Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These data are preliminary, based on surveillance data, and should be interpreted with caution. - FL Surgeon General
Not sure why you're hating so much on the guy you called a hero.
Also not following why you're resorting to made up examples with 10,000 data points when you could just reference the numbers in the study.
Clearly you're terrified at admitting to the studies own stated limitations or of actually referring to the actual data in the study.
So, you just call people names and then make up examples using imagined numbers. *shrug*
Engaging this guy is a complete and utter waste of time. Frankly, responding to his posts only empowers him. He is not worth the time. I will try and take my own advice.
I have to be careful with my post-reputation ratio... I'll have to start refining my quantity of posts soon to keep above that 1:1 ratio I've gradually been inching towards
Without reading the thread keep in mind that the incidence of heart attacks in that age group is not very high to begin with. That's the age in which the risk factors for cardiovascular disease start to build, so it's feasible to think a vaccine which promotes an inflammatory response might trigger an event.
87% increase of what is probably a low number as most heart attacks begin in a person's 40's. There's also the fact that covid infection itself will increase the risk of heart attack to a much higher degree.
Do the vaccines mitigate risk? I suspect they do if you keep up the boosters, but really there's no concrete data out there right now. What we know for sure... covid vaccines cause an inflammatory response. Covid infection causes an inflammatory response. It's likely going to depend on how aggressively one's immune system responds to the virus, how much of an inflammatory response they get, how long the inflammation lingers, and cardiovascular risk factors.
We simply don't know if getting the latest boosters every 8 months will mitigate the risks of long covid or reduce the risk of heart attacks, strokes, etc. We can only speculate. I would surmise that the dose of the vaccines is perhaps double what it should be, and it would be healthier for people to get half doses twice as often to mitigate the inflammation, but they knew they couldn't sell that.
This Fortune article is perhaps the first mainstream outlet I've seen fully acknowledge something is going on here without trying to hide or sidestep the issue. Thank you Wuhan lab for releasing this virus into the wild. It was appreciated.
If Covid is causing clotting, perhaps low dose Aspirin after infection or vaccination is the answer.
87% increase of what is probably a low number as most heart attacks begin in a person's 40's. There's also the fact that covid infection itself will increase the risk of heart attack to a much higher degree.
Do the vaccines mitigate risk? I suspect they do
I explained you all this before. And you keep repeating the same misleading statement.
But in this study, which covered the entire span of the pandemic when vaccines were available [until June of this year], and captured all coded cardiac deaths from a Florida health database, you still have yet to explain why almost 50% of cardiac deaths in this age group happened from a 28 day window out of vaccination [either from 1, 2 or 3rd dose, though unlikely 3 in this age group].
To give you an example of how absurd your point is, think of it like you took a drug and got a stomach ache within 4 hours. Your stomach ache went away, and the next day you took the drug again, and like magic, within 4 hours, you developed a stomach ache.
You'd be rational to conclude the drug is causing your stomach ache. Now just imagine if someone suggested you got food poisoning, just as by coincidence, to explain those two stomach aches, and it wasn't the drug.
While technically possible, it's incredibly unlikely. This is basically what that study shows about your argument. If the vaccines truly mitigated cardiac events by stopping COVID, we wouldn't see such a cluster around time of vaccination. Now would we?
But this is even unnecessary. I told you before, the vaccines does not stop you from catching COVID. Does not stop you from catching COVID.
So you cannot use such studies [that you keep trying to use] - that are not even for that age or gender group - comparing cardiac events in people recovering from COVID vs cardiac events following vaccination, to address overall mitigation of cardiac events. I think this should be clear.
Use studies that compare all-cause cardiac events [or disease or death] between the vaccinated vs unvaccinated. Do NOT USE studies that compared cardiac events from COVID or from the vaccine, the latter are all misleading, even when done correctly [and they're all done incorrectly].
I explained you all this before. And you keep repeating the same misleading statement.
