Heart Inflammation Linked to COVID Vaccines in Study of U.S. Military, Department of Defense Confirms

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

new study of U.S. service members found higher than expected rates of heart inflammation following receipt of a COVID vaccine. It’s a finding Defense Department researchers say should call attention to the condition, known as myocarditis, as a potential side effect of vaccinations.

In a study published June 29 in JAMA Cardiology, U.S. military physicians described 23 cases of myocarditis in previously healthy males who developed the condition within four days of receiving a COVID vaccine.

total of 23 male patients (22 currently serving in the military and 1 retiree) with a median age range of 25 years were evaluated between January and April 2021 for acute-onset chest pain following vaccination with an mRNA COVID vaccine.

All military members were previously healthy with a high level of fitness. They were physically fit by military standards and lacked any known history of cardiac disease, significant cardiac risk factors, or exposure to cardiotoxic agents.

Seven military members received Pfizer’s COVID vaccine and 16 received the Moderna vaccine. Each patient had a final diagnosis of myocarditis without infectious, ischemic, or autoimmune etiologies identified. Diagnoses were reviewed and met the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) case definition criteria for probable myocarditis.

All patients presented with acute chest pain and significantly elevated cardiac troponin levels (10-fold to 400-fold the upper limits of their respective reference ranges) with symptom onset within 12 to 96 hours following COVID vaccination.

According to the study, physicians expected to find eight or fewer cases of myocarditis among the 436,000 male military members who received two mRNA doses. But 20 military members developed inflammation after their second dose, including 14 after the Moderna shot and six after the Pfizer shot. Three developed myocarditis after their first vaccine.

Cardiac symptoms resolved within a week of onset for 16 patients, but seven continued to have chest pain at the time of publication.

The researchers stated that while the true incidence of myocarditis is unknown at this time, the presentation pattern and clinical course suggest an association with an inflammatory response to vaccination.

The team concluded that increased attention to myocarditis as a potential adverse event following vaccination is warranted.

A new study supports the link between mRNA COVID vaccines and heart inflammation

A separate study published in JAMA Cardiology on June 29 investigated seven cases of acute myocarditis. Four cases occurred within five days of COVID vaccination between Feb. 1 and April 30.

All four patients had received the second dose of an mRNA vaccine and presented with severe chest pain, had biomarker evidence of myocardial injury, were hospitalized, and had test results consistent with myocarditis.

“It is possible that these four cases of acute myocarditis represent a rare, potential adverse event linked to mRNA COVID-19 vaccination,” researchers wrote. “The findings from the present report raise the possibility of an association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccination and acute myocarditis.”

An association between COVID vaccines and myocarditis was first reported in Israel with a case study in February involving a 19-year-old male.

On April 26, details leaked from an Israeli Health Ministry report raising concerns among experts about a possible link between the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine and myocarditis.

preliminary report by an Israeli committee tasked with monitoring vaccine side effects found 62 cases of myocarditis, including two deaths, in people who received the Pfizer vaccine. Fifty-six cases occurred after the second dose of the vaccine, and 55 cases occurred in men — most between the ages of 18 and 30.

The two patients who died were reportedly healthy until receiving the vaccine and had no pre-existing conditions.

On April 27, Reuters reported the U.S. Department of Defense was investigating 14 cases of heart inflammation among people who were vaccinated through the military’s health services.

On June 2, Israeli health officials confirmed a probable link between Pfizer’s COVID vaccine and dozens of cases of heart inflammation in young men following the second dose.

As The Defender reported June 10, the CDC’s advisory committee acknowledged a higher-than-expected number of cases of heart inflammation among 16- to 24-year-olds who recently received a second dose of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines.

Based on a May 24 report from the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group (VaST), the CDC on June 1 updated its website with the following language:

“Data from VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System] show that in the 30-day window following dose 2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, there was a higher number of observed than expected myocarditis/pericarditis cases in 16–24-year-olds.”

On June 23, the ACIP said there was a “likely association” of “mild” heart inflammation in adolescents and young adults after vaccination with an mRNA COVID vaccine, and a warning statement was warranted.

The safety panel acknowledged more than 1,200 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis in 16- to-24-year-olds who received an mRNA COVID vaccine, mostly occurring in males after the second dose.

