There are a lot of great memes that cross my desk in the court of a day. But rarely do I see one this devastating:
Buffalo Bills football player, 24 years old, Damar Hamlin survived his cardiac event. He remains hospitalized and his prognosis is not clear. But he is alert and talking. We all hope he makes a full recovery (even if we don’t pray on it).
While the sharp increase in athletes collapsing on court and field baffles those who shape mass opinion, the public is being led to believe that Hamlin’s collapse was due to a hit he took on the field of play known as commotio cordis, which occurs when the subject experiences a trauma to his chest that causes additional waves of electricity to pass through the heart muscle, throwing off the heart’s rhythm (arrhythmia), resulting in cardia arrest.
Here is the event in question:
This hit doesn’t look like commotio cordis. I’m not saying it wasn’t, it doesn’t look like somebody taking a projectile (like a baseball) directly over the precordial region. It does not appear to be a very hard hit at all. Those of us who follow professional football routinely see far more wicked hits. However, this does look a lot like what we are seeing around the world where athletes are collapsing on court and field.
Commotio cordis is extraordinarily rare. Of the millions of people who play contact sports every year, there are only about 10-20 incidences of commotio cordis, and almost all of them in children under the age of 18. Moreover, this has never before happened in the history of the NFL, either in a game or on the practice field.
Was Hamlin jabbed with the mRNA shot? If so, when? And how many jabs? How recent was his last one? In a recent tweet I said that the Bills were all vaccinated. I was wrong about that. Cole Beasley was fined for refusing the vaccine. Isaiah McKenzie was also fined for refusing the vaccine, as well, but he did in the end get jabbed. Wouldn’t we know if Hamlin weren’t? Look at the dust up over Green Bay Packers Aaron Rodgers’ vaccine status. For the record, vaccine take-up among NFL players is well over 90 percent.
It is useful to know whether Hamlin was jabbed because myocarditis, a type of injury to the heart muscle, is a common side effect of mRNA. Myocarditis is a major source of heart arrhythmia in young men and can result in death. My immediate family has been affected by mRNA-related myocarditis so this is not a phenomenon remote to my life. Many observers are wondering whether myocarditis played a role in this case.
Something unusual is certainly going on. Before the vaccine rollout in 2021, the average number of cardiac arrests in otherwise healthy athletes stood at twenty-nine year-to-year. After the vaccine roll out, the number of cardiac arrests has soared to more than fifteen hundred. Sixty-nine percent of such coronary events are fatal. Noting all this, however, is verboten. We’re supposed to “trust the science,” which, in this case, means trust the corporate state.
The question was immediately confronted with the predictable charge of “conspiracy theory.” RollingStone ran the headline: “Anti-Vaxxers Turn Damar Hamlin’s On-Field Collapse Into a ‘Vile’ Conspiracy Theory.” The author, Tomas Mier, writes, “As prayers for Damar Hamlin, the Buffalo Bills player who collapsed during a game Monday, began to roll in on social media after he received CPR on the field, so too did the inevitable conspiracy theories that somehow the cardiac arrest he suffered came from the COVID vaccine.”
Before getting to Mier’s deployment of this thought-stopping device, I can’t let slide Mier’s comment about prayers. We’re not supposed to ask questions about whether a player who suffers a coronary event was vaccinated, a relevant question in light of what we know about this vaccination, but we can engage in that act of magical thinking called prayer without being for a moment suspect of irrationalism.
At any rate, conspiracy, a category in law, a species of inchoate offense, is a clandestine plan by two or more individuals to do something unlawful. A theory is a scientific causal explanation for associated phenomena. You can therefore have theories about conspiracies. Indeed, this happens at trial when the prosecution makes an argument to convince judge and jury that a crime has occurred and that the defended perpetrated that crime.
Another predictable response was to attack contact sports generally. The New York Post reports “Joy Behar rips ‘heterosexual men’ for supporting tackle football.” The View co-host Joy Behar said “45 percent of Americans think that tackle football is appropriate. Heterosexual men voted the most support for kids doing football. And conservatives were more likely to support youth tackle football. Just saying.”
