Everything Causes Heart Attacks… Except The Jabs

16 February 2022

As the public watches athletes collapse regularly from cardiac arrests and heart attacks, the normalisation of the demolition of people’s health continues. Every excuse you can think of, and some you really wouldn’t have, is being promulgated by the Government public health officials and the media.

On the 12th December 2021 the Express published an article titled “Heart attack: Does skipping breakfast increase your risk?”. Yes, really…

The article goes on to describe the findings of a study…

People who skip breakfast have a 32 percent higher chance of dying from all causes, according to a study. An analysis of nearly 200,000 adults over the age of 40 found that those who skipped breakfast were more likely to have poor health. Heart attacks are especially common among people who routinely ignore the meal, with a 21 percent increase to risk. The analysis was published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease.

Wow, that sounds like skipping breakfast really is super-dangerous. Except they then point out:

The study did not aim to provide a causal relationship between skipping breakfast and heart attack risks.

So what was the point of the headline or indeed this seemingly worthless study? No causal relationship means this study and report is as useful as publishing a study that found a large proportion of the population ate breakfast the day before WW1 and WW2 and then reporting with a headline “World Wars: Does eating breakfast increase the risk?”.

The point of this article and the ludicrous headline is to keep heart attacks in the background of public consciousness. That way every time they see a footballer collapse on the pitch, or people randomly dying from heart attacks and strokes they’ll just rationalise it and say to themselves “oh I read something about that, there’s a lot of it about” and think no further.

The Evening Standard published an article on the 14th December 2021 titled “Up to 300,000 people facing heart-related illnesses due to post-pandemic stress disorder, warn physicians” where they report on this “warning”…

This could result in a 4.5 per cent rise in cardiovascular cases nationally because of the effects of PPSD, with those aged between 30 to 45 most at-risk, they claim.

Mark Rayner, a former senior NHS psychological therapist and founder of EASE Wellbeing CIC, said that as many as three million people in Britain are already suffering from PPSD, thanks to stress and anxiety caused by the effects of Covid-19.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/post-pandemic-stress-disorder-heart-conditions-covid-london-physicians-b969436.html

Hmm, “those aged between 30 – 45 most at-risk”? There is no doubt the last two years have been (for many) the most stressful time in their lives so far. Did this stress target 30-45 year olds exclusively? No. And was the stress “thanks” to “the effects of “COVID-19”? No. It was “thanks” to Government interventions and the deliberate, calculated and admitted fear campaign sustained over 2 years and is still going.

Back in May of 2021 the Telegraph published an article (link to archive to avoid the paywall) titled “Scare tactics to control behaviour during the Covid pandemic were ‘totalitarian’, admit scientists”. Laura Dodsworth has written a book titled “A State of Fear” where she analyses the relentless campaign of fear used by the UK Government. The article mentions her and the research she was doing for the book, which involved speaking to various SAGE members, other psychologists and behavioural scientists. It also mentions “SPI-B is one of the subcommittees that advises the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies”. SPI-B stands for “Scientific Pandemic Influenza group on Behaviours” and was one of the most influential aspects of SAGE regarding the psychological manipulation of public perception right from the start.

If you happen to think that manipulating public perception is a stretch, that the Government wouldn’t do such a thing and they simply wanted to shepherd us through the scary pandemic, shielding us from harm etc. etc. then take a look at the document written about in this article. A couple of choice quotes from the SAGE document published in March 2020 are:

“A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened;”

…and…

“The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard–hitting emotional messaging.”

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/887467/25-options-for-increasing-adherence-to-social-distancing-measures-22032020.pdf

For many it will be hard to accept, that the Government did this to them. That they used our money to pay psychologists to come up with “hard-hitting emotional messaging”, and then of course use our money to then pay for the relentless adverts, slogans, banners etc. to shove it into our faces to increase the “perceived level of personal threat”. But they did. Their own documentation on their own website states it categorically and unambiguously, and looking around at how people are still behaving, even as some of the restrictions are being removed, the psychological damage it has done will be permanent for many.

