Evidence Based Thread Regarding Climate Change COVID19 and The New World Order

[Sid Belzberg]

I have decided to start a new thread where I will post facts on the above subjects. I welcome opposing views but do not view "consensus" or "generally accepted" of any relevance to refuting facts and reject this concept entirely.

Let us start with this fact:

Additional carbon beyond 400-450 PPM where we are today (est) has no significant impact on the climate as all heat is absorbed in the first 400 PPM.


Climate scientists have determined, and both sides agree, that the warming effect of each molecule of CO2 decreases significantly (logarithmically) as its concentration increases. This is one reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming when the concentration of CO2 was approaching 20 times that of today. This inconvenient fact, important though it is, is kept very well hidden and is rarely mentioned, for it undermines the theory of future catastrophic climate change. Diminishing returns apply.

A more detailed description of the chart for the physics lovers is provided here by Dr. William Happer:

“The blue curve shows how the thermal radiation flux Z(C) from Earth to space changes with the concentration C of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. This example is for a temperate, summertime latitude. C is measured in parts per million (ppm) of all atmospheric molecules. At the current value of the CO2 concentration, about C = 400 ppm, the flux is Z(400 ppm) = 277 Watts per square meter (W/m^2). If all the CO2 could be removed from Earth’s atmosphere, so C = 0, but there were no changes in the concentrations of the remaining greenhouse gases (water vapor, ozone, methane and nitrous oxide) and no changes in the atmospheric temperature profile, the flux would be larger, Z (0 ppm) = 307 Watts (W/m^2), shown by the blue dot on the vertical axis of the graph. Adding the greenhouse gas CO₂ diminishes the flux to space, very rapidly for the first few parts per million of CO₂, as one can see from the blue curve. But as more CO₂ is added a law of diminishing returns comes into play. The blue curve is almost flat for current concentrations of CO₂, so the greenhouse effect is very insensitive to changes in CO₂ concentrations. In the jargon of radiative transfer, the greenhouse effect is said to be “saturated.”


The vertical red lines show the decrease of flux to space caused by successive increases of the CO₂ concentration C by 50 ppm increments. The increments are so small that they need to be multiplied by a factor of 100 to be clearly visible on the graph. Except for concentrations C that are almost zero, every doubling of CO₂ concentrations decreases the radiation to space by 3 W. For example, the first red bar show that increasing C from 50 ppm to 100 ppm decreases the radiation to space by 300/100 W/m^2 = 3 W/m^2.”





Source(s): Wijngaarden-Happer 2020, Dependence of Earth's Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases
Source(s): Happer 2021 Personal Communications

[Sid Belzberg]

Both the relatively short-term data from ice cores and much longer-term data going back 140 million years (Berner 2001) show an alarming downward trend toward CO2 starvation. The release of carbon dioxide by the use of fossil fuels has allowed humanity to increase concentrations of this beneficial molecule, and perhaps avert an actual CO2-related climate apocalypse.



140-million-year trend of dangerously decreasing CO2.


For the last 140 million years, CO2 levels fell precipitously & steadily to within about 30 ppm of the 150 ppm “line of death” below which plants can’t survive. Both the relatively short-term data from ice cores and much longer-term data going back 140 million years (Berner 2001) show an alarming downward trend toward CO2 starvation. The release of carbon dioxide by the use of fossil fuels has allowed humanity to increase concentrations of this beneficial molecule, and perhaps avert an actual CO2-related climate apocalypse.




