this article is a perfect example of how the brainwashed masses fail to reason even when they appear to be reasoning.
sars-cov2 is statistically no more of a "threat" than the flu, which as we know was deliberately conflated with covid by faulty PCR testing, resulting in ridiculous numbers of flu patients being falsely labeled covid.
This study, which points out the lack of any meaningful previous safety testing, only focuses on 3 cardiac symptoms, when in reality there are hundreds of side effects reported on a mass scale from this experiment on humanity. Even so, the 1% adverse event ratio which only includes cardiac adverse events is off the charts and screams "stop the study" to anyone who understands the science of safety testing.
As the comment below points out, the ONLY reasonable conclusion from this study is to discontinue the untested experimental gene therapy IMMEDIATELY.
My healthy 70 year old husband who never took drugs had to be rushed to the hospital and have his heart shocked two days after getting the Moderna booster and after mostly getting over reactions to the Moderna booster. We had heard that younger people had heart problems so his incredibly high heart beat was not expected. In Canada only health professionals report adverse effects, but not sure the doctors took the fact that he had a booster two days before was reported. They kept asking if he had taken some opioids as lots of druggies in our town. Luckily he was not alone when this happened and was about 40 minutes from a hospital. He is now monitoring his heart rate and is followed by a cardiologist.
Whatever 'health professional' you saw was grossly incompetent. They weren't even trying. If he had 'taken some opioids' his pulse would be slow and erratic not 'incredibly high'.
I erased my previous comment. The closer I look at this study, the more it freaks me out.
They compare vaxxed to vaxxed+covid and then declare covid is worse, but they measure rates of myocarditis/pericarditis in post covid with troponin levels and in post vaxx with hospitalization rates. Hmmmm
They don't include any control group of unvaxxed. The vaxx+covid group should be compared to unvaxx+covid to determine the actual rate of post covid heart issues. This is not done that I can tell?
The vaccinated showed a 1% hospitalization rate for cardiac arrhythmia with ~385,000 in the period up to 28 days post vaccination. I tried to look up population rates of hospitalization and found some old news articles discussing ~350,000-500,000 hospitalizations annually for 'atrial fibrillation' for the entire US population. So a group of vaccinated in UK blew out the entire US annual budget of arrhythmia hospitalizations in a couple month period? And that isn't a highlighted part of the research results but instead they compare only within the vaccinated group broken out by short temporal periods? Isn't the most important thing the vaccinated versus background normal rate?
I begin to think this whole study was gamed to get vaccinated rates of these issues versus supposed covid rates so they could continue to say vaccines are safer, when the actual #s are showing a horrific rise in these issues. It is a preemptive narrative shaping attempt.
I am not a doctor, researcher or number cruncher, so if I am misunderstanding this, I would be interested to hear how.
Of the ~385,000 people with arrhythmia, 10.3% had a positive Covid-19 test, and 7.7% tested positive at some point prior to vaccination.
Even if you remove 18% of the total, that's still an awful lot of people with arrhythmia. I suppose most of us have some form of arrhythmia at some time in our lives, but how many of us are treated in hospital?
Yes. I would not subtract them either. I feel that there would be a covid risk increase + vaccine risk increase + covid/vaccine interaction risk increase to account for. None of which can be done without estimating the covid risk increase by comparing with non-vaccinated covid patients.
OK, COVID is more dangerous than the vaccines in certain populations, so there's a benefit to being vaccinated? Not necessarily. In order to suffer the effects of COVID, you must contract COVID and you must have no innate immunity to coronaviruses in order to be hit hardest. A study showed that 40% of people who are vaccinated react more quickly to vaccination than others, and the working theory is that it's because their immune systems weren't naïve to coronaviruses. These people almost certainly had more risk from vaccination than from the virus because their bodies were already prepared to fight COVID.
Then you have the group of people (young & healthy) for whom COVID is like a (possibly bad) flu. But again, people in this group must become infected in order to experience any threat from COVID.
