Breaking News

“It’s terrifying”: Connecticut mum speaks out after teen son develops serious heart condition post-COVID-19 vaccination

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Connecticut resident Rachel Hatton’s 17-year-old son was diagnosed with a serious heart condition just days after he received his second dose of the Covid-19 vaccine.

She said that Gregory began complaining of severe chest pains three days after his second dose of the vaccine, and on the fourth day his condition began to deteriorate further and he started experiencing back pain as well.

Gregory then went to a walk-in clinic where they ran blood work and did an X-ray, where they discovered that he had pericarditis – an inflammation of the lining outside the heart.

He was then transferred to Saint Mary’s Hospital in Waterbury and then to Connecticut Children’s in Hartford for further treatment as health officials were puzzled as to the cause of the condition.

Rachael Hatton, said: ““They hooked him up to a heart monitor, did more EKGs (electrocardiograms), echocardiograms.

“Infectious disease actually came and ran their own set of blood work to try to figure out if it could have been caused by something else, some sort of infection, something else, like Lyme disease. They tested him for all sorts of things and one by one those tests came back negative.”

Health experts were unable to determine whether the Covid-19 vaccine was responsible for the development of the condition, but they called Gregory back in after two more patients displayed similar symptoms.

At least 18 teens and young adults in Connecticut have shown symptoms of heart problems post-injection of the Covid-19 vaccine, the health commissioner, Dr. Deirdre Gifford said in a press conference on 24th May.

A spokesperson from Connecticut Children’s said patients have been admitted to the hospital with both pericarditis and myocarditis, which is the inflammation of the heart muscle.

Hatton said that she is sick with worry about her son Gregory and is unable to sleep as he is now out of work, on medication, and hooked up to a heart monitor.

“If I hear my son sneeze or if he sounds like he’s out of breath when I call him on my break at work, I get nervous because I just don’t know what else could happen. He basically has a heart condition now and it’s terrifying.”

Hatton said she is sharing her son’s story to raise awareness of the condition, which whilst doctors say is rare, it does not feel rare to parents whose children are suffering from it.

“I just want people to be aware and be more informed because now they want to give this vaccine to younger and younger children and it’s terrifying

“I wouldn’t want any other parent to go through what we’ve been through.”

The vaccine has raised concerns amongst many parents as younger children are being encouraged to get the jab, arguing that children are too young to be inoculated with experimental vaccines.

“With that age group, we did have a little bit of concern because they are still growing,” Karn Collard told NBC Connecticut.

Siobhan Cefarelli said: “It’s one thing for me to get the vaccine, but for my child to get the vaccine, it’s kind of scary not knowing what’s going to happen and not having a lot of research having been done on it.”

Currently, in the UK, people aged 30 have been invited to attend vaccination appointments, but it was recently announced yesterday that the Pfizer vaccine has been approved for 12- to 15-year-olds.

Despite health officials stating that the Covid vaccine is not to blame for causing serious illness, it is hard to ignore the countless innocent victims who find themselves having severe adverse reactions only days later.

Share this page to Telegram
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Richard Noakes
Richard Noakes
2 years ago

I just want to ask those people who are pursuing the UK Government and hopefully the “Experimental Test Vaccine Makers” though the Geneva Convention to read my posts on Twitter, Richard Noakes19, especially the first post I plucked off Quora, where a virologist says that they started experimenting with mRNA in the early 1990’s and gave test vaccines to humans in both the Zika and SARS 2003 infections and other infections not mentioned and that virologists were so quick this time, because of the experiments they had conducted back then and that is why it only took one year to come up with these test vaccines from 08.12.2020, which to me is absolutely appalling, because said virologist has admitted to crimes against Nature and the Geneva Convention up to 30 years ago, all inclusive, to today, in mRNA experiments, so that mRNA is not a new technology as was sold to the public for the current test vaccines and makes the whole thing, shades of Joseph Mengele, in the interests of science, over humanity, from the early 1990’s as has been admitted.
Also, the results of those concealed tests on humans 20 years ago for ZIKA and SARS 2003 were never mentioned or published, before the article I discovered, by chance and that suggests to me that these virologists and others, know fully, what the long term results of test vaccines will be, from their previous secret human experiments and they have not told us, what those will be – so from the deaths and serious injuries so far – I can only conclude the worst is yet to come for those test vaccinated and for which the scientists and virologists concerned must be punished, under the legal processes and procedures you are beginning and for which there can be no forgiveness.
The post I received with my offerings on the bottom, are old hat and far out of date against the above blurb, I mention and hopefully I will dig out a few more “confessions” about mRNA, that also have not made it to the public viewpoint, thus far.
Hermes was the winged messenger of the Gods.
Richard (Hermes) Noakes (Call me Hermes for short) much laughter!!