GEOCARB III: A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME ROBERT A. BERNER and ZAVARETH KOTHAVALA Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8109

ABSTRACT

OCARB III: A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME ROBERT A. BERNER and ZAVARETH KOTHAVALA Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8109 ABSTRACT. Revision of the GEOCARB model (Berner, 1991, 1994) for paleolevels of atmospheric CO2, has been made with emphasis on factors affecting CO2 uptake by continental weathering. This includes: (1) new GCM (general circulation model) results for the dependence of global mean surface temperature and runoff on CO2, for both glaciated and non-glaciated periods, coupled with new results for the temperature response to changes in solar radiation; (2) demonstration that values for the weathering-uplift factor fR(t) based on Sr isotopes as was done in GEOCARB II are in general agreement with independent values calculated from the abundance of terrigenous sediments as a measure of global physical erosion rate over Phanerozoic time; (3) more accurate estimates of the timing and the quantitative effects on Ca-Mg silicate weathering of the rise of large vascular plants on the continents during the Devonian; (4) inclusion of the effects of changes in paleogeography alone (constant CO2 and solar radiation) on global mean land surface temperature as it affects the rate of weathering; (5) consideration of the effects of volcanic weathering, both in subduction zones and on the seafloor; (6) use of new data on the d13C values for Phanerozoic limestones and organic matter; (7) consideration of the relative weathering enhancement by gymnosperms versus angiosperms; (8) revision of paleo land area based on more recent data and use of this data, along with GCM-based paleo-runoff results, to calculate global water discharge from the continents over time. Results show a similar overall pattern to those for GEOCARB II: very high CO2 values during the early Paleozoic, a large drop during the Devonian and Carboniferous, high values during the early Mesozoic, and a gradual decrease from about 170 Ma to low values during the Cenozoic. However, the new results exhibit considerably higher CO2 values during the Mesozoic, and their downward trend with time agrees with the independent estimates of Ekart and others (1999). Sensitivity analysis shows that results for paleo-CO2 are especially sensitive to: the effects of CO2 fertilization and temperature on the acceleration of plant-mediated chemical weathering; the quantitative effects of plants on mineral dissolution rate for constant temperature and CO2; the relative roles of angiosperms and gymnosperms in accelerating rock weathering; and the response of paleo-temperature to the global climate model used. This emphasizes the need for further study of the role of plants in chemical weathering and the application of GCMs to study of paleo-CO2 and the long term carbon cycle.

https://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/...n020100182.pdf

[Dilip Panjwani]

all heat is absorbed in the first 400 PPM

Hi Sid,
What is the mechanism for how this happens?

[Sid Belzberg]

Hi Sid,
What is the mechanism for how this happens?

[Dilip Panjwani]

What the graph tells us is 'what happens'. It does not explain the 'mechanism behind the phenomenon', which I am looking for. It is always easier to believe something if its mechanism can be understood...

[Sid Belzberg]

What the graph tells us is 'what happens'. It does not explain the 'mechanism behind the phenomenon', which I am looking for. It is always easier to believe something if its mechanism can be understood...

Sure, Dillip, let me put it to you this way:


Think of the Earth's atmosphere as a series of layers of sunglasses, with each layer representing different greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). These gases have the ability to absorb and re-emit thermal radiation (heat) from the Earth's surface.

1. Initial Sunglasses Layer: Imagine the first pair of sunglasses represents the initial concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. When sunlight (energy) enters the atmosphere, these gases absorb some of the radiation, like the lenses of the sunglasses blocking some of the sunlight.
2. Diminishing Returns: As more sunglasses layers (greenhouse gases) are added, the analogy holds that the additional layers will absorb some radiation, but they will not have as significant an impact as the initial layer. This is similar to the concept of diminishing returns in economics, where each additional unit of input provides less additional output.
3. Saturation Effect: The analogy reflects the concept of absorption band saturation. Like your sunglasses can only block a certain amount of sunlight, greenhouse gases have absorption bands where they can only absorb a certain amount of radiation. Once these bands are saturated, adding more of the same gas becomes less effective in blocking additional radiation.
4. Slow Rate of Increase: In the real world, the rate at which greenhouse gas concentrations increase varies. Some gases, like CO2, increase at a faster rate due to human activities, while others, like N2O and CH4, increase more slowly. The slow rate of increase for some gases means that their additional impact on the greenhouse effect is smaller over time
5. Overall Impact: The author is suggesting that, while the initial accumulation of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere has a significant and substantial impact on radiative forcing and warming, the additional increases in concentrations that occur after this initial buildup have a progressively smaller impact. In other words, the initial accumulation has the most significant effect on trapping heat, while subsequent increases have a diminishing effect, to the point where their contribution to warming becomes statistically insignificant in the context of the overall climate system.

