Another one
Est. reading time .0000000001 seconds.
2018 (pre gsc trying to sow discontent on covid vaccines)
Wonder why my article will take you more than a minute to read?
Weāve gone through this already.
Even if they were happening in the past it doesnāt mean the vaccine isnāt contributing to more deaths or aggregating those with heart conditions.
Itās pretty clear now that a side effect of the vaccine is myocarditis and pericarditis. You should spend time reading those studies too.
Theyād take his delusional covid fear/keep kids masked progressive card
Weāve gone through this already.
We have?
Even if they were happening in the past it doesnāt mean the vaccine isnāt contributing to more deaths or aggregating those with heart conditions.[/quote]
It doesnāt mean that it is either. Bring us something besides the gateway to trash.
It is? Iāll read them, why donāt you put them up for us to evaluate since you are making the claim.
Yes and you guys had no rebuttal.
So what youāre saying is you havenāt proved anything. Great.
And by the way, you used the excuse last time that the GWP didnāt know about soccer cardiac deaths. Them calling this the ānew normalā is disingenuous because it is not new. Just another lie.
I actually like the JAMA study. I find it interesting (read bazaar or contradictory) that gsc would post a study referencing VAERS. There are lots of well known issues examining and referencing VAERS, but I donāt find the authors overbearing, egotistical, or shedding much bias initially. I think they present the data well, avoid subjectivity as much as possible, and generally report their findings as just that, data. What they donāt do a good enough job ay is discussing VAERS limitations and shortcomings. They touch on it, but donāt delve into it. However, I think it merits more research and would really love to read more (longitudinal) and hope their are more challenges to their work to strengthen their position. Some notable quotes:
Between December 14, 2020, and August 31, 2021, 192 405 448 individuals older than 12 years of age received a total of 354 100 845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. VAERS received 1991 reports of myocarditis (391 of which also included pericarditis) after receipt of at least 1 dose of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine
192m individuals (wow)
354m doses (wow)
2k myo cases (womp womp, thud)
Just do the simple math there (wowzers). They rightfully break the data down further by gender, age cohorts, and other demographic categories. Age is a focal point, especially for younger people (thatās fair).
Compared with cases of nonāvaccine-associated myocarditis, the reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination were similar in demographic characteristics but different in their acute clinical course. First, the greater frequency noted among vaccine recipients aged 12 to 29 years vs those aged 30 years or older was similar to the age distribution seen in typical cases of myocarditis.
Iād love for them to explain the above (not below) further. I think, I understand what it tells me.
However, the onset of myocarditis symptoms after exposure to a potential immunological trigger was shorter for COVID-19 vaccineāassociated cases of myocarditis than is typical for myocarditis cases diagnosed after a viral illness. Cases of myocarditis reported after COVID-19 vaccination were typically diagnosed within days of vaccination, whereas cases of typical viral myocarditis can often have indolent courses with symptoms sometimes present for weeks to months after a trigger if the cause is ever identified. The major presenting symptoms appeared to resolve faster in cases of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination than in typical viral cases of myocarditis. Even though almost all individuals with cases of myocarditis were hospitalized and clinically monitored, they typically experienced symptomatic recovery after receiving only pain management. In contrast, typical viral cases of myocarditis can have a more variable clinical course. For example, up to 6% of typical viral myocarditis cases in adolescents require a heart transplant or result in mortality.
Absolutely love this (Iāve removed all citations intentionally, if you want to follow those, do it yourself in their article). This may be their most significant part of the research IMO. The vaccine saves lives in a new way not understood before.
Their conclusion is bunk. Weigh myo as a potential risk when making a decision to get vaccinated.
OK, duh, but still get vaccinated.
VAERS data is notoriously unreliable in only 1 senseā¦. It is vastly underreported. Most people donāt even know what VAERS is and donāt report their symptoms. Most family members donāt report the deaths of loved ones in VAERS - so if anything, their study is flawed but it would show higher percentages.
Flat out lie.
Still canāt believe gsc is in here parroting and stooging for a government system BTW lol.
Oh and BTW, I think VAERS is awesome.
Iām parroting and stooging for huh? Why canāt you deal with the 2 links I just posted? Are they wrong?
Thanks for the breakdown DJ. Some interesting stuff in there, and even VAERS isnāt saying anything horrible.
VAERS
https://vaers.hhs.gov/about.html
I thought you were against the CDC? Now you are trying to make a point with scholarly work that points to their system?
Why canāt I address what links? We still havenāt even left the soccer debate yet with one of the studies you posted. You claim that there is only 1 single issue with VAERS (yet your study you reference points out more) and there are more than those authors point out as well.
So letās back this up:
-
Weāve established that research for soccer players with heart issues pre-covid has been studied before. So we know there is already existing issues or concerns prior to the pandemic.
-
One of the studies you posted, is pretty good (havenāt read the rest yet). It shows increased myo c with ages 12-30 (I think that was range) at .0000000000001% of the study population (Iām exaggerating here FYI, but you get my point). Thatās great but the study also shows that if they develop myo c it happens rather quickly for 90% of that small studied population. This obv leads us to a ton more questions but Iām most interested in:
2a. The age of every GWP article for each person that died
2b. How long before they died did they get their VAX 1?
2c. How long before they died did the get their Vax 2 (or booster)?
I wonāt click on gateway trash, so you will have to break it down in a table for me. We could then analyze the data you provide for your claim and see what we can rationalize. Obv the sample would be too small to make any verifiable claims but it would be interesting to see.
Knock us out, panic.
First of all- if you actually read what I wrote, I am saying that VAERS is NOT reliable. It contains 100x LESS data than the actual numbers that should report. But itās data- it will have to do.
Secondly, I donāt have access to these players vaccine or health records but they play in leagues with 90%+ vaccine adoption rates. So we can make INFERENCES.
I will admit that this population appears to have preexisting conditions BUT YOU HAVE TO ADMIT that these conditions can be exacerbated by Myocarditis or Pericarditis.
Iām not sure why youāre trying to battle me. I think there is a mutual ground here where both of us can have a conversation.
I think DJrionās point is that the percentages are very small.
I do agree with that. But I also agree that young and healthy people have a very low chance of being affected by COVID.
And my point is that the study data lake, VAERS, is underreported. So letās say itās a factor of halfā¦. Then double those numbers.
Itās a debate to be had.
These guys are acting like VAERS is corrupted or tainted data suddenly. Now they donāt like government data.
Zomg you are so fucking dumb it is embarrassing. Can someone help him understand that a study he pointed out to prove a point is using VAERSā¦