Reply to  Richard Noakes
2 years ago

Thank you for that. I suspected that the vqccines weren’t new but just in my intuition .I’m sure they know exactly what it will do and that’s why they’re so well rehearsed with the cover ups and denials No hint of surprise at all Just obvious orchestration over a pandemic that is a lie in itself An excuse for them to roll out the jab under emergency conditions .All planned in advance And all rolled out to cover up Epsteins exposures I’m sure They would have rolled it out anyway but his media attention sped it all up .I said as soon as he was linked to Andy that there would be a huge something to cover it up and something that would carry on for years to keep the whole Epstein story suppressed and relegated into obscurity historically

Last edited 2 years ago by Annonymous
Richard Noakes
Richard Noakes
2 years ago

Did Pfizer Fail to Perform industry Standard Animal Testing Prior to Initiation of mRNA Clinical Trials?comment image
TrialSite Staff May 28, 2021

comment image
TrialSite has learned of material information regarding mRNA vaccine safety revealed by a freedom of information act (FOIA) request filed by a group of Canadian physicians. These doctors have become concerned about COVID-19 mRNA vaccine safety. This new safety information involves the Pfizer mRNA-based vaccine known as BNT162b2 or “Comirnaty.” The FOIA documents reveal animal study results demonstrating that the Pfizer mRNA-based vaccine does not remain at the injection site, but rather appears to spread widely after injection. According to the documents, pre-clinical studies show that the active part of the vaccine (mRNA-lipid nanoparticles), which produce the spike protein, spreads throughout the body and is then concentrated in various organs, including the ovaries and spleen. The FOIA-produced data sets are incomplete, so the full meaning of these data cannot be determined at this time. TrialSite has also learned via regulatory documents that apparently (at least in their European Medicines Agency submission), Pfizer did not follow industry-standard quality management practices during preclinical toxicology studies during vaccines, as key studies did not meet good laboratory practice (GLP). The full panel of industry-standard reproductive toxicity and genotoxicity studies were apparently also not performed. But does this matter in light of the risk-benefit analysis associated with regulatory emergency use authorization (EUA)?
Recently, there has been speculation regarding potential safety signals associated with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Many different unusual, prolonged, or delayed reactions have been reported, and often these are more pronounced after the second shot. Women have reported changes in menstruation after taking mRNA vaccines. Problems with blood clotting (coagulation) – which are also common during COVID-19 disease – are also reported.  
Among the most critical tests, which must be performed prior to testing any drug or vaccines in a human being, is whether it can cause mutations in the DNA (genotoxicity), or whether it could cause problems with cells or tissues of the reproductive tract – including ovaries (reproductive toxicity). In the case of the Pfizer COVID mRNA vaccine, these newly revealed documents raise additional questions about both the genotoxicity and reproductive toxicity risks of this product. Standard studies designed to assess these risks were not performed in compliance with accepted empirical research standards. Furthermore, in key studies designed to test whether the vaccine remains near the injection site or travels throughout the body, Pfizer did not even use the commercial vaccine (BNT162b2) but instead relied on a “surrogate” mRNA producing the luciferase protein.
These new disclosures seem to indicate that the U.S. and other governments are conducting a massive vaccination program with an incompletely characterized experimental vaccine. It is certainly understandable why the vaccine was rushed into use as an experimental product under emergency use authority, but these new findings suggest that routine quality testing issues were overlooked in the rush to authorize use. People are now receiving injections with an mRNA gene therapy-based vaccine, which produces the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in their cells, and the vaccine may be also delivering the mRNA and producing spike protein in unintended organs and tissues (which may include ovaries). Unfortunately, there is no way to know if this is related to vaccine safety signals or reports of menstrual irregularities; the required studies were either not done or not done properly.
How mRNA Vaccines are Believed to WorkThe current mRNA vaccines are theorized to act locally in draining lymphoid tissue. Formulated lipid nanoparticles that contain mRNA able to produce the spike protein are syringe injected into a muscle such as the deltoid (shoulder muscle). Once the injection occurs, the muscle cells near the injection site are impacted by the mRNA-based vaccine (e.g. the lipid nanoparticles), while much of the dose moves into the intracellular fluid surrounding the muscle cells and consequently drains to lymph nodes (see for example here).