So in another thread I was presented with this argument :

"Methane has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over the first 20 years after it reaches the atmosphere. Even though CO[SUB

2[/SUB] has a longer-lasting effect, methane sets the pace for warming in the near term. At least 25% of today's global warming is driven by methane from human actions."

Methane: A crucial opportunity in the climate fight (https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-...-climate-fight)""


The link is to a climate change fear porn charity site that provides the above misleading statement that
"At least 25% of today's global warming is driven by methane from human actions." This does not confirm that additional methane significantly changes the climate beyond when the initial accumulation of these gasses occurred. As I described above,

The author I cite, whose science is peer-reviewed in respected journals and not just a climate fear porn advertisement says the opposite;

Abstract
Atmospheric methane (CH4 ) contributes to the radiative forcing of Earth’s atmosphere. Radiative forcing is the difference in the net upward thermal radiation from the Earth through a transparent atmosphere and radiation through an otherwise identical atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing, normally specified in Watts per square meter (W m−2), depends on latitude, longitude and altitude, but it is often quoted for a representative temperate latitude and for the altitude of the tropopause, or for the top of the atmosphere. For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing at the tropopause, per added CH4 molecule, is about 30 times larger than the forcing per added carbon-dioxide (CO2 ) molecule. This is due to the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the abundant greenhouse gas, CO2 . But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, about 2.3 ppm/year (ppm = part per million), is about 300 times larger than the rate of increase of CH4 molecules, which has been around 0.0076 ppm/year since the year 2008. So the contribution of methane to the annual increase in forcing is one tenth (30/300) that of carbon dioxide. The net forcing from CH4 and CO2 increases is about 0.05 W m−2 year−1. Other things being equal, this will cause a temperature increase of about 0.012 C year−1. Proposals to place harsh restrictions on methane emissions because of warming fears are not justified by facts"

[Dilip Panjwani]

Sure, Dillip, let me put it to you this way:


Think of the Earth's atmosphere as a series of layers of sunglasses, with each layer representing different greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). These gases have the ability to absorb and re-emit thermal radiation (heat) from the Earth's surface.

1. Initial Sunglasses Layer: Imagine the first pair of sunglasses represents the initial concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. When sunlight (energy) enters the atmosphere, these gases absorb some of the radiation, like the lenses of the sunglasses blocking some of the sunlight.
2. Diminishing Returns: As more sunglasses layers (greenhouse gases) are added, the analogy holds that the additional layers will absorb some radiation, but they will not have as significant an impact as the initial layer. This is similar to the concept of diminishing returns in economics, where each additional unit of input provides less additional output.
3. Saturation Effect: The analogy reflects the concept of absorption band saturation. Like your sunglasses can only block a certain amount of sunlight, greenhouse gases have absorption bands where they can only absorb a certain amount of radiation. Once these bands are saturated, adding more of the same gas becomes less effective in blocking additional radiation.
4. Slow Rate of Increase: In the real world, the rate at which greenhouse gas concentrations increase varies. Some gases, like CO2, increase at a faster rate due to human activities, while others, like N2O and CH4, increase more slowly. The slow rate of increase for some gases means that their additional impact on the greenhouse effect is smaller over time
5. Overall Impact: The author is suggesting that, while the initial accumulation of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere has a significant and substantial impact on radiative forcing and warming, the additional increases in concentrations that occur after this initial buildup have a progressively smaller impact. In other words, the initial accumulation has the most significant effect on trapping heat, while subsequent increases have a diminishing effect, to the point where their contribution to warming becomes statistically insignificant in the context of the overall climate system.

