million on social media advertising to promote the
From LifeSiteNews
Utah and Florida passed laws intended to prevent the WHO from overriding states’ authority on matters of public health policy, and Louisiana and Oklahoma have legislation set to take effect soon pending final votes.
Two states have passed laws – and two states have bills pending – intended to prevent the World Health Organization (WHO) from overriding states’ authority on matters of public health policy.
Utah and Florida passed laws and Louisiana and Oklahoma have legislation set to take effect soon pending final votes. Several other states are considering similar bills.
The WHO member states will convene next month at the World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, to vote on two proposals – the so-called “pandemic accord” or “pandemic treaty,” and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) – that would give the WHO sweeping new pandemic powers.
The Biden administration supports the two WHO proposals, but opposition is growing at the state level.
Proponents of the WHO’s proposals say they are vital for preparing humanity against the “next pandemic,” perhaps caused by a yet-unknown “Disease X.”
But the bills passed by state legislatures reflect frequently voiced criticisms that the WHO’s proposals imperil national sovereignty, medical and bodily sovereignty and personal liberties, and may lead to global vaccine mandates.
Critics also argue the WHO proposals may open the door to global digital “health passports” and global censorship targeting alleged “misinformation.”
Such criticisms are behind state legislative initiatives to oppose the WHO, on the basis that states’ rights are protected under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Under the 10th Amendment, all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Such powers, critics say, include public health policy.
Mary Holland, president of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), told The Defender:
It is encouraging to see states like Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Utah pass resolutions to clarify that the WHO has no power to determine health policy in their states. Historically, health has been the purview of state and local government, not the U.S. federal government.
There is no legitimate constitutional basis for the federal government to outsource health decision-making on pandemics to an international body. As state legislatures become aware of the WHO’s agenda, they are pushing back to assert their autonomy – and this is welcome.
Internist Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, told The Defender that, contrary to arguments that the drafters of the constitution could not foresee future public health needs, vaccines, doctors, and medicine were all in existence at the time the 10th Amendment was written. They were “deliberately left out,” she said.
READ: Thousands of protesters rally in Tokyo against proposed WHO pandemic treaty
This has implications for the federal government’s efforts in support of the WHO’s proposals, according to Nass. “The government doesn’t have the authority to give the WHO powers for which it lacks authority,” she said.
Tennessee state Rep. Bud Hulsey (R-Sullivan County) told The Epoch Times, “We’re almost to a place in this country that the federal government has trampled on the sovereignty of states for so long that in peoples’ minds, they have no options.”
“It’s like whatever the federal government says is the supreme law of the land, and it’s not. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land,” he added.
Utah, Florida laws passed
On January 31, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R) signed Senate Bill 57, the “Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act,” into law. It does not mention the WHO, but prohibits “enforcement of a federal directive within the state by government officers if the Legislature determines the federal directive violates the principles of state sovereignty.”
In May 2023, Florida passed Senate Bill 252 (SB 252), a bill for “Protection from Discrimination Based on Health Care Choices.” Among other clauses, it prohibits businesses and public entities from requiring proof of vaccination or prophylaxis for the purposes of employment, receipt of services, or gaining entry to such entities.
According to Section 3 of SB 252:
A governmental entity as defined… or an educational institution… may not adopt, implement, or enforce an international health organization’s public health policies or guidelines unless authorized to do so under state law, rule, or executive order issued by the Governor.
Nass told The Defender that Florida’s legislation offers a back door through which the state can implement WHO policies because it allows a state law, rule, or executive order by the governor to override the bill. According to Nass, efforts to strengthen the bill have been unsuccessful.
SB 252 was one of four bills Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed in May 2023 in support of medical freedom. The other bills were House Bill 1387, banning gain-of-function research, Senate Bill 1580, protecting physicians’ freedom of speech, and Senate Bill 238, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of people’s medical choices.
Louisiana, Oklahoma also push back against the WHO
The Louisiana Senate on March 26 voted unanimously to pass Senate Law No. 133, barring the WHO, United Nations (U.N.) and World Economic Forum from wielding influence over the state.
According to the legislation:
No rule, regulation, fee, tax, policy, or mandate of any kind of the World Health Organization, United Nations, and the World Economic Forum shall be enforced or implemented by the state of Louisiana or any agency, department, board, commission, political subdivision, governmental entity of the state, parish, municipality, or any other political entity.
The bill is now pending Louisiana House of Representatives approval and if passed, is set to take effect August 1.
On April 24, the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 426 (SB 426), which states, “The World Health Organization, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum shall have no jurisdiction in the State of Oklahoma.”
READ: Lawmakers, conservatives blast WHO plan for ‘global governance’ on future pandemics
According to the bill:
Any mandates, recommendations, instructions, communications or guidance issued by the World Health Organization, the United Nations or the World Economic Forum shall not be used in this state as a basis for action, nor to direct, order or otherwise impose, contrary to the constitution and laws of the State of Oklahoma any requirements whatsoever, including those for masks, vaccines or medical testing, or gather any public or private information about the state’s citizens or residents, and shall have no force or effect in the State of Oklahoma.