As The Defender reported June 28, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration added a warning to Pfizer and Moderna’s fact sheets indicating an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination.

According to the latest data from VAERS, there were 1,342  cases of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation) in all age groups reported in the U.S. following COVID vaccination between Dec.14, 2020 and June 18, 2021.

Of the 1,342 cases reported, 835 cases were attributed to Pfizer, 458 cases to Moderna and 45 cases to Johnson & Johnson’s COVID vaccine.

High-Ranking DoD Official Reveals How Pentagon Punishes Whistleblowers

John Crane described how the Pentagon illegally represses whistleblowers—and revealed how the same internal office tasked with protecting whistleblowers has set about betraying them. (Photo: Screenshot/The Guardian)

John Crane described how the Pentagon illegally represses whistleblowers—and revealed how the same internal office tasked with protecting whistleblowers has set about betraying them. (Photo: Screenshot/The Guardian)

By Nika Knight | Common Dreams

Pentagon officials tasked with protecting whistleblowers have lied under oath, illegally destroyed documents, and gone out of their way to ruin people’s careers and lives for attempting to raise concerns about government abuses of power, according to a high-ranking Department of Defense (DoD) official, John Crane, who went public with his story on Sunday.

Crane’s explosive revelations are being released in coordination by the Guardian, Der Spiegel, and Newsweek Japan.

“We need iron-clad, enforceable protections for whistleblowers, and we need a public record of success stories,” whistleblower Edward Snowden responded to Crane’s revelationsin the Guardian. “Protect the people who go to members of Congress with oversight roles, and if their efforts lead to a positive change in policy—recognize them for their efforts. There are no incentives for people to stand up against an agency on the wrong side of the law today, and that’s got to change.”

When Snowden revealed the NSA’s extensive illegal surveillance of American citizens in 2013, government officials were united in their condemnation of his actions—he should have followed the rule book and gone through government channels instead of releasing documents to the public, many argued.

Indeed, both President Obama and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton have continued to make this same critique.

But Crane’s testimony reveals that, in fact, Snowden couldn’t have blown the whistle any other way.

“The sad reality of today’s policies is that going to the inspector general with evidence of truly serious wrongdoing is often a mistake. Going to the press involves serious risks, but at least you’ve got a chance,” as Snowden told the Guardian.

Crane also revealed why Snowden went public the way he did: a high-ranking whistleblower before him had tried to raise the same concerns about the NSA’s spying program through the “proper” channels, Crane said—and the Pentagon made certain to ruin his life for it.

“Thomas Drake […] blew the whistle on the very same NSA activities 10 years before Snowden did,” writes Mark Hertsgaard in the Guardian:

Drake was a much higher-ranking NSA official than Snowden, and he obeyed US whistleblower laws, raising his concerns through official channels. And he got crushed.

Drake was fired, arrested at dawn by gun-wielding FBI agents, stripped of his security clearance, charged with crimes that could have sent him to prison for the rest of his life, and all but ruined financially and professionally. The only job he could find afterwards was working in an Apple store in suburban Washington, where he remains today. Adding insult to injury, his warnings about the dangers of the NSA’s surveillance programme were largely ignored.

Hertsgaard also describes how retired NSA officials who also went through official channels to raise concerns about NSA surveillance with Drake ended up being similarly arrested and harassed by the U.S. government, and how that transformed their perception of the agency they once worked for:

“We are now becoming a police state,” Diane Roark said in a 2014 television interview. Referring to herself and the other NSA whistleblowers, she added, “We are the canaries in the coal mine. We never did anything wrong. All we did was oppose this program. And for that, they just ran over us.”

“They’re saying, ‘We’re doing this to protect you,'” Roark’s fellow whistleblower William Binney told me. “I will tell you that that’s exactly what the Nazis said in Special Order 48 in 1933 – we’re doing this to protect you. And that’s how they got rid of all of their political opponents.”

These are strong statements – comparing the actions of the US government to Nazi Germany, warning of an emerging “police state” – so it’s worth remembering who made them. The NSA whistleblowers were not leftwing peace nuts. They had spent their professional lives inside the US intelligence apparatus – devoted, they thought, to the protection of the homeland and defense of the constitution.

