Is Vaccine-Induced Heart Damage in Children Permanent?

Vaccine-induced myocarditis in kids is not “mild” even though it has been described, over and over again in the media and by pediatricians, as “mild” or that kids “recover quickly.”

A new study shows that these hopeful-sounding statements are neither true nor scientifically accurate.

More than 2/3rds of all children who presented to the hospital with vaccine-induced cardiomyopathy were shown to have detectable imaging results consistent with scarring of the heart pericardium, up to eight months later.

The sort of imaging used (Cardiac Magnetic Resonance using Late Gadolinium Enhancement - “LGE” - as the contrast agent) that detected the cardiac injuries is highly correlated with both scarring and poor prognoses in other forms of cardiomyopathy. Can we say these children will have equally poor outcomes on par with classic myocarditis? No.

But, neither can we say they will be fine.

For whatever reason, the CDC and NIH are not at all in any hurry to investigate these vaccine injuries, and that leaves it up to parents and doctors to fumble their way through the vaccine decision as best they can.

At the very least, we can say that “informed consent” cannot include “informed” because the information is simply not there. Further, after the CDC just recently admitted to a “coding error” being responsible for overcounting childhood Covid deaths by nearly +25% - which numbers were used as justification for the necessity of childhood covid vaccination – we cannot even begin to form a proper risk/benefit assessment.

More study is urgently needed. Whether or not the CDC and pharma companies will perform these necessary studies is an open question, but it really shouldn’t be. Until they are, despite the risk of Covid to young males being overwhelmingly low, parents should only consider vaccinating their children, especially males, with the understanding that life-long harm may result in some cases.

P.S. – Be sure to check out our new LiveCast beginning tomorrow, Thursday, March 31, at 7 PM EST. You can tune in here:

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

Dr Martenson, is this study about the dangers of curcumin, which is part of the FLCCC protocol, legitimate?

I’m rather taken by a statement by Catharine Austin Fitts that it was decided in the 1980s that the only way to balance the books was to decrease life expectancy…
I assume that the various lethal or crippling effects of the Jab are a feature, not a bug.


Common the myocarditis is clearly transitory; ya know like inflation :wink:


Chris I noticed that there was at least one more digit in your 99.9… display and possibly more after that.
Sure, reporting was not reliable down to not honest, or more bluntly fraudulent, so hard to rely on it.

After having look at the article it only appears that caution was advocated in relation to use of Curcumin.
Risk to benefit has to be assessed.

What I did hear via one of the Nuremberg 2.0 sessions was a military advocate talking about gene deletion in the list of adverse events from Pfizer once their arm got twisted. He talked of there being three genes that were attacked and had an effect on emotionality/spirituality and general frontal type cortex creating a lack of connection with others? Seriously concerning. My ears pricked up because I also heard that the omicron symptoms had included a change in emotional state. That somehow this virus/pathogen had an effect in the brain. I had the initial alpha and knew it was weird even though it was prior to all this coming out. I just had omicron and one thing that struck me as odd was that I had a five or six hour window when I just was so chilled, so utterly divorced from my usual alert state that I had to think had I had an arm full of medazolam??? Anyone else coming across this ??? Omicron was again odd. Seems to go in stages, First the spinal and head ache, that goes, then the sinus sniffles, that goes and then I had the myocarditis type feeling that goes. I had five days without smell too but that went. Really really odd. But I am pure blood and came through the first no problems. It was just this amygdala going off line that really had me stop in my tracks.

1 Like

Let’s use the children’s myocarditis study to estimate rates:
Population of the Seattle Metro Area almost exactly 4 million, about 1.2% of the total population of the nation. Population of Washingon is about 7 million. Let’s assume the Seattle Children’s Hospital, the premier, but not the only children’s hospital in the metro area serves 80% of the Seattle metro area, plus some of the rural area of the state, so let’s keep it at 4 million.
There are about 50,000 children in each single age bracket. That is 300,000 12-17 year olds and 350,000 5-11 year olds.
As of a couple of days ago, overall double vacc rates in the state were 73.8%. This is somewhat lower in teens and significantly lower in children, but also somewhat higher in the Seattle Metro area and lower by the January cutoff date of the study. Let’s assume an overall rate of 70% in Jan and a mean of 75% in the area served by the hospital. Now let’s assume a rate of 65% in teens and 50% in children. That gives us a population of 0.75300,000 + 0.5350,000 = 400,000.
Now we have 35 2nd dose cases. If we include first dose and booster cases and 2nd dose cases after more than one week, we are at perhaps 50, conservatively. 50/400,000 = 1 in 8000. The approximate rate in boys would be 1 in 5000 and in girls, about 1 in 20,000.
I tried to be conservative in my assumptions. I’m also guessing there were cases that never made it to the hospital or were not properly diagnosed in the ER. Perhaps that increases the number by a factor of between 2 and 5?

Based ion the number of professional athletes dropping dead on the field, the number seems to be higher.

1 Like

The lack of informed consent is disingenuous, even fraudulent, unethical malpractice that seems ubiquitous – certainly here in Canada. The jabs are fraudulently promoted by all levels of govt down to public school staff, MSM, medical and other professional associations. All persons responsible must be held to account for the harms caused (yes, I’m looking at you Justin).
As a point of fact, ischemia is more properly insufficient blood flow to any tissue which of course does imply insufficient oxygen supply even to the point of anoxia and cell death. Apologies for the quibble.
Great information scouting as usual Dr. Martenson.

1 Like

One year ago I had an allergy reaction to the second jab consisting of itching of arms and neck within a couple of hours. Two days later I was so short of breath and lacking in stamina that I could not even turn over a small garden spot with a spade. I had to sit and gasp for breath almost immediately.
I saw a cardiologist who ordered a heart ultrasound scan that indicated an unacceptably low ejection fraction. That was followed by a treadmill test that showed an ejection fraction below 25% under exercise conditions. The doctor admits to seeing a significant increase of the number of patients with similar results, but he is reluctant to associate them with the vaccine and will not report them to VAERS.
I am more inclined to see cause and effect here. I think that I was harmed by the shots, but if that be the case, then I have some good news to report that might give some hope to viewers of Chris’ video. In the past year I have regained a lot of stamina via exercise. Shortness of breath has disappeared and I briskly walk a mile per day. I expect to be able to spade up my small garden as soon as the weather warms a bit more and it dries out a bit.

1 Like

As I stated in a previous response I am evaluating the content here to see if it is something I would be interested in participating in at a higher level. So I may be more critical - picky, if you prefer.
The information about the new study presented here is valuable, as is a re-iteration of one’s responsibility to evaluate the risk-benefit of getting children vaccinated. But there are assumptions in the video and a general omission that give me pause.
First area of concern is what appears to be setting up a straw man argument. I heard a line about “those who try to minimize this actually serious things that happens”. When I hear a line like this my ears prick up: who is trying to minimize this side-effect? I did not see anything I would consider evidence in the linked papers and articles, although I understand an objection to even the use of the word “mild”. But even the CDC has highlighted the risk of myocarditis on its page about vaccine safety.
I will point out that we are operating from the benefit of hindsight - we can take new information about longer-term effects and use it to criticize earlier studies (most if not all which say that more study is needed), but it’s not fair to imply the earlier work was wrong because we found out something new.
“We can call it rare, maybe, but that depends on how we define rare”. I would call a .01% chance of acquiring something rare: “Even among the highest risk subpopulation of teenage males, the individual risk of VAM is approximately 0.011%.”
Note: that paper discusses at length and acknowledges the greater risk to teenage boys and acknowledges the balance needed to determine overall risk - but concludes: “Even in the adolescent male population, the entirety of the protective effect of COVID vaccination, particularly in preventing severe COVID, hospitalization, MIS-C, and death, continues to clearly exceed the risk of VAM.” I recommend reading the whole paper as it has in my view a pretty balanced view of the situation.
The author of the video spends a great deal of time delving into the most extreme effects of myocarditis - emphasizing words like “scarring”, “necrosis”, dying”, “death”. My impression is this is an attempt to emotionally sway the audience.
More opinion masquerading as analysis: “I bet it’s pretty rare to get that level of informed consent. Why? Because somebody somewhere has made the decision that providing that level of information might cause some concern…” Who might that “someone” be? As of June 2021 the FDA revised the very fact sheets distributed with the vaccines to include the myocarditis and pericarditis risks. So are those “someones” doctors who read the sheet but decide to hide it from their patients? If not them, who? And what evidence is presented? None.
Then there’s the “…understand that hospitals were heavily incentivized and by extension, the doctors heavily incentivized to put COVID on the death certificate)”. What this is slyly implying is that doctors are willing to risk their reputations and livelihoods by mislabeling a death certificate. Could it happen? Of course. Is it remotely conceivable that there are enough crooked doctors out there who did this that it would make a statistical difference? Hardly. It’s like voter fraud: cases do exist, but never in any quantity that would make any difference, mostly because the risks so clearly outweigh any benefit.
Maybe this conspiracy-laden innuendo is a hit with the Peak Prosperity audience but it detracts from what I see again as the extremely important overall message: that new studies make it even more important to evaluate the risk / benefit of vaccination of young males especially.
There’s the suggestion that the CDC, with all its funding, isn’t doing anything about this when they are apparently following up:
The omission I mentioned? How does the risk of Vaccine-induced myocarditis - and the severity of it - compare with the risk of myocarditis from acquiring covid? Surely that is a worthwhile comparison, and clearly well within the abilities of the video author.
Here’s what I would have liked to see: a presentation of the new study and how it adds to knowledge we already have. A presentation of how that risk differs (or not) from myocarditis acquired through covid infection (including a study of the dangers and risks of MIS-C and other long-term effects). A comparison of the relative risk of getting covid and getting serious illness from that - including myocarditis and the not-zero risk death versus the risk of getting post-vaccine myocarditis and especially the risk of getting a severe case.
That would have made for an informative, non-biased presentation, and I am sorry that’s not what I saw here.

Along with the questions you are asking, I want to see all of Pfizer’s data that was submitted to the FDA to gain EUA. Given that the jab trial will go into 2023, that data will be useful too.

If this was the vaccine, which is the most probably answer, then you have been injured and have suffered for over a year without recourse to any form of understanding and therefore correct treatment to mitigate what you are suffering. If you had been given the information, which you should have been regarding the risks of this medical. Intervention maybe you would have spared yourself the injury. I am so pleased you are improving but it looks like you could have life long damage. I would continue to hound your dr’s and do your own research to find the best path to health for you now and the possibility of class actions suits which will surely follow. Best of Best of Luck with it all.


Great analysis on what inflammation is and how it affects the body.


@mcconner1776 - I appreciate your search for truth and for presenting a clear description of what you’re looking for when identifying non-biased perspectives. If you have found credible sources that are meeting your standards, please share. In my experience, this is a difficult topic to find truly non-biased information. I’m grateful for Dr. Martenson’s contributions while also always searching for a variety of thoughtful perspectives. Thanks.

Uk Governments Own Data Showing The Massive Ade Effects