More on the Analysis Showing 84% Increase in Cardiac-Related Deaths in Boys

Numerous people have questioned the analysis cited by Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo, which found an 84% increase in cardiac-related deaths in boys. Based on the analysis, he recommended that healthy boys 18-39 not get vaccinated.

Dr. Robert Malone talked with Dr. Ladapo in-depth, and this is what he found.

THE CONVERSATION BY DR. ROBERT MALONE

So, in preparing for recording the One America News broadcast, I wanted to avoid the risk of just gushing about the analysis because it confirmed my own bias. I took the time to carefully review the paper, read the references, and consider the long list of limitations which the authors carefully noted and disclosed. After assembling my own opinion, I called up Dr. Ladapo, who kindly took my call and for forty five minutes we discussed the various nits and concerns which I had based on both the listed limitations as well as my own observations.

As usual, no hyperbole from Dr. Ladipo. Just his usual calm, collected demeanor. The (non-peer reviewed) manuscript “Risk of death following SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination in young people in England: a self-controlled case series study.” which was cited in the Florida summary, and which contradicted the findings of the current study (claiming no adverse cardiac effects), was for a different age cohort (12-29) and blended the two (yes, only two) genders – which will quench the observed cardiotoxicity most strikingly observed in males aged 18-39. That study also selected a different (shifted later) timeframe. Of the two, the Florida study appears more rigorous and much better designed to get at the underlying truth of the question.

As our discussion proceeded, what I found most compelling is that the current Florida study is consistent with the “preponderance of evidence”. In study after study, including even from the CDC and FDA, it has been clear that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine products which use non-viral gene therapy methods to express spike protein in the cells of the recipient, are associated with cardiac damage, including disease and death from that damage.

The aspect of the study which I find most troubling is that it essentially focused on inoculation #2 for the analysis. The data employed were from fairly early in the course of “vaccine” deployment, and did not cover what happens after inoculations 3, 4, 5 or 6. When asked about this, Dr. Ladipo agreed that this was a limitation, and indicated that he hopes to address these effects in future studies of the Florida data. I hypothesize that when data concerning these additional doses are analyzed, one is likely to observe an even more striking incidence of adverse effects and death.

The other observation which Florida and Dr. Ladapo has chosen to not highlight is this “Non-mRNA vaccines were not found to have these increased risks.”

Badda boom. Now, I have not reviewed the primary data, but it could well be that the relatively low numbers of patients in the study meeting the criteria of “not mRNA\unknown” resulted in significantly lower statistical power for analysis of these groups, and that this observation could be an artifact of the statistical analysis due to this. However, this issue certainly merits a deeper dive and more comprehensive analysis (perhaps of the court ordered, newly disclosed CDC V-Safe data?), as if this observation withstands more rigorous testing, then one would have to hypothesize that the Spike protein is not the main cause of the cardiac toxicity, and then we are left with the possibility that the mRNA delivery platform is the problem. This may seem an “inside baseball” nuance (notice I am staying with Casey at Bat?), but as we previously discussed in this essay, the FDA is using the COVID-19 Vaccines as a “Platform Technology” for mRNA Vaccine Trials. Which would mean that every male patient aged 18-39 enrolled or about to be enrolled in those trials could be at risk for an 84% increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death.

I just hope that these subjects are being provided with a balanced and accurate disclosure of risk as they are presented with their “informed consent” paperwork.

In sum, well done, Joe. Keep on doing what you do. We need more grand slams.

PowerInbox