All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 1, 2024 - Viva & Barnes
01:27:45
Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis: Live with Jessica Rose! Viva Frei
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
At the next month, when the president is in East Palestine, will he drink the water there?
I mean, look, what I can tell you is the president's focus has been to do everything that he can to support this community from day one.
We get what's going on on the ground.
We understand what's going on.
That's why we've had the EPA.
That's why we had DOT.
That's why we had HHS.
That's why we've had FEMA on the ground.
This is not about some sort of political stunt here.
This is not what this is about.
This is about this president being a president for everyone and showing up, showing up for this community.
That's what this is about.
I'm not going to get into some sort of political stunts about drinking water.
What we're going to focus about is making sure they have what they need.
And the president was invited by the mayor, by community leaders.
He's going to show up.
He always said he would be there when it was the most helpful.
It's a year later.
It's a year later.
When the president is in East Palestine.
Will he drink the water there?
Okay, let's bring this down.
I mean, look.
I mean, look.
What I can tell you is...
What I can tell you, U.S. Americans...
The president's focus has been to do everything that he can to support this community from day one.
We get what's going on on the ground.
We get it, we get it.
We understand what's going on.
Listen to the vocal fry.
That's why we had DOT.
That's why we had HHS.
That's why we had FEMA on the ground.
You know...
This is not about some sort of political stunt here.
Political stunt here.
This is not what this is about.
This is about this president being a president.
First of all, my hair looks a lot like hers right now.
I just noticed this.
Hold on.
I kind of look like Kareem Jean-Pierre right now.
...for everyone.
And showing up.
Showing up.
Showing up for this community.
Showing up for this community on the one-year anniversary after having absolutely neglected the community of East Palestine.
That's what this is about.
That's what it's about.
That's what it's about.
I'm not going to get into some sort of political stunts about drinking water.
What we're going to focus about is making sure they have what they need.
The president was invited by the mayor, by community leaders.
A year later.
He always said.
He always said he was going to show up when it was convenient.
He would be there when it was the most helpful.
When it was the most helpful.
First of all, that old decrepit fool showing up anywhere is useless to everybody.
Oh my goodness.
She's the worst press secretary.
In the history of press secretaries.
Okay, everybody, let me just make sure that we are live across the interwebs.
I have no idea what I just did to my screen here.
We are not streaming this one on YouTube for obvious reasons.
My thumbnail man just said he sent me the thumbnail.
Excellent, thank you!
I'm going to swap out.
The default thumbnail for the good thumbnail as we do the stream.
Let me make sure that we are live on the rumbles.
Well, we'll start with vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Are we live right here?
Refresh and press play for obvious reasons.
For obvious reasons, we're not doing this one on YouTube because I don't know what the bloody rules are anymore.
I mean, it's not that the rules are unclear.
They are deliberately opaque, but even deceptively.
Opaque.
We're on YouTube.
As you know now, I'm appealing a recent removal of a video of mine because YouTube removed one of my videos for allegedly violating community guidelines.
Ooh, that sounds terrible and scary, eh?
After having manually approved the video for monetization two days earlier.
So it's not that the rules do not make sense.
There are no rules.
It's done specifically and deliberately to penalize creators, to shut them up, and to weaponize the rules so they can go after politically disfavored, controversial creators.
We're live across the interwebs.
Good.
So, by the way, this is going to be a dedicated show.
To Jessica Rose and a recent, I don't know if we call it a study, an analysis.
It's going to be amazing.
Later today, I'm going to be with Owen Schroyer on InfoWars at 5 o 'clock this afternoon.
And I'm going to get in the car and I'm going to do a car vlog at some point throughout the day to talk about Big Fanny Willis.
I was going to say getting a spanking, but she didn't get a spanking.
She got her fanny spared.
So there's going to be some fun stuff.
We're going to get back to you on the politics and law and whatnot.
But today we're going to talk about...
You know, mild cases of myocarditis.
We're going to talk about the adverse events that apparently don't exist and you got a bunch of...
I'm not giving them an ounce more attention than they deserve.
They deserve none and therefore they get none.
But you got people out there denying reality.
And what is it?
Liars figure and figures lie.
I forget what the exact expression is.
And now you may remember Jessica Rose from such podcasts as...
Hours.
Multiple times now.
She's amazing.
Scientist, I'll let her explain herself, her credentials.
And as she does that, I'm going to go swap out the thumbnail so that we can not have my default thumbnail.
Whatever.
VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com and we're also on Rumble.
We're not on Twitter and we're not on YouTube.
So I'm going to bring Jessica in.
Jess, ready?
Three, two, one.
Madam, how goes the battle?
It's alright.
How's the battle with you?
I am frustrated.
I'm cranky.
I don't want to say that I'm getting more cynical than I need to be.
I think I'm just getting realistic about life and stuff like that.
Jess, while I go check the audio levels in the various communities, for those who might not know who you are, who are you, credentials, what you do, what you're doing, and where we are going today with this discussion.
Well, I'm a girl who's got a safety pin holding her clothes together today.
So besides that, I have some background in immunology, applied mathematics, computational biology, and molecular biology, and also biochemistry.
So it gives me kind of a unique ability to Handle and process a lot of the things that have been going on in the last four years.
I actually study the immunology of viruses, so it's even more perfect.
Never looked into coronaviruses before now, but so yeah, the last four years I've used just about something from each of those degrees to put together the story of what I think is happening here.
But I've been doing it from the point of view of analyzing pharmacovigilance data because I like the idea of coming...
First of all, I like the idea of using data that represents people because ultimately I just want to help people.
That's all I've ever wanted to do with my abilities.
But yeah, it's a hardcore way to ask people questions because it's government data.
And it's really easy to see what's going on there, and all you really have to do is give it back to them and say, explain.
I just want to back it up a little bit so that people who want to attack credentials will either have the fodder or lose the ammunition.
You have a PhD in what now?
I forget.
Computational biology.
Computational biology.
I didn't forget because I would never remember those words.
So, Jennifer, how many years have you been doing research and studying for?
It's going to be like decades now.
Yeah.
Well, right out of high school.
I graduated high school and went to university and I basically never left.
So I've been a full-time student in my own life.
And I'm only 50. Computational biology.
Yeah.
I mean, I know that we've discussed this.
We're not going to go into the depth that we did the first time we did a live stream, but what does that mean?
So basically, it's a way to study biological systems using math.
In the context that I worked...
Well, actually, this is like my first experience with a big data set.
It was still about viruses, but it wasn't really about the thing that I was doing in my immunology degree program, which was also interdisciplinary.
I actually had an advisor in the applied mathematics field and the immunology field because...
Neither one knew anything about the other field.
So I'm a mathematical biologist.
That's a much better way to say it.
We're a really rare breed.
The mathematicians think the biologists are BS.
The biologists think the mathematicians are wrong.
So it's like to be doing both is kind of a weird thing.
Alex Washington knows this.
So yeah, I study biology using math.
All right.
And you've dabbled in immunology as well.
Well, immunology is like the core, I guess, of what I've done.
It was the second degree that I did, the Bachelor of Science with the combo math thing, because it was just such a serious program.
It was three years.
It was really difficult.
I was in the Level 3 lab.
I was studying HIV immunopathogenesis, which is basically the immune response to HIV in chronically infected people.
So I was doing work in the Level 3 lab, analyzing HIV-infected blood.
And I was also doing the modeling on the math side.
So I built a mathematical model to try and...
Demonstrate that people could go on interruptions, structured treatment interruptions is what it's called.
Because for those of you who don't know, if you get diagnosed with HIV, oftentimes your practitioner will put you on antiretroviral drugs to keep your viral load down.
And those things are really toxic.
They've probably gotten better over the years, but back when I was doing this, they were very bad.
I mean...
Basically, you probably didn't feel bad before you take the drugs, and then you take them and you feel like crap.
So my idea was to try and help people get off those things for, like, three-week periods.
So I was trying to show that using the lab data and also the math model.