However, everyone who is vaccinated exposes themselves to the threats posed by the vaccines. This is inescapable. (Also, even after vaccination, for a vaccine to be beneficial for an individual, that individual would have to become infected, because vaccines do nothing for people who are not infected subsequent to vaccination. We mistakenly look at all vaccinated people who do not become sick or die as evidence the vaccines work, when in fact a person who is never infected could never possibly die of COVID, vaccinated or not.) On average (including all the aged and those with potential co-morbidities), COVID's IFR is somewhere between 0.15 and 0.24 percent. This means that more than 99.75% of those infected with SARS-COV-2 will survive. People need to risk their lives (to the dangers of the vaccines) for an improvement in their survival rate from COVID of a tenth of a percent or two? That's nuts. COVID is so highly survivable, even if the vaccines halved the IFR, you're still only talking about a small fraction of one percent improvement.
We don't know that covid is more dangerous, since Big Pfarma, Big Tech & Big Brother have been lying, withholding, censoring, threatening, canceling, refusing to study, destroying evidence etc. Remember, they told us it was safe and effective for EVERYONE. Still the official lie.
James, where did you get your degree in Nursing? Where are you licensed as a nurse? Where did you gain your self proclaimed expertise? I can't find you anywhere, except on your social media accounts. Accounts that are only one year old.
Two words - "underreporting factor". Contrary to the article's assertion, VAERS is not a "self-reporting" database, it is a database for few but medical professionals to report into due to the voluminous medical data demanded.
Previous studies like the Harvard Pilgrim study, even before the present narrative-suppression of truth, concluded that between one and ten percent of actual adverse events make it into VAERS. The truth will eventually be known, and the "rare" instances of myocarditis, along with all the neurological blood-brain barrier penetration issues and other organ injuries by the spike proteins will be reclassified as "not rare".
All the data in this study is worthless for a very simple reason:
Any unvaccinated person that ends up in the hospital is going to be pressured to get vaccinated. Therefore there will be an artificially high amount of morbidity preceding vaccination, and there is no attempt to control for that.
I will admit that I overstated my case as there is still some useful data, that being the absolute number of events following vaccination. However any analysis that uses total number of events as a baseline is garbage for the reason I stated above.
this article is a perfect example of how the brainwashed masses fail to reason even when they appear to be reasoning.
sars-cov2 is statistically no more of a "threat" than the flu, which as we know was deliberately conflated with covid by faulty PCR testing, resulting in ridiculous numbers of flu patients being falsely labeled covid.
This study, which points out the lack of any meaningful previous safety testing, only focuses on 3 cardiac symptoms, when in reality there are hundreds of side effects reported on a mass scale from this experiment on humanity. Even so, the 1% adverse event ratio which only includes cardiac adverse events is off the charts and screams "stop the study" to anyone who understands the science of safety testing.
As the comment below points out, the ONLY reasonable conclusion from this study is to discontinue the untested experimental gene therapy IMMEDIATELY.
"What can be done to reduce the occurrence of vaccine induced myocarditis"
Stop injecting healthy people of that age with a vaccine they do not need.
I can't believe you think anyone should get the clot shots.
My healthy 70 year old husband who never took drugs had to be rushed to the hospital and have his heart shocked two days after getting the Moderna booster and after mostly getting over reactions to the Moderna booster. We had heard that younger people had heart problems so his incredibly high heart beat was not expected. In Canada only health professionals report adverse effects, but not sure the doctors took the fact that he had a booster two days before was reported. They kept asking if he had taken some opioids as lots of druggies in our town. Luckily he was not alone when this happened and was about 40 minutes from a hospital. He is now monitoring his heart rate and is followed by a cardiologist.
Whatever 'health professional' you saw was grossly incompetent. They weren't even trying. If he had 'taken some opioids' his pulse would be slow and erratic not 'incredibly high'.
I erased my previous comment. The closer I look at this study, the more it freaks me out.
They compare vaxxed to vaxxed+covid and then declare covid is worse, but they measure rates of myocarditis/pericarditis in post covid with troponin levels and in post vaxx with hospitalization rates. Hmmmm
They don't include any control group of unvaxxed. The vaxx+covid group should be compared to unvaxx+covid to determine the actual rate of post covid heart issues. This is not done that I can tell?
The vaccinated showed a 1% hospitalization rate for cardiac arrhythmia with ~385,000 in the period up to 28 days post vaccination. I tried to look up population rates of hospitalization and found some old news articles discussing ~350,000-500,000 hospitalizations annually for 'atrial fibrillation' for the entire US population. So a group of vaccinated in UK blew out the entire US annual budget of arrhythmia hospitalizations in a couple month period? And that isn't a highlighted part of the research results but instead they compare only within the vaccinated group broken out by short temporal periods? Isn't the most important thing the vaccinated versus background normal rate?
