Archive for the ‘research’ Category

Could Prescribed Fire Reduce Ticks & Their Diseases? Answer: YES, Once Again

https://www.lymedisease.org/prescribed-fire-reduce-ticks/

Could prescribed fire reduce ticks and their diseases?

By Chuck Gill, Penn State

Oct. 24, 2022

Prescribed fire — a tool increasingly used by forest managers and landowners to combat invasive species, improve wildlife habitat and restore ecosystem health — also could play a role in reducing the abundance of ticks and the transmission of disease pathogens they carry, according to a team of scientists.

For a recently published paper, the researchers reviewed the scientific literature on the effects of fire on forest composition and structure and its influence on ticks and their wildlife hosts.

They concluded that prescribed burning can help restore forest habitats to a state less favorable to several species of disease-carrying ticks and could be an effective management tactic for reducing their populations. READ MORE

________________

**Comment**

This should be a no-brainer.  I’m continually amazed with the lack of common sense in research.  Seems all that matters is continuing the machinery (money and power grabs) of research.

The question to ask is, now that this information continues to be proven, will anyone do it?  How many years will it take before this effective practice will once again be permitted?

For more:

Category:

Prevention, research, Ticks

Clinician Barriers to Providing Care: Why Lyme/MSIDS Patients Can’t Get the Care They Need

https://www.lymedisease.org/mylymedata-clinician-lyme-survey-report/

Clinician Barriers to Providing Care: Why Patients Can’t Get the Care They Need

By Lyme Policy Wonk

9/29/22

Previous studies have shown that patients who have persistent or chronic Lyme disease (PLD/ CLD) have a hard time obtaining the medical care they need to get well (Johnson 2011). A new study has found that clinicians who treat this population face significant challenges in providing patients care that is local, timely, and affordable (Johnson 2022).

Between September 23 and December 1, 2021, LymeDisease.org conducted a survey of U.S. clinicians who treat PLD/CLD patients. One hundred and fifty-five clinicians from 30 states responded to the survey and 45 provided comments in the open text survey item. The results of this survey were published this week: Access to Care in Lyme Disease: Clinician Barriers to Providing Care. The primary goal of this survey was to identify the difficulties that clinicians face when caring for patients with PLD/CLD.

We are pleased to present the Clinician Barriers to Providing Care Chartbook summarizing key points from the published study.

2022 MyLymeData Chartbook

Download Your full color

2022 MyLymeData Chart Book

Clinician Barriers to Providing Care: Why Patients Can’t Get the Care They Need

Download Now

The CDC estimates that 476,000 cases of Lyme disease occur annually (Kugeler 2021). Even when diagnosed and treated early, up to 44% of patients fail treatment, with only 56% considered to have returned to health (Aucott 2022). In later disease, treatment failure rates are higher. Lyme disease patients who remain ill after antibiotic treatment are regarded as having persistent or chronic Lyme disease. These patients may have been diagnosed early or late.

Chronic Lyme disease definition

Clinicians who treat PLD/CLD

Clinicians treating patients with PLD/CLD have developed significant clinical expertise. Most clinicians (55%) are  medical doctors (MD) or doctors of osteopathy (DO); the remainder are naturopaths with prescription privileges (15%), nurse practitioners (12%) or physician assistants (6%).

Over half of the clinicians (56%) have treated more than 500 patients and 38% have treated more than 1000 patients. Most (57%) dedicate more than half of their practice treating Lyme disease. Almost all (98%) have taken continued medical education for Lyme disease treatment. Eighty-nine percent belong to the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS) and most belong to other medical societies as well.

How many patients have you treated with Lyme disease?

Why Clinicians Who Treat Chronic Lyme Disease Find it Difficult to Provide Care

Despite their considerable expertise, clinicians report that providing care to PLD/CLD patients is challenging. In particular, the complexity of the care provided and the time it takes to provide that care make it difficult for clinicians to provide care using the traditional insurance-based healthcare model. This increases the cost of care provided to patients and makes it difficult for patients to pay for the care that can be given.

Why treating Lyme disease is hard

The complexity of care needed requires longer clinician visits than treatment for other conditions. For example, 25% of clinicians said their first consultations took more than two hours, and 44% said their follow-up visits took between one and two hours.

