Josh Yoder, pilot says on COVID shot: “This is a ticking time bomb on a level like we’ve never seen” as FAA Quietly Change Heart-Test Limit with PR interval now set at 300 ms (from prior 200 ms); why?

by Paul Alexander

In this era of DIED SUDDENLY & healthy people who have taken COVID shot getting sudden cardiac arrests, the QUIET change by FAA in altering an electrocardiogram test limit for pilots raises CONCERN.

The question is why, what is the thinking of the FAA to do this and silently? The FAA should explain this and especially to US cardiologists etc. who are now learning of this via my substack etc. What is the motivation behind this? Is it to hide post-vaccination damage? It may have nothing to do with vaccine yet it could actually be due to the COVID vaccine and so we need details urgently. So we too must be balanced in our response yet this is an example of information that must be made public and why censorship is critically wrong!

One significant senior cardiologist in US already reached out to me (as part of a high level research group I am part of) saying that it is indeed a large increase and his question is what is the thinking of FAA to move like this. Is it to enlarge the pilot pool? I cannot name the cardiologist for confidentiality as was not clear to do so. Issue is if to broaden the pilot pool (e.g. due to many who left being unvaccinated or laid off), that in itself to me, as a non-pilot with no expertise on flying a plane, is hugely problematic for is this a signal that pilots are not making the usual threshold of 200 ms? Is it due to the COVID gene injection and myocardial scarring thus impacting (slowing down) electrical conduction across the heart myocardium (one side of the heart to the next)? This is a simple yet potent question someone has to answer.

Why would the FAA have to change a typical test and set a new test limit when it is known that a PR interval longer than 200 ms “is clearly associated with arrhythmias in the future, pacemakers, and early death”? Are pilots failing this test of the normal cardiac electrical conduction 200 ms interval? What does the FAA know about pilots who have been vaccinated for this has followed mass mandated vaccines of airline pilots. What is it? Is there data the FAA and airlines now have that could inform us of how many pilots failed this 200 ms threshold since COVID injection? ‘A PR interval longer than 200 ms “might be innocuous, but you can’t assume it to be innocuous,” particularly “in the setting of the pandemic.”’

As a nation and peoples, we must ask FAA why the change, it is an imperative to inform us for our decision making. Is this another one of the ‘noble lies’?


I share this as a public safety piece for I myself have concerns even before I knew of this alteration by the FAA. Something is very wrong and I have raised the distinct potential that the Nepalese pilot may have incurred a medical emergency. We will never know the truth for if it were known that vaccinated pilots are at risk of sudden death in the plane, then air travel will stop. That is hundreds of billions $ and they will allow planes to crash before fixing it. IMO. We owe huge thanks to Josh Yoder for his fearlessness. Relentless.

I personally know of persons because the the gene shots will never fly again.

The worry we have is that pilots may be sitting on silent myocarditis scarring (COVID vaccine induced) and a flood of adrenalin puts strain on the heart alike for athletes and the situation we are seeing now of persons dying at dawn as they awake (there is a rush of catecholamines are one rises). A pilot may be in a stressful situation such as an emergency while flying, and this surge of adrenalin may stress the heart plagued by myocarditis (from vaccine or infection) and thus cause heart failure and death.

Is myocarditis being ruled out from pilots before they fly? Has this been made a mandatory assessment by FAA and airlines post the COVID vaccine given the deaths we have seen? I think it should, in fact, it must!

‘However, in many cases, a PR interval longer than 200 ms “is clearly associated with arrhythmias in the future, pacemakers, and early death,” Levy said, citing a respected Harvard study. He said those risks elevate with PR readings even slightly above 200 ms, not even close to the new 300 ms limit that the FAA has set.’

‘A researcher for an aviation advocacy group, US Freedom Flyers (USFF), stumbled upon the EKG change in December, several weeks after the FAA enacted it.

Because the revision was made without a published explanation, USFF turned to a nationally known cardiologist and other experts to assess its importance.

They say the FAA’s change involving “the PR interval” is significant. The PR interval represents the time it takes for an electrical impulse to travel from one part of the heart to another. It is an indicator of heart health.

But “the new normal” PR interval that the FAA set for pilots is 50 percent longer than the previous limit; it deviates from a long-accepted limit in cardiology.

Critics fear that expanding the limit could endanger pilots’ health and passengers’ safety.

This worry is especially acute amid rising reports of cardiac arrest and sudden death since the COVID pandemic began in 2020. Some researchers suggest that some heart conditions could be tied to aftereffects of COVID-19 injections or the virus. Because pilots were threatened with job termination, a large percentage of them took the COVID jabs.’

‘A PR interval longer than 200 milliseconds (ms) is considered a red flag,  said Florida-based Levy. Such a reading, by itself, doesn’t prove there is a heart problem.

Yet a reading above 200 ms does warrant further testing and “shouldn’t be ignored,” Levy said. That has been a given in cardiology for almost as long as EKGs have been used, Levy said.

That’s why, in Levy’s view, it makes no sense for the FAA to broaden the range significantly. Pilots with PR intervals longer than 200 ms used to require further evaluation. Now that happens when the pilots’ PR readings go beyond 300 ms.

Dr. Peter Chambers, a retired U.S. military Special Operations flight surgeon, agrees it was unwise for the FAA to change the PR interval limit.

“That removes the ‘safety zone’ that allows us to catch the problem early,”’

I am hoping high-level cardiologists like Dr. Peter McCullough can comment on this silent change by the FAA in terms of how much of a problem this could cause in missing or flagging a heart electrical conduction (impulse) delay.