I'm not a doctor but neither are you, so I find it fascinating that you can dismiss these findings so cavalierly. Here is the result of a meta-study of over 1,000 patients with LGE:
"Results: Eight articles including 1319 patients (mean age, 38.8 12.9 years) were included in the meta-analysis.
The study showed that positive LGE was strongly associated with an increased risk of combined outcome (pooled OR, 5.85; 95% CI, 2.88 to 11.86; p < 0.001) and of MACE (pooled OR, 4.57; 95% CI, 2.18 to 9.59; p < 0.001). Additionally, in a subgroup analysis with mean ejection fraction (EF) point of 50%, the pooled ORs for the combined outcome were 6.46 for left ventricular EF (LVEF) > 50% and 7.90 for LVEF 50%, and the pooled ORs for MACE were 9.03 and 3.45, respectively. After 3 years of follow-up, the worse outcomes occurred mainly in patients with positive LGE."
What is a "combined outcome" you say? What is "MACE"? Here's how they define it:
"Major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was defined as the combination of all-cause mortality or cardiovascular death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart transplantation, appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock, rehospitalisation following a cardiac event and recurrent acute myocarditis. Combined outcome was defined as the combination of all adverse events."
BTW, heart tissue has very limited regenerative capability.
And you're sure this is transitory and harmless.
Great, vaxx YOUR kids. See, that's what this thread was originally about--whether mandates for children and adolescents are appropriate. That was before you and others moved the goalposts and tried to make this an argument about vaccines in general. The sane among us have repeatedly pointed to some problems:
- We didn't have much data on children. The data that we did have did NOT show the necessary benefit to merit vaxxing all the kids.
- Maddie Garay. GOOGLE THE NAME.
- The data on adults is highly concerning given that the VAERS system which is used to track vaccine injury warned of numerous cardiac and neurological problems. If you don't believe the VAERS system, then why does it exist? How exactly are vaccine injuries monitored if not by VAERS?
- Children are at very low risk of the virus. This has been known from very early on in the pandemic.
- We have no long term safety data on this experimental gene therapy. Vaccines always take several years to reach market for this very reason.
- The trials were compromised and highly questionable. So we don't believe whistleblowers now? And why are all these adverse events like myocarditis much more prevalent than they appeared in the clinical trials?
- We have known for quite a while that the Covid gene therapies do no prevent transmission. Therefore, the only reason to vaxx an individual is if it provides benefit to that individual.
- We know that natural immunity even going back to SARS-COV I is broad spectrum and long-lasting and therefore likely superior to gene-therapy induced immunity. Despite these obvious facts, Fauci and his Pharma Industrial Complex insist that everyone, regardless of infection status must be jabbed. That is an unscientific position.
Based on these reasons, I didn't want my boys gene therapied and I still don't want them gene therapied. Our family all had Covid in January and recovered quickly (in my case, possibly as a result of the Ivermectin I took). MY TEENAGE BOYS HAVE NO NEED FOR THE COVID GENE THERAPIES. So why do authoritarians like you continue to dismiss the science, ignore the mounting evidence and insist that they get it?????
As for Ivermectin, I think we can ignore the horses asses at the FDA who tweeted the snarky warning to people not to take the horse drug. Ivermectin has been given to
4 billion people and is on WHO's list of essential medicines (for humans, of course). Only a fool would be influenced by that absurdity. Ivermectin is safer than Tylenol, has multiple multiple anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties and has been shown to inhibit the SAR Covid II virus in vitro. These are facts that no serious person disputes. And NO ONE of any merit to my knowledge has said that Ivermectin doesn't work for Covid. What some have said is that without large clinical trials the evidence for the use of Ivermectin for Covid is inconclusive. Why are they saying that? Here's the backstory...
(BTW, I quote Tess Lawrie's study a long time ago and you dismissed it because she rated the quality of the evidence as "moderate certainty." Read what she says to Dr. Hill. Based on her quotes, it's obvious "modest certainty" does not mean what you think it means.)
"Dr. Tess Lawrie, a consultant for the World Health Organization (WHO), led a 2020 study that showed patients treated with Ivermectin experience a 75% reduction in mortality, hospitalization, and a positive overall clinical picture.
Subsequently, the WHO commissioned Dr. Andrew Hill to do a meta-study of the dozens of new studies from around the world suggesting that Ivermectin could be a remarkably safe and effective treatment for COVID-19. On January 18, 2021, Dr. Hill initially published a manuscript detailing his research and findings on the internet. He also concluded that Ivermectin was an effective treatment for Covid-19. After sharing his pre-published paper on the internet, the paper was edited and revised for publication."https://rairfoundation.com/deadly-cover-up-who-buried-the-research-proving-ivermectin-saves-covid-patients-lives/Lawrie was very troubled by Hill's reversal and called him via zoom.
The call was recorded and posted to the internet and a transcript appears in RFK Jr's book on Fauci. Here's an account of that call with actual quotes, verifiable by listening to the recording.
In a zoom conversation between Dr. Tess Lawrie, nicknamed the "Conscience of Medicine," and Dr. Andrew Hill, then the most influential Ivermectin advocate in the world, Dr. Hill chose dollars over human lives. https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/dr-tess-lawrie-the-conscience-of-medicine/article_ff673eca-ac2d-11eb-adaa-ab952b1d2661.htmlHill's parent institution, the University of Liverpool, had just received a 40 million dollar donation from UNITAID four days before Hill's Ivermectin paper was published, and Dr. Hill's conclusion was changed 180 degrees from his position just a few weeks earlier.Andrew Hill admitted that his sponsors (UNITAID) pressured him to alter his conclusion. Hill explained, "I think I'm in a very sensitive position here."Dr. Lawrie called Hill out. She stated, "Lots of people are in sensitive positions; they're in hospital, in ICUs dying, and they need this medicine."Lawrie criticized Hill, "This is what I don't get, you know, because you're not a clinician. You're not seeing people dying every day. And this medicine prevents deaths by 80%. So 80 percent of those people who are dying today don't need to die because there's Ivermectin."Hill responded that the NIH would not agree to recommend IVM.Dr. Tess Lawrie fired back, "Yeah, because the NIH is owned by the vaccine lobby...This is bad research. So at this point, I am really, really worried about you."Hill answered, "Okay. Yeah. I mean, it's a difficult situation."Lawrie responded, "No, you might be in a difficult situation. I'm not because I have no paymaster. I can tell the truth...How can you deliberately try and mess up...you know? So, how long are you going to let people carry on dying unnecessarily - up to you? What is the timeline you've allowed for this, then?"Andrew Hill reacted, "Well, I think...I think that it goes to WHO and the NIH, and the FDA, and the EMEA. And they've got to decide when they think enough is enough."Dr. Lawrie pointed out the obvious, "You'd rather...risk loads of people's lives. Do you know if you and I stood together on this, we could present a united front and we could get this thing. We could make it happen. We could save lives; we could prevent people from getting infected. We could prevent the elderly from dying...I'm a doctor, and I'm going to save as many lives as I can. And I'm going to do that through getting the message [out] on Ivermectin...Okay. Unfortunately, your work is going to impair that, and you seem to be able to bear the burden of many, many deaths, which I cannot do."Dr. Lawrie demanded to know the identity of the unknown UNITAID author who changed Dr. Hill's conclusions, the person whose influence was to cause so many preventable deaths."So who is it in UNITAID, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence?"Hill answered, "Well, it's just the people there. I don't..."Dr. Lawrie pressed Hill, "Could you please give me a name of someone in UNITAID I could speak to, so that I can share my evidence and hope to try and persuade them to understand it?Dr. Hill evaded, "Oh, I'll have to think about who to, to offer you with a name...But I mean this is very difficult because I'm, you know, I've got this role where I'm supposed to produce this paper and we're in a very difficult, delicate balance...Yeah, it's a very strong lobby..."The conversation concludes with Dr. Hill promising to do everything in his power to get Ivermectin approved if she could give him six more weeks.Dr. Lawrie, "So, how long do you think the stalemate will go on for?"Dr. Hill, "From my side. Okay...I think end of February, we will be there in six weeks."Dr. Tess Lawrie, "How many people die every day?"Dr. Andrew Hill, "Oh, sure. I mean, you know, 15,000 people a day."Dr. Tess Lawrie, "Fifteen thousand people a day times six weeks...Because at this rate, all other countries are getting Ivermectin except the UK and the USA, because the UK and the USA and Europe are owned by the vaccine lobby."Dr. Andrew Hill, "My goal is to get the drug approved and to do everything I can to get it approved so that it reaches the maximum..."Dr. Tess Lawrie, The Conscience of Medicine, concluded with this, "You're not doing everything you can, because everything you can would involve saying to those people who are paying you, 'I can see this prevents deaths. So I'm not going to support this conclusion anymore, and I'm going to tell the truth.'"Finally, Dr. Lawrie added, "Well, you're not going to get it approved the way you've written that conclusion. You've actually shot yourself in the foot, and you've shot us all in the foot. All of...everybody trying to do something good. You have actually completely destroyed it...I don't know how you sleep at night, honestly."The fact that Dr. Andrew Hill allowed another person to change his paper's conclusion has been known for more than six months and was published in the book, Ivermectin for the World. "However, he [Dr. Andrew Hill] was reigned in before more damage [to the vaccine lobby] was done:[ol]
He was invited to the NIH, along with Dr. Marik, probably to give the appearance of propriety.He was given a gag order and told not to speak to any more press until The WHO made an official decision on Ivermectin. It turned out that this decision would go against the drug despite Dr. Hill's findings.Dr. Hill's conclusion would be changed by someone else, and the rest is history."[/ol]
https://www.amazon.com/Ivermectin-World-Justus-R-Hope/dp/1737415909What was not known, until the transcript of the zoom conference between Dr. Hill and Dr. Lawrie was leaked, were the specifics of the quid pro quo. It turns out that the height of the COVID-19 Winter surge, when about 15,000 people per day were dying, was precisely the same time as the zoom conference, held on January 18, 2021. Moreover, it was days after Andrew Hill's University of Liverpool took the $40 million payoff.https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/ivermectin-and-the-price-of-life/article_3e1a2e14-5c70-11ec-b6f4-2b146e98a0b5.htmlAll you have is an appeal to authority, that of the WHO, CDC, FDA, etc. Under normal circumstances, that would be sufficient to dismiss the Ivermectin controversy as conspiracy theory. However, EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF HARD EVIDENCE points in the other direction. As the MIC runs foreign policy, so does the Pharma Industrial Complex run health policy. But you've got your political blinders on and only see what you want to see. I find it hilarious that you criticize me for citing articles from ZH. As if the NYT and your news sources are more credible. ROFL at your NYT which parroted the Hunter Biden Russia disinformation story and then quietly backtracked from it 1 1/2 years later when it didn't matter anymore. CIA director William Casey once said, "We'll Know Our Disinformation Program Is Complete When Everything the American Public Believes Is False." Congrats, you proved him right.