I begin to think this whole study was gamed to get vaccinated rates of these issues versus supposed covid rates so they could continue to say vaccines are safer, when the actual #s are showing a horrific rise in these issues. It is a preemptive narrative shaping attempt.
I am not a doctor, researcher or number cruncher, so if I am misunderstanding this, I would be interested to hear how.
There's no way to sugar coat the study.
Of the ~385,000 people with arrhythmia, 10.3% had a positive Covid-19 test, and 7.7% tested positive at some point prior to vaccination.
Even if you remove 18% of the total, that's still an awful lot of people with arrhythmia. I suppose most of us have some form of arrhythmia at some time in our lives, but how many of us are treated in hospital?
Yes. I would not subtract them either. I feel that there would be a covid risk increase + vaccine risk increase + covid/vaccine interaction risk increase to account for. None of which can be done without estimating the covid risk increase by comparing with non-vaccinated covid patients.
Why doesn't your "takeaway" include "Don't take the vaccines"?
OK, COVID is more dangerous than the vaccines in certain populations, so there's a benefit to being vaccinated? Not necessarily. In order to suffer the effects of COVID, you must contract COVID and you must have no innate immunity to coronaviruses in order to be hit hardest. A study showed that 40% of people who are vaccinated react more quickly to vaccination than others, and the working theory is that it's because their immune systems weren't naïve to coronaviruses. These people almost certainly had more risk from vaccination than from the virus because their bodies were already prepared to fight COVID.
Then you have the group of people (young & healthy) for whom COVID is like a (possibly bad) flu. But again, people in this group must become infected in order to experience any threat from COVID.
However, everyone who is vaccinated exposes themselves to the threats posed by the vaccines. This is inescapable. (Also, even after vaccination, for a vaccine to be beneficial for an individual, that individual would have to become infected, because vaccines do nothing for people who are not infected subsequent to vaccination. We mistakenly look at all vaccinated people who do not become sick or die as evidence the vaccines work, when in fact a person who is never infected could never possibly die of COVID, vaccinated or not.) On average (including all the aged and those with potential co-morbidities), COVID's IFR is somewhere between 0.15 and 0.24 percent. This means that more than 99.75% of those infected with SARS-COV-2 will survive. People need to risk their lives (to the dangers of the vaccines) for an improvement in their survival rate from COVID of a tenth of a percent or two? That's nuts. COVID is so highly survivable, even if the vaccines halved the IFR, you're still only talking about a small fraction of one percent improvement.
We don't know that covid is more dangerous, since Big Pfarma, Big Tech & Big Brother have been lying, withholding, censoring, threatening, canceling, refusing to study, destroying evidence etc. Remember, they told us it was safe and effective for EVERYONE. Still the official lie.
I was giving the benefit of the doubt, to show that the argument for vaccination still does not work!
James, where did you get your degree in Nursing? Where are you licensed as a nurse? Where did you gain your self proclaimed expertise? I can't find you anywhere, except on your social media accounts. Accounts that are only one year old.
“Lying is vital to all of us some of the time, but propaganda is vital to all of us all of the time”. - P. Scento'loo Poop
Two words - "underreporting factor". Contrary to the article's assertion, VAERS is not a "self-reporting" database, it is a database for few but medical professionals to report into due to the voluminous medical data demanded.
Previous studies like the Harvard Pilgrim study, even before the present narrative-suppression of truth, concluded that between one and ten percent of actual adverse events make it into VAERS. The truth will eventually be known, and the "rare" instances of myocarditis, along with all the neurological blood-brain barrier penetration issues and other organ injuries by the spike proteins will be reclassified as "not rare".
All the data in this study is worthless for a very simple reason:
Any unvaccinated person that ends up in the hospital is going to be pressured to get vaccinated. Therefore there will be an artificially high amount of morbidity preceding vaccination, and there is no attempt to control for that.
I will admit that I overstated my case as there is still some useful data, that being the absolute number of events following vaccination. However any analysis that uses total number of events as a baseline is garbage for the reason I stated above.
Were the vaccine study participants healthier than average people? I think I read this, and that very old people were not included.
All 38 Million Vaccinated in England were included, that includes all age groups. Just follow the link to the study to the nature website.
Sorry if I’m being redundant. Wondering if we could exchange information.