Clinicians reported that the length of healthcare visits for PLD/CLD coupled with the additional insurance administrative burdens and reimbursement payment issues make it hard for care to be given under a traditional insurance-based model, which typically relies on clinicians seeing a high volume of patients for short office visits. As one clinician explained:

“The most difficult problem is the cost of providing this amount of complex care on a cash basis. To really review hundreds of records, spend time with the patient and do a proper workup, takes hours. I’d like to see more support for patients and clinicians who choose to help this set of patients.”

As a result of these challenges, most PLD/CLD providers do not accept insurance:

  • 74% do not participate in insurance networks
  • 76% do not directly bill insurers
  • 77% do not participate in Medicare, Medicaid, or other government supported plans

Another reason the insurance model of providing care does not work for PLD/CLD is that the risk of legal or regulatory action by medical boards, insurance companies, and other organizations is heightened for clinicians who accept insurance. Three-quarters of the clinicians who answered the survey say that they have been professionally stigmatized. More than a third (39%) report that they have been threatened with actions by medical boards, insurance companies, or hospital quality improvement committees.

One clinician commented:

“While my patients are generally very supportive, some of my colleagues have stopped speaking to me and I worry about the medico-legal repercussions of what I do.”

39 percent reported to medical board

Another said:

“I used to practice in a state where physicians who treat complex patients, including people with chronic Lyme, were specifically targeted by health insurance companies for medical board complaints and other attacks ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY HELPED PATIENTS OTHER DOCTORS GAVE UP ON. Eventually I elected to move to [a state] where there is less interruption of care and more protection of vulnerable patients from predatory insurance entities.”

One way clinicians can avoid targeting by insurance companies and other groups is by opting out of insurance networks, Medicare, and Medicaid. Clinicians who are stigmatized or don’t participate in insurance networks have fewer chances to share office space and overhead costs. This increases the cost of providing care. Treating PLD/CLD also imposed additional insurance related burdens that increase the cost of providing care exist even for clinicians who do not participate in insurance networks. These include prior authorization of medications (77%), insurance denials (71%), and other insurance-related problems (49%).

When clinicians do not participate in insurance networks, the economic burden of shouldering the cost of care is shifted to patients. This makes care more expensive for patients who have to pay for care out-of-pocket. It doesn’t come as a surprise then that 75% of clinicians say that a central problem in their practice is the patients’ inability to pay out of pocket costs. One clinician commented:

“I knew that at some point I would be forced to stop taking insurance and move forward on a cash pay only basis. Looking at the numbers, taking commercial insurance for these patients just doesn’t make any sense. I believe that the main issue that causes many of these patients to be without access to care is the amount they need to spend on their practitioners plus the out of pocket costs for out of network testing, labs, and treatment. For most of these patients that is anywhere from $10 to $20K per year. It is a huge burden.”

Essentially, the insurance model of providing healthcare is broken for patients with PLD/CLD. Not only does this increase the costs of providing care for providers and shift the cost burden to patients, it also means that patients can’t get care from their regular provider, must obtain care from places that don’t take their insurance, and need to navigate a complex healthcare maze to even find the care they need. Patient surveys published previously also identify the high cost of out-of-pocket care (Johnson 2011).

In addition, previous surveys have found that patients incur substantial diagnostic delays, misdiagnosis, see many clinicians before being diagnosed, and travel significant distances to receive care (Johnson 2011, 2014, 2020). To obtain care, 49% of patients report traveling more than 50 miles; 31% report traveling 100 miles or more for care (Johnson 2011). Because obtaining care can be expensive, inconvenient, and interfere with work responsibilities, many patients may choose not to get care at all (Johnson 2022).

Clinicians here reported that patients with PLD/CLD often had to wait a long time for their first appointments, and that many of their patients traveled from outside their state of practice to obtain care. These factors point to a supply/demand crisis in the treatment of PLD/CLD. There are simply not enough clinicians to supply the amount of care required by patients to get well. The challenges identified by clinicians here—a broken insurance model of care, professional stigma, and heightened liability exposure—also discourage other clinicians from providing care to people with PLD/CLD.

Not enough Lyme disease clinicians

Why Early Diagnosis and Avoiding Misdiagnosis is Important

To address the supply/demand crises, it is important to reduce the number of patients who develop PLD/CLD. This requires early diagnosis and treatment. Clinicians identified inadequate physician education about tick borne diseases, false negative lab tests, and misdiagnosis as key causes of delayed diagnosis.