And I didn't succeed, which is not a total loss because I learned an enormous amount.
And about half of the community kind of said, You never could succeed because you can't do it.
But then there's the other half of us who really believe in the idea.
And I'm still one of those people.
I think maybe if I dedicated my entire life to keeping that project going, I probably could have done something better.
But that was my project.
I don't even remember what I was saying, but...
Well, no, that was just so that people understand the depth and specialty or specialization of your knowledge.
Mathematical biologists.
Okay, I like that term.
And now, Jess, so when we originally did the first stream, we talked about a paper that you had written with Peter McCullough that was ready for publication.
I think it was back in...
How far back?
2021?
Yeah.
And it was...
It was withdrawn.
Now, you have to contextualize that for us.
What happened, what you did at the time, and why the paper was pulled.
Okay.
I'll tell you as much as I know.
And I mean that because I don't know much because there's not much to know.
It was the third paper that I wrote on the subject of VAERS data.
So the first paper I wrote was general.
It was about like a...
Subtypes of adverse events in VAERS that fit into the realm of cardiovascular, neurological, immunological, this kind of thing.
The second one, I was examining the pharmacovigilance-ness of this database, like how well is it working?
And this third one was a more focused approach on what was going on with myocarditis reports.
Because there was talk on the town, the research community town, that this thing was bad for kids.
The shots, I mean, were causing problems in children, young children, like we're talking 12 to 15, and primarily boys.
If I may stop you there, when you say talk within the community, there was public talk or people coming out with certain suggestions or observations.
Is this like chatter within that's not public among scientists?
Say like, we're talking among ourselves, but we don't dare go public with this?
Pretty much.
Like medical doctors who are looking, who are doing certain tests, who are checking troponin levels, who are, you know what I mean?
It's like nobody, not many of, I don't exactly know the ratio, but I would say not very many general practitioners were doing these tests, especially in the context of...
Someone coming to their office suspecting that it was the shots, because the first thing I hear that the doctors would say is, no, it can't be the shots.
We have to look for something else here, some other cause.
So it's just something, I mean, I'd have to think harder about how it was identified, but it came throughout the most important thing, the nurses and the doctors.
You know, like when, if there's an issue with women giving birth to babies, The best people to talk to are the doulas.
You know, it was that kind of phenomenon.
There's a group of people that you can always go to who have the dart.
You know what I mean?
They're hanging around the water cooler.
They know everything.
So this was that phenomenon in the medical community.
So I dove into VAERS and I pulled out the myocarditis reports.
This wasn't pericarditis or myopericarditis.
And that also has a story.
Because the reports that were being done out of the CDC on this issue, once it became not hideable, was, I mean, it's just crazy how many things they did to, in my opinion, to hide the problem.
They used the Medra code, which is the diagnostic term that you use to enter into VAERS, myopericarditis, which is not the same as myocarditis.
If a doctor gives you a diagnosis of myocarditis, And that's entered into VAERS as myopericarditis.
And you seek the word out in a query, myocarditis.
You're going to miss all of those other, if you get my drift.
Absolutely.
And it's sort of like, it's spreading them out as opposed to concentrating them.
And that's one of the biggest things in VAERS that I never get to talk about enough, which I did cover in my second paper.
It's a phenomenon.
I think last count, there were like...
About ten ways to describe an abortion.
Like Medricode terms.
So instead of just write the bloody word miscarriage and or abortion.
Spontaneous or something like that.
There's like 10 different ways to say it.
No, no.
And it's like, it could be like, whereas you would lump them all together in an ordinary, honest world, they go myocarditis, myopericarditis, post-pseudo-myopericarditis, myopericarditis conjoined.
And so that it's like, oh, well, we only have five cases of myocarditis, but there are 50 of this.
Okay, amazing, corrupt, disgusting.
Unless there's a scientific medical need to make that subspecification, and just remind everybody or refresh everybody's memory, myocarditis is inflammation of the heart, pericarditis is inflammation of the sac around the heart, and what was the other one you just said?
Sorry, so what's that?
That's bacterial, which is like the lining of the inside area of the heart.
So that's different.
That's caused by a bacteria.
So yeah, peri is the perimeter.
Myo refers to the muscly.
The myocytes are the things that help the heart beat.
And the endo is like inside.
The prefix is refers to the inside.
I made it easy on myself.
Not really.
So there's a presentation given by, it was either John Su or Shima Bakuro from the CDC presenting this data, and there's a slide that I will send to you so you can put it up here that shows the list.
It's a long list of different ways to define myocarditis, and they're all medically valid, just like you said, but when you're collecting data and you're counting myocarditis cases, it's very important to, you know, Define these things properly and categorize them properly.
Like, put them all under another subheading called myocarditis and make that the preferred term.
You know what I mean?
How about heart issues at large and then if you want to go subdivide within?
Well, they do do that.
But the thing is, the preferred term is kind of like the...
It's not the largest category, but it's one of the larger ones.
And it's the one that they use in VAERS.
So it's like...
Anyway, they know these issues, they create more by doing this, by diversifying the diagnosis, and they make data analytics really hard.
I pushed back, and I did a search for all of these things, and I've written a number of articles on that.
But for the purposes of this paper that I penned in, I think it was May 2021, I finished writing it.
May 2021 is roughly, I mean, give or take, they started rolling out the jab.
Yeah.
What was it like?
Late December 2020, January 2021.
Yeah, so it was early.
Like my, was it 2020?
Yeah, it was.
So it was early.
I did all this work.
We had enough of a signal in VAERS for this stuff in January 2021.
So it was easy to kind of see and it was easy to write a paper about it.
Basically, I counted the number of myocarditis reports, and I plotted the age of the people who had diagnosis against, you know, the number of cases against dose.
Because I wanted to see, like, was there a difference in age, like the distribution of the reports by age, and was there a difference in the pattern according to dose?
So it was like a sore thumb.
It just stuck out like this, like crazy.
The preponderance of reporting was being done in 12-year-olds.
And when you also checked by sex, you would see that it was mostly boys.
Like 80-something percent of the reports were coming from little boys.
So it was really obvious that something unique was going on here.
And the reporting increased.
Fourfold, it was something more, back then it was like fivefold.
It remains at about fourfold higher following dose two.
So there was this like double whammy going on here in young boys.
And so once this kind of got out, like they knew because they were presenting data on it.
Like I said, John Su and Shima Bakuru, you can download their presentations on...
You just have to type in their names and go CDC and myocarditis, and you'll find their presentations.
And they reported on this, and they reported on the higher rate in young boys.
It's right there.
But what they did was what they have been consistently doing with this DNA contamination story.
They're minimizing it, and they're saying that it doesn't pose a risk because myocarditis is...
Is mild and transient, and it's neither of these things.
Look, two questions, actually.
Someone in our locals community wants you to define dose.
The report is per dose, correct?
Yeah.
The various reports are per dose.
Yeah, so each, there's like 52 variables that you enter when you combine the three files in VAERS.
So one of them is the VAX dose series.
So you can see if it's someone's first dose or their second dose or their third dose, etc.
All the information is there.
It's like theirs is very well, the fields are very well occupied.
And there's like millions of reports now in the context of this COVID shit.
So it's like really, there's a lot of data.
So yeah, I wrote the paper and I thought, well, what the hell do I know about hearts?
So I thought I knew about Peter McCullough.
I think I asked someone for his email.
I wrote him an email.
I said, hey, I wrote this paper.
It would be nice to have a cardiologist on as a co-author because I need confirmation that I'm correct.
He said yes right away.
He wrote some extra sections on the heart stuff and gave some clinical stuff, which is really important because it validates.
What you're seeing in the data, because VAERS also has information on test measurements, like troponins and cardiac MRI data.
It's not, like, enough to be able to draw a conclusion, but it can corroborate what someone's seeing clinically.
So it was important.
So, yeah, we got it finished, and we submitted it.
It got accepted.
Yeah, I wanted to ask one more question first.