But in this study, which covered the entire span of the pandemic when vaccines were available [until June of this year], and captured all coded cardiac deaths from a Florida health database, you still have yet to explain why almost 50% of cardiac deaths in this age group happened from a 28 day window out of vaccination [either from 1, 2 or 3rd dose, though unlikely 3 in this age group].
To give you an example of how absurd your point is, think of it like you took a drug and got a stomach ache within 4 hours. Your stomach ache went away, and the next day you took the drug again, and like magic, within 4 hours, you developed a stomach ache.
You'd be rational to conclude the drug is causing stomach ache. Now just imagine if someone suggested you got food poisoning, just as by coincidence, to explain those two stomach aches, and it wasn't the drug.
While technically possible, it's incredibly unlikely. This is basically what that study shows about your argument. If the vaccines truly mitigated cardiac events by stopping COVID, we wouldn't see such a cluster around time of vaccination. Now would we?
But this is even unnecessary. I told you before, the vaccines does not stop you from catching COVID. Does not stop you from catching COVID.
So you cannot use such studies, that are not even for that age or gender group, comparing cardiac events in people recovering from COVID vs cardiac events following vaccination, to address overall mitigation of cardiac events. I think this should be clear.
Read my entire post and the included link. I never implied vaccines reduce the risk of catching covid, perhaps the risk of severe covid, and the more severe the inflammation, I'm assuming the more the risk of developing these associated problems. Again, this is just speculation, and even the Fortune article said the vaccinated infected individuals seem to be suffering the same problems.
Is the spike of inflammation every 8 months from vaccines and boosters worse than taking your chances with covid? I guess we'll find that out over the coming months and years. There's no clear consensus on that either way at this point. I've subjected myself to 2 covid vaccines and 2 boosters now, so that's 4 spikes of inflammation that my parents who were never vaccinated never got. I acknowledge maybe that's a bad thing. Time will tell.
My cousin got a moderate case of covid that lasted far longer than my spikes of inflammation. As did a few of my co-workers. Who's worse off? I don't think anyone really knows. I will acknowledge I don't believe there's any reason to subject anyone under 21 to these vaccines.
Read my entire post and the included link. I never implied vaccines reduce the risk of catching covid, perhaps the risk of severe covid, and the more severe the inflammation, I'm assuming the more the risk of developing these associated problems. Again, this is just speculation, and even the Fortune article said the vaccinated infected individuals seem to be suffering the same problems.
Is the spike of inflammation every 8 months from vaccines and boosters worse than taking your chances with covid? I guess we'll find that out over the coming months and years. There's no clear consensus on that either way at this point.
I know all the studies you can link to. And I explained why they don't show [by design] what you think they show.
But I also know why they're done incorrectly. They always compare cardiac events in COVID+ patients tested in a hospital setting to cardiac events following vaccination. They [deliberately] miss a large % of the denominator of COVID patients who never tested + or never tested + in a hospital because their disease course was so mild.
I know all the studies you can link to. And I explained why they don't show [by design] what you think they show.
But I also know why they're done incorrectly. They always compare cardiac events in COVID+ patients tested in a hospital setting to cardiac events following vaccination. They [deliberately] miss a large % of the denominator of COVID patients who never tested + or never tested + in a hospital because their disease course was so mild.
So what's the takeaway here? The vaccines appear to be useless, and doing more harm than good? As far as long covid goes, that would seem to be the case. Interesting.
Well, if true I did accept the risks. I haven't gotten covid yet to my knowledge so maybe they can come up with something else... in the meantime I'll keep anti-inflammatories handy such as baby aspirin. Hopefully this doesn't lead to a push for more masks and lockdowns.
The pdf does state the older you are, the less risk of cardiac complications from the vaccines, indicating the additional immune system boost from the vaccines would come in more handy, as many felt all along. That's helpful to know.