According to this theory, a properly functioning mRNA-based vaccine is delivered into and drives production of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein in muscle and lymph node cells. The cells then produce the Spike protein, which is then moved to the surface of these cells where it becomes attached. The foreign virus Spike protein then triggers the immune system to recognize and attack any cell in the body that is either infected by SARS-CoV-2 or has Spike protein on its surface. The vaccine was designed so that the Spike protein is affixed via a transmembrane anchor region, so that it cannot circulate around the body via the bloodstream (see here). The same general scenario applies to all mRNA-based vaccines as well as recombinant adenoviral vectored vaccines (such as the J&J vaccine) designed to use gene-therapy technology to express Spike protein in cells and tissues. This general strategy is designed to reduce the risk that any residual vaccine dose that does somehow end up in the bloodstream (or organs and tissues) ends up not being a safety risk due to unintended biologic effects. Spike protein will remain affixed to cell surfaces, and therefore is not released into the blood where circulating Spike might cause problems by binding to its natural target, ACE-2 receptors. However, any cell that has Spike protein (or protein fragments) anchored on its membrane or displayed on MHC antigen-presenting molecules becomes a target for vaccine-activated immune cells and antibodies, which would then attack, damage or kill those cells in the same way that SARS-CoV-2 virus-infected cells would be attacked. In other words, if very active mRNA delivery particles or recombinant adenoviral-vectored vaccines spread throughout the body, the resulting production of the vaccine antigen (Spike, in this case) will both stimulate immunity and also cause those same cells to be attacked by the immune system. If this actually happens, the resulting “vaccine reactogenicity” could resemble clinical symptoms seen with autoimmune syndromes.
EMA Pfizer/BioNTech Vaccine Distribution StudiesAs standard practice, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) discloses their assessment of investigational new drug (IND) submissions. In the case of the Pfizer-BioNTech “Comirnaty” vaccine, the EMA assessment can be found on the Web here. This document includes a summary of EMAs evaluation of the non-clinical vaccine distribution studies reported to EMA by Pfizer-BioNTech. These studies were carried out using two methods: 1) use of mRNA producing the luciferase protein and 2) use of radioactive label to mark the mRNA (a more sensitive approach). These studies reveal that the majority of radioactivity initially remains near the injection site. However, within hours, a subset of the stabilized mRNA-containing particles become widely distributed throughout the bodies of test animals.  
Upon inspection of the EMA summary document, TrialSite found evidence suggesting that the issue of biodistribution and pharmacokinetics of the “Comirnaty” BNT162b2 vaccine was not thoroughly examined in accordance with industry norms prior to the EMA review of the BNT162b2 IND/CTD. The reviewers share an explicit admission that “No traditional pharmacokinetic or biodistribution studies have been performed with the vaccine candidate BNT162b2.” Rapporteur (Filip Josephson) and Co-Rapporteur (Jean-Michael Race) suggest, however, that Pfizer used “a qualified LC-MS/MS method to support quantitation of the two novel LNP excipients” and suggest that “the bioanalysis methods appear to be adequately characterized and validated for use in the GLP studies.” However, the studies that were performed and submitted were non-GLP. Additionally, the EMA document states “Biodistribution: Several literature reports indicate that LNP-formulated RNAs can distribute rather nonspecifically to several organs such as spleen, heart, kidney, lung and brain. In line with this, results from the newly transmitted study 185350, indicate a broader biodistribution pattern.” This EMA observation corresponds with what appears to be a growing number of adverse events and aligns with data TrialSite observed via the FOIA showing concentrations of LNP-formulated RNAs in the spleen, for example.  
To obtain independent reviews of these EMA regulatory documents, TrialSite contacted both Dr. Robert W. Malone, MD, MS, and another expert that wished to remain anonymous, and provided them copies of the EMA analysis and the FOIA documents. Dr. Malone was the original inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology back in the late 1980s. He currently advises several companies in regulatory affairs and clinical development. One of TrialSite’s other sources is a senior regulatory specialist who currently serves as the President of a prestigious European association. When asked to review and comment on the EMA assessment, Dr. Malone noted that normal pharmacokinetic and pharmaco-toxicology studies had not been performed before EUA authorization for the product. “I was particularly surprised that the dossier of regulatory documents indicates allowance for use in humans based on non-GLP PK and Tox studies relying on formulations which are significantly different from the final vaccine.“ After completing a review, TrialSite’s other source noted the following:

