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

[Black Dog]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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

I'm talking about the OP study.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Black Dog said:

I'm talking about the OP study.

Right.  Well, I think countering with real studies could be educational to people who doubt the success of the vaccines.

[Black Dog]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Right.  Well, I think countering with real studies could be educational to people who doubt the success of the vaccines.

LOL you wish.

 

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

LOL you wish.

 

I do wish 😐 

Anyway, you can argue against reasonable skeptics, until such point as they flee into the bushes with some kind of personal value system that they might use to trump science, such as "God tells me what vaccines to take" or "The woke scientists are lying to you Taylor Swift Bud Lite" etc...

But skeptics are cool.

[CdnFox]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Right.  Well, I think countering with real studies could be educational to people who doubt the success of the vaccines.

Not really about the 'success' of them - it's about the lethality of them which is also very real. They killed people. That is not in question. They killed a lot of young men and some kids who were at no real risk from covid.

So the question is, can the state compel you to risk your life and die just to save someone else? And how do we apply that principle - if our lives would be better if we didn't have homeless people is it ok to shoot them for the greater good?

I mean - this was the concept behind eugenics with the nazis.  Some had to suffer and die for the greater good. Is that ok?

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. Not really about the 'success' of them - it's about the lethality of them which is also very real. They killed people. That is not in question. They killed a lot of young men and some kids who were at no real risk from covid.

2. So the question is, can the state compel you to risk your life and die just to save someone else?

3. And how do we apply that principle - if our lives would be better if we didn't have homeless people is it ok to shoot them for the greater good?

4. I mean - this was the concept behind eugenics with the nazis.  Some had to suffer and die for the greater good. Is that ok?

1. "A lot" is relative.   But ok - post a study and I'll look.  I just googled a study that found no evidence of significant difference in mortality but it was from 2 years ago and cautioned for more review.
2. Well, it can I think.  Should it ?  That's an interesting question for some.
3. Yes, how do we apply that principle ... pretty sure we don't all want to shoot homeless people 
4.  If we had to kill one person to solve all disease, to turn the extreme edge case approach on its head... I would line up to kiss the condemned person on the lips to say good-bye.  I'm being flippant and darkly humorous but if you don't accept the idea of social sacrifice on any level then we're looking to enforce extreme individuality to the point where there is no individuality.  It strikes me as communistic to say we won't displace a single person in order to help the whole.

But again, it's an interestic topic for some.  Likely sophmore philosopy students or somesuch... 

[ExFlyer]

On 1/30/2024 at 12:13 PM, 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.

....

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.  .....

Every drug, every vaccination, every medication has all sorts of warnings and aside effects and issues with them. As you say "we know the harmful side effects and what it interacts with badly and therefore we can counsel people how to use it safely.".

As you stated, we did the best we could in a world wide crisis.

Bottom line is, live in the present and stop whining about the past. Time to move on.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

1. "A lot" is relative.   But ok - post a study and I'll look.  I just googled a study that found no evidence of significant difference in mortality but it was from 2 years ago and cautioned for more review.
 

??????????? -  This thread is literally about a study i posted showing the deaths and injuries.  I even linked to the actual study, not just some cheezy newspaper article talking about it.

Geez dude.  Tell me you're not paying attention without telling me.

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, it can I think.  Should it ?  That's an interesting question for some.

Should be a fairly interesting question for everyone.  That's a serious moral and ethical question with no easy answer and we should be having a discussion about it as a nation.  I suspect many people would not agree if they realized the breath of how far that can go.

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, how do we apply that principle ... pretty sure we don't all want to shoot homeless people 

We didn't all want to get a vaccine.  (btw just for disclosure i did. i'm in a higher risk group, vaxed and boosted by choice

 

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

If we had to kill one person to solve all disease, to turn the extreme edge case approach on its head.

You seem to be arguing that murder is morally justified and not an affront if enough people agree with it.

I mean - we're talking about morality here so it's hard to say 'you're wrong', it's a belief system. 

But it also suggests that deep down you don't believe in human rights. that the person should not be allowed to have the right to life or to choose his own beliefs.  I mean, if i knew i could wipe out all illness in the world by dying, i'd be tempted to step up but that guy didn't get a choice.

Here's the thing about moral beliefs. They matter most when it's hard to live by them. If you believe that every life is worth something then you should try to talk the guy into it, offer him all kinds of incentives like his family will be cared for for the next 10 generations or something, whatever but you should at the end of the day leave the choice up to him.

If you don't believe a human has rights or that a human life has value then fine -but... where does that end? Eugenics for the nazis, and it didn't take long.

 

[CdnFox]

Just now, ExFlyer said:

Every drug, every vaccination, every medication has all sorts of warnings and aside effects and issues with them. As you say "we know the harmful side effects and what it interacts with badly and therefore we can counsel people how to use it safely.".