When they say mild and transient in terms of minimizing the myocarditis, have you done any analysis or study or number crunching as to prognosis survival rate after a diagnosis with myocarditis?
I don't believe them, but you see these memes or these posts that 50% of people diagnosed with myocarditis are dead after five years.
I don't believe it's quite that.
You know, bad.
But have you done any number crunching on survival rate and prognosis for people diagnosed with myocarditis?
No, I haven't.
But I've asked that same question to cardiologists, including Peter McCullough.
And I'm not sure I would say five, but I've heard 10 years.
So here's the thing about it.
I mean, I think of it like this.
If somebody's got fibrotic scarring...
From a myocardial insult, for whatever reason, it's probably the immune system attacking, you know, the spike protein which is embedded in the cells of the myocardium.
It's probably that.
That's the itis, the inflammation of this myocardium.
Then that's...
The bad part about it, it's just like neurons.
They're not replenishable cells.
So once they're damaged...
And the whole thing with these cardiomyocytes is that they're flexible.
They're the ones, the muscly things that let the heart do.
So if that gets replaced with scar tissue, the way that I analogize this is I compare it to like a rubber band versus like a string.
It's like this has a lot of give.
And if you replace that with...
You know, something that doesn't have any give, and this thing is supposed to be like beating?
No, I mean, just the analogy is put a rubber band out in the sun for a year and then see how rubber bandy it is.
And then is it going to do what it's supposed to do as a rubber band?
It's going to, A, it's not going to retract, and then it's also going to snap.
I don't know if that's analogous to the heart, but the bottom line is, yeah, it's got to be flexible to do the pumping.
And if it's not, okay.
Oh my goodness, I'm still now thinking back.
You can't really say, because this is the tricky thing, but this is also why it's preposterous that once there was even a notion of this happening in kids, there should have been a moratorium called, or at least some kind of temporary cessation, because you can't know.
You can't really know unless you cut someone open what the magnitude of the scarring or the damage is.
So if it's just minimal, maybe they're going to have a pretty normal life.
But who freaking knows?
We don't even know which people have maintained spike protein production.
We do know that it's a thing that spike protein production can be continuous.
We do know that the...
Anyway, so we have all these unanswered questions that lead to the endgame.
For most people, the only thing most people care about is how they feel and their quality of life.
So if that basically shortens your life or doesn't improve or reduces the quality of life, that's what they're going to care about.
So it's like...
Basically, what was being given to them could potentially do both of those things.
And it's like, why the hell?
You know what I mean?
You already know.
I'm trying to find the tweet as we're talking.
It's another guy, the writer for The Daily Show, just died of a heart attack.
He also put out a post, get fucking vaxxed, you fucking fuckers.
And one of those stupid posts.
Yeah, yeah.
And the idea is like...
On the one hand, you know, I'm thinking people who are angry and stressed in general are probably going to be more likely to suffer heart attacks, especially if they're overweight.
This guy looked like he might have been all three.
But you're talking about messing with the heart.
And I had this discussion recently with people where one of the doctors, after the Twitter space, if he's a real person, I don't even know if these people are bots, admits that he got myocarditis from his first Moderna shot, but that in his stress test, he registered 180 beats per minute.
There was another term that he's using, and I'm like, you're not supposed to reach 100% capacity even during a stress test.
What fucking damage has this guy done to his heart?
And does he understand it despite what he's continuing to promote?
Or does he convince himself, well, they said it's gone, so it's gone, and I'll find out in 10 years whether or not it's gone.
I would love to know the stats, like meaningful study of the stats of people diagnosed with myocarditis prognosis.
Okay, that answers the question as to, you know, mild, mild, and, you know.
Never mind, it's just a little myocarditis in developing kids and hearts.
Okay, so the signals are there.
This is the other shocking thing everybody really has to appreciate.
And actually, before I say that, there's a chat in Rumble that says, you are one of the crowd's favorite guests on the channel, Jessica.
Aww.
Well, it's reasonable people who are smart and well-researched and well-okay.
So the signals are there.
As early as rollout in January 2021.
And it's a game of the deny, admit but minimize, admit but normalize.
Yes.
Who were the two doctors?
You mentioned their name.
There was a Japanese one in there, I think.
Who were the two doctors talking about it at the time?
Or doing studies on it at the time?
Oh, uh...
You mentioned two earlier and I didn't catch their names.
Peter, obviously.
He's one of the only cardiologists I know.
I'm trying to remember.
I'm in a bunch of groups, and one of them is medical doctors, and it was just being talked about.
I don't know.
You mentioned two names who were looking at the signals in January.
They had talked about it or pointed.
Okay, it doesn't matter.
So you're looking at this at the time.
You collect and aggregate the data.
It's not just notoriously difficult to use for a layperson.
I think it's deliberately impossible to use.
So you are gathering the data.
You see these egregious, what we call signals.
You want to get the confirmation of somebody else with, I'd say, an equally open mind.
Someone else will call them a conspiracy theorist.
You get Peter McCullough.
Peter McCullough is a cardiologist, right?
He's an epidemiologist, and I'm losing the term that he uses.
Yeah, he's a cardiologist, though.
He's, for decades, he's very, very well published.
He's been editor of journals.
I mean, the guy's like, he's like what everyone would want to be in the academic and the clinical world.
He kind of reached the height of both of those things.
So he's, yeah, he's a big deal.
What I love is, you know, when you have these discussions, people say, well, you're not an epidemiologist, so you don't get to have an opinion, a contrary opinion.
If you agree with them, you could be a frickin' veterinarian like Albert Bourla, and they'll agree with you.
And then when you are the specialist, you are the epidemiologist, you are the cardiologist like McCullough, like Malhotra, well, then they say, well, you're a quack, so we disregard your opposition.
Okay, so you get McCullough, he comes and he looks at your data, and what does he say, and how does it lead to the first paper being written and withdrawn?
Okay, I already wrote it.
So the body was there.
So his job was easy.
He had to come in with the doof, doof, like cardiology stuff, the clinical stuff that he'd been seeing in his practice, which is great.
Because, you know, he could confirm or deny what I was seeing in VAERS from test measurement point of view from his practice.
So he already knew because he's one of the doctors who's...
A cardiologist who was seeing patients the whole time.
He was seeing his regular patients and he was seeing COVID patients.
So he had his fishing pole in the water.
So he added sections.
He helped with editing.
He really helped with the whole thing.
And then he's the one who decided on the journal to submit to because he knows this stuff and I'm still kind of a young scientist.
He basically was, you know, the take charge on the submission.
We paid the fee.
Well, he paid the fees.
And we asked for color proofs because figures would lose meaning without color.
Basically, we just got to the end.
And then it got me published.
It was up on PubMed as well, which is, like, basically, that's it.
You know, we're done.
And then a few days before we were supposed to get the...
We were waiting for the final proofs to be approved.
And instead of getting the approval for the final proofs, we get an email.
No, sorry.
Back up, Jess.
This was a long time ago.
I got a message and one of my followers was saying, hey, how come the title of your paper on Elsevier has withdrawn next to the title?
No, sorry.
Originally, it was temporarily withdrawn.
So I was like, what?
And so I was like, you know, I wrote to Peter right away and I said, did you do this?
Like, did you ask for it to be withdrawn?
Because it's got this thing next to it.
And so I, again, I'm a young scientist.
I'm kind of like, I don't know if this is normal.
So I wrote to everybody I knew in the sphere, like the academic sphere, and I'm like, has this happened to you before?
And Peter was, he was very sure right away.
He's like, because he knows, right?
He's in this world.
He said, no, this is not normal.
So he says, write to them and ask them what's going on.
So they didn't send us an email.
Telling us that this was going to happen.
We found out both by other people telling us.
So I sent a polite email, you know, being Canadian.
And I said, hey, what's on the go?
What's up with that?
And so they wrote back pretty...
No, it wasn't pretty fast.
It was a few days later, I think.
It might have been a week.