Delayed Lyme disease diagnosis

Nearly three quarters of patients report having initially been misdiagnosed. Misdiagnosis is often caused by the lack of education of other clinicians about tick-borne diseases (Johnson 2011, 2018). In a case series of people who might have had early Lyme disease but didn’t have a rash, 54% of Lyme disease patients who didn’t have a rash were given the wrong diagnosis (Aucott 2009). Because of this, misdiagnosis should be seen as a major risk factor for PLD/CLD.

Conclusion

The challenges identified here related to insurance and professional stigma make it hard to keep and hire clinicians who can care for the rapidly growing number of people with PLD/CLD, which is currently estimated to be slightly less than 2 million cases (Delong 2019). They also make care more costly for patients. Diagnostic delays and misdiagnosis increase the number of patients who develop PLD/CLD, exacerbating the supply/demand problem.

As Lyme disease cases rise, the demand for PLD/CLD providers will rise. The limited number of educated practitioners and the expanding number of PLD/CLD patients have created a substantial supply and demand imbalance that must be addressed.

Resolving the supply/demand imbalance is vital for PLD/CLD patients to become healthy. To do this we must:

  • improve clinician education to prevent diagnostic delay and misdiagnosis
  • retain and recruit more clinicians to address the supply demand crises by reducing professional stigma and recognizing that divergent treatment approaches exist in PLD/CLD
  • develop insurance reimbursement models that take into account the complexity of care and the time it takes to provide care.

Failing to address these issues will leave patients unable to access or afford the care that they need.

If you are a patient who is not enrolled in MyLymeData,  please enroll today. If you are a researcher who wants to collaborate with us, please contact me directly.

The MyLymeData Viz Blog is written by Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA, who is the Chief Executive Officer of LymeDisease.org. You can contact her at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org. On Twitter, follow her @lymepolicywonk. 

MyLymeData Lyme Disease Research
About MyLymeData Lyme Disease Research

MyLymeData is one of the largest patient-driven registries in the nation, with over 17,000 patients enrolled. It was created by patients, is run by patients and will address the issues that Lyme disease patients care about. MyLymeData Viz provides the community with results from MyLymeData. If you are enrolled in MyLymeData, we thank you for providing the data that will accelerate the pace of research in Lyme disease. If you are not enrolled, please enroll today.

For more:

Category:

Lyme, research

Where are the Autopsies Post “Vax”? 5 New Studies & Is CDC Hiding Cancer Data Linked to Shots?

Back in April we learned that Public Health Mafia Overlord, Dr. Anthony Fauci, told our government to tell everyone NOT to do autopsies on COVID patients. Pathologists got the message. But as time wore on, more and more pathologists and doctors are demanding them due to the increase in sudden deaths (SADS) and the high amount of reports to VAERS after the COVID mRNA injections.

https://rumble.com/v1oandb-ryan-cole-is-the-only-pathologist-in-the-us-willing-to-test-for-the-vaccine  Video Here (Approx. 11 min)

Dr. Ryan Cole – only pathologist in the US willing to test for the COVID mRNA Injection “fingerprints”

October 16, 2022 
 
If you know someone who died post-vaccine and want to find out whether the person died from the vaccine, you’ll want to send the autopsy tissue samples to Dr. Cole to be examined. He’s likely the only pathologist in the US willing to do this work.
 
Dr. Cole states that pathologists come up to him regularly thanking him but will not step out to do this important work for fear of reprisal.
 
_____________________
 
 

Horowitz: 5 shocking new studies and data points that nuke the COVID shots

Oct. 4, 2022

“In summary, we have highlighted the pitfalls of having considered until now COVID-19 mRNA vaccines as just conventional vaccines, and we have indicated the preclinical, clinical and post-marketing safety assessments that are most urgently needed. COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are actually pharmaceutical drugs, and consequently their pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and possibly also their pharmacogenetics, must be properly characterized to provide a solid background of knowledge for their rational and targeted use, thus stopping ‘playing dice’ with these products due to the misbelief that the same vaccine at the same dose is good for everyone, and that adverse effects occur just by chance.”

Those were the words of Italian researchers in a recent pharmacological analysis of the COVID shots published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences nearly two years after these products were foisted upon 5.35 billion human beings – often multiple times – under the false pretense of the jabs acting like vaccines. Who will be held accountable?