They were political conservatives, highly educated, respectful of evidence, careful with words. And they were saying, on the basis of personal experience, that the US government was being run by people who were willing to break the law and bend the state’s awesome powers to their own ends. They were saying that laws and technologies had secretly been put in place that threatened to overturn the democratic governance Americans took for granted and shrink their liberties to a vanishing point. And they were saying that something needed to be done about all this before it was too late.

In Washington, top government officials and politicians still insist that the true villain is Edward Snowden. Former CIA director James Woolsey has called for Snowden to be “hanged by the neck until he’s dead, rather than merely electrocuted”.

“Democrats are less bloodthirsty, but no more forgiving,” Hertsgaard notes.

“He could have gotten all of the protections of being a whistleblower. He could have raised all the issues that he has raised. And I think there would have been a positive response to that,” Clinton said during the first Democratic primary debate.

As Hertsgaard puts it: “Tell that to Thomas Drake. Tell it, for that matter, to John Crane.”

Read more great articles at Common Dreams.

How We Can Do a Better Job Erasing Chemtrails From Our Sacred Skies?


You may or may not be aware that there are enough people concerned about so-called “chemtrails” or “geoengineering” that there have been a few marches, known as the “International March Against Chemtrails”. The latest happened on September 27, 2014. I have attended some of these and am a part of the group, “Worcester Sky Watch”. I have some thoughts about this activist cause that I would like to share. I personally consider chemtrails to be a scourge, one that  has given rise to one of the most important health matters of our time,  and therefore has the potential to affect us socially, politically, economically, and even spiritually.  I would suggest that the lack of attention in mainstream media makes it all the more necessary for the awakened and activist among us to spread the word about chemtrails and to do the most effective job at “marketing” our movement – which I hope will convince millions more that this is “their” movement too.

I have been involved in the Worcester Branch of the International March Against Chemtrails (See the Worcester Sky Watch Facebook Page at https://www.facebook. com/WorcesterSkyWatch) for a couple of years. My friends in this part of the movement are Karen Ann Barlow, Mindy Kristoff and Hermis (www.7hawksmedia.com). Susie O’Brien came to at least one of the marches and is a great representative from www.geoengineeringwatch.org.

Another important mention is for Clifford Carnicom and Hilda Staninger and their innovative work to get to the bottom of what Chemtrails are and what they do to affect our health [See carnicominstitute.org and https://1cellonelight.com/index-4.html].

Www.aircrap.org and morgellonsresearchgroup.com are some other important websites that have trumpeted important developments in this area.

The following are the ways in which, I believe, we will make our anti-chemtrail activist efforts more effective:

  1. Let’s stop exclusively using the perpetrators’ language for this evil activity. “Chemtrails” as a term was coined by the DOD in or before 1991 in a manual prepared for the U.S. Air Force (See the link at: https://chemtrailsplanet.net/2013/03/31/ confirmed-the-word-chemtrails-first-published-by-the-air-force-academy-in-1990/). Some may say, “hey we never saw that manual when we started hearing these things called chemtrails”. True, but I would submit that the same people, inside and outside of the DOD, probably directed their operatives to start whispering this term into the public consciousness and that’s the name by which these emissions came to be known.

What’s in a word? Well, the term “chemtrails” to me seems to have limited the impact of what we are fighting for, because: a. It puts us in to the “contrail/chemtrail” paradigm, which stops the thrust of our argument at “is it or isn’t it?”; b. People live with “chemicals” everyday and get benefit from them, so something that is called a “chemical trail” or “chemtrail”, without more, lacks impact for them; and c. This stops meaningful discussion about who is behind these emissions, what’s in them, and why would this spraying be being done?

And how about the word “geoengineering”? This term is more technical than “chemtrails”, but again lacks a certain gravitas necessary to get people motivated and involved in the way we activists would wish them to be. For us to say, “you know certain people are using geoengineering to make us sick and kill us”, may make some people think, “but geoengineering doesn’t sound so bad” It’s like saying “watch out! Geology (or oceanography or stenography, or cosmetology) are going to get you!!!”