Yeah, it was seven days later or something.
It was a few days later.
And they said, we're reconsidering publishing your paper.
There's a buzzword that people use.
Was your paper peer-reviewed?
Yes, of course.
I'm skeptical of peer-reviewed stuff, just seeing what has been withdrawn, retracted from The Lancet and other publications.
Well, if it gets to that point, it's past peer review.
So yeah, and that's the thing, right?
So this is where you can start to see that something wasn't right here.
Someone said, someone said, what the F, pull this shit, like, cut the feed.
This is like the Eugene Carol Anderson Cooper, cut the commercial and shut this, shut them up.
Okay.
Amazing.
Put the screen up with standing by with the dog with the TV.
That really does seem like what happened.
I'm a rational, logical, skeptical person, but if I was going to guess, I'd say that's exactly what happened.
I just want to click on one of these just to see what happens.
I've got to get to the window somewhere in the back.
Do PubMed withdrawn a report on myocarditis?
It's on PubMed as a withdrawn article.
Anyway, I wrote to them and they said, yeah, we're reconsidering.
And I was like, um, huh?
I'll go to national, whatever this one is.
Withdrawn.
Who withdrew it?
Listen, I'm getting to that.
So I got the advice from Peter as to what to do, how to proceed, because he knows I don't.
And he said, I'm going to write them.
So we all got on the email then.
We were all ready on the email.
I was just CC'd here.
And he basically just said, reinstate the paper or we're going to sue.
Because we'd already paid the thing.
And they said they were going to give the money back.
And I think that they did.
But the big question was, you know, why did this happen?
And so we heard from them a day later.
I actually want to point one thing out here.
Sue, not just for your feeds, this article has been withdrawn at the request of the authors and /or editors?
Well, it certainly wasn't withdrawn at the request of the authors, and that is either false light or defamatory.
Yeah, it's deceptive.
And so, like, they came back to us pretty fast after that, and they had a definitive answer.
They said, "We're not going to publish your paper.
We've decided..." You know, it's within our guidelines at any point during the procedure to not continue.
And they were correct, but, and I guess they gave back Peter's money and stuff, but it's like, why?
And I said, what?
On what premise?
Like, why are you doing this?
There's nothing wrong with the science.
You haven't told us there's a problem with the data, with the conclusion, with the work, with the...
No, there's a problem with the conclusion.
It's justified by the data.
I mean, that's the problem.
Yeah, so we never got an answer and it just got left hanging.
And even Retraction Watch contacted me and they're like, what was up?
And I told them...
And they contacted the editor and they didn't get any answer from them.
So a lot of people in the world were watching this happen and nobody got an answer from them.
Nobody.
Nobody.
So it's exactly what you just said.
It ended up looking so like meh.
Because if you're an academic and you have a retraction on your publication list, it's really bad for you.
It's really bad.
It's like a community notes on Twitter until you realize it's all political bullshit and the only people who care about it are the ones who want to use it against you.
Now we know that.
Historically, it's this scarlet letter and it's bad.
It's not seen as a thing.
Let's just say things were kind of normal and I was trying to get another postdoc and I had this retraction on my resume.
You know, it would probably prevent me from getting positions, or it could possibly.
That's the thing.
And as you pointed out, the only thing that you get now, instead of any text at all, is this stupid message that we had nothing to do with.
Well, I definitely had nothing to do with it.
Like, we just, it's not correct.
To suggest it was the authors is overtly misleading, deceptive and dishonest.
Okay, so it gets cancelled and then what?
It's sitting on a shelf and the study that we're going to look at in a second basically is up-to-date analysis of the data from then to now.
Yes.
Yeah, so I got really upset and I was told, you know, Peter said, yeah, we're going to sue them and da-da-da.
Everybody got busy, and it just kind of petered out, and I'm not one of these people that knows anything about suing anyone.
I can tell you, you're better off avoiding it at all costs, even if you go and get caught up in litigation, have a biased court, dismiss it.
Then not only were you withdrawn, it was ratified by the court, and then look what you've done.
Exactly.
So that might be what happened.
I just, you know, whatever.
It's fine.
And I was upset about it for a long time.
And then, I don't know what happened.
One day.
It literally was one day.
I was like, screw this.
I'm going to update the myocarditis paper and, like, frickin' resubmit it.
So that's what I did.
I took the idea, the body, and I updated it, and it looked even worse.
But when you say it looked even worse, you mean the data and the conclusions?
Yeah.
So I had way more data.
Think about this.
I have like two years more data.
So I had a lot more data points.
Not only were the original points more solid as a rock, but I had more data to draw conclusions about what was going on in terms of severity.
So that's the really important thing about the newly updated version that's now been really published.
Is that we show not only that this happens in kids, it happens after dose two, but it's leading to hospitalization in 76% of the time, and also to death.
So it's definitely not mild and or transient.
So that's what I would say is like the most important thing about this new paper.
It's unfortunate that it came two years too late.
I was going to say unfortunate, but almost necessary, because other than the passage of time and more data, what's also clear is that public opinion or the stigma about talking about it is certainly gone because it's undeniable now.
It's almost like the scientific environment.
is more amenable to even having the discussion because it's so bloody in your face and undeniable whereas two years ago it was shut up continue with the rollout because we got six billion of these to administer so the the culture has changed and we're going to get into the data so this one is peer-reviewed or re-peer-reviewed or peer re-reviewed oh oh man this this is peer-reviewed multiple multiple multiple times because um the The number of times that it got rejected after going through multiple rounds of
peer review with different journals.
We're documenting that.
We've documented that.
So Nick Hulcher is an additional author on this paper.
And he really is to...
He's the one responsible for this thing getting published because he was very, very good at getting this through.
And making sure, you know, the revisions were made properly, blah, blah, blah.
So this paper has been going through peer review in different journals and getting rejected at the last minute for months.
So this final paper that accepted it is one of many.
So it's been through The Washer.
So anyone who wants to say, you know, it's not peer review, it is...
Yeah, it's a lot of years.
And with that thorough introduction, and if I decide to snip and clip this portion where you're going to explain the data to YouTube, and they can, you know, accept my fingers if they decide to pull it down, let me pull up the study, and we're going to go through...
Why do I see court filings here?
Because that's...
Okay, fine.
Jess, I'm going to pull it up.
I'll go to the top.
And you'll walk us through the findings.
Maybe I don't need it up here the entire time to go through the findings, but I'll just read the...
Well, what do I want to do?
Background...
Let's go to the figures, okay?
Because that's what most people are going to respond to anyway.
Tell me where that is.
Oh, just keep going.
Results.
So, yeah.
Go to figure one.
Figure one is this.
Yes.
This tells the story of the adverse events in VAERS in total over the last 30 years.
So this is basically a comparison of the total number of adverse event reports filed to VAERS.
This is all adverse events, not just myocarditis.
For all vaccines combined, until 2021, when I pulled out only...
The adverse event reports in the context of the COVID products.
So this chart is really important to set the stage because it's, you know...
Prior to, all of the gray is all vaccines ever, which includes the annual flu shot?
Yes.
Okay.
And then the purple is only the COVID shots.
Only the adverse events reported in conjunction with the COVID shots.
Yes.
Okay.
And now the question that people ask, these are the raw numbers, the total, not percentage of...
No.
Okay.
No.
These are the absolute counts.
And these are people.
So I don't count.
I know it says adverse event on the left axis, but this is the adverse event in the context of people.
So I count the number of people who actually reported...
A multitude of adverse events.
If I was going to talk about the number of adverse events per person, this would be in the five million range.
So this is an important point because VAERS is a database for real people who are suffering sometimes very severe side effects to report their injuries.
So each one of these points is a person.
Let me ask another question.
And just for comparison purposes and so we can digest it internally.
In 2020, all vaccines, that's the number in gray.
How many doses of all vaccines were administered in 2020 prior to the COVID jab?
Do you know that offhand?
I do know, but I don't know it offhand.
