(NaturalHealth365)  The denial and gaslighting were strong from mainstream media, government officials, and Big Pharma back when the evidence of heart problems caused by COVID shots first started piling up.

Even when the data finally became too obvious to ignore, pandemic propagandizers and staunch vax-defenders still tried to downplay the concern by saying that COVID-19 can cause heart problems just as readily as the shots, if not more so.  But now, a recent study from Israel shatters that claim.

New study SLAMS the door shut on pro-vax parrots who claim rising heart problems in vaxxed people caused by novel coronavirus, not mRNA jabs

The peer-reviewed Journal of Clinical Medicine recently published a study that took place in Israel.  The study’s co-authors evaluated data from a whopping 196,992 Israeli adults who had had COVID-19 (as “confirmed” by PCR, which does pose its own limitations, for what it’s worth) between the period of March 2020 and January 2021.  After comparing these COVID-recovered adults to over 590,000 sex- and age-matched controls, the authors came to a stunning conclusion:

Infection with SARS-CoV-2 did NOT appear to increase the risk of myocarditis or pericarditis, the two types of heart inflammation that HAVE been definitively linked to the COVID shots. 

“Post COVID-19 infection was not associated with either myocarditis (aHR 1.08; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.56) or pericarditis (aHR 0.53; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.13),” the authors write.  “We did not observe an increased incidence of neither pericarditis nor myocarditis in adult patients recovering from COVID-19 infection.”

In a July 6, 2022, Twitter post, well-known pandemic critic and heavily-cited cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough put this important study in the public spotlight, saying: “Tuvali et al., Israel, huge study N=196K cases, N=590K controls, no excess rate of ICD-10-code identified myocarditis in uninjected with natural infection.  Counters prior false claims.  Can focus on mandated products as source of myocarditis at hand and move forward on management.”

What we can surmise from this Israeli data – especially if this data is corroborated by additional research – is that the rising rates of heart problems among vaxxed individuals cannot be simply blamed on the fact that these jabbed individuals were later infected with SARS-CoV-2 – which is truly a ridiculous claim in its own right, because shouldn’t the jabs have prevented these people from getting infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the first place?  (Oh, wait, that’s not what vaxxes are meant to do anymore … the drugs are only meant to “stimulate the body’s immune response,” according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).

Indeed, it remains far more evident that the shots are overwhelmingly to blame for the alarming rates of suffering among jab recipients of all ages, especially boys and young men.

Tip of the iceberg?  VAERS data continues to show high rates of heart inflammation post-jab

Week after week, we see reports of heart inflammation post-jab documented in the U.S. government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).  Between January 1 and February 25, 2022, alone, for example, there were more than 11,200 cases of pericarditis or myocarditis following mRNA COVID shot doses.  And while it’s true that these reports can only “prove” correlation and not direct causation, they certainly point to some serious safety signals that warrant further investigation (which the CDC has been reluctant to do, it seems).

It’s further worth noting that CDC researchers themselves have acknowledged (in a January 2022 article published by JAMA, for instance) that there is a “high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination” and that underreporting of such heart problems “is more likely” than overreporting.

Finally, let’s go out on a limb and say that if VAERS data was NOT showing so much obvious suffering and harm, then vaccine advocates would almost certainly be flaunting it – instead of downplaying it and ignoring it as they are now.

Sources for this article include:

NIH.gov
JAMAnetwork.com
CDC.gov
Lifesitenews.com