So what's the takeaway here? The vaccines appear to be useless, and doing more harm than good? As far as long covid goes, that would seem to be the case. Interesting.
Well, if true I did accept the risks. I haven't gotten covid yet to my knowledge so maybe they can come up with something else... in the meantime I'll keep anti-inflammatories handy such as baby aspirin. Hopefully this doesn't lead to a push for more masks and lockdowns.
The pdf does state the older you are, the less risk of cardiac complications from the vaccines, indicating the additional immune system boost from the vaccines would come in more handy, as many felt all along.
In that age group and gender, they do appear to do more harm than good. This may change for different age groups/genders.
Unfortunately, we do not have one clinical study employing randomization and a control group that demonstrates these vaccines prevent death or severe disease, so we're left guessing.
I'd rather see you play the "read the study game". Keep in mind when I made these comments I was accused of making things up and then I explained that I got them from the study itself and hilarity ensued.
Well gosh golly gee, the study is so perfectly awesome that even it's own noted shortcomings of unreliability aren't true.
This is the portion of the study that the entire "84% increase" comes from.
Table 2: (they're comparing an expectation of 52/10.58 rate to 20/2.02 which is 1.84 or 84% higher.)
Yep, 20 events and now go back and re-read their own warnings about data problems.
How many studies do you actually read? Including a "limitations of the study" section is actually viewed favorably by editors and peer reviewers. It is important to do so to increase the value of a study but it's not seen much in pro-vaccine articles because they are so inhgerintly flawed that they would invalidate themselves. Writing a limitations section INCREASES a studies validity; not reduces it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WVNomad
Thank you for correcting me…you are absolutely right, you have demonstrated with your post above that the ratio of posts to rep is, in fact, meaningless. I won’t make that mistake again. Again, thank you for exemplifying why I was mistaken.
Good, because the poster you said that to writes a lot of content & this isn't facebook. CD doesn't allow you to rep a post from a poster twice in a row & you have to "spread it around" before repping them again. It's not a popularity contest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sholomar
If Covid is causing clotting, perhaps low dose Aspirin after infection or vaccination is the answer.
To a certain degree it could, because Aspirin blocks platelets from clumping together and forming blood clots. The blood clots being found after vaccination are very different, however. The main problem is not platelet clumping; the problem is a protein on red blood cells called CD147. The spike proteins that form from the full length spike genome in the vaccines are binding onto to the CD147. When another RBC floats by, it catches that one too. The spike protein is like velcro. The clots being pulled out of vaccinated people are not normal looking clots. Normal clots look like a purplish jelly. The vaccine induced clots are stringy & fibrous, with smaller clumps of the actual purple-jelly clots sticking to them. The only thing I know of that has been reported to prevent the spike from attaching to the CD147 is Ivermectin, as it binds to the spike protein.
How many studies do you actually read? Including a "limitations of the study" section is actually viewed favorably by editors and peer reviewers. It is important to do so to increase the value of a study but it's not seen much in pro-vaccine articles because they are so inhgerintly flawed that they would invalidate themselves. Writing a limitations section INCREASES a studies validity; not reduces it.
Unlike most of the forum, I read the ones I comment on. I made no endorsement of other studies so that's a failed distraction attempt from topic. I also don't support mandated vaccination nor school\business closures and warned about the long term impacts of shutdowns on people wayyyy back when they started doing them.
The study clearly says it should be viewed with caution. That doesn't increase its validity.
How about this, the claim is an 84% increase so that means there were X events with Y prior or expected events.
Good, because the poster you said that to writes a lot of content & this isn't facebook. CD doesn't allow you to rep a post from a poster twice in a row & you have to "spread it around" before repping them again. It's not a popularity contest.
I agree that posts and rep are meaningless.
Besides, posts should stand on their own logic and merits.
Also, a number of posters could pile up reps in forums about cats or gardening etc. where they're extremely knowledgable and then wander over here and write utter nonsense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