I mean, it's hundreds of millions because it's like...
It's hundreds of millions of flu shots alone.
Well, that's where I want to, like, just, is it 10 times less?
Is it 100 times less than the COVID jab in 2021?
The total number of shots, I don't know.
But the flu, the comparison between 2020 and 2021 is that there were 2.3 times as many COVID shots given out as the flu shots.
Okay.
So, you wouldn't...
Go ahead.
No, no, then that answers the question.
Let's just say two and a half times more COVID jabs than flu shots.
Then you would expect that, this little purple bar, at most, at most to be two and a half of the little gray bars.
That's right.
And the reason why that is, is because, here's the thing, people.
If there wasn't something different, inherently different, in terms of adverse events between these products, and let's just say the flu products, And there was a 2.3 times as many shots given out for the COVID products than we would expect 2.3 times or 2.5 times, whatever, as many adverse events because it would be proportional because the so-called damages would be equatable.
So this is a very clear, just this one thing is a very clear indication that there's something different about these things.
A lot of people are saying, nah, it's just because they gave out more shots.
No, no, no, no.
It's not in this paper, but I've broken that down using napkin math.
It's absolutely false.
I'm looking now and just, I don't know, it's from the CDC.
So 2019 to 2020, 175 million doses of the flu shot.
Yeah.
And so let's just say COVID shot 2021 number.
Oh, I have to go with US, I guess.
I'll find it out.
But the bottom line is, it's simply, you know, if anybody wants to try to write it off and say, well, they administered 100 times more jabs than flu shots, it's simply false.
It is.
Or it's, even though they did administer more COVID shots, it's not proportional when we look at the data.
Like, the number of reports, like, even if this was 20 times, maybe, you know, I'd be like, meh, you know, okay, so maybe there's something.
Some extra immunological component here, but this is really, really different.
This is more than an anomaly.
Even if they administered three times as many COVID gels as flu shots, then it would be 300,000.
It would be a proportionate claim.
It's exceedingly disproportionate to the amount of doses administered.
And that is conclusive and indisputable.
Yes.
And just to add to that, I look deeper into the range of adverse events that are being reported in the context of the flu shots within a given time frame and the range of adverse event reports for the COVID shots in the same number of days time frame.
And there's a huge discrepancy between the number of types.
I'm talking about the diagnoses associated with the shots being given in the context of flu being much narrower.
Than for the COVID shots.
So this is very telling.
It's literally translated, something about these is causing more systemic damage.
And it's interesting because that's what we're hearing clinically as well.
It's like we're from Bell's palsy to death.
I mean, there's this huge range of clinical pathology associated with these shots.
And it's irrespective of age.
It's irrespective of, well, maybe not irrespective of a precondition, but it's certainly, you're not immune because you're young, for example, from suffering adverse events.
I'm sorry, I just got very frustrated because now I'm looking up in the CDC.
Let me bring this up, Jess.
I have to toggle a couple of screens here.
Stop screen.
Just because I remember getting this number to figure out what the proportion of claims to doses administered was.
The total number of doses administered as of beginning to today, 676 million.
So you just go break that down.
That's the amount of doses given and claims made at the VAERS.
And for whatever you think that they're worth, break it down and you can get your claim per dose.
And I forget what it was now.
But it was significant.
That's 676 million over 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024.
So let's just say 200 million.
And you're almost, let's say double, double the flu shot.
And so try to make sense of that graph, which we're going to go back to right now.
Okay.
Sorry, please carry on.
I'm going to give myself a heart attack here.
Jess, hold on.
Get this back.
You're fine.
So the next one over, B. Is this exact same concept, except for myocarditis reports.
So it's the exact same picture, and you'd kind of expect it to be, because within that total number of adverse events, you're going to have, you know, subgroups of cardiovascular reports, and within that, you're going to have myocarditis reports.
And in each case, any query that you do for any adverse event by metric code, it looks like this.
It's not only for myocarditis.
So it's not something you can look away from.
Teacher, question.
This is wildly disproportionate, even if we're operating on the two and a half times as many doses of the jab administered as the flu.
I don't know, as a matter of policy, do they administer the flu shot to children six months and up?
Or did they prior to 2021?
I don't know.
I would say no, but I really don't know.
I know almost nothing about vaccination anymore.
No, I mean, but the bottom line is I'm just trying to figure out, you know, because you're going to break this down by age bracket and it's going to make a lot more sense the number of claims you're getting.
And the question I'm asking is...
The majority of people who are getting flu shots, yearly flu shots, are older people.
And it's certainly not been added to the, as far as I know, the flu shot has not been added to the children's vaccination schedule.
So when we see this number, and you're going to probably tell us that this number in the red, 2414, is disproportionately within a younger demographic, this wildly disproportionate graph makes all the more sense, assuming that the flu shot is not forcibly administered to young boys.
Which I don't think it is.
Certainly not by vaccine passports and requirements to enter a library.
So that'll explain why this graph is even more disproportionate than the overall VAERS reports year over year 2020 to 2021.
Okay.
Please continue, Jess.
Okay, so go to the C. So what I did, just as an exploratory thing, And because we had so much data when I was looking at this again, I downloaded the Our World and Data data for the number of doses administered in the States.
So this is, again, you know, it's their data, it's not mine.
And then I pulled out the myocarditis cases, you know, that have occurred regardless of age for, you know, since the...
Beginning of the rollout, which you can see indicated by the purple line.
You can kind of see when it happened anyway.
It's like when the blue line starts to go up.
And you can see.
I laughed when I saw that.
These are coming from two different places, okay?
This is OWID data and VAERS data.
And I superimposed them according to the dates of the data points.
And this is what popped out.
It couldn't be more indicative that the myocarditis in red is tracing the new injections in blue.
By what?
By two weeks?
Yeah, I think so.
It was about 10 days, I think.
And I'm going to stop you there also because I'll steal, man, what I know the liars would say.
They're going to say...
Myocarditis from viral infection, you're more likely to get it from COVID than the jab.
If that were true, Jessica, and you'll correct me if I...
Well, first of all, you might not see it on the VAERS system, although maybe people are reporting COVID-induced myocarditis as an adverse event from the vaccine because they can't distinguish the two.
Exactly.
But we don't see myocarditis being reported.
Well, you would not see myocarditis being reported in Varus until the shots are being administered.
Yeah.
Okay, fine.
I mean, that's logical and that was a stupid thing.
That's the thing, right?
And so it's not just that, though.
It's the fact that they kind of peak at the same place, just a little bit after, and then they trough, and then they peak again together, and then they trough.
And this is one of the criteria.
That you should satisfy in the Bradford Hill criteria to provide evidence of causation.
It's called reversibility.
If you take away the drug, which is the blue, if the drug is likely causing the myocarditis, or let's just say the symptom, then the symptom will go away when the drug is removed.
And that's exactly what we see here.
It's striking.
And the R value here, it's not shown, but it's 0.8.
I did calculate this, which is pretty high.
Sorry, what does the R value mean?
So it's a measure of the correlation between these two curves.
So how well they track together, basically.
Let me ask you a question here.
The blue number is tracking raw number of new injections, correct?
That's why we just see fewer and fewer people getting new injections as we go along.
Yeah, yeah.
We know now that not many people are taking these things at all anymore.
So it's, yeah.
So the last bump, you know what I was going to say, what explains the last bump without a correlative spike?
But then I see a spike.
Can you see my cursor?
Yeah, you can.
So you've got a last blue bump right here.
And that is in, what month are we in there?
October.
That looks like October, November, December.
And then we get in January 2020, a little spike right there.
Would that be what you would say was a correlation?
Maybe.
But I wouldn't be too bothered about...
I don't know what the bump is, actually.
Well, I mean, I know what it is.
A bunch more people.
I can't really see the dates.
Yeah, it looks like 10-1-2022.
So that's October, November.
It's October 1st, 2022.
It's flu season.
Well, yeah, there you go.
Do you remember, though, like...
