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

[CdnFox]

At the risk of getting some of our resident posters a little worked up....

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/20420986241226566

Results:We found the number of myocarditis reports in VAERS after COVID-19 vaccination in 2021 was 223 times higher than the average of all vaccines combined for the past 30 years. This represented a 2500% increase in the absolute number of reports in the first year of the campaign when comparing historical values prior to 2021. Demographic data revealed that myocarditis occurred most in youths (50%) and males (69%). A total of 76% of cases resulted in emergency care and hospitalization. Of the total myocarditis reports, 92 individuals died (3%)

 

The fact is - people who had concerns about the vaccine weren't worried for nothing. There were side effects and fairly serious ones. And deaths.

Now - there were deaths from covid too and we can debate which was the worst threat for various groups and that's fair. And i think most people knew there was SOME risk of heart issues.  But this report spells it out a bit and gives some idea of who was at risk from it and what the risks were.  I thought it was interesting - covid still seems to come up here a fair bit

 

[ExFlyer]

Many warnings and hazards with Aspirin too https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/drugs/20592-aspirin-tablets

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Many warnings and hazards with Aspirin too https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/drugs/20592-aspirin-tablets

True.  In fact i have to be very very careful taking asprin.

But the thing is, asprin is well studied and we know the harmful side effects and what it interacts with badly and therefore we can counsel people how to use it safely.

The thing about the covid vaccines is many said that there may be a lot of dangers we don't know about and it's not fair to make people take something that could have serious  health risks.  And many at the time blew it off saying there's no health risks or if there are it's SOooooooo small as to be non existant so you must take the vaccine.

However, this research is definitely showing that there were significant risks.  Were the risk worse than what you'd get with covid? Depends - for young males or children it would at first glance seem like the danger of the vaccine outweighed the danger of covid.  So they would have arguably been at MORE risk taking the vaccine.  Of course that exludes the long covid' problem but i havent' seen research that showed the vaccine helped with that.

At the time we did the best we could with what knowledge we had but this does demonstrate that at least some of the concerns over the vaccine had some merit.  And we forced a lot of people to  take it who didn't want to.  And we need to think about that at some point.

[admined]

That's a strange study construction. Why would they compare COVID vaccination reactions to non-COVID vaccines? First of all, I didn't read the whole paper to see if they controlled for mRNA vs other COVID vaccine technologies, but wouldn't it have made more sense to compare mRNA vs non-mRNA, since that's the primary focus of myocarditis concerns.

But the real problem here seems to be that they don't seem to have controlled for possible confounding variables, like age, health, and distribution differences between population cohorts of vaccine recipients spread over so many decades.

I don't want to pre-judge the study (again: I haven't read it), but an awful lot of low-value topics receive approval for research papers these days.

Edited January 30 by admined

[OftenWrong]

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

True.  In fact i have to be very very careful taking asprin.

But the thing is, asprin is well studied and we know the harmful side effects and what it interacts with badly and therefore we can counsel people how to use it safely.

The thing about the covid vaccines is many said that there may be a lot of dangers we don't know about and it's not fair to make people take something that could have serious  health risks.  And many at the time blew it off saying there's no health risks or if there are it's SOooooooo small as to be non existant so you must take the vaccine.

However, this research is definitely showing that there were significant risks.  Were the risk worse than what you'd get with covid? Depends - for young males or children it would at first glance seem like the danger of the vaccine outweighed the danger of covid.  So they would have arguably been at MORE risk taking the vaccine.  Of course that exludes the long covid' problem but i havent' seen research that showed the vaccine helped with that.

At the time we did the best we could with what knowledge we had but this does demonstrate that at least some of the concerns over the vaccine had some merit.  And we forced a lot of people to  take it who didn't want to.  And we need to think about that at some point.

It's beyond medical ethics. By their own rules, the vaccine should have been removed from the market when the number of reported injuries reach a certain critical threshold. It was not. Some in the medical community who are aware of these rules did try to bring it to public attention but were slammed down. Everyone was told to follow the party line, and that's where things really got screwy. Government beaurocrats telling you what to do for your health, dictating it carte-blanche. Personal physicians were bypassed in the decision making.

Hopefully the truth will come out fully over time.

[OftenWrong]

N.B., these things also undermined public trust in doctor's advice and in getting vaccines in general, something I think we're seeing now.

[myata]

Every genuine vaccine till this incident had a clear benefit to the recipient that strongly outweighed the negative effects except maybe in excluded groups. There's no such benefit for healthy young people under 20-something at least and multiple studies have shown that.

Many more responsible health authorities never recommended quasi-vaccines for young people in the view of unclear benefit vs. the concerns of side effects. To approve them and then promote massively (can't wait to have my little cutie vaccinated) was irresponsible and no less than a failure of public trust.

These weren't vaccines in the sense that was used before. This is social engineering combined with ruthless and principle-less propaganda of fear at it worst. It cannot be excused and is unprofessional too. They should be ashamed if that notion still exists in the country.

Edited January 30 by myata

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, myata said:

Every genuine vaccine till this incident had a clear benefit to the recipient that strongly outweighed the negative effects except maybe in excluded groups. There's no such benefit for healthy young people under 20-something at least and multiple studies have shown that.

The issue became 'what about the greater good'?   If we force younger people who are not at risk to take the vaccine and we wipe out covid then more older people will live.

But we very clearly exposed these younger people to risk and even death in order to pursue that goal. Is it fair or reasonable to demand that one person take that kind of risk to benefit another person?

[Nationalist]

Check this out.

https://www.blackstonebookstore.com/book/9781988363240

 

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Is it fair or reasonable to demand that one person take that kind of risk to benefit another person?

It's certainly fair and reasonable to ask them to if it's only 0.00 whatever bad outcomes per million people. No one forced anyone don't forget.

If the risk is 1 person to 1 person however... it's beyond unreasonable to even ask such a question.

 

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

It's certainly fair and reasonable to ask them to if it's only 0.00 whatever bad outcomes per million people. No one forced anyone don't forget.

If the risk is 1 person to 1 person however... it's beyond unreasonable to even ask such a question.

 

 

But this study shows it isn't 0.00.  It's actually higher than covid in those age groups.

So you're saying yes, it's wrong?

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

So you're saying yes, it's wrong?

No. It just is what it was. We still had to do something and given how high the death toll would've been without vaccine I think we did the right thing using it.

It may have caused a higher death rate amongst those age groups but it still resulted in a lower death rate across all age groups.

Maybe next time this hindsight will give us better reason to put more effort into other measures.

[myata]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Is it fair or reasonable to demand that one person take that kind of risk to benefit another person?

It was never in the mandate of the government, not to say, unelected bureaucrats to make these decisions. The closest would be a conscription to fight in a war and even then one cannot say it's entirely without a benefit to the conscripts. The standard for this kind of decisions is so tall there wasn't the least of an attempt to justify it in this case. It's amazing that governments in Canada can do just because they can.

[CdnFox]

27 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No. It just is what it was. We still had to do something and given how high the death toll would've been without vaccine I think we did the right thing using it.

It may have caused a higher death rate amongst those age groups but it still resulted in a lower death rate across all age groups.

Maybe next time this hindsight will give us better reason to put more effort into other measures.

Well that's why we're discussing it - to determine with hindsight if we did the right thing so that we handle the next time better. This will not be the last pandemic canada faces.

I don't feel like we did the right thing. I feel like there's parents and wives and children who miss their deceased who were at no reasonable risk of covid but were made to take the vaccine that killed them, or injured them badly. It's one thing for someone to put their life on the line voluntarily but i don't feel that should have been forced on them.  I think there were other ways.

[myata]

29 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It may have caused a higher death rate amongst those age groups but it still resulted in a lower death rate across all age groups.

No, you cannot say that. Believing does not make a fact. There were multiple sane places that never recommended quasi-vaccines to young people, not to say, promoted them.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, myata said:

No, you cannot say that.  

Why not?

[Nationalist]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

It's certainly fair and reasonable to ask them to if it's only 0.00 whatever bad outcomes per million people. No one forced anyone don't forget.

If the risk is 1 person to 1 person however... it's beyond unreasonable to even ask such a question.

 

 

Complete Tweenkie BS.

All government employees were forced to get the jab. All students and most employees...through coercion. Get it or get fired.

You Tweenkies hide behind this BS all the time. Grow up and face the truth.

[myata]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why not?

Because you will need evidence to say that! Because making one risk one's health, or influencing them to do so, just because I think it can be good for us has no place in a normal democratic society.

[Michael Hardner]

54 minutes ago, myata said:

Because you will need evidence to say that! Because making one risk one's health, or influencing them to do so, just because I think it can be good for us has no place in a normal democratic society.

"It may have caused a higher death rate amongst those age groups but it still resulted in a lower death rate across all age groups."

You don't think that the vaccine resulted in a lower death rate across all groups ?

[myata]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You don't think that the vaccine resulted in a lower death rate across all groups ?

I won't even talk about numbers here Michael this is the same well trodden path that always, invariably leads to gross failures. We know better than you and you have no choice but to trust us.

Wrong. Always. What if "lower" could have been achieved (and has been) without unnecessary risks and misguided advice failing the trust of the society? How far will the slippery argument go?

Edited January 31 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, myata said:

1. I won't even talk about numbers here Michael ...
2. this is the same well trodden path that always, invariably leads to gross failures.
3. We know better than you and you have no choice but to trust us.
4. Wrong. Always.
5. What if "lower" could have been achieved (and has been) without unnecessary risks and misguided advice ... 

1. Why not ?
2. Citing number leads to gross failures ?  What ?
3.  What ?
4.  I asked a question.  I didn't answer one.
5. What if ?  I don't think that's a good way to assess a decision made.  Why don't you just associated mortality/illness rates with vaccination rates ?  Let me try a Google on that - I haven't done this before.

Top 3 results from a Google search:
Higher vaccination rates associated with lower mortality
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9862920/

"new cases per million population, the reproduction rate of COVID‐19, new deaths per million population, and hospital patients or ICU patients per million population gradually decreased as the rate of vaccination coverage increased."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9015592/

"We, therefore, see that the death rate among the vaccinated is 5 times lower than among the unvaccinated."
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination

[myata]

Apple and oranges Michael. I can understand it when common folk couldn't get the difference, but anyone in the profession who is making a claim that giving the treatment to young age groups who didn't need them other than in exceptional cases, had a strong effect on the overall severity that could not have been prevented by other reasonable means on the basis of these statistics has to be quite close to l-ing. The difference would mostly be in the terminology, where's the boundary between stretching it to the limits of credibility and already, lying because by the education one has to understand that it's not the same thing. If vaccinating 70+ gives a noticeable reduction in severity it does not justify forcing others to get it, regardless of the additional risks and objections.

In a normal, sane and responsible world, you would need to: a) prove with high confidence the link between vaccinating young groups and a strong reduction in severity overall; b) prove that it could not be achieved by any other reasonable means, for example improving prevention for the vulnerable groups and c) have a public discussion and a legitimate resolution of the question if and why reduction of risk for some could justify increasing it for the others.

None of this have been here. The conclusion cannot be avoided: this is not a responsible democratic government. This is not what responsible democratic governments do, and how they do it.

[myata]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

"new cases per million population, the reproduction rate of COVID‐19, new deaths per million population, and hospital patients or ICU patients per million population gradually decreased as the rate of vaccination coverage increased."

What's the magical rate now? Why isn't the sky falling?

[Black Dog]

On 1/30/2024 at 10:50 AM, admined said:

That's a strange study construction. Why would they compare COVID vaccination reactions to non-COVID vaccines? First of all, I didn't read the whole paper to see if they controlled for mRNA vs other COVID vaccine technologies, but wouldn't it have made more sense to compare mRNA vs non-mRNA, since that's the primary focus of myocarditis concerns.

But the real problem here seems to be that they don't seem to have controlled for possible confounding variables, like age, health, and distribution differences between population cohorts of vaccine recipients spread over so many decades.

I don't want to pre-judge the study (again: I haven't read it), but an awful lot of low-value topics receive approval for research papers these days.

Also their dataset is from VAERS where anyone can file a report on and has no mechanism for assessing the veracity of the claims. So what probably happened here is antivaxxers flooded the system with fake reports. Garbage in, garbage out.

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, myata said:

1. Apple and oranges Michael. I can understand it when common folk couldn't get the difference, but anyone in the profession who is making a claim that giving the treatment to young age groups who didn't need them other than in exceptional cases, had a strong effect on the overall severity that could not have been prevented by other reasonable means on the basis of these statistics has to be quite close to l-ing.

2. The difference would mostly be in the terminology, where's the boundary between stretching it to the limits of credibility and already, lying because by the education one has to understand that it's not the same thing. If vaccinating 70+ gives a noticeable reduction in severity it does not justify forcing others to get it, regardless of the additional risks and objections.

3. In a normal, sane and responsible world, you would need to: a) prove with high confidence the link between vaccinating young groups and a strong reduction in severity overall; b) prove that it could not be achieved by any other reasonable means, for example improving prevention for the vulnerable groups and c) have a public discussion and a legitimate resolution of the question if and why reduction of risk for some could justify increasing it for the others.

4. None of this have been here. The conclusion cannot be avoided: this is not a responsible democratic government. This is not what responsible democratic governments do, and how they do it.

1. What other means ?  Did any jurisdiction try such means and have success ?
2. Some public health science groups published a study based on the effect of vaccines.  Are you claiming it's a lie because they didn't do a study of 'other reasonable means' at the same time ?
3. Your insistence that 'other reasonable means' aren't part of the discussion is speculative, though.  Also the 'proofs' are in small scale studies and tests, which did happenn albeit in an accelerated way.
4. Which one ?  Almost all world governments adopted public vaccination programs.

9 minutes ago, myata said:

5. What's the magical rate now? Why isn't the sky falling?

5.  I don't understand the question.

1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

Also their dataset is from VAERS where anyone can file a report on and has no mechanism for assessing the veracity of the claims. So what probably happened here is antivaxxers flooded the system with fake reports. Garbage in, garbage out.

I cited National Institute of Health studies.  That should suffice.