So in another thread I was presented with this argument :

"Methane has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over the first 20 years after it reaches the atmosphere. Even though CO[SUB

2[/SUB] has a longer-lasting effect, methane sets the pace for warming in the near term. At least 25% of today's global warming is driven by methane from human actions."

Methane: A crucial opportunity in the climate fight (https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-...-climate-fight)""


The link is to a climate change porn charity site that provides the above misleading statement that
"At least 25% of today's global warming is driven by methane from human actions." This does not confirm that additional methane significantly changes the climate beyond when the initial accumulation of these gasses occurred. As I described above,

The author I cite whose science is peer-reviewed in respected journals and not just a climate porn advertisement says the opposite;

Abstract
Atmospheric methane (CH4 ) contributes to the radiative forcing of Earth’s atmosphere. Radiative forcing is the difference in the net upward thermal radiation from the Earth through a transparent atmosphere and radiation through an otherwise identical atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing, normally specified in Watts per square meter (W m−2), depends on latitude, longitude and altitude, but it is often quoted for a representative temperate latitude and for the altitude of the tropopause, or for the top of the atmosphere. For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing at the tropopause, per added CH4 molecule, is about 30 times larger than the forcing per added carbon-dioxide (CO2 ) molecule. This is due to the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the abundant greenhouse gas, CO2 . But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, about 2.3 ppm/year (ppm = part per million), is about 300 times larger than the rate of increase of CH4 molecules, which has been around 0.0076 ppm/year since the year 2008. So the contribution of methane to the annual increase in forcing is one tenth (30/300) that of carbon dioxide. The net forcing from CH4 and CO2 increases is about 0.05 W m−2 year−1. Other things being equal, this will cause a temperature increase of about 0.012 C year−1. Proposals to place harsh restrictions on methane emissions because of warming fears are not justified by facts"

Thanks for trying to explain, Sid. I still do not grasp it, but we can leave it there...
Bob (A and G), what do the climate-anxious have to say about this theory?

[Sid Belzberg]

Contrary to the oft-repeated mantra that today’s CO2 concentration is unprecedentedly high, our current levels of carbon dioxide are at near-historic lows. The average CO2 concentration in the preceding 600 million years was more than 2,600 ppm, nearly seven times our current amount and 2.5 times the worst case predicted by the IPCC for 2100. We don’t have too much CO2, we don’t have enough.

https://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/...n020100182.pdf

[Sid Belzberg]

The average rate of temperature increase from 1695-2023 is .5 degrees per 100 years. 50% of this time was pre-industrial emissions of CO2. As expected, post-1850, the rise in CO2 emissions had no impact on the temperature whatsoever! The Hadcet dataset is a great model for climate change as the heart of the Industrial Revolution and industrial CO2 emissions was in the UK that began in 1850.
The average rate over a century is climate change, and variations year over year are the weather! The modern media attempts to confuse the two.




The Central England temperature record (HadCET) contains the longest continuously measured thermometer-based regional temperature dataset in the world, going back more than 350 years. This record began in 1659, in the depths of the Little Ice Age (1250 – 1800) which was marked by some of the coldest temperatures in nearly 8,000 years. The period of the late 17th century and early 18th century was a horrifically cold period known as the Maunder Minimum. Thankfully, the current warming trend we are in began in the year 1695. The next 40 years had more than twice the rate of warming as we experienced in the 20th century. The first half of this 300-plus year warming had about the same amount of temperature rise as the latter half and was entirely naturally driven. The natural forces driving temperature changes for the first 200 years of this temperature history did not cease functioning in the 20th century.


Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342, https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs

CO2: Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 – 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

Source(s): , Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 - 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

Source(s): Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342

[Sid Belzberg]

Canada's Woke Nightmare Courtesy of the WEF Puppet Justin Trudeau

[Sid Belzberg]

Myocarditis and the COVID19 Injections

https://twitter.com/UltraDane/status/1696965028195233865



DR. CHRIS SHOEMAKER REVEALS STARTLING INFORMATION ABOUT COVID19 SHOTS FROM AMERICAN MILITARY STUDIES





https://www.bitchute.com/video/0vBYpUujieEC/



Myocarditis, before 2021, was a rare disease happening to one in one million people. After the rollout of the injections
Several studies involved testing the vaccinated for elevated troponin levels (a common chemical that is produced after
damage to the heart occurs).

In a study in Thailand, approximately 3% of vaccinated adolescents had biomarkers indicative of Myocarditis,

In a study of healthcare workers in Basel, Switzerland, the results were similar, and if the third shot was administered
10% of the patients had biomarkers for myocarditis.

In data released by whistleblowers in the US military, those with symptomatic Myocarditis and heart damage indicate that
if one were to test those without symptomatic myocarditis, about 20% of US personnel getting the injections have myocarditis

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/exc..._campaign=copy

Medical Facts about Myocarditis and the COVID Injection

Over 40 trillion copies of Mrna are injected into the deltoid muscle and, thanks to the lipid nanoparticle adjuvant, do not just sit in the deltoid muscle area
but get distributed to every cell in the body, including brain and heart cells. The mRNA infects the cells and causes the cell to produce a toxic spike
protein.

Fundamental to how the immune system works, it attacks it when it sees an infected cell. When heart cells are infected and express this pathogenic spike
protein, the heart cells also become targets of attack. When the immune system continuously attacks an infected heart cells damage to the heart happens, and you have Myocarditis.

Medical Facts about Myocarditis
50% of those with this die within five years
75% of those infected die within ten years.

Taking the stats from the above data of 3% to 20% injected get Mycarditis, the average is around 10%. Instead of 1 in a million with myocarditis pre jab, we are talking 100,000(!) per million for those taking the shots that have this dangerous disease.

If 75% are dead within ten years 75000* 1000,000* 7,000,000,000 infected= 525,000,000 people that will be dead within ten years and 350,000,000 of those
are dead within five years.

There is no "mild Myocarditis." You have a 50% chance of dying within five years and a 75% chance in ten years. Doctors in Ontario and all over Canada are not allowed to admit that the jab causes this damage despite overwhelming evidence as the Government doubles down on the greatest mass poisoning of Canadians and, for that matter, the world in the history of humanity.


The Myocarditis Iceberg

Dr. Fauci gets every detail flagrantly wrong


BRET SWANSON
JAN 27, 2023

14

5

Share

“Lymphocytic aggregates in the interventricular septum of case 1 with associated myocardiocyte destruction.” Source: Constantin Schwab, “Autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination.”
I posted a long thread of 25 tweets summarizing what we know about myocarditis after Covid-19 infection versus vaccination. Here it is in article form.

Bret Swanson @JBSay
The apotheosis of a catastrophic reign. Dr. Fauci gets every detail about myocarditis flagrantly wrong. https://t.co/ZGruSCkBmo

Alexandros Marinos ☠️ @alexandrosM
Anthony Fauci disinforms the public about the relative incidence of myocarditis from COVID vs myocarditis from the vaccine. And in the context of the football player being discussed, omits mentioning that young men are the highest risk demographic for vaccine-caused myocarditis. https://t.co/5y1ZeettN5
4:46 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023

---

48Likes26Retweets

Bret Swanson @JBSay
Dr. Fauci says myocarditis (heart inflammation) is more common and more severe with Covid-19 infection than vaccination, which, he asserts, is extraordinarily rare and mild.
4:48 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023

---

2Likes2Retweets

Bret Swanson @JBSay
But why are cardiac problems and deaths so much more frequent in 2021 and 2022 than 2020 and before?

bit.lyWhere Did All the Workers Go?A brief look at U.S. all-cause mortality: Part 5
4:48 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023

---

4Likes2Retweets

Bret Swanson @JBSay
In 2017, Arola et al found a baseline myocarditis rate of 4 per million in young people.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govOccurrence and Features of Childhood Myocarditis: A Nationwide Study in Finland - PubMedMyocarditis leading to hospital admission is relatively uncommon in children, but occurrence of myocarditis increases with age. There is no sex difference in the risk of myocarditis during the first 6 years of life, but boys have a significantly higher risk at ages 6 to 15 years.
4:48 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023

---

[Sid Belzberg]

Part 2



Bret Swanson @JBSay
In 2020, the BigTen conference looked for Covid-19-related myocarditis in athletes and found 6 cases with elevated troponin levels and 5 with abnormal ECG. But no hospitalizations or bad outcomes. Satisfied, BigTen did not continue screening program. jamanetwork.com/journals/jamac…
4:48 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023

---

3Likes2Retweets

Bret Swanson @JBSay
A prospective study in American College of Cardiology by Joy et al found NO increase of myocarditis in Covid-19 infected subjects…

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govProspective Case-Control Study of Cardiovascular Abnormalities 6 Months Following Mild COVID-19 in Healthcare Workers - PubMedCardiovascular abnormalities are no more common in seropositive versus seronegative otherwise healthy, workforce representative individuals 6 months post-mild severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 infection.
4:48 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023

---

3Likes2Retweets

Bret Swanson @JBSay
Then a giant Israeli study by Tuvali et al found, among 197,000, NO increased incidence among Covid-19 infected.

mdpi.comThe Incidence of Myocarditis and Pericarditis in Post COVID-19 Unvaccinated Patients—A Large Population-Based StudyMyocarditis and pericarditis are potential post-acute cardiac sequelae of COVID-19 infection, arising from adaptive immune responses. We aimed to study the incidence of post-acute COVID-19 myocarditis and pericarditis. Retrospective cohort study of 196,992 adults after COVID-19 infection in Clalit H…
4:48 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023

---

3Likes2Retweets

Bret Swanson @JBSay
Studying autopsies, Fox & Vander Heide found “histologically confirmed lymphocytic myocarditis is not common in COVID-19.” Caforio found same. @P_McCulloughMD’s conclusion pre-vaccine was that the Covid-19 virus is a “negligible risk” for myocarditis. journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.11…
4:48 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023

---

3Likes2Retweets

Bret Swanson @JBSay
Then the vaccine arrived, and Choi et al reported a fatal case of vaccine-induced myocarditis in Korea.
4:48 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023

---

2Likes2Retweets

[Sid Belzberg]

Part 3


Bret Swanson @JBSay
Gill et al reported autopsies of two male teens in Connecticut, which found vaccine-induced fatal myocarditis, 16 and 17 year olds were found at home on days 3 and 4 after Pfizer shot.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govAutopsy Histopathologic Cardiac Findings in 2 Adolescents Following the Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose - PubMedThe myocardial injury seen in these postvaccine hearts is different from typical myocarditis and has an appearance most closely resembling a catecholamine-mediated stress (toxic) cardiomyopathy. Understanding that these instances are different from typical myocarditis and that cytokine storm has a k…
4:48 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023

---

3Likes2Retweets

Bret Swanson @JBSay
Then a paper in Circulation from Patone in the UK confirmed 100 cases of fatal vaccine-induced myocarditis. Btw, myocarditis can raise risk of arrhythmic trouble’s immediately and for many years to come.
4:48 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023

---

2Likes2Retweets

Bret Swanson @JBSay
When the FDA and CDC were forced to admit a myocarditis problem in May 2021 — because of an independent analysis of Israeli data — they asserted a rate of around 60 per million.
4:48 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023

---

2Likes2Retweets

Bret Swanson @JBSay
So when Pfizer and Moderna asked for full FDA approval, the FDA insisted both companies do prospective cohort myocarditis studies. Neither performed the required research.
4:48 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023

---

3Likes3Retweets

Bret Swanson @JBSay
But Thailand did: Mansanguan et al looked at 301 teen hearts both before and after Pfizer vaccination. And found a rate of myopericarditis of 2.3%.

mdpi.comCardiovascular Manifestation of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in AdolescentsThis study focuses on cardiovascular manifestation, particularly myocarditis and pericarditis events, after BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine injection in Thai adolescents. This prospective cohort study enrolled students aged 13–18 years from two schools, who received the second dose of the BNT16…
4:48 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023

---

4Likes2Retweets

Bret Swanson @JBSay
So did Switzerland: Christian Mueller and colleagues from Basel looked at 777 healthcare workers pre- and post-Pfizer and found a significant troponin rise, signaling myocarditis, in 2.8% – this time, mostly among young and middle aged women.

m.youtube.comSubclinical Myocarditis - NEW Report from Switzerland - Vital FindingsVinay Prasad, MD MPH; Physician & Professor Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations...hl=enSubstack: https://vinayprasadmdmph.su...
4:48 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023

---

3Likes2Retweets

Bret Swanson @JBSay
@TracyBethHoeg et al had previously found around ~250 per million. Sharff et al at Kaiser Permanente found 537 per million. But those were indirect record searches.
4:48 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023

---

2Likes2Retweets

Bret Swanson @JBSay
The Thai and Swiss direct prospective studies found clinical+subclinical myocarditis could be more like *20,000-25,000* per million. That’s a rate more than 300x the CDC’s early estimate and ~5,000x the background rate.
4:48 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023

---

3Likes2Retweets

Bret Swanson @JBSay
As for infection- versus vaccine-induced, a huge 23 million person study of four Nordic countries found 5x-13x more myocarditis after vaccine than infection. But even this was under -estimate because based on hospital records.

jamanetwork.comSARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Myocarditis in a Nordic Cohort Study of 23 Million ResidentsThis cohort study conducted using nationwide registers assesses the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis after SARS-CoV-2 messenger RNA vaccinations in a combined population of 23.1 million individuals across Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.
4:48 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023

---

[Sid Belzberg]

Part 4



Bret Swanson @JBSay
But how do we know the vaccine is causal? What’s the mechanism? The Baumeier biopsy case series found the Spike protein in the heart muscle.

mdpi.comIntramyocardial Inflammation after COVID-19 Vaccination: An Endomyocardial Biopsy-Proven Case SeriesMyocarditis in response to COVID-19 vaccination has been reported since early 2021. In particular, young male individuals have been identified to exhibit an increased risk of myocardial inflammation following the administration of mRNA-based vaccines. Even though the first epidemiological analyses a…
4:48 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023

---

3Likes2Retweets

Bret Swanson @JBSay
Avolio et al found one possible direct mechanism of Spike damage to the heart — pericyte dysfunction leading to micro-vascular injury.

portlandpress.comThe SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein disrupts human cardiac pericytes function through CD147 receptor-mediated signalling: a potential non-infectiv…Abstract. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes a broad range of clinical responses including prominent microvascular damage. The capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect vascular cells is still debated. Additionally, the SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S) protein may act as a ligand to…
4:48 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023

---

3Likes2Retweets

Bret Swanson @JBSay
German pathologists did autopsies on 25 who died at home within 20 days of vaccination. They found 18 died of common vaccine effects (stroke, embolism, etc) and 5 probably died of vaccine-induced myocarditis (Spike protein in the inflamed heart muscle).

link.springer.comAutopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination - Clinical Research in CardiologyCases of myocarditis, diagnosed clinically by laboratory tests and imaging have been described in the context of mRNA-based anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Autopsy-based description of detailed histological features of vaccine-induced myocarditis is lacking. We describe the autopsy findings and common…
4:48 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023

---

3Likes3Retweets

Bret Swanson @JBSay
Yonker et al in Circulation found “markedly elevated levels of full-length Spike protein” in blood of myocarditis victims but not others. ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CI…
4:48 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023

---

2Likes2Retweets

Bret Swanson @JBSay
There’s also a case of fatal myocarditis with the Novavax vaccine, which also implicates the Spike protein itself because Novavax has no LNP or mRNA. Kim et al…By contrast, autopsies suggest infection-based myocarditis is not “a thing.”

