t raise a little flag for you? Is it a coincidence that CNN is telling us that we should focus on Russia as the problem and not China? That doesn't feel like an independent opinion to me. Now I can't read anybody's mind and I'm not going to allege anything. I'm just saying that when I read it, it doesn't look like somebody independently said, let me think about this with no influence from my corporate masters. Let me just say that maybe Russia is the problem and not China. When CNN has, I believe, more to lose by making China unhappy than Russia because CNN has been anti-Russia. Russia is connected to Trump even though it's not. Forever. So this feels just more like CNN's wave of propaganda against Russia because you tie them to the Republican sorts of Trump.

So how many of you believe that this new study in Nature — so it's been out a few weeks I guess and I think I talked about it — that the risk of myocarditis is five times greater if you had COVID than if you didn't? And that it was five times higher than even the risk of myocarditis from the vaccinations. Do you believe that data? We don't believe any data these days, but it looks like it was a credible publication for a study. But of course you should be skeptical about everything.

Now what would happen if this data stands? Do you think that there'll be future data that will overturn this idea? The idea being that long COVID is bad for your cardiovascular system and that you'd be better off getting the vaccination according to this. Not according to me because I'm not the authority here, but according to this data. Do you think that that someday will change? Do you think that someday the consensus of science will flip? Do you think in 20 years we'll look back and say, oh the vaccinations were the real health problem, not the actual COVID, long COVID? I don't know. I mean I think this is one of those anything-could-happen situations. I wouldn't be surprised either way. I wouldn't be surprised either way.

But suppose it's true that there is a 60% chance of greater cardio problems. Doesn't that mean that we could have a lot of extra COVIDs as much as a year or more after the actual COVID? And therefore they would not be attributed to COVID, but there might be more of those deaths than we've even seen so far. Am I doing the math right? Let's say a million people died. Am I doing the math right? Help me out here with just top of the envelope.

If a million Americans died of COVID, but compare that to how many people got COVID but then just recovered. Now if the group that got COVID and recovered would have a baseline rate of, I don't know, 10% of them maybe getting, dying of cardiovascular problems every year. What's the number? 5? Maybe 5% of them were going to die anyway of cardiovascular. But now let's say that the COVID, let's say this study was accurate. If the COVID gave them a 50 or 60% higher chance of dying, because given that cardiovascular is I believe the number one cause of death in the United States — fact-check me, I believe it's number one — so the number one cause of death, if that got ramped up by another 50%, and it doesn't kick in for a year or more, shouldn't we see over time, maybe it takes five years, but should we see over time more people dying in the future from the pandemic than from the past? Am I, are my numbers way off? What do you think?

Now that's a big assumption, right? The big assumption is that now also you would have to add to that any side effects from the vaccination itself. Because if you're looking at pandemic deaths, you do have to count