When the different versions of these shots were being doled out?
Because maybe this represents boosters.
I don't know.
Well, I do remember they went with the seasonal push for Thanksgiving and the holidays.
So that's the time.
And then you go back here and you look at this one.
It's 11.121.
So right about the Christmastime New Year's right here.
Yeah, I didn't even...
You're right.
That's a good observation.
Yeah, and then the first one was right after, just fucking jack it out into everybody's arms.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
No, because I remember, like, you know, Hochul coming out and, you know, coming with their messages.
You want to meet with your friends at Thanksgiving and Christmas?
Get your shots now.
And I'm like, you guys are already too late.
When they were pushing it, it's like, it takes two weeks to, if it worked, it would take two weeks to work.
You're already too late.
Okay, so amazing and fascinating.
That this, it's almost like a direct myocarditis report.
And what should be shocking about this number, we're going to get into the breakdown of the myocarditis, but this wild correlation is going to be disproportionately young boys or young men after the second dose.
Yes.
So keep going.
Let's find out.
Scroll down.
I'm going to move this out here.
I don't remember what...
I did.
You know how neurotic I am?
I hate seeing that open in viewer thing.
I got a toggle.
Me too!
Me too!
Sorry.
There it is again.
Damn it.
Okay, so I'm going to go back here.
What chart are we looking at here?
Number of adverse event reports in VAERS.
Oh, I'm sorry.
So this is just...
Okay.
So what are we looking at?
This is the number of vaccines on the market.
Proportionally...
Related to the number of adverse event reports.
So the reason I put this in is just to show people that between 1990 when VAERS started to 2020, everything was copacetic.
Yep.
It's like linear trend upward, very, you know, not a big slope.
Everything was proportional.
Well, I was just going to ask you, like, where's the spike?
And then I realized that the cutoff date is 2020.
So I suspect the spike is coming.
There's no point in showing that.
So the point was I wanted people to know, like, that to bounce off figure one, like, this is what it used to look like in terms of the number of products on the market.
And the reason why we have this study increase is because of the increase in the number of products getting on the market.
An increase of one more product or four more products for COVID should not cause any significant rise.
It should fall on the diagonal.
I don't show that here, but that's what would happen.
It's logical if the correlation of adverse events typically is 1 in 10,000.
If you have 5 on the market, it'll go up like that.
I'm curious what that little dip is right there.
Interesting.
Where do I go now?
I got pulled from the market that year.
I bet you that's what it is.
Yeah, we can skip that.
That's just the classification of the stuff.
So here we go.
So both of these charts are telling.
So the one on the left is the absolute counts, and the one on the right is per 100,000 doses.
So the one on the right is normalized per dose.
They tell the same story, though.
So on the left, well, we can do the normalized data.
Whatever.
That's over here.
All right, and let me read what this...
So figure three shows the distribution of myocarditis cases according to the CDC age grouping.
In total, 30% of all myocarditis reports were made for children aged 0 to 20, and 50% of all myocarditis reports were made for young adults aged 0 to 30. I'd like to know a sub breakdown, which we're going to get in a second.
Absolute counts were normalized to vaccine administration data by age group, figure 3b.
12 to 17-year-olds have the highest myocarditis reporting rates.
Okay, now we're going to look here.
I just want to add here that the original data was even stronger than this, because I think the reason why it, quote unquote, looks better, even though it's still bad now, is because of data botching in VAERS.
But that's a whole other topic.
So basically what we're looking at here is the greatest proportion of reports per dose being reported for 12 to 17 year olds.
So within this age grouping, there are the 15 year olds.
So they're the ones who are hit the worst.
And you can't see it here.
But the boys are doing the worst.
I'm not even sure if I have the boys chart here.
Maybe I don't.
If I may ask, the 3.1, what number does that represent?
That's 3.1 cases per 100,000 doses.
So the guys attacking us will say, well, who cares?
It's only three people per 100,000.
But it's like, that's not nothing.
And when you're talking about something...
That's considered a serious adverse event in a young person who may actually succumb to very severe damage.
It matters.
Well, let me stop you there just because if you say 3.1 per 100,000, that's roughly 1 per 33,000.
So people are going to say, well, I've heard the stat was myocarditis was 1 in 800, 1 in 5,000.
Well, now they're going to say it's 1 in 33,000 and that's at worst.
No, but this doesn't take into account the underreporting factor.
So any data that I ever present is a huge underestimate.
That's just one of the flaws about bears.
So at best, at best for the data deniers, it's at best, it's one in 33,000 for...
Okay.
At best.
And to the extent that many people think the VAERS reporting accounts for 1% of all adverse events, and then the number for 1 in 800 was actually not pulled from VAERS.
It was pulled from clinical trial data, and that's probably a little more accurate.
Okay, fine.
So we'll understand the arguments.
They're going to say, oh, look at that.
Even by your own numbers, it's 1 in 33,000.
That's nothing.
Okay, that doesn't factor in underreporting, and the number of 1 in 800, 1 in 5,000 was not pulled from the VAERS reports, but rather from the clinical data, although one study wasn't peer-reviewed, apparently.
Okay.
Where should I go now?
Keep going down.
Let's see.
I don't remember.
It was like years ago.
Seriously.
Let's see what I did.
Okay.
There are reports of myocarditis by age and dose.
Oh, this is going to be interesting.
Okay.
So, yeah.
You can see already, right?
This is what I described.
So, all I did was I pulled out the number of VAERS reports of myocarditis by measure code myocarditis.
And I plotted...
Those points against people's ages.
And I superimposed three doses because I wanted to see what was going on.
In the initial paper, I only had dose one and dose two data.
So I had this picture back in like freaking May.
Minus the blue.
Exactly.
But I had this picture, this dose two response.
And it's like...
Man, what is going on?
It's the fucking...
I'm sorry.
It's the freaking...
What's the building in America now?
In New York?
It's the Empire State Building of adverse events.
Yeah, it really is.
It does look like it.
That is to say, these are the reports, and in the reports, they say adverse event.
Okay, which number dose are you on?
People didn't write it.
They didn't file the VAERS report on the first dose.
They filed it on the second.
They indicated it was the second.
And this is the tracking by age.
And we're looking at whatever that is, halfway about 12 to 25. That peak bar is 15-year-olds.
And if you break that down by gender, by sex...
80% boys.
Sorry, what percentage, boys?
80-something percent.
80-odd.
Okay.
Wow.
So quite clearly, physiologically, for whatever the reason, the second dose triggers more adverse event reports.
Something more severe.
So my line of thinking is like this, and correct me if I'm wrong or if you have other ideas.
Young boys...
Like, I kind of, like, was a young tomboy.
So, you know, I played soccer, and I was a competitive swimmer, and all my friends were boys.
So, like, I tried to put myself into my 15-year-old self, and I got a, you know, I'm vaccinated out the yin-yang, whatever there was I got when I was a little older, not really when I was 15. But let's just say this COVID shit happened when I was 15. I probably would have gotten it, wouldn't have even thought about it.
And then all of a sudden, if I started having horrible chest pains within a few days of the shot, I would never, never connect to them.
I'm telling you this as a first person.
I would never have connected them.
And then, of course, it's time to get the next one because it's three weeks later.
So I get the second one, and then I pass out.
And then my mom's there, and she's like, what the hell?
And it happens.
In closer temporal proximity to the shot, because that's another trend that we see following dose two, like the time frame from injection to onset is shorter, which is another Bradford Hill thing.
So my thinking is that there's more reporting following the second dose because it is more severe.
There's something cumulative going on, but also it's it becomes it's so severe that it's not deniable.
So the moms get involved and they take their kids to the doctor.
So that's kind of how I was visualizing it.
Like, I don't know, maybe there's another reason.
I would have I would have I mean, for whatever it's worth, just, you know, critical thought.
I would have thought it would be a cumulative impact.
Yeah, it is.
And any sort of symptomatic chest pain might be totally virtually unnoticeable or...