According to Door to Freedom, the bill was first introduced last year and unanimously passed the Senate. An amended version will return to the Senate for a new vote, and if passed, the law will take effect June 1.
Legislative push continues in states where bills opposing the WHO failed
Legislative initiatives opposing the WHO in other states have so far been unsuccessful.
In Tennessee, lawmakers proposed three bills opposing the WHO, but “none of them made it over the finish line,” said Bernadette Pajer of the CHD Tennessee Chapter.
“Many Tennessee legislators are concerned about the WHO and three of them filed resolutions to protect our sovereignty,” Pajer said. “Our legislature runs on a biennium, and this was the second year, so those three bills have died. But I do expect new ones will be filed next session.”
The proposed bills were:
- House Joint Resolution 820(HJR 820), passed in the Tennessee House of Representatives. The bill called on the federal government to “end taxpayer funding” of the WHO and reject the WHO’s two proposals.
- House Joint Resolution 1359(HJR 1359) stalled in the Delayed Bills Committee. It proposed that “neither the World Health Organization, United Nations, nor the World Economic Forum shall have any jurisdiction or power within the State of Tennessee.”
- Senate Joint Resolution 1135(SJR 1135) opposed “the United States’ participation in the World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Prevention Preparedness and Response Accord (PPPRA) and urges the Biden Administration to withdraw our nation from the PPPRA.”
Amy Miller, a registered lobbyist for Reform Pharma, told The Defender she “supported these resolutions, especially HJR 1359. She said the bill “went to a committee where the sponsor didn’t think it would come out since a unanimous vote was needed and one of the three members was a Democrat.”
Tennessee’s HJR 820 came the closest to being enacted. According to Nass, this bill was “flawed,” as it “did not assert state sovereignty or the 10th Amendment.”
Another Tennessee bill, House Bill 2795 and Senate Bill 2775, “establishes processes by which the general assembly [of the state of Tennessee] may nullify an unconstitutional federal statute, regulation, agency order, or executive order.”
According to The Epoch Times, this would give Tennessee residents “the right to demand that state legislators vote on whether or not to enforce regulations or executive orders that violate citizens’ rights under the federal or state constitutions.” The bill is tabled for “summer study” in the Senate.
In May 2023, Tennessee passed legislation opposing “net zero” proposals and the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals – which have been connected to “green” policies and the implementation of digital ID for newborn babies and for which the U.N. has set a target date of 2030 for implementation.
According to The Epoch Times, “Maine state Rep. Heidi Sampson attempted to get a ‘joint order’ passed in support of personal autonomy and against compliance with the WHO agreements, but it garnered little interest in the Democrat supermajority legislature.”
In Alabama, the Senate passed House Joint Resolution 113 opposing the WHO. The bill was reported out of committee but, according to Nass, it stalled.
Other states where similar legislation was proposed in the 2024 session or is pending include Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Wyoming.
Recent Supreme Court ruling may curtail federal government’s powers
While opponents of the WHO’s proposed “pandemic agreement” and IHR amendments point to the states’ rights provision of the 10th Amendment, others argue that a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council allowed federal agencies to assert more authority to make laws.
The tide may be turning, however. According to The Epoch Times, “The current Supreme Court has taken some steps to rein in the administrative state, including the landmark decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, ruling that federal agencies can’t assume powers that Congress didn’t explicitly give them.”
Nass said that even in states where lawmakers have not yet proposed bills to oppose the WHO, citizens can take action, by contacting the office of their state governor, who can issue an executive order, or their attorney general, who can issue a legal opinion.
Door to Freedom has also developed a model resolution that state legislative bodies can use as the basis for their own legislation.
“It’s important for people to realize that if the federal government imposes something on the people, the people can go through their state’s powers to overturn it,” Nass said.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Alberta rejects unconstitutional cap on plastic production
UN plastics plans are unscientific and unrealistic
“The Numbers Favour Our Side”
Alberta official reveals ‘almost all’ wildfires in province this year have been started by humans
-
Education2 hours agoSupport a young reader through the Tim Hortons Smile Cookie campaign
-
Economy2 days agoToday’s federal government—massive spending growth and epic betting
-
illegal immigration2 days agoOklahoma Just Became The Latest State To Take Immigration Enforcement Into Its Own Hands
-
Economy2 days agoYoung Canadians are putting off having a family due to rising cost of living, survey finds
-
Alberta2 days agoOfficial statement from Premier Danielle Smith and Energy Minister Brian Jean on the start-up of the Trans Mountain Pipeline
-
Automotive23 hours agoVehicle monitoring software could soon use ‘kill switch’ under the guise of ‘safety’
-
Business1 day agoWhen politicians gamble, taxpayers lose
-
Addictions23 hours agoCity of Toronto asks Trudeau gov’t to decriminalize hard drugs despite policy’s failure in BC