People who have dutifully had all their jabs, isolated whenever they were told to, stayed at home when they were told to, cut themselves off from their family and friends when they were told to, wore a pointless (as far as protection) mask when they were told to, are now so conditioned that they still wear a mask, COVID is the only thing they talk about and they are either still nervous of being close to other people like an abused dog would be, or they are giving up sporting and social activities because they are still too afraid. And I’m just talking about the adults. What this has done to children is truly horrifying. The abuse of children through masking them, isolating them, guilt-tripping them by making them feel like they are a threat to humanity/grandma and also all the adults in positions of authority in their lives wearing masks, barking social distancing orders at them in schools… it is impossible to quantify or even fully comprehend the damage this has done. And there was NO NEED FOR ANY OF IT. None whatsoever. Outside garbage State Science and propagandist media there is NO EVIDENCE ANY OF THESE MEASURES HELPED ANYTHING.

This is proven by the virtually nil restrictions and measures in Florida and Sweden. I will be publishing some real data and citing some authentic peer-reviewed studies for those that consider that the barometer of truth very soon, but for now we should understand that the abuse of populations around the world did nothing to save anyone.

In the Telegraph article it quotes a number of Government people saying things like:

In March [2020] the Government was very worried about compliance and they thought people wouldn’t want to be locked down. There were discussions about fear being needed to encourage compliance, and decisions were made about how to ramp up the fear. The way we have used fear is dystopian. The use of fear has definitely been ethically questionable. It’s been like a weird experiment. Ultimately, it backfired because people became too scared.

…and…

…psychologists didn’t seem to notice when it stopped being altruistic and became manipulative. They have too much power and it intoxicates them.

Critical thinkers, honest scientists and the rarest of types, journalists with integrity have been pointing this stuff out since day one. The problem is so much time has gone by since that Telegraph article, and in all likelihood hardly anyone read it at the time because they were all too busy hiding from the scary virus or arguing how their cloth mask protects others, that despite these admissions, the chances anyone will be held to account for the damage they have done, deliberately, is all but zero.

COVID-19 itself hasn’t caused “post-pandemic stress disorder”, intentional Government policy based on methodical and calculated fear-campaigns has.

Next we have the Daily Mail with a true classic. Published on the 2nd February 2022 titled “Expert warns that shoveling snow can be a deadly way to discover underlying cardiovascular conditions as straining the heart with physical activity could cause sudden death”. Yes, seriously, that was the headline…

The absolute absurdity of a statement like “around 100 people die from shoveling snow every year” cannot be overstated. It is the equivalent of claiming that walking down the street can be deadly, when it is actually cars mounting the pavement and mowing down pedestrians actually causing the deaths. But these articles are not written to inform. They are written to seed ideas in the public consciousness, to socially engineer the masses into accepting abnormal things as normal, and the effort being exerted across all forms of media and public health right now to take abnormal levels of sudden and unexpected heart problems and convince everyone that it is completely normal, no need for alarm or any concern over this sudden spike, it was always like this and you just didn’t know it. Or maybe you did always know it, now you’ve been told you always knew it.

The next day, on the 3rd February 2022 the Mirror published an article titled “TV doctor says ‘devastating’ energy price hike may cause heart attacks and even strokes”…

TV’s Dr Kahn appears to have picked up on a correlation. He has noticed that something happening at the same time as something else could be an indicator of causation. He has noticed that rising prices of pretty much everything without the corresponding rise in income makes people poorer. He has also picked up on the fact that that situation can badly impact people’s health. One thing he hasn’t picked up on is that the mass injecting of a substance that has never been used on humans before has also happened at the same time as all of these other things. One can only assume that as a TV doctor, his script didn’t include any actual doctor stuff, you know like looking at the evidence, properly diagnosing people based on clinical observations and medication history. His approach seems to be more economics-based, rather than what’s going on inside people’s bodies, and what they might have had put in them recently.

Obviously making people poorer does impact health, this is hardly news. The deliberate focus of the headline on “heart attacks and even strokes” is the noteworthy part of this. Being poor and unable to heat your home properly or eat decent quality food impacts way more than just your potential for heart attacks and strokes, but that’s not really the point of this article. As before, it is there to explain away the rise in heart attacks and strokes without actually looking at the real causes.

On the 9th February the Sun published an article headlined “HIGH ALERT Urgent warning to anyone who’s had Covid over fatal complication that strikes months later”. They cite a study on the nature.com website titled “Long-term cardiovascular outcomes of COVID-19” that was published on the 7th February 2022. There are other media outlets also pushing this narrative, based on the same study so let’s see how reliable the study findings are, shall we?