And then the cumulative impact of having whatever the spike proteins are recirculate and re-trigger an immunological response and then you get a more severe reaction.
Yeah, it's the sucker punch that knocks you out.
It's another massive dose of lipid nanoparticles carrying foreign genetic material and then more transfection, more downstream, you know?
And you're already...
Probably immunologically inflamed from the first experience.
Now, thinking out loud, though, do you know the number of second doses administered compared to first doses?
Does that number go down?
Because that would make this graph even more shocking.
Yes, it does.
Dramatically, actually.
There's far more first dosers than second.
I can't remember exactly, but it might even be like...
I think it's probably like...
Oh gosh.
I don't want to guess because I don't want to be wrong.
It doesn't matter.
I mean, it's also just logical.
Necessarily, second doses will be fewer than the first.
The only question is, in what proportion?
If it's statistically significant, the fact that you would then have this clear, clear trend of a statistically lesser amount of second doses, that makes it even more shocking.
And then you see the blue.
I mean, I don't know who's getting third doses anyhow.
You know.
Holy crap.
Okay.
All right.
The number is, hold on, adverse events.
I mean, I'm just trying to find a way to play.
I know, I know.
It's harder, right?
How can you debunk this?
So the number here, we're at adverse events.
Is it thousands on the left or is it?
No, this is total numbers.
So this is bare bones, domestic data, not foreign data, only myocarditis.
And it's like I narrowed the query.
To be very, very strict, which makes the number look very low.
This is 80 reports?
80, yes.
And so people are going to say, the total number of reports here, let's just say...
Following those two reported to VAERS for myocarditis in 15-year-old boys, that's not enough to worry about.
But that's not the point.
The pattern is the point.
There's two important things about this graph, and it has nothing to do with the absolute counts.
It has to do with the dosing phenomenon and the age.
And those two, they signify something going on immunologically or physiologically in that age group and following dose two, which also satisfies Bradford Hill criteria for specificity and temporality.
Yeah, but the argument is going to be, let's just say of the 12 years from 12 to 24, let's just say at most it's going to be a thousand cases.
Well, we've administered it to 70, let's just, yeah, 50 million kids.
So fine, it's showing a statistically significant trend on a statistically insignificant blip.
Move on.
What are you complaining about?
That's 80 cases.
Yeah, I would say my kid's not a blip, asshole.
Like, not to you, but that's what I would say to someone who's making that argument.
The thing about these data is that they're not only people, they're little kids.
Just revert to the statistical underreporting, the necessary underreporting, and this number could be as high as 800.
It could be as high as 8,000.
And that's one demographic for something which...
Would never have put them in the hospital in the first place.
The thing that you're saying right now is fact.
That's why I'm saying the absolute count doesn't matter here, really.
Because this is only...
It's like the magnitude could be anything, but the pattern is going to remain the same.
And so, like, you're absolutely right.
I mean, the underreporting factor could be 100.
It could be...
This actually, if you added, for example, pericarditis and myopericarditis, or versions of myocarditis, this could spike into the 10,000s.
And it could spike into the 10,000s at the unreported level.
I mean, so this is why, hypothetically...
It could be 100 times, and not even hypothetically, but logically and predictably, 100 times more.
So you would have, what is 80 times 100?
It's 8,000.
You would have 8,000 cases of myocarditis alone for 15-year-old boys.
And I need to get someone to pull out the numbers as to the prognosis for myocarditis diagnosis in terms of lifespan.
But one thing is for certain, as you astutely point out, the relevant thing is here, the medical-scientific-biological correlation.
Uh, trend following between the second dose and myocarditis.
Yep.
And so like, you know, if they were another, I don't usually, um, uh, I think it's called the, the, the steel man, uh, myself, but like, if, if I was gonna, let's just say I was working for them.
Okay.
And I had to come up with ways to, like, if I was, like, one of the people trying to justify this data and make people not worry about it, I would say, well, maybe what we can do to satisfy people's worries or concerns is just not give the children, male children, let's say, a second dose.
You know what I mean?
It's like there's always, there's something they could have said that at least Jess, have you done this correlation?
I mean, I don't know what other vaccines are administered in doses.
I don't think the flu shot is.
You don't take two doses of that even during any flu season.
Have you tried to correlate other vaccines that are administered to children or the same age bracket in doses to see what the correlation would be?
Are you asking me if I've looked at other vaccine products?
Other vaccine products that are administered in doses where you could compare just to show a hypothetical.
I mean, I don't even know what other vaccines are administered in doses.
No, but maybe hepatitis.
So if you do a comparison between any other vaccine, I'm not even still calling this one a vaccine, but any other vaccine to see what...
I don't think you're going to see it.
I haven't, but it's a good idea.
I don't think you're going to see it because the conventional vaccines aren't operating as the same.
Most of these reports are coming from the modified mRNA products, right?
Because most of the people in the States got the Pfizer or the Moderna.
Like, there are Novavax and Janssen products out there.
Yeah, well, they pulled the Johnson& Johnson in Canada, I think, after the 46-year-old woman died of blood clots.
So, yeah, there's no doubt on that because they pulled it.
Yeah.
Well, exactly.
And so the mechanism of action here is obviously the problem, as you saw in the other figures.
So I'm not sure that you're going to get...
No, you will not get the same correlation predictably, but it might still be useful to show.
Yeah, something is...
You're absolutely right.
I mean, lack of evidence is also evidence.
So the thing that I did check, though, was this phenomenon.
This pattern for any other adverse event.
And guess how many I found that had the same pattern?
None.
None.
So, I mean, I didn't check all 14,000, but I did check the biggies and I didn't see this.
So it's like, it's kind of a phenomenon that's unique to myocarditis, which is kind of fascinating when you think about it.
I mean...
I imagine it has something to do with androgens, like the male hormones that are linked to puberty and stuff.
And I'm sure there are people doing work on this, but this is another thing.
We'll get the data.
We'll get those answers in 75 years.
Oh, really?
We'll all be...
No, no, no.
Should I go back?
There are more graphs in here.
Let me see what else is there.
I should probably know.
It's been three years!
Anyway, yeah.
It's been three years, buddy.
You got three years more data.
There's reports of cardiac adverse events as of...
Okay.
So this is just cardiac as a cluster.
So I put this in because I wanted to show people that myocarditis is like one adverse event in the cluster of cardiac-related adverse events.
There's like thousands of them.
So, this gives you a better idea of the absolute number.
This, on the left, is the absolute counts per age group of people reporting.
That's a lot.
That's a lot of numbers.
And this is not under-reporting, and this is not definitive.
I mean, or comprehensive.
Like, it's comprehensive, but it's not...
There's no way I could have included all of the measure codes for cardiac-related events.
So, I just picked, like, the big ones, you know?
And this is as of...
The first date of administration of the jab.
Yeah, from the beginning.
And this is normalized on the right.
So you can see that most of the people who are reporting cardiac stuff are the older people.
It starts around 25, which isn't old, but like, you know what I mean?
But again, this is as of August 11th.
So who knows what's happened since then?
Maybe more kids because they've been giving it out to more kids.
I've reported.
I guarantee you that that's true.
And now I'm trying to think of the steel man.
To counter this would be the argument of have you checked overall incidents of cardiac issues to see if it's on the increase or if there's a marked increase in cardiac incidents, not VAERS-related, but aggregate.
I don't even know how you'd find that data post-COVID, Jeb.
Yeah, that's...
I don't know.
I imagine that, you know, another...
Sorry.
No, no, I was going to say, we've heard reports about it, and then people say, well, excess death is not up, excess heart...
I mean, that would be...
I mean, I'm sure Ed Dowd would actually have that data, or Baudouin, John Baudouin, who, you know, you'd have to get the hospital records to see.
Okay, that would be interesting to correlate.
Now I go down a lot of talky-talky, and that's it.
Conclusion!
Yeah, don't read that.
Why not?
Why?
Just don't read the last sentence.