“A quick review the Toxicology Section (2.3.3) of The European Medicines Agency (EMA) Assessment Report on Comirnaty (COVID-19 mRNA vaccine) issued on 19 February 2021, raises concerns about data applicability of preclinical study findings to clinical use:

To determine the biodistribution of the LNP-formulated modified mRNA (modRNA), the applicant did study distribution of the modRNA in two different non-GLP studies, in mice and rats, and determined the biodistribution of a surrogate luciferase modRNA. 

Thus, one might question the validity and applicability of non-GLP studies conducted using a variant of the subject mRNA vaccine.

In addition, no genotoxicity data were provided to EMA.”

Based on the FOIA documents, the biodistribution results (which are not disclosed in the public EMA summary document) suggest that the delivery technology results in mRNA delivery and significant concentration of the delivery lipids in ovaries, spleen, and other tissues and organs.  
Urgent Emergency?The discovery and review of the biodistribution and pharmacokinetics data obtained by the FOIA request underscores the reservations disclosed in the public EMA assessment. Although not performed to industry GLP standards, these results seem to indicate that lipid/mRNA nanoparticles, which code for the Spike protein, circulate throughout the body and then collect in a variety of organs and tissues, including the spleen and ovaries. This means that the vaccine is not remaining localized near the injection site and draining lymph nodes, but rather is also circulating in both blood and lymph and is subsequently concentrating in important organs. If this results in Spike protein being produced in unintended places including the brain, ovaries, and spleen, it may also be causing the immune system to attack these organs and tissues.
What’s the Risk?According to official government accounts, minimal risk is associated with this vaccine when compared to the risks of COVID-19 infection. That’s why the U.S. FDA approved the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) based on a risk-benefit analysis. TrialSite, a vaccine proponent, only raises the issue to ensure full disclosure of any material safety implications to our readership, including clinicians, clinical research safety committees, and public health professionals.
While, according to the CDC’s VAERS database, over 4,000 deaths have been entered in association with all the vaccines, the US government argues that none of these deaths are formally linked to the jabs. About 291 million people have been vaccinated to date, hence overall reported adverse event risk is low. While it is true that many people are completely unscathed, the discovery of these documents and associated information may alter the risk-benefit assessment underlying the EUA decision. 
TrialSite is aware that one must be particularly cautious about publishing or communicating speculations that might raise skepticism about vaccine use. Should researchers handle findings differently when there is a chance they might frighten the public? Perhaps small, inconclusive, worrying studies should not be published because they could do more harm than good. Dr. Paul Offit, Director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, states: “Knowing that you’re going to scare people, I think you have to have far more data.” 
One could argue that even an inconclusive paper can be important, as it can spur the larger, more definitive studies that are needed. It should be “put out there for the scientific community, to look at it, see it, know about it, refine study design and go and look again,” says Gregory Poland, a renowned Mayo Clinic vaccinologist and the Editor-in-Chief of Vaccine. It is crucial, though, for researchers to carefully explain such results in their papers and regulatory filings to prevent misinterpretation or misunderstandings. 
Other Relevant New Data A recent study led by researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Harvard Medical School measured longitudinal plasma samples collected from 13 recipients of the Moderna vaccine. The manuscript has been accepted for publication by “Clinical Infectious Diseases” and the pre-print is available here. Out of these individuals, 11 revealed detectable levels of SARS-CoV-2 protein as early as day one right after first vaccine injection. The authors considered that to be normal clearance.
Clearance of detectable SARS-CoV-2 protein correlated with production of IgG and IgA. Measured mean S1 peak levels were 68 pg/mL ±21 pg/mL, and mean spike peak level was 62 pg/mL ± 13 pg/mL. Assuming an average adult blood volume of approximately 5 liters, this corresponds to peak levels of approximately 0.3 micrograms of circulating free antigen for a vaccine designed to only express membrane-anchored antigen. For comparison purposes, most influenza vaccines administer a total of about 15 micrograms of HA antigen per influenza strain. Total levels of antigen expressed by the experimental SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines currently administered to patients are not known.
Root Cause Analysis SuggestedA root cause assessment is suggested to better understand if any of this information adjusts or modifies the EUA risk-benefit analysis. TrialSite suggests that regulators and pharma manufacturers at least review and assess the risk that foreign mRNA-based spike protein delivery and expression in tissues and organs distal to the actual injection site may be contributing to the unusual reactogenicity and adverse event profile associated with these products. The uptake in vaccination rates has slowed in the United States in part due to vaccine hesitancy. However, such a phenomenon can be overcome with acknowledgment, transparency, and continuous commitment to risk mitigation.
Richard (Hermes) Noakes