Andrew Bostom, MD, MS @andrewbostom
@TracyBethHoeg @JAMACardio @drdrew @contrarian4data @anish_koka Autopsy data raise serious concerns about the basic validity of "C19 myocarditis," as a phenomenon; In stark contrast, autopsy studies validate post-C19 mRNA vaccine myocarditis as real phenomenon. Such fundamental differences cannot be ignored when "comparing" the 2 https://t.co/5K9gPNEZOx
4:48 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023

---

4Likes2Retweets

Bret Swanson @JBSay
The bio mechanism is thus more than confirmed. And it is not extraordinarily rare. Or even rare. Moreover, the Swiss and German studies found many cases in middle aged and older people, including many women, not just young males.
4:48 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023

---

4Likes2Retweets

Bret Swanson @JBSay
mRNA vaccines generally produce vastly more Spike, for longer, in more body tissues, than infection, which is often defeated before it spreads widely. Dr. Fauci had everything backwards. Unfortunate epilogue: unlike most other tissues, the heart doesn’t heal, it scars.
4:48 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023

---

6Likes3Retweets

[Sid Belzberg]

View in browser Viral RFK Jr. Video Gets Deleted By “X”: Here’s What They Didn’t Want You to See The Pfizer clinical trials were a disaster. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. explains why. Originally Published on Vigilant News “Freedom of speech, not reach,” is taking effect more than ever as Twitter (“X”) regresses to its 1.0 days. Ever since Elon Musk hired CEO Linda Yaccarino, who has close ties to the World Economic Forum, things have taken a turn for the worse. “X” Is Not Living Up to What Elon Musk Promised: Here’s Why In short, “lawful but awful” accounts and external links (especially Substack) are getting brutally deboosted. And permanent suspensions, which were promised to be reserved for unlawful speech only, have made a big comeback. Now, Twitter (“X”) is taking further action by making undesirable videos unplayable. What type of videos in particular? Well, mine… I recently uploaded a video of Democratic Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that garnered over 500,000 views. The post and the text stayed up, but the video was taken down. Had the video not been taken down, the post could have seen a million views or more. Users also reported X was “blocking” them from retweeting. Now, that’s something reminiscent of 2021 and early 2022 — BEFORE Elon took over the platform. So, this is concerning. So, what did Robert Kennedy Jr. say that crossed the line? The video was a clip of RFK Jr. breaking down the Pfizer clinical trials with podcast host Brian Rose. And what he exposed, according to Pfizer’s own data, was that people who received Pfizer’s COVID vaccine showed a 24% GREATER likelihood of dying than the placebo group after six months. Here’s the full breakdown, per Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: • In the Pfizer clinical trials, they gave 22,000 people two COVID injections and 22,000 people fake vaccines. • Of the 44,000 in total, one person died of COVID in the vaccine group, and two people died of COVID in the placebo group. So Pfizer, with the misleading measure of relative risk reduction, called their vaccine “100% effective” because two is 100% greater than one. But from the angle of absolute risk, it took 22,000 vaccines to save just one life from COVID. • And over a 6-month period, 21 of the vaccinated people died of all causes, whereas only 17 people died in the placebo group, a 24% difference. So, what was killing those people in the vaccine group? “It was cardiac arrest,” answered Kennedy. “There were five cardiac arrest deaths in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo group. What that means is that if you take that vaccine, you're [400%] more likely to die from a fatal cardiac arrest over the next six months than if you don't. What it also means is that for every life they save by preventing a death from COVID, they are killing four people from cardiac arrest.” So when Pfizer presented this data to the FDA, the FDA was supposed to assess all-cause mortality, give Pfizer’s vaccine a failing grade, tell them to make a better product, and not come back until they could show it saves more lives than it kills. But instead, they rubberstamped the shots through, gave them the green light, and fast-tracked a vaccination campaign that inoculated the world with 13.46 billion doses of this stuff. What will be the long-term consequences of these actions? Will anyone be held responsible for the ill effects? And how long will I be able to continue asking such questions on Twitter (“X”)?