This study looked at “153,760 US veterans who survived the first 30 d of COVID-19” (we’ll call them the Study Group) and compared heart related health issues with two other groups, 5,637,647 users of the US Veterans Health Administration from the same timeframe that have “no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection” (we’ll refer to them as Control Group A), and a historical group of 5,859,411 users of the US VHA from 2017 (we’ll refer to them as Control Group B).

So we’re already looking at a group of people that are not really representative of society. Ex-military personnel, likely from an older age group, possibly affected by things they were exposed to during their military service all make this group ineligible as a reasonable and representative cross-section of society. But the study attempts to mitigate for that by having those multiple control groups. This sort of “Science” is already looking rather suspect, as if you were trying to determine the risk from anything else and extrapolate it from a sample group that was so specific and different and apply it to everyone it wouldn’t make much sense.

For example if you were studying the risks of serious long-term lung disease based on a history of pneumonia, and your sample group was older people who mostly worked in asbestos factories you might find that even if you took out all the smokers because that is known to cause lung issues your data is still skewed and cannot really map on to the general public across all age groups, demographics and so on. Still, let’s roll with it for now and see…

The thing this study is alleged, and intended to show is that having had COVID-19 increases your risks for serious and potentially fatal heart conditions.

What it actually shows is that having the COVID-19 “vaccine” increases your risks for serious and potentially fatal heart conditions.

Unintentionally, in the design and process of this study they provide the data to demonstrate that second point, that the jabs actually raise your risks. How? The study as explained above uses two control groups. One from 2017 that have obviously not had COVID or a COVID injection (Control Group B), and the other from the same time period as the Study Group that had not been diagnosed with COVID (Control Group A). Some of the veterans from the Study Group and Control Group A will have received COVID injections. They attempted to mitigate for the “very rare risk” of heart issue issues relating to the COVID jabs as the study paper explains:

Because some COVID-19 vaccines might be associated with a very rare risk of myocarditis or pericarditis, and to eliminate any putative contribution of potential vaccine exposure to the outcomes of myocarditis and pericarditis in this study, we conducted two analyses. First, we censored cohort participants at the time of receiving the first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine. Second, we adjusted for vaccination as a time-varying covariate.

Page 4 – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3.pdf

OK, so how did the study unintentionally show that the jabs raise risks? Well as always the devil is in the supplementary details.

In the supplementary document there are some tables of interest. Table 21 looks like this:

That table (21) compares people from the Control Group A with the Study Group and they have also filtered out (“censored” is the word they use) anyone in this group who was “vaccinated”. This means data in that table is based on unvaccinated only, no vaccinated people are included.

Next is table 22 which looks like this:

In that table (22) the same comparison is made between the same groups except the vaccinated were not excluded. What we can derive from these two tables is that 61.93% of the participants were “vaccinated”, and the difference including them in the figures shows a 35% increase in myocarditis. We can work this out by looking at the myocarditis figures in the column “COVID-19 burden per 1000 persons at 12 months (95% CI)” in each table and doing a calculation.

Without the “vaccinated” included the figure is 0.37, and with them included it is 0.50 which then calculates out to a 35% increase by doing the sum 0.37 divided by 0.50 which equals 1.35, but that is not the whole story.

We can also calculate the myocarditis burden in vaccinated COVID-19 recovered veterans and compare that to the known figure for unvaccinated COVID-19 recovered veterans to establish the amount of increase in risk the vaccine adds to this group. We know the following information:

38% were unvaccinated
unvaccinated myocarditis burden is 0.37
62% were vaccinated
combined vaccinated and unvaccinated myocarditis burden is 0.50

We want to know the value of x in the following equation which will be the myocarditis burden for the vaccinated COVID-19 recovered veterans…

0.37 * 0.38 + x * 0.62 = 0.50

…and once we solve that we get:

x = 0.58

So now we know the missing value we can calculate the difference, which is:

0.58 / 0.37 - 1 = 56.75%

That means there is a 56.75% increase in risk of myocarditis from having the COVID jabs based on the numbers in this study and its participants. That is a statistically significant amount by anyone’s standards and while this was certainly not what this study set out to demonstrate, they have given us the data to be able to work it out ourselves.