Richard Noakes
Richard Noakes
2 years ago

Jim Woodgett, former Director of Research at Mount Sinai Hospital (2005-2021)
Answered May 5, 2021 · Author has 217 answers and 441.6K answer views
The SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein encodes a 1273 amino acid protein. Multiple by 3 to get the number of nucleotides and add some untranslated regions for directing translational start and aiding in stability it rounds to approximately 5,000 nucleotides. 1 nucleotide of RNA has a mass of (averaged) of 320 Daltons. So an RNA comprised of 5,000 nucleotides has a mass of 1600 kiloDaltons.
There are 30 micrograms of RNA in a Pfizer/BioNTech single dose (in 0.3 ml). That means there are about 11.3 x 10 to the power of 12 molecules of RNA per shot.
11,300,000,000,000 molecules of RNA (approximately). The Moderna shot typically uses more RNA.

Erwin Claassen, Wetenschappelijk Huurling at Waar Niet
Answered May 5, 2021
a shitload… dose is 100µg of mRNA (not all vaccines is mRNA), that is around 505.440. copies… more or less.

Can you get COVID-19 from the vaccine?
You cannot.
You don’t have to listen to me, you don’t have to listen to Dr. Fauci or the CDC, or anyone in the government.
All I ask is that you don’t listen to “the internet.” Ask your doctor, the one who’s been taking care of you for years. Ask them any question you want to about it, even if you think it sounds stupid. My wife has been fielding questions for months now, she’s happy to answer.
(Me: I would not trust my doctor further than I can throw a grand piano and he knows it)
Getting COVID from a vaccine is a 100% impossibility because the vaccines do not use whole, live viruses. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in fact, don’t use Covid Virus at all.
Most of the vaccines being administered right now are a relatively new technology called mRNA that we started studying in the early 1990s.
One of the most prolific categories of misinformation about the COVID vaccines relates to mRNA, how it works, and how thoroughly tested the technology is.
First, it’s important to know that this is a relatively new technology, not brand new. We didn’t just suddenly decide to try mRNA last year when COVID-19 started running wild. The idea has been around for almost 30 years and has been used in human trials for a number of vaccines, such as Zika, and previous coronavirus threats, like the 2003 SARS outbreak. In fact, much of the reason we were able to get a vaccine so quickly was because of the nearly 20-year head start SARS gave us.
It is true that the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines are the first mass-produced mRNA vaccines authorized for use with the general public.
The other big category of disinformation is about how mRNA vaccines work, specifically, the idea that they “change your DNA.”
Let’s be clear. That is completely, categorically, 100% false. The mRNA never even comes near the nucleus of the cell where the DNA is.
The way it works is “mRNA” or “messenger” RNA is injected into the arm with exactly that. A message. The message is an instruction.
Here is what the instruction tells our cells that it encounters:
“I want you to make a harmless piece of what is called a “spike protein.” I want you to make it JUST like this. The picture is the spike protein found on the surface of the virus that causes COVID-19.”

