We’ve all seen these frightening headlines, (and god only knows how many times I’ve had these thrown in my face the past five months):

-Covid-19 infections leave an impact on the heart, raising concerns about lasting damage

 -Even mild coronavirus cases can cause lasting cardiovascular damage, study shows

-From brain fogto heart damage, COVID-19s lingering problems alarm scientists

-Doctors say some patients with COVID-19 can have heart damage

Unlike 80% of those who now get their news by scrolling down their Facebook and Twitter feeds — reading only the headlines and the copy/pasted first paragraphs — I have the obsessive habit of actually clicking on those links to read the stories.  Even more annoying, (to some), I also click on the hyperlinks in those articles, (if they are included), to the research and studies referenced in those headlines.

I’m going to walk you through a couple of these deceptive headlines and related studies, step by step, proving to you the means of the fear mongering manipulations of even the most tame, non-threatening scientific data.  I’m going to avoid the hard math, but provide the links for those who wish to go there.  I’m going to keep this as simple, yet as thorough as possible.  First, let’s take a brief sidebar journey into Journalism 101:

We all know that when it comes to choosing a story or a front page headline, the axiom of “if it bleeds, it leads” has always guided what comes first in traditional newspapers, the 11 o’clock news, and now . . . internet publishing.  Why?  Simple.  There’s also the secondary axiom:  “follow the money.”  Sensationalism sells.  Newspapers don’t exist unless you buy a copy.  Also, unless a sufficiently large enough number of others are seduced into spending their money on print editions, advertisers don’t buy ad space.  The 11 o’clock news must have enough eyeballs glued to the screen to sell their own commercial time.  Internet publishers must generate clicks, and in so doing can then surround articles with those annoying pop-up ads.  Their headlines must be of sufficient impact, even if the underlying information is a snoozefest.

“Click-bait,” we call it.

A 2016 study by computer scientists at Columbia University and the French National Institute revealed that 59% of social media users will share a story based on the headline only, before or even without having ever clicked on the link themselves.

Share-bait!

How about this headline from Upworthy“I wrote a news headline that didn’t even link to a story. Over 2,000 people commented on it anyway.”

Comment-bait!

According to a 2013 Slate story, among the remaining small percentage who even click on the story, 10% never scroll . . . at all.  They only read the first paragraph or look at the accompanying photo.  They “bounced” without engaging at all.  Most never finish any article, even the ones they click on.

Are YOU still here?

Newspapers, broadcast journalists, and internet publishers all know this:  the vast majority of people get their news from the headline, the accompanying photo, and not much more than the opening paragraph.  Therefore, when some of us finally begin making headway in presenting the the FACT that COVID-19 is survivable by 99.76% of the total population, and 99.99% of the rest with no comorbidities, we get this headline thrown in our faces:

“Even mild coronavirus cases can cause lasting cardiovascular damage, study shows”

Ergo . . . if most of us are going to eventually be infected by this “novel” coronavirus, we can expect widespread damage to all of our hearts.  Right?  So important is that information, 58% shared those stories without even clicking on the link.  10% of those who clicked never scrolled past the first paragraph.  The vast majority of the remainder never finished the article, so how many do you think actually bothered to click on the links to the referenced studies?

Almost no one.  But . . . I did.

I’ve scrolled down and read a few dozen articles with some headline variation on that particular story about cardiovascular damage caused by coronavirus infections.  Many provide no links at all, but here’s one that did offer links to the studies referenced by those chilling headlines:

“Covid-19 infections leave an impact on the heart, raising concerns about lasting damage”

Go ahead.  Click on the link.  I’ll wait . . .

Okay?  Now, let’s begin with the linked study that is found well down the article, past the point most people will even bother reading.  It’s title:

“Association of Cardiac Infection With SARS-CoV-2 in Confirmed COVID-19 Autopsy Cases” 

That link takes you to a recent study published by JAMA Cardiology in the journal of the American Medical Association.  Please feel free to read the entire study, but for the purposes of this blog, please note the four most salient points taken from the abstract:

1 – The size of the study:  only 39 patients.

2 – This research was based on the autopsies of those 39 patients who died from complications related to COVID-19.

3 – The average age of those patients was 85. (All were 78 to 89 years of age.)

4 – “Comorbidities such as hypertension, coronary artery disease, and diabetes were frequent and diagnosed in 17 (43.6%), 32 (82.0%), and 7 patients (17.9%), respectively.”

Did you catch that?  82% of those 39 victims already had coronary artery disease, before contacting COVID-19.

Do I really need to explain — now that you know this information — why so many 27 year olds are scared to death of COVID-19?  Why they are willing to submit to lockdowns, loss of livelihoods, and accuse non-mask wearing neighbors of being “selfish murderers” when they themselves have a statistical 99.9997% likelihood of surviving this disease?

Let’s go to the other link in that article, which presents data on a larger sampling of younger infected patients.  This is also published by JAMA Cardiology, entitled:

“Outcomes of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients Recently Recovered From Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)”

The primary takeaways of this “larger” sampling:

1 – Only 100 patients were studied.

2 – All 100 had recovered from “acute” or “severe” cases of COVID-19.  78% of those demonstrated “cardiac involvement,” and only 60% had “ongoing myocardial inflammation.”

3 – The median age of those studied was 49.  (All were 45 to 53 years old.)

4 – Of those studied, “preexisting cardiovascular conditions included hypertension, diabetes, and known coronary artery disease but no previously known heart failure or cardiomyopathy.”

One must download the accompanying PDF link of the study, to discover those patients’ pre-existing conditions:

-22 had hypertension

-18 had diabetes

-22 had hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol)

-13 had known coronary artery disease

-21 had COPD or asthma

-22 were smokers

5 – “Our study has limitations.  They do not represent patients who are completely asymptomatic with COVID-19.”  (As is the case with most in that age range.)

The worldwide study by the University of Stockholm, (published earlier on this page), revealed that those in the 45 to 53 age group had an overall survivability rate of 99.98% on the lower age range with no preexisting conditions, and 99.2135% on the higher age range with one or more preexisting conditions.

As is clearly demonstrated, those living in a state of manufactured, unwarranted fear of this disease — and therefore submitting to the draconian shutdown mandates of our governors, mayors, and their paid bureaucratic “experts” — are whipped into that panic by the deliberately misleading headlines being shared by millions (billions?) living in wanton, lazy ignorance.  Those who not only fail to read past those headlines, but also choose to mindlessly accept the manipulations of those who seek to sell ad space by means of hyperbolic pronunciations, click-bait, and share-bait.  Not to mention the more sinister intentions of the powers behind the MSM and tech giants, who by their very knowledge of the reading/scrolling/clicking habits of their average followers choose to manipulate and sensationalize even the most innocuous and non-threatening of scientific studies.

Two studies.  One of only 39 patients; average age of 85; all with comorbidities; 82% of whom already had coronary artery disease.  The other of only 100 patients; all who recovered from severe cases; none of whom were asymptomatic; most with at least one pre-existing condition.  Both studies generating dozens of articles with headlines specifically designed to be shared by millions who will not even read the accompanying studies, for the purpose of cowering the remainder of the healthy population into quarantine and the masks of subservience.

Did you make it this far?  If so, please share this article.  You are worthy of so doing.

#CommieVirus2020 #UnMaskTheAgenda

—————

 

%d bloggers like this: