Study Finds ‘COVID-19 Vaccination is Strongly Associated w/ a Serious Adverse Safety Signal of Myocarditis, Particularly in Children and Young Adults Resulting in Hospitalization and Death

myata · March 25, 2024

10 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The magnitude of the problem matters a great deal. If these vaccines are damaging a significant number of young peoples’ hearts then something should be done.

Look, from the first days of this event the picture was clear that the risk for the younger age groups, outside of compromised ones, was minimal.

In the age of Internet, there shouldn't be any problems with finding evidence upon evidence of experts" calling for total "vaccination" including infants groups that were never at any noticeable risk. It went full way from pseudo-expert "advice" to plain out propaganda that pumped fear and wrong, possibly worse, deliberately false messages.

In a number of European jurisdictions vaccination" of healthy under 18 was never recommended. Possibly EU as a whole did not have this recommendation, needs to be checked.

How was it justified? In a democratic society which we are or not, that question demands an answer. Were these actions and policies justified by any objective evidence? Or was another example of arbitrary, bureaucratic overreaction, that yet again resulted in real, measurable damage including undermined trust to a critical public system.?

SpankyMcFarland · March 25, 2024

2 hours ago, myata said:

Look, from the first days of this event the picture was clear that the risk for the younger age groups, outside of compromised ones, was minimal.

In the age of Internet, there shouldn't be any problems with finding evidence upon evidence of experts" calling for total "vaccination" including infants groups that were never at any noticeable risk. It went full way from pseudo-expert "advice" to plain out propaganda that pumped fear and wrong, possibly worse, deliberately false messages.

In a number of European jurisdictions vaccination" of healthy under 18 was never recommended. Possibly EU as a whole did not have this recommendation, needs to be checked.

How was it justified? In a democratic society which we are or not, that question demands an answer. Were these actions and policies justified by any objective evidence? Or was another example of arbitrary, bureaucratic overreaction, that yet again resulted in real, measurable damage including undermined trust to a critical public system.?

I don’t speak for the state and these are genuine questions. For men 20-40, can you compare the risk of getting the vaccine with the risk of getting Covid in Canada? How many men have died from Covid vaccine-induced myocarditis in this country?

WestCanMan · March 25, 2024

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I don’t speak for the state and these are genuine questions. For men 20-40, can you compare the risk of getting the vaccine with the risk of getting Covid in Canada? How many men have died from Covid vaccine-induced myocarditis in this country?

Almost 3 years into the pandemic (11 months of 2020, 12 months of 2021, and and 10 months into 2022, so 33 months total), less than 500 people between 20-40 had died.

Here's the total from Dec 2021, when people were still being forced to vax:

^Those^ numbers don't scream "THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE FORCED TO VAX!"

Vaxed people were already dying in large numbers, and if people are sick enough to die then they're obviously as contagious as anyone else, so it's clear that the jabs weren't preventing anyone from becoming contagious. And if the jabs just lowered the severity, then it made it so that people didn't stay home sick when they were infected, they'd be out and about, spreading covid.

Vax-apologists, Fauci included, even started saying "We never said that the jabs would get us to herd immunity or prevent infection" after all the deaths.

Keep in mind, this was never a debate about "whether or not the vaccine works": I think it didn't and you think it did, and we both have our reasons. This was always a debate about "whether or not forcing young people to vax was in any way necessary".

Due to the fact that the vaxed were spreading covid as fast as anyone else, and dying as fast as anyone else, theres no reason to believe that forcing young people to vax protected old people.

If you want to believe Hodad and the rest of the vax-apologists here, the jabbed people actually got infected far more often just to arrive at the same death rate.

myata · March 26, 2024

12 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

For men 20-40, can you compare the risk of getting the vaccine with the risk of getting Covid in Canada?

The risk of serious effects from Covid for younger healthy age groups was comparable to that of the flu. This was known from the first months of the pandemic. All of the propaganda was pure bureaucratic invention. Social engineering, we know best for your own good. Nobody has been accountable and nobody answered the questions. This is how this pseudo-democracy was designed from day one.

CdnFox · March 26, 2024

On 3/24/2024 at 9:09 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

I don’t dispute there is an increased risk of myocarditis after the vaccine, esp. in young males who have received particular types of vaccines. Properly conducted studies have shown this. Many other adverse events have also been detected in the largest international studies too BTW.

You literally did when you attempted to claim that there's 'concerns' with the study. At the end of the day the data the study has produced has been substantially proven elsewhere - as you note. So if you're not disputing it - dont' dispute it.

Quote

The questions I would ask include: how many people are affected in Canada and how severely - what is the mortality and morbidity associated with this, in other words the clinical significance? For example, how many of them were classed as mild myocarditis, a typically self-limiting condition?

Why? We already know that whatever the answer is it's "more than covid".

Quote

Is what is happening enough to restrict the vaccine in certain cohorts?

It's enough to give people the right to choose for themselves.

And that's what you lefties don't get here. it's what you're desperately trying to run away from with your post.

The risk of the vaccine at the time was not known - but it was pushed on people who probably were worse off for taking it.

When you force people (and lets not pretend they weren't forced) to take medical treatment against their will and it turns out they may have died from it or suffered serious injury (and some did) then that is morally wrong. It's horrible

but it's what you and yours did. You should be deeply ashamed you didn't stand up for people's rights.

Venandi · March 26, 2024

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You should be deeply ashamed you didn't stand up for people's rights.

People should write that sentence out a thousand times.

From what I saw, the majority of those leading the charge, those with the strongest and most hateful of opinions, the ones who cheered when their neighbours got fired, were unable to even discuss the issue at a high school biology level. It was absolutely breathtaking IMO.

Shameful is exactly the right word.

Edited March 26, 2024 by Venandi

Nationalist · March 26, 2024

Not that it's evidence or anything but...

I had to take 2 jabs to keep my job. That was 2021 and 2022. In the summer of 2023 I had 2 heart attacks and had 2 stents put in my heart.

I'm in fairly good shape and almost never get sick. I caught The Rona during Christmas of 2021. It lasted 1 day.

myata · March 26, 2024

The questions were and remain valid. An infallible indicator of the state of our (proclaimed) democracy is how they were answered. That factual and objective reality has to close both issues.

Edited March 26, 2024 by myata

Nationalist · March 26, 2024

3 minutes ago, myata said:

The questions were and remain valid. An infallible indicator of the state of our (proclaimed) democracy is how they were answered. That factual and objective reality has to close both issues.

Wait what? What does this debacle have to do with democracy? Aside from the fact that competing opinions are welcomed.

The vaxx was not rigorously tested. It was prescribed for those who had very little chance of serious complications due to The Rona. It has been shown to have adverse effects.

These are facts.

Venandi · March 26, 2024

50 minutes ago, myata said:

The questions were and remain valid. An infallible indicator of the state of our (proclaimed) democracy is how they were answered.

I think so too.

I had a few questions of my own about SP toxicity, systemic distribution / Lipid nano particles, possible ill effects for people with inflammatory diseases etc.

Basic high school biology stuff, many others had the same or similar type questions.

All were met with overt hostility and ridicule from people who didn't even understand the question or why it was being asked. The hateful rhetoric of the day has aged very poorly IMO and it was the first time I've ever been truly ashamed of my neighbours.

What it has to do with democracy is the participation of government and the direct culpability of media, not to mention the muzzling / punishment of contrary minded Doctors and PHD level scientists.

I wanted to hear the answers to my questions. Perversely, it was the level of ridicule directed toward people with simple biology questions that caused me to balk at this vaccine. Suggesting that multi deployment veterans who previously had every vaccine known to man were suddenly anti-vaxxers was a bridge too far for me.

What frightened me were the shameful actions of a scared population and how those fears were manipulated by basic information management techniques. I never expected to see that in Canada and hope to never bear witness to such a thing again..

Edited March 26, 2024 by Venandi

eyeball · March 26, 2024

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's enough to give people the right to choose for themselves.

That choice always existed. Some choices came with different consequences is all.

Rights come with responsibilities.

CdnFox · March 26, 2024

17 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That choice always existed. Some choices came with different consequences is all.

Rights come with responsibilities.

Nonsense phrases from the left that mean nothing but expose their hypocrisy.

Having sex can lead to pregnancy so we should ban abortion right? I mean - some choices have consequences

Pointing a gun at someone and demanding their money shoudln't be considered robbery right? I mean, they DID have a choice, they COULD have chosen to get shot...

The poor should be left to starve without help - they have to take responsibility for their choices right?

It's an !diotic position that the left chooses to believe in when it's convenient.

If you threaten harm to someone if they don't choose how you would like then that is not a 'Choice' - that is coersion. And that has been upheld in our laws for ages.

And if you punish someone for exercising their rights - then that is called VIOLATING their rights. not 'responsibility'.

It's like watching man-boy love advocates arguing why child rape should be legal. You should be ashamed you even made that comment. But you're a leftie so you won't be - any amount of degrading or immoral behaviour is acceptable if you get to virtue signal about it.

Venandi · March 26, 2024

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Rights come with responsibilities.

I find the reference to "rights" in that context to be curiously, even deliberately self serving. IMO, most of the "rights" under discussion here belong to Canadians by virtue of birth. And they were hard won too.

I'd submit that forcing people to get inoculated in order to keep their jobs or travel in support of sick relatives doesn't leave much room for choice, suggesting that it does serves only to trivialize the duress they felt... many simply had no choice in the matter and I think you know that.

Leaders of all sorts are now distancing themselves from this. If you ask the Minister of National Defence (or senior military brass) how many members were lost as a result of the mandates he will quote a very small number (maybe 200ish). The truth is significantly different here and he knows it. He's deliberately counting only those members forced out through the administrative release process.

Since administrative release entails the possibility of future consequences, most members actually opted for voluntary release prior to disciplinary action being taken against them. As you might guess, those numbers are a bit higher and they include a couple of close family members and several acquaintances. Some very experienced folks were lost at a time the system could ill afford it. That process alone could take up an entire thread but the point is, I'd like to see more honesty and less euphemistic rhetoric.

So, I'll test the waters a bit here:

If we returned to the days of Covid passports at some point in the future and it required most people to get 4 booster shots as a catch up measure (to validate their immunity), how many like minded folks (right here) would approve and how many would line up for the jabs?

How do you think your neighbours who felt forced or duped into getting the jab would now respond to renewed chants of "rights come with responsibilities." Clearly I can't speak for everyone, but in my circle of acquaintances that chant simply wouldn't resonate. And I'm putting it kindly.

Edited March 26, 2024 by Venandi

eyeball · March 26, 2024

9 minutes ago, Venandi said:

So, I'd like to test the waters bit here. If we returned to the days of Covid passports at some point in the future and it required most people to get 4 booster shots as a catch up measure (to validate their immunity), how many folks do you think would approve of it and line up for the jabs? How would the ones who felt forced or duped respond to new chants of "rights come with responsibilities."

I don't know and don't really care - at least they'll know that choices come with consequences.

In the meantime, you can be sure that scientists are taking what few side-effects do exist seriously so they can develop better vaccines and boosters - like they always do.

Venandi · March 26, 2024

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I don't know and don't really care - at least they'll know that choices come with consequences.

I would say that caring about your neighbours rights, especially when your own rights remain unencumbered is how we avoid repeat performances of the covid madness and further encroachments under the guise of "this is an emergency."

I had this very conversation years ago with an avid non smoker who was firmly in favour of draconian (and decidedly punitive) restrictions.

Because she had a lovely fireplace and enjoyed the ambiance of an occasional fire, I suggested that at some point in the future her strong feelings about "smoke in her orbit of life" might come back to haunt her.

Fast forward and suddenly she cares now (this is becoming a thing in urban areas now)... ironically, she expects me to care as well.

You have every right not to know and not to care but a "responsible" person might find pretending to care is actually in their selfish best interests. That way when needed, others might extend them the same courtesy and come to their defence as opposed to asking "what did you think was going to happen?"

Edited March 26, 2024 by Venandi

CdnFox · March 26, 2024

49 minutes ago, Venandi said:

I would say that caring about your neighbours rights, especially when your own rights remain unencumbered is how we avoid repeat performances of the covid madness and further encroachments under the guise of "this is an emergency."

Venandi - he LIKED the covid madness. The left were all over the covid madness. Suggesting ways to avoid the covid madness in the future is not going to appeal to them.

eyeball · March 26, 2024

34 minutes ago, Venandi said:

I would say that caring about your neighbours rights, especially when your own rights remain unencumbered is how we avoid repeat performances of the covid madness and further encroachments under the guise of "this is an emergency."

Well sure, under the guise of an emergency but in the case of another real one - some individual rights, as they are at anytime will remain conditional and especially where the needs of the many outweight the needs of the individual.

39 minutes ago, Venandi said:

You have every right not to know and not to care but a "responsible" person might consider pretending to be in their selfish best interests. That way, when needed, others might extend them the same courtesy and come to their defence.

In the case of COVID, frightened uninformed people claimed their rights were being violated to help further the selfish conspiratorial interests of a vast network of experts, scientists, corporations and governments around the planet.

The lesson for the future is clear - to help dispel the misinformation and paranoid thinking that made the COVID pandemic far worse than it needed to be, we need a level of penetrative monitoring and transparency for our public institutions that would make Orwell himself blush.

Notwithstanding obvious matters of national security, I think knowing what our public institutions are up to is a universal human right - and an especially important one during an emergency.

I know from personal experience how important it is to keep people apprised of measures being taken during an evolving situation where their safety and well being is concerned. The last thing I need to deal with in the case of a fire, or taking on water, or responding to another vessel in distress, are a bunch of frightened bewildered passengers. It's not just a courtesy I'm extending them it's a necessity - for everyone involved. As a ships captain, it's very much my responsibility and in my self interest to keep everyone informed.

There's clearly a lesson here for both governments and the governed about what their responsibilities are before an emergency happens. It's why passengers are instructed to follow the instructions of the captain and crew before they even board the boat.

eyeball · March 26, 2024

@Venandi

And BTW, CdnFox's thinking is about as cocked up as Marjorie Taylor Greene's or Q-anon's shaman.

If he got in my way in an emergency I'd waste little time recruiting passengers to sit on him or simply throw him over the side.

CdnFox · March 26, 2024

33 minutes ago, eyeball said:

@Venandi

And BTW, CdnFox's thinking is about as cocked up as Marjorie Taylor Greene's or Q-anon's shaman.

If he got in my way in an emergency I'd waste little time recruiting passengers to sit on him or simply throw him over the side.

Can't refute the points so you crybaby about the author of the points

Typical leftie.

And frankly you can't lift your own fat ass off of your sofa so i'm not too worried about you throwing anything over the side of anything I do believe you'd try to talk other people into doing it for you - you lefties are all about making other people work for your interests

eyeball · March 27, 2024

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Can't refute the points so you crybaby about the author of the points

Why bother when you refute your own stupid points by authoring them so stupidly.

he LIKED the covid madness. The left were all over the covid madness.

Nobody liked it. That's about as ridiculous a reflection on what happened that's ever been uttered around here.

CdnFox · March 27, 2024

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Why bother when you refute your own stupid points by authoring them so stupidly.

he LIKED the covid madness. The left were all over the covid madness.

Nobody liked it. That's about as ridiculous a reflection on what happened that's ever been uttered around here.

OOOpppsie - the sun went down and your solar powered brain ran out of juice again I see

You loved the covid madness. Gave you the warm tingles to be able to exert authority over others and force them to do as you prefer and take their rights. You talk about that kind of stuff all the time. I'm sure you loved watching your boy justin weaponize covid against the public for votes.

Like the majority of the left you've made it quite clear you get a kick out of stepping on people's rights if they're not doing as you think they should.

THat's one of the difference between the right and left these days. The right will stand up for the rights of people they disgree with - whereas the left is happy to see personal rights violated as long as it's someone they don't like.

eyeball · March 27, 2024

22 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

THat's one of the difference between the right and left these days. The right will stand up for the rights of people they disgree with - whereas the left is happy to see personal rights violated as long as it's someone they don't like.

You mean like right wingers do when it comes to trans people, Palestinians, refugees, Ukrainians etc etc?

Hmmm 🤔

CdnFox · March 27, 2024

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

You mean like right wingers do when it comes to trans people, Palestinians, refugees, Ukrainians etc etc?

Hmmm 🤔

Right wingers were some of the first to stand up for trans people. Hell spuds mckenzie was a girl But - we also respect others rights. We didn't have a problem till it wasn't about trans rights, it was about stealing parent's rights.

We fully support palestinians rights - but we also believe criminals should face the consequences of their actions. Right now gaza is learning about that.

Refugees? Harper brought in a TONNE of refugees. We just don't believe that bringing it so many that htey have to frikking live in tents on the damn street is such a good idea, you guys love it.

Conservatives supported ukraine since day one, have voted in favour of the funding, we just don't believe in free trade deals that include woke politics.

But of course once again you have to lie. the truth doesn't say what you want so just lie and pretend. What a useless twat. No wonder the country burns every time you guys are in charge.

Edited March 27, 2024 by CdnFox

eyeball · March 27, 2024

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Right wingers were some of the first to stand up for trans people.

Of course they were.

LMAO!

CdnFox · March 27, 2024

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Of course they were.

LMAO!

Sure. The first three transgender clinics opened in Alberta and Manitoba and ontario under conservative provincial gov's. They were accepted no problem. Conservatives understood there was a serious medical issue around what we now call gender dysphoria and they were fine with people getting treatment and living normal lives. The so called left wing gov'ts did not consider it a priority.

Sorry - i know you hate it when facts interrupt your fictions but...

In fact you never heard about the "transgender" debate at all even when gays were still fighting for their rights.

It really wasn't till the trans people started demanding that OTHER people give up their rights that they ran into a problem with conservatives.

Waa waa waaaaaaaahhhh - you lose