Our immune system sees that spike protein and knows it doesn’t belong, so it builds antibodies to attack it, just like if you had actually been infected. In doing so, it learns how to destroy that protein. And most importantly, it REMEMBERS. So the next time it sees that same protein, this time on an actual virus, it knows exactly what to do.
The reason you get 2 doses is that researchers learned during clinical trials that your body does ok with one lesson, but 2 lessons REALLY sets it in stone.
It learns the lesson so well that 9 out of 10 times, it will be able to take out the virus before it infects your body, and in the VAST majority of cases where the virus does manage to infect an immunized individual, it will fail to cause serious illness, even in the more at-risk portions of the population.
The final category of disinformation is about how thoroughly tested the vaccines are. And this one worries a lot of reasonable people and fairly.
What it is important to know is that these vaccines have been tested just as thoroughly as any other that hit the market. How then did they get it done so quickly?
It was not by skipping or shortening steps.
What Operation Warp speed allowed the pharmaceutical companies to do by removing bureaucratic roadblocks was instead of being forced to do Step A first, then Step B, then Step C, it allowed for a lot of multi-tasking. In other words, we still needed to complete steps A through I, but we didn’t have to wait for step A to be done while we worked on step D or G which had no need for information from Step A. We were able to test a number of factors simultaneously, and in doing so accomplish 3 years of work in less than one.
It wasn’t that we didn’t run all four laps of the relay race. It’s that all four runners were allowed to start at the same time.
This allowed for complete and thorough testing to be done in record time allowing for human trials WAY faster than we had ever been able to get to human trials before. And in the case of Pfizer and Moderna, those human trials proved the safety and efficacy of their Vaccines sufficiently to gain emergency use authorizations from the FDA.
That’s it. Years from now, we will look back at this as a massive achievement. And years from now the success of this effort will probably lead to problems, as people use the success of this effort to try to cut corners with the development of other drugs or therapies.
But the bottom line is that the development of this vaccine is a massive success story. The vaccines are safe, they are effective, and the sooner we get to herd immunity by vaccinating the vast majority of the population, the sooner we can get back to normal.
The one thing I’ll tell you, from my experience having had both doses of Pfizer.
I have one major side effect to report.
A MASSIVE weight off my shoulders.

Kevin Richards, Masters Microbiology and Immunology, Cornell University (1987)
Answered December 30, 2020 · Author has 290 answers and 395.2K answer views
Have mRNA-based vaccines been used prior to COVID-19?
Originally Answered: Has mRNA been used as a vaccine before Covid?
No – although mRNA vaccine technology has been in the development stage for about a decade, this is the first time a vaccine has been created using the technology.
And its dangerous to say the least. Animal testing was skipped over in favor of human trials – something NEVER done for conventional vaccines. This is a dangerous precedent to set for future vaccine safety trails.
There is a reason the FDA takes 5–7 years (sometimes decades) to approve vaccines for human distribution – safety.
Quora (Quora does not like me, won’t let me sign in again)

Me” We didn’t just suddenly decide to try mRNA last year when COVID-19 started running wild. The idea has been around for almost 30 years.
How reassuring, so why has it taken 30 years to produce a test vaccine and why is it still in the “test” phase?

Reply to  Richard Noakes
2 years ago

Only old sick or immune compromises people were ever at risk The vast majoriry possibly 95% ,were less at risk than from the regular flu .So sorry your story’s not really convincing. At all .

2 years ago

” never trust ANYBODY ” Queen Mum deceased .Its sad but true that very much elected governments now are not representing the majority of the people but serving the most powerful minorities instead .The stench of thinly disguised corruption at every level of ” democratic liberty” under corporate law permeates every sector of society with its putrid filth .