“Geo” is ” a combining form meaning “the earth,” used in the formation of compound words…” [See https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/geo-] and “engineering means:

  1. “the art or science of making practical application of the knowledge of pure sciences, as physics or chemistry, as in the construction of engines, bridges, buildings, mines, ships, and chemical plants[and]
  2. the action, work, or profession of an engineer [and]
  3. skillful or artful contrivance; maneuvering.” [See https://dictionary. reference.com/browse/engineering?s=t]

So, again geoengineering is not a term that is likely to motivate many to become involved in fighting against a grave threat to our health and our way of life.

This is not to say that we have to throw away either of these words. For one thing, they have the benefit of familiarity, but they need more. I would suggest that we add a tack-on:  “Biochemical Warfare against the American People” or “Biochemical Warfare against the world.” While still a technical term, the import and seriousness of “biochemical warfare” has been made somewhat clear to the average person, due to its coverage in Iraq in the 1990’s and 2000’s equating it with Weapons of Mass Destruction (i.e., WMD’s)

This tack-on, or the similar, “biological warfare” is likely to get more people motivated because of the common understanding of it and the term’s immediate dramatic effect.  This effect was demonstrated not so long ago when President Obama, pundits and talking heads got up in arms about President Assad, of Syria, allegedly using the gas, Sarin, against his own people. President Obama nearly involved us in World War III over it.  Not many people realize that this gas reduces to Flouride in our bodies. Our president was about to start a huge war and threaten the world for something that is in many of our toothpastes and communities.

President Obama designated a “red line” at what he alleged was biochemical warfare against the Syrian Peoples in a country half a world away.

The use of the words “biochemical warfare” may, at first, seem to be extreme. But let’s consider that our country seems to be being subjected to chemtrailing nearly every day with concomitant redistribution of moisture that causes deadly droughts and drying of the air — which causes and worsens forest fires. Many people have come down with a mysterious illness, called Morgellon’s and Mr. Carnicom and Ms. Staninger have analyzed aspects of the chemtrails which seem to indicate that nano creatures may have been made/cultivated/constructed to cause illness and arguably even more nefarious things See https://1cellonelight.com/index-4.html].

HAARP technology seems to be related to the chemtrail phenomenon and, although the government states that HAARP is only for innocuous scientific purposes, it appears that  HAARP Technology has been used to create storms and other meteorological phenomena (such as reportedly the Fukushima disaster) or to threaten countries that do not wish to cooperate with the government — not to perform more worthwhile functions like steering  storms away from communities or diminishing the severity of our most dangerous storms. In fact, some in the alternative media suggest that the major drought in the West and heavier than normal rainfal on the Eastern Seaboard can be sourced back to the HAARP Machine(s). It is further noteworthy that a mobile HAARP Machine was reportedly brought over by ship in the above-mentioned Syrian crisis.

By shifting the language like I am suggestin, we can bring people to the question of “if President Obama could draw a ‘red line’, that almost caused WWWIII [See https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/president-obamas-red-line-what-he-actually-said-about-syria-and-chemical-weapons/], where is the consistency in his permitting the nearly day-to-day toxic carpet-bombing that is chemtrails or geoengineering.  For that matter, why does he continue to support fluoride in our water and toothpastes.

In any case, in light of the recent emphasis on “biological or biochemical warfare” and the sanguine nature of those terms in the public mentality, I believe that we will enhance the reach and depth of the International March Against Chemtrails, if we use  this strategy.

  1. Another way to make our efforts more effective is to grab on to an image and product with which many are familiar: how about Chemtrails or Geoengineering is “the new cigarette, one you have no choice but to smoke“.

Think about it, with the “Truth Campaign” actively showing the dangers of cigarettes with more and more places going smoke-free, and with the realizations about the significant dangers of even “third-hand smoke”, people know how bad a habit smoking is [See https://www.legacyforhealth.org/content/download/569/6830/file/truth-research-summary-2012.pdf]. People also have a sense that the cigarette companies have not always been honest with them about this danger or even the ingredients of their product. Add to that, the specific advertising to children and people in “minority populations”,  and you have a populace in America , and the world, who are at best suspicious and at worst downright p!$$ed at being lied to for decades. And cigarettes cause cancer, which is still a leading killer of men and women throughout the world.

By relating chemtrails/geoengineering to cigarettes goes a long way to convey the essence of our movement in a couple of words. I have already prepared a handout that includes the “ingredients” found in chemtrails/geoengineering, according to various online articles and reports. It was well-received at the last event I attended; in fact it was the one about which I got the most questions and comments about.

I am very hopeful that the upcoming March Against Chemtrails will be our most successful one yet. Please accept these humble words as food for thought and discuss them among your groups, your families and friends and share any thoughts that you may have about this article. And if you feel that activism around this issue resonates with you, please become involved in the International March Against Chemtrails. There is likely to be an event near you. And for those already in the movement, please keep up the good work!


Robert O'Leary, JD BARA

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products and modalities since the early 1970’s, and he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-s0ngwriter, martial artist and father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive and safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield (MA), New England and “virtually” the world, through his new website, www.romayasoundhealthandbeauty.com

Pentagon Using Universities to Prepare for Mass Civil Breakdown


Nafeez Ahmed | The Guardian

Social science is being militarised to develop ‘operational tools’ to target peaceful activists and protest movements

A US Department of Defense (DoD) research programme is funding universities to model the dynamics, risks and tipping points for large-scale civil unrest across the world, under the supervision of various US militaryagencies. The multi-million dollar programme is designed to develop immediate and long-term “warfighter-relevant insights” for senior officials and decision makers in “the defense policy community,” and to inform policy implemented by “combatant commands.”

Launched in 2008 – the year of the global banking crisis – the DoD ‘Minerva Research Initiative’ partners with universities “to improve DoD’s basic understanding of the social, cultural, behavioral, and political forces that shape regions of the world of strategic importance to the US.”

Among the projects awarded for the period 2014-2017 is a Cornell University-led study managed by the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research which aims to develop an empirical model “of the dynamics of social movement mobilisation and contagions.” The project will determine “the critical mass (tipping point)” of social contagians by studying their “digital traces” in the cases of “the 2011 Egyptian revolution, the 2011 Russian Duma elections, the 2012 Nigerian fuel subsidy crisis and the 2013 Gazi park protests in Turkey.”

Twitter posts and conversations will be examined “to identify individuals mobilised in a social contagion and when they become mobilised.”

Another project awarded this year to the University of Washington “seeks to uncover the conditions under which political movements aimed at large-scale political and economic change originate,” along with their “characteristics and consequences.” The project, managed by the US Army Research Office, focuses on “large-scale movements involving more than 1,000 participants in enduring activity,” and will cover 58 countries in total.

Last year, the DoD’s Minerva Initiative funded a project to determine ‘Who Does Not Become a Terrorist, and Why?’ which, however, conflates peaceful activists with “supporters of political violence” who are different from terrorists only in that they do not embark on “armed militancy” themselves. The project explicitly sets out to study non-violent activists:

“In every context we find many individuals who share the demographic, family, cultural, and/or socioeconomic background of those who decided to engage in terrorism, and yet refrained themselves from taking up armed militancy, even though they were sympathetic to the end goals of armed groups. The field of terrorism studies has not, until recently, attempted to look at this control group. This project is not about terrorists, but about supporters of political violence.”

The project’s 14 case studies each “involve extensive interviews with ten or more activists and militants in parties and NGOs who, though sympathetic to radical causes, have chosen a path of non-violence.”

I contacted the project’s principal investigator, Prof Maria Rasmussen of the US Naval Postgraduate School, asking why non-violent activists working for NGOs should be equated to supporters of political violence – and which “parties and NGOs” were being investigated – but received no response.

Similarly, Minerva programme staff refused to answer a series of similar questions I put to them, including asking how “radical causes” promoted by peaceful NGOs constituted a potential national security threat of interest to the DoD.

Among my questions, I asked:

“Does the US Department of Defense see protest movements and social activism in different parts of the world as a threat to US national security? If so, why? Does the US Department of Defense consider political movements aiming for large scale political and economic change as a national security matter? If so, why? Activism, protest, ‘political movements’ and of course NGOs are a vital element of a healthy civil society and democracy – why is it that the DoD is funding research to investigate such issues?”

Minerva’s programme director Dr Erin Fitzgerald said “I appreciate your concerns and am glad that you reached out to give us the opportunity to clarify” before promising a more detailed response.

Read full post