Every day, news pours out about the lack of safety and ineffectiveness of the shots, but they fail to move the needle on policy. It is unclear what it will take to get these biological agents pulled from the market, but here are some of the most recent bombshells proving the shots are extremely unsafe and ineffective.  (See link for article)

____________________

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-cancer-deaths-covid-vaccines-cola/

Is CDC Hiding Data Showing Cancer Deaths Linked to COVID Vaccines?

Analysis of U.S. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report data suggests the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been filtering and redesignating cancer deaths as COVID-19 deaths since April 2021 to eliminate the cancer signal.

10/18/22

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website.
 
cdc cancer death covid vaccines feature

Story at a glance:

  • Analysis of U.S. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report data suggests the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been filtering and redesignating cancer deaths as COVID-19 deaths since April 2021 to eliminate the cancer signal.
  • The signal is being hidden by swapping the underlying cause of death with main cause of death.
  • Uncontrollable turbo-charged cancers the medical establishment had never seen before only started to occur after the rollout of the COVID-19 jabs.
  • Before it was manipulated to eliminate the safety signal, data from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database, or DMED, showed cancer rates among military personnel and their families tripled after the rollout of the shots.
  • After the rollout of the COVID-19 jabs in 2021, cancer patients have gotten younger, with the largest increase occurring among 30- to 50-year-olds, tumor sizes are dramatically larger, multiple tumors in multiple organs are becoming more common, and recurrence and metastasis are increasing.

In a series of Twitter posts, The Ethical Skeptic — self-described as a former intelligence officer and strategist — has laid out a series of charts illustrating how cancer deaths are being mislabeled as COVID-19 deaths.

The suspicion is that this is an effort to hide the fact that the COVID-19 shots have resulted in soaring cancer rates.

The Ethical Skeptic also takes a deep dive into the data in “Houston, We Have a Problem, Part 1,” on TheEthicalSkeptic.com.

As noted in his article, seven out of the 11 International Classification of Diseases, or ICD, codes tracked by the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics — including cancer — saw sharp upticks starting in the first week of April 2021.

“This date of inception is no coincidence, in that it also happens to coincide with a key inflection point regarding a specific body-system intervention in most of the U.S. population,” The Ethical Skeptic notes.

In other words, April 2021 was when large swaths of the American population were getting their first COVID-19 jabs.

Cancer diagnoses on the rise

The following graph, highlighted on Dr. Jennifer Brown’s Substack, illustrates the cyclical wave pattern of cancer diagnoses, from January 2015 and October 1.

As noted in the top-right text box:

“We should be at or near a seasonal nadir. Instead, we are at an all-time CA [cancer] excess, and heading up. Keep in mind there is substantial lag to CA reporting, so this likely under-represents true excess.”

At no point during the past seven years have we seen this rate of new cancer diagnoses.

Are the COVID-19 shots to blame? 

Probably, unless we can identify another widespread environmental factor or exposure that was introduced to the population, en masse, in early 2021, that didn’t exist before.

cancer diagnosis on the rise
Credit: Dr. Jennifer Brown

CDC fudging death records to eliminate cancer signal

According to The Ethical Skeptic’s analysis of U.S. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report data, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been filtering and redesignating cancer deaths as COVID-19 deaths since Week 14 of 2021 to eliminate the cancer signal.

The following two charts, posted on Twitter on October 1 and 2, illustrate how cancer mortality is being artificially suppressed.

As explained by The Ethical Skeptic:

“The set dynamics are complex, but the principle is straightforward. When a death cert lists Cancer as the UCoD [underlying cause of death] and COVID as MCoD [main cause of death] — the UCoD & MCoD are being swapped, and COVID is being listed as the UCoD 100% (425/wk).

cancer mortality
Source: The Ethical Skeptic

“This results in 20% of all COVID deaths each week, also happening to be persons dying of Cancer — which is egregiously higher than it should be. This is clear over-attribution = equates to exactly the difference between the Cancer and All Other ICD-10 code lag curves.”

“The problem facing the CDC, is … What does one do when COVID Mortality is no longer substantial enough to conceal the excess Cancer Mortality?”

lag deviation versus normalized trend
Source: The Ethical Skeptic

So, to rephrase, what The Ethical Skeptic is saying is that 20% of the weekly so-called COVID-19 deaths are actually cancer deaths, which is rather astounding.

But swapping the underlying and main causes of death, listing COVID-19 as the main cause, hides (to some degree) the fact that cancer deaths are going through the roof.

According to his analysis, the COVID-19 shot is killing 7,300 Americans per week.

COVID-19, meanwhile, is killing 1,740 people.