Yeah, it kind of refers to, like, it was a sentence that was thrown in to get it published, and it kind of refers to, like, keeping the program...
Oh, stop it, you.
We found a very strong safety signal for COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis, particularly in children and young adults, that result in hospitalization or death.
Did we miss the death?
I don't think there is a death graph, if memory recalls, because it's 3%, and it's not really a graph that's going to be like...
You can have a limited number of figures in your publication, and you kind of want it to be the ones that are irrefutable.
It would probably be another way for them to say, "Yo, so what?" I'm going to ask Beaudoin and Dowd and or Dowd for the...
Like the overall cardiac related by age group?
Overall cardiac related and also...
Holy crap!
How am I going to ask them if I just forgot what I was going to ask them?
Oh, the lifespan...
Someone in the chat, take a note of this because I'm going to forget.
The lifespan prognosis once you're diagnosed with myocarditis.
That is the most important thing where we've been told it's mild.
Arteologists will tell you it's probably like on average 10 years, but it's really hard to ascertain.
But here's the thing.
This is just common sense.
The younger you are, especially if you're prepubescent when you're still developing, If you sustain heart damage, with regards to fibrotic scarring, it's not hard to guess that it's going to reduce your lifespan.
Maybe we don't know exactly by how much, but...
Okay, now I'm going to do this.
I'm going to share a screen one more time so I can get to the chats because I see some chats in Rumble.
Jesse, this about covers it for the study, correct?
What?
That covers the study that just got published.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Approved.
It's out there.
Undeniable.
I'm going to share this because there's a few chats we got.
But Finboy Slick in the bottom says...
A little something to echo the chat and say that Jessica is one of our favorite guests.
Ginger Ninja, who I just had on yesterday, he's a member of our locals community, says, Re-East Palestine, I don't know about the other alphabet agencies, but FEMA is absolute trash.
Trump sent FEMA to Tennessee when we were hit with the tornado.
That tornado, I don't know of one person that got any aid relief.
FEMA lost, this goes back to what we were talking about in Hawaii Lahaina.
Yeah.
Lost your home but had bad insurance?
Denied.
Lost your home but didn't have insurance?
Should have had insurance?
Denied.
Lost your husband?
Child?
Hope you had life insurance?
Denied.
And Ginger Ninja survived the Tennessee tornado of March 3, 2020, which I didn't know until we had our discussion last night and had no idea of the severity of that disaster.
And we got Mighty Megatron says, this COVID scare scam was a test in compliance.
A Milgram experiment, some might even say.
And then we got William VK says, are there any recommendations on solutions for people that did get the vaccine?
Any remedies known to help myocarditis is probably the specific question.
I don't want to judge the detox things out there.
I've heard people make a number of recommendations.
People who care about me that think that because I got two shots that I'm going to die.
People were recommending some stuff.
Look, I'm neurotic.
I remember.
I don't take naps.
Period.
I remember it was either the first or second shot, I had to take a 20-minute nap, and I'm like, well, that's a little odd.
Never had chest pains, and I looked at the bad batch reporting for my batch, and it was virtually nil, and, you know, this was back in the day when we might have been getting inert, whatever the hell that, inert stuff.
But are you, do you have any personal opinion on any of the traditional detox stuff that people recommend for vaccine injury or vaccine, the jab stuff?
No, not other people's.
And I'm not a medical doctor, so I can't give advice.
But what I can tell you is that it's the advice I gave you for your sinus.
Turmeric is one of the most potent anti-inflammatories you can ingest.
And it tastes like feet sometimes, but if you combine it with coconut milk and boiling water and honey, it tastes quite nice.
It's actually called golden milk.
And I would just recommend anybody...
For anything, drinking a glass of that a day, because it's not going to hurt you, but it's a magic thing when it comes to bacterial infections, inflammation, even viral, you know, keeping viruses at bay, balancing out your immune responses.
It probably helps your Treg somehow, because that's all built into inflammation.
I don't know.
Maybe it even helps autoimmunity.
I don't know, but...
You can't OD on turmeric?
No, of course not.
I was having a lot of it when you told me to, but by that time I was already also on antibiotics, so that probably helped the sinus infection.
Yeah, sometimes you got to do the antibiotics, but if you can...
Well, on the subject of sinus infections, which I have a lot of experience...
In the past, if you know the signs, or like I'm a surfer and I surf in dirty water sometimes, so it's like I'm, you know, it can become a cesspool in here real quick if you don't, if you're not preemptive or prophylactic.
So that's why I drink the turmeric milk.
A surfer suggested it to me, and ever since he did, I have not had one single problem, and it's been a long time.
Knock on wood.
One of the things that I had never done in my entire life was a sinus cleanse.
I had never done it before.
You warm up some water.
You mix in the saline.
No, you just go like this.
And then it literally just pours out the other sinus.
I'd never done it before.
It doesn't feel good.
It goes down your throat.
But that was probably the most useful thing.
Just flushing out all that disgusting crap.
Jess, do you have time for a brief supporters exclusive on Locals Only Q&A?
Yeah.
Everybody who's watching now on Rumble, I'm going to give you the link again, but where can everybody find you and thank you?
That was a question and an affirmation.
Where can people find you and thank you for everything you're doing?
You're welcome.
I have a website, Jessica's Universe, that I just updated payment for, so it's back online.
Someone tried to steal my domain name.
Oh, you're a target.
You better keep up with that.
Otherwise, they're going to do it and redirect it to Jessica Rose.
That's what they did.
But I think it's remedied now.
It was quite scary, their sketch-o-rama, man.
These people are nuts.
They're really nuts.
They need to get a life.
And my sub-stacks, of course, Jessica5b3.
.substack.com is more like current events and presentations, and jessicar.substack.com is more about write-ups of papers, like this new one that was talking about frame-shifting and stuff.
And I have a Twitter, which, you know, allegedly I have 90-something thousand followers, but when I post something, only three people see.
You're on a list, and I'm noticing it.
I'm noticing some severe fuckery on YouTube right now.
Like, I put out a video.
I'm on the list?
You have to be.
I got put on a list.
What is it called?
Center for Countering Digital Hate.
Digital hate?
Dude, we'll talk about that when we get over to locals.
But YouTube is not even recommending my own videos to my own followers.
So I'm going to, you know, it doesn't matter.
And I don't, that's just, the tide will right itself.
The ships will, whatever, you know what I mean.
Okay, Jess, I'm going to end this on Rumble.
Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
The link is, I'm going to turn it to supporters only.
We're going to do a Q&A and I'm going to ask you about hemorrhoids.
I'm going to ask you about my hemorrhoids when we get over.
I'm joking.
I'm not going to.
I can help you with that, too.
Oh, well, you know, maybe I will.
Okay, we're ending it.
We're ending it on Rumble.
Jess, thank you very much.
You've gone through it now, people.
And you can see how people are going to steal money.
You know what the arguments against it are going to be.
You can have the proper responses and you can assess it accordingly.
And when they say, oh, that's just only 80 kids, 80 15-year-olds.
Well, yeah, that's assuming that the reporting is all the number and it probably represents 1% if history is any, if past is prologue.
And besides the fact that it still boils down to the fact that we should be allowed to decide for ourselves what we inject into our bodies.
And have the discussion publicly.
And also...
What was the other thing I was going to say?
Whatever.
And also not being demonized for not subjecting our kids to the risk of that as a solution to something that was of not meaningful risk to them.
And it doesn't prevent the transmission of it anyhow, but then you deal with the arguments that, well, if you get COVID after, you're less likely to get my...
All of these creative arguments.
Okay.
Ending it on Rumble, people.
Thank you very much and stay tuned.
I'm going to be with Owen Schroer on InfoWars at 5 o 'clock today, and I'll put out a car vlog.
So, ending on Rumble.
Come on over to Locals.
Three, two, one.
Jess, I'm never doing the rubber band ligation procedure again, ever.
Do you know what rubber band ligation is?
No.
▲
Export Selection