As you stated, we did the best we could in a world wide crisis.

But it would be nice to do better next time  if we could. Looking back now with the benefit of hindsight can help us discuss what we should do differently next time. It's not about blame or guilt, it's about making the best choices in the future.  It would have been great if we'd had a national discussion about this kind of thing in 2018 woudlnt' it.

Quote

Bottom line is, live in the present and stop whining about the past. Time to move on.

God you're back for 5 minutes and you're already being a twit.   Its' not just the past - its' the future.  Did you think this was the last pandemic we're ever going to have? or even the last time this type of issue might come up for other things - we have a desperate shortage of people, so is it ok to force women to carry babies to term instead of allowing abortions for the greater good?  Is it ok to wipe out drug addicts and homeless people for the greater good? The nazis eugenics programs were based on the idea that if the suffering and death of a few helped the majority then it was worth it for the greater good.

This is an important discussion we need to be having - how exactly do you balance the rights of the individual against the rights of the larger population, and for that matter what kind of compensation should you pay for that infringement of rights?

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

1. This thread is literally about a study i posted showing the deaths and injuries.  

2. Should be a fairly interesting question for everyone. 

3.  You seem to be arguing that murder is morally justified and not an affront if enough people agree with it.

4. But it also suggests that deep down you don't believe in human rights. that the person should not be allowed to have the right to life or to choose his own beliefs.  

5. Eugenics for the nazis, and it didn't take long.

 

1. Ok, it's a new study though and as BD pointed out there are issues with source so let's wait and see I guess.
2. No, not for everyone.  As it's an old question that has been explored in the past and a lot of it has been settled in our institutions and pracitces.
3. State sanctioned murder is indeed "morally" justified in that context, because enough citizens of states accept that it can and should happen.
4. Well, I think that's probably true.  We don't have unlimited rights... lots of things limit our rights.  Do I believe in 'human' rights ?  I would say so but whether I believe in them or not they will be taken away from any of us in a moment by power.  Is it "right" ?  Well... we live under such a system now for sure.
5. The principle of imposing hardship on a minority for a majority, or even on a majority for a minority... very difficult.  But hard to get around that one.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok, it's a new study though and as BD pointed out there are issues with source so let's wait and see I guess.
 

Kind of weak tea there   Just because it's a study you're not fond of doesn't invalidate it.

Quote

No, not for everyone.  As it's an old question that has been explored in the past and a lot of it has been settled in our institutions and pracitces.

And where are you seeing that? It obviously isn't 'settled' at all - it came very close to tearing canada apart and has left permanent scars that aren't going away quickly. I watched with my own eyes as it tore families and couples apart.

I feel like you're slipping back into your old leftie trick of attempting to dismiss serious issues you want to avoid.  I've pointed this trait out before.  "oh that hypercritical thing that almost tore us apart? Meh -t hat's nothing, look over here at this shiny thing...."

 

Quote

3. State sanctioned murder is indeed "morally" justified in that context, because enough citizens of states accept that it can and should happen.

So you were fine with the jewish gas chambers? As long as enough people are for it it's all good?

 

Quote

4. Well, I think that's probably true.  We don't have unlimited rights... lots of things limit our rights.  Do I believe in 'human' rights ?  I would say so but whether I believe in them or not they will be taken away from any of us in a moment by power.  Is it "right" ?  Well... we live under such a system now for sure.

If we decide we don't like that - we CAN look at changing the system. Again - a discussion worth having,.

 

Quote

5. The principle of imposing hardship on a minority for a majority, or even on a majority for a minority... very difficult.  But hard to get around that one.

I get it.  The idea that 1 should die that 10 be saved is compelling. If we assume all life is equal then taking the action that wastes the least amount of life is prudent.  BUT - that eliminates the freedom of the individual and human rights. it says nobody has rights as long as the majority says otherwise.  The so-called tyranny of the majority.

Was it ok when we threw the japanese in jail ands stole their property in ww2? That was for the greater good - should we be doing that again?

One way or another we should figure out how to circle that square before the next crisis.

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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.

If the force was physical you'd have a point raising it as an issue but it simply wasn't.

Perhaps next time we'll have better support systems and attitudes in place for those who choose to pass on vaccines but the simple fact of the matter is there will always be a risk. The prevailing expert consensus at the time was to vaccinate as many people as possible and maintain other measures that were in place. I think it was the right thing to because hindsight indicates we had a considerably lower rate of death and disease from COVID in Canada compared to countries that were not as diligent or committed to the prevailing consensus. The US and Brazil being the most notable. 

[eyeball]

8 hours ago, Nationalist said:

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.

It's not bullshit to say everyone had a choice. In hindsight it was wrong to not have better ways of supporting the choice to not vaccinate. At the time no one had much choice but to make a decision about the best policy to follow based on the prevailing expert opinion and consensus.  Which I might add is still the same now