So, what will the CDC blame when COVID-19 disappears and they can no longer swap the underlying and main cause of death designations?

Department of Defense data showed massive cancer rise

Uncontrollable turbo-charged cancers the medical establishment had never seen before only started to occur after the rollout of the COVID-19 jabs.

Data from the DMED exposed by attorney Tom Renz and Sen. Ron Johnson (above), showed cancer rates among military personnel and their families basically tripled after the rollout of the shots.

As you may recall, within days of the DMED data being revealed, the database was taken offline, allegedly to “identify and correct” a supposed data corruption problem, and when it came back, the data had been altered to hide these glaringly obvious safety signals.

‘Turbo-cancers’ emerged after COVID jab rollout

In the video above, Swedish pathologist, researcher, and senior physician at Lund’s University, Dr. Ute Kruger, describes the changes she has personally observed in the wake of the COVID-19 shots.

For example, she’s noticed:

  • Cancer patients are getting younger — The largest increase is among 30- to 50-year-olds.
  • Tumor sizes are dramatically larger — Historically, 3-centimeter tumors were commonly found at the time of cancer diagnosis. Now, the tumors they’re finding are regularly 4 to 12 centimeters, which suggests they’re growing at a much faster rate than normal.
  • Multiple tumors in multiple organs are becoming more common.
  • Recurrence and metastasis are increasing — Kruger points out that many of the cancer patients she’s seeing have been in remission for years, only to suddenly be beset with uncontrollable cancer growth and metastasis shortly after their COVID-19 jab.

These “turbo-cancers,” as Kruger calls them, cannot be explained by delayed cancer screenings due to lockdowns and other COVID-19 restrictions, as those days are long gone.

Patients, despite having access to medical screenings as in years past, are showing up with grossly exacerbated tumor growths, and she believes this is because the cancers are being “turbo-charged” by the mRNA jabs.

Dr. Ryan Cole has also discussed the explosion of cancer (see video below). He believes the shots are primarily accelerating already existing cancers, by way of immune dysregulation.

He noticed that cancers that could normally be controlled and kept in check, giving the patient several years of quality life, once they got the COVID-19 jab, the cancer would suddenly grow out of control and rapidly lead to death.

Data are so corrupted, will we ever get to the truth?

The sad reality is that most data sources have at this point been so corrupted, it’s unlikely we’ll ever be able to get the whole truth.

The CDC started manipulating the data in 2020 and hasn’t stopped. DMED, which has historically been one of the best and most pristine, has now been modified. Other data sources have suffered the same fate.

It’s beyond egregious, and data modelers like The Ethical Skeptic show just how bad the situation is.

The idea that the CDC is massaging statistics to hide clear danger signals is appalling and unethical in the extreme, yet that’s what we’re seeing.

The question is, why do they go to such lengths to protect such a lethal product?

Your guess is as good as mine.

Originally published by Mercola.

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

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.

___________________

For more:

**Comment**
 
I’ve posted prolifically on the urgent need to break the public health monopoly which is completely overriding medicine as we know it.  I also recently posted about the Federation of State Medical Boards which is a very influential, private, nonprofit that censors and punishes physicians, attacks alternative medicine, and contributed to the opioid crisis by only supporting pharma-friendly establishment views.  This monolith is behind the AMA, APhA, and ASHP going after doctors for spreading “misinformation,” which is anything that defies the Big-Pharma, government narrative.
 
The lack of pathology on those dying after COVID injections is reminiscent of the lack of pathology on those dying after a Lyme/MSIDS diagnosis. 
Without this important work, nothing will change.
The monopolization of medicine will end health freedom and Lyme/MSIDS patients will be dramatically affected if it isn’t stopped.

Category:

Activism, research, vaccines, Viruses

Neurological Pain, Psychological Symptoms, And Diagnostic Struggles Among Patients With Tick-Borne Diseases

https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/10/7/1178/htm

Neurological Pain, Psychological Symptoms, and Diagnostic Struggles among Patients with Tick-Borne Diseases

