‘Vaccine’ linked to long-term child heart problems

Written by Guy Hatchard on April 16, 2022. Posted in Current News

AN American follow-up study of children suffering the heart muscle inflammation myocarditis after having their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was published in the Journal of Pediatrics on March 25 this year.

The research at the Seattle Children’s Hospital looked at 16 males, with an average age of 15, three to eight months after their initial diagnosis with myocarditis a short time after vaccination.

The authors used electrocardiograms (ECG) and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) scans to examine abnormalities in the heart such as myocardial scarring, fibrosis, strain, and reduced ventricular muscle extension, which can be associated with reduced capacity to pump blood and increased risk of heart attack.

They found that although there was some measure of resolution after three to eight months, most subjects still had some persistent abnormalities.

‘Although (initial) symptoms (such as chest pain, and exercise intolerance) were transient and most patients appeared to respond to treatment (solely with NSAIDS – non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs – such as ibuprofen), we demonstrated persistence of abnormal findings on CMR at (three to eight months) follow-up in most patients, albeit with improvement in extent of LGE.’

LGE is late gadolinium enhancement, a measure of the heart’s capacity to pump efficiently.

The authors warned: ‘The presence of LGE is an indicator of cardiac injury and fibrosis and has been strongly associated with worse prognosis in patients with classical acute myocarditis.

‘A meta-analysis including eight studies found that presence of LGE is a predictor of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, cardiac transplant, rehospitalisation, recurrent acute myocarditis and requirement for mechanical circulatory support.’

For those who wish to review a detailed evaluation of this study by a medical expert, you can watch this video.

Here in New Zealand, the latest Medsafe Adverse Effects Report #41 lists 12,000 people who have experienced chest discomfort and 6,000 shortness of breath (all ages) following mRNA vaccination – both classic symptoms of myocarditis.

The authors of the Seattle study concluded: ‘In the cohort of adolescents with Covid-19 mRNA vaccine-related myopericarditis (a complication of acute pericarditis), a large portion have persistent LGE abnormalities, raising concerns for potential longer-term effects.’

It is clear that little has been done in New Zealand to follow up those stricken by adverse effects. Many reporting to emergency departments or GPs with chest pain, tachycardia (rapid heartbeat), or shortness of breath have been told that everything will be OK without clinical assessment. In many cases these symptoms were not even registered with CARM, the national database of adverse reactions to medicines and vaccines.

Even though the Seattle study had few participants, it red-flags the possibility of subsequent cardiac events. It raises the possibility that sub-clinical adverse effects of mRNA vaccination may have serious longer-term impacts on health.

Until now, these have been classified as non-serious in New Zealand. Persistent reports of cardiac events in the weeks and months following mRNA vaccination among ostensibly fit and healthy people of all age groups and genders, but especially men, can no longer be ignored or dismissed as unrelated. They need to be investigated.

This underlines the fact that the Pfizer mRNA vaccination roll-out has been undertaken in the absence of long-term follow-up testing, which often requires the use of sophisticated equipment such as CMR and MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scans.

Moreover, heart disease is not the only category of serious illness whose incidence may be increased by mRNA vaccination, as other recent studies suggest.

Possible long-term adverse effects include cancer, kidney and liver disease, and neurological conditions. A recent court-ordered document release shows Pfizer, and probably the New Zealand government, is aware of cases.

But our government is still persisting with advertising suggesting that mRNA vaccination is safe and effective. This is not supported by research – the jab comes with some serious risks.

Moreover, the government was well aware of the risks from the start. An internal document released under the Official Information Act dated February 10, 2021 and signed by Ashley Bloomfield, Director-General of Health and Chris Hipkins, Covid Response Minister, discussing provisions for the vaccination of border workers, says: ‘Current data suggests severe adverse reactions are less than 1.1 per cent.’

Following ten million injections, as we have had in New Zealand, that would amount to more than 100,000 adverse reactions (a figure not inconsistent with the grossly under-reported 55,000 adverse reactions registered with CARM).

Did either Ashley Bloomfield, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, or Chris Hipkins ever hint to the public or the media that this was the expected outcome?

No they did not. They told the public the vaccine was completely safe and effective. They hid facts. More than this, Ardern deleted the 33,000 reports of adverse effects that were posted on her Facebook page. She gaslighted the public.

In the light of the Seattle study and other recent findings of potential long-term health issues associated with mRNA vaccination, we will now look at the very recent official advice given to New Zealand’s Prime Minister and Cabinet.

A letter dated March 13, 2022 has been sent by the Strategic Covid-19 Public Health Advisory Group (the David Skegg committee) to Dr Ayesha Verrall, Associate Minister of Public Health.

It is entitled Vaccine Mandates and aims to review the government’s strategy for minimising harms to health, society and the economy caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The committee assured the minister: ‘We have been able to take a completely fresh look at the evidence.’

The signatories to the letter are Dr David Skegg, an epidemiologist; Dr Maia Brewerton, a clinical immunologist, allergist and immunopathologist; Professor Philip Hill, an epidemiologist and public health expert; Dr Ella Iosua, a biostatistician; Professor David Murdoch, a clinical microbiologist and Dr Nikki Turner, an immunologist interested in preventive child health. All are vaccine advocates.

Point 29 of the letter calls for more measures to encourage children to be vaccinated. Point 12 asserts: ‘As we now deal with a large Omicron outbreak, vaccination is undoubtedly reducing the numbers of people who are becoming seriously ill and require hospital treatment.’

However, current New Zealand data discussed in articles at the Hatchard Report  reveal that the rates of hospitalisation are equivalent for vaxxed and unvaxxed.

Not a single scientific reference is included in this letter. Not a single reference is made to adverse effects of vaccination (currently running at 30 to 50 times higher than that of any previous vaccine).

Not a single reference is made to any need for informed consent prior to vaccination. The theme running throughout the letter is a need to normalise the use of vaccination mandates when they are needed in New Zealand in future.

The right of employers to enforce vaccine mandates is described as ‘common’. High vaccination rates are said to reduce absenteeism and the collapse of public services and commercial businesses.

The letter admits that the protection provided by the Covid-19 vaccines wanes after a few months and says the term ‘booster’ should be avoided. It recommends the needed number of mRNA vaccinations should be described as a course, and raises the imminent desirability of a fourth vaccine dose for at least some people.

Point 28 says: ‘For some cases, it would be appropriate for vaccination to be a condition for new employment.’ This clause recommends the broad use and normalisation of vaccine requirements in New Zealand for many illnesses and in many service sectors.

Unaccountably, the letter says: ‘Encouraging vaccination in the general population was not one of the specific objectives of vaccine mandates.’

It also says that vaccine hesitancy has been much less in New Zealand than other countries and that people ‘have been prepared to accept redeployment and redundancy’. In essence, denying the obvious coercion involved in mandates.

The letter recommends that mandates continue in use for health care workers, aged and disabled caregivers, corrections workers and border staff. There will be a review in six months.

The overall content of the letter appears to suggest that vaccines have been the key element ensuring low Covid-19 incidence. It completely fails to discuss the obvious point that this success has been achieved through border controls and contact tracing, not mRNA vaccination.

The long-term health effects of mRNA vaccination are becoming more obvious through published research findings. Meanwhile, the government advisers have their heads in the sand. Their careers have been built upon vaccination and now it seems that, to save the government, they are prepared to ignore the obvious deficiencies of mRNA vaccination.

One Chicago professor commented this week: ‘New Zealand science is circling the drain.’

Source: www.conservativewoman.co.uk

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.