Is there anything else we can work out from this study that they didn’t intend to show? Well yes there is. We can do a similar exercise on Control Group A, who had not had a diagnosis of COVID-19 but some of them will have been vaccinated. Looking at the column “Contemporary control burden per 1000 persons at 12 months (95% CI)” in tables 21 and 22 for myocarditis we see that excluding the vaccinated the figure is 0.07 and including them the figure is 0.09, so that works out like this:

0.09 / 0.07 - 1 = 29%

We also know the figure for the vaccinated in Control Group A is 56.29%, and so we can do the same equation as before…

0.07 * 0.44 + x * 0.56 = 0.09

…and we can solve that too and get:

x = 0.106

This is the myocarditis burden of the vaccinated group, that is part of the overall Control Group A. Working out the increase using the following calculation:

0.106 / 0.07 - 1 = 51.4%

…shows that in the group that hadn’t had a diagnosis of COVID-19 but received their COVID-19 injections have a 51.4% increase in risk of myocarditis than those not having the jabs.

So for the participants in that study, U.S. military veterans, they are between 51.4% and 56.75% increased risk for myocarditis having had the COVID-19 injections compared to those that haven’t had them.

Obviously myocarditis is not the only risk factor, but it is a serious one and this study is blithely bandied about by the media who think it proves their fear-mongering point about how scary COVID-19 is and that you should have your jabs, knowing that most people will not even look at the study, let alone wade through the supplementary data to actually establish what’s really going on, which shows how intellectually and morally bankrupt the media and academia are.

Earlier we looked at the topic of skipped breakfasts, and on January 6th 2022 the esteemed Sun newspaper published an article titled “WATCH LIST Full list of 20 Omicron symptoms revealed as major study pinpoints signs to watch for”. In this razor-sharp scientific publication the Sun lists the “Top 20 Omicron symptoms”, which considering the “full list” contains 20 symptoms according to the title the labeling of this like it’s some kind of bestseller list, seems a tad hyperbolic, and just silly, but this is the Sun after all.

Here is the list in all it’s peer-reviewed, expert-approved and State authorised Scientific splendour:

Never mind the fact that most of the symptoms on that list can be attributed to what we know as “the common cold” but these ones in particular:

• Skipped Meals
• Feeling Down
• Other

…are worthy of some special consideration. This “major study” has identified skipping meals as a symptom of COVID-19: The Omicron Edition. Which in turn the Sun also claims will cause heart attacks. But having had COVID-19 months before also causes heart attacks according to the Sun and the Holy Experts. Then we have “Feeling Down”. Of course there is no other reason to be feeling down than contracting Omicron. If you feel down, it won’t be that we’ve just lived through 2 years of the most brutal psychological warfare waged on humanity in history, or that you’ve been forced out of business, or kept away from your family, or knowing your elderly relatives are dying in isolation, or that the Governments have spent trillions of our money on things that have provided no positive benefit and consigned future generations to tax-debt slavery forever, or that being able to simply provide the basics of modern life is becoming so expensive that 2 household incomes isn’t cutting it anymore. No, none of that could be causing people to be “feeling down”. It’s the COVIDS.

Finally we come to the most important symptom on that list… “Other”. If you are suffering with “Other” then obviously it’s COVID-19: Omicron’s Revenge. Whatever “Other” is of course. One can only imagine you need to be a Public Health Expert to be able to adequately articulate the precise, and obviously deadly nature of Other.

However you slice it, all these reports are either nonsense, attempting to hand-wave away serious health impacts from deliberate Government fear campaigns and mass injecting society with harmful genetic products, or keeping the fear going by mis-attributing the huge increases in all kinds of serious health issues to anything but the main thing that is causing the majority of it.

We cannot rely on the media or Governments to be honest about any of this. The medical profession has simply taken orders for two years and believes that will be a good enough defense. It won’t. It never was and it won’t be this time. It is up to us to keep the truth alive and ensure history records what has really gone on, as gaslighting the public, memory-holing inconvenient information and distractions (the hype around Russia potentially invading the Ukraine for example) has always been the way Government’s deal with this kind of thing. As the truth starts to come out we’re seeing back-pedaling and a sudden enthusiasm for nuance and calm rational discussion is beginning to emerge. This is because they are afraid. They know what they have done, they know the part they played and know the public will be angry when they eventually find out what has been done to them and why.

We must never forget, and never allow these people to slope off to pastures new, out of the public eye to avoid accountability. Their time will come.