by Sarah P. Maxwell1,*, Chris Brooks2, Connie L. McNeely3 and Kevin C. Thomas2
1School of Economic, Political & Policy Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX 75080, USA
2Laboratory for Human Neurobiology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02118, USA
3Center for Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Raphael B. Stricker
Healthcare 2022, 10(7), 1178; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10071178
Received: 3 June 2022 / Revised: 20 June 2022 / Accepted: 21 June 2022 / Published: 23 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Preventive Medicine)
Abstract
Public health reports contain limited information regarding the psychological and neurological symptoms of tick-borne diseases (TBDs). Employing a mixed-method approach, this analysis triangulates three sources of symptomology and provides a comparison of official public health information, case reports, medical literature, and the self-reported symptoms of patients with Lyme disease and other TBDs.
Out of the fifteen neuropsychiatric symptoms reported in the medical literature for common TBDs, headaches and fatigue and/or malaise are the only two symptoms fully recognized by public health officials. Of TBDs, Lyme disease is the least recognized by public health officials for presenting with neuropsychiatric symptoms; only headaches and fatigue are recognized as overlapping symptoms of Lyme disease. Comparisons from a patient symptoms survey indicate that self-reports of TBDs and the associated symptoms align with medical and case reports. Anxiety, depression, panic attacks, hallucinations, delusions, and pain—ranging from headaches to neck stiffness and arthritis—are common among patients who report a TBD diagnosis. Given the multitude of non-specific patient symptoms, and the number and range of neuropsychiatric presentations that do not align with public health guidance, this study indicates the need for a revised approach to TBD diagnosis and for improved communication from official public health sources regarding the wide range of associated symptoms.
For more:

Category:

Lyme, Psychological Aspects, research

New Study: Pretty Much Everyone Is Getting Heart Damage From COVID Shots

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/new-study-shows-that-pretty-much

New study shows that pretty much everyone is getting heart damage from the COVID vaccines

They just aren’t letting you know that. In Canada, the medical community is very smart about this: they don’t let doctors measure troponin levels before you are vaccinated so nobody is the wiser.

Steve Kirsch
Executive summary

A new study shows that nearly everyone getting the mRNA COVID vaccines are experiencing some amount of heart damage.

Introduction

Watch this episode from Vinay Prasad before YouTube censors it.

You only need to look at 6:21 into the video:

A new study out of Switzerland shows that vaccinated people have uniformly higher troponin levels than their unvaccinated peers.

In the graph shown at 6:21, we see that the 777 people who got the booster in this study have uniformly higher troponin levels than their matched unvaccinated peers. That is not supposed to happen. If the vaccines are safe, the troponin levels should be nearly identical between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.

Here are Professor Prasad’s exact words:

It’s not just the tip of the distribution that has elevated high sensitivity troponin, it’s that the entire distribution is right shifted. Everybody’s having a little bit of elevation in high sensitivity troponin. That’s what this graph would have you infer.

You get a troponin elevation when there is damage to your heart:

Troponin is a type of protein found in the muscles of your heart. Troponin isn’t normally found in the blood. When heart muscles become damaged, troponin is sent into the bloodstream. As heart damage increases, greater amounts of troponin are released in the blood

What the study shows is that nearly everyone is getting a little heart damage when they get the COVID vaccine, some get a lot more damage than others.  (See link for article)

__________________

SUMMARY:

  • Actual damage is likely much higher as they are measuring on days 3 & 4 when the slope is going down.
  • The article mentions the Thailand study, summarized in the video, which showed 1 in 28 boys developed subclinical myocarditis.  It also showed that 1 in 43 teens got myocarditis. Nearly 30% had cardiac symptoms.
    • Anish Koka MD (Cardiology) really digs into the Thailand data and points out that it has long ago been established that the messenger RNA vaccines cause myocarditis.  This is the real punchline:
I can assure you, and the mostly ER doctor contingent on twitter that brays about “mild myocarditis”, that there are no cardiologists who want to see their child have a cardiac troponin that is 2x normal or 40x normal after administration of some therapeutic.

It is absolutely head-spinning to see that the public conversation now is geared to dismiss cardiac injury in young healthy children as “mild”. ~ Dr. Anish Koka

  • Dr. Linda Wastila also asks why are we accepting myocarditis as an acceptable side effect after the COVID shots.
  • Kirsch points out that it’s highly likely the study author, Professor Christian Mueller, a highly respected scientist, will face attacks on the study due to his findings.
  • Canada is simply not letting doctors measure troponin levels before the shots are given.  Ignorance after all, is bliss.  Levels can only be checked if someone is admitted to the hospital, so no comparisons can be made.
“Authorities”, once again, are turning a blind eye to science, data, and reality.

For more:

Category:

Activism, Heart Issues, research, vaccines, Viruses