We should emphasize that this statistic (from a study conducted by The Ohio State University) concerns youth (Behar was clear). One would think that Behar and her colleagues at The View would be okay with youth consenting to harmful activities. Is it the heterosexuality piece that’s the problem? I’m surprised the term “toxic masculinity” was not uttered (maybe it was—I confess that I don’t watch The View). There are so many sports that risk injury. Baseball. Boxing. Hockey. Soccer. Volleyball.
Though they deny it, elites are aware that athletes (and others) across the West are collapsing in numbers much greater than in previous years. Sudden death has drastically increased since the rollout of the mRNA gene therapy falsely marketed as a vaccine against COVID-19, a weaponized strained of coronavirus manufactured in a laboratory in Wuhan China using US tax dollars to fund the work.
The freakout here looks all the world like sublimation, a type of defense mechanism in which socially unacceptable idealization (here, that the mRNA jab is neither safe nor effective) are transformed into socially acceptable actions or behavior (here, that masculinity is a toxic thing). Unconscious guilt infuses the sublimation here. Those who shamed people into taking the shot, which authorities admit damages the heart, suspect deep down that these deaths and injuries have something to do with heart damage and that their aggressive vaccine advocacy implicates them in those deaths and injuries. So they instead blame the deplorables—those working class men they love to loathe. Rather than blame a toxic product from Big Pharma, they turn to the mythology of toxic masculinity.
Again, we know that the mRNA jab can damage the heart. Sorry to sound like a broken record, but the FDA has admitted it what many of us were censored and cancelled for reporting. CDC analysis shows that the number of serious adverse events reported in less than two years for mRNA COVID-19 jab 5.5 times greater than all serious reports for vaccines given to adults in the US since 2009. The FDA has pulled many products that were less harmful than the mRNA jab. Why aren’t they pulling this product?
And the problem with mRNA is much greater than the picture these numbers paint. VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) undercounts vaccine injuries for several reasons—and not by a little. There is a pronounced desire to protect the record of this particular product (mRNA technology promises big things to come). Remember, VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences (that fact is admitted by the Department of Health and Human Services—the agency from where I obtained it). Obviously, undercounting deaths and injuries is associated with the general ignorance in the population that such a thing as VAERS even exists. Moreover, even when there is some vague recognition of its existence, ignorance about how one goes about reporting something like that is expected—and the government doesn’t make reporting vaccine injuries easy. Many (like literally every progressive I know) have been convinced that vaccines are safe and thus attribute injuries to other things. I have observed this with Bell’s palsy cases, as well as with parents who makes their kids get shots denying that the rare conditions that follow, such as Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), have anything to do with the decision they made to vaccinate their children.
Why the effort to shame those who ask the obvious question? I think you know why. Maybe folks should ask themselves: “Why am I denying the relevance of the question of vaccine injury in this case?” Maybe we should encourage them to search their environment for the sources of conditioning—and their minds for the constellation of ideological points and personality traits that prepare their brains for indoctrination.
I want to briefly return to the question of conspiracy theory. Maybe that term is more diversionary than thought stopping. After all, the makers of the mRNA vaccine operate in the open. Moreover, they have admitted the vaccine damages the heart. They continue to sell the product to make money. At one level, it’s the result of what we call capitalism, a system that puts money over lives. But, at another level, the reluctance to release all the information concerning the development and testing of the product, and the organized effort to stifle questions about the mRNA shot, which is obviously in large measure the result of a well-indoctrinated population, feels like a conspiracy, the goal of which is to hide criminal responsibility. How do capitalists train up an army of apologists? Perhaps the same way religious institutions do. But a lot of collusion is suggested by the patterns of evidence.
Finally, we are hearing calls for easily available AEDs, or automated external defibrillators, to deal with all the cases of SADS, or sudden arrhythmic death syndrome. SADS occurs when someone dies suddenly and unexpectedly from a cardiac arrest, especially when the cause of the event is unknown. Since none of the events can be explained by mRNA jabs, we must for some unknown reason be expecting a sharp rise in the incidence of commotio cordis. Shall we have these AEDs distributed across the nation in churches, malls, and schools? Better to do this than remove the mRNA shot from the market. That way, the makers of AEDs also have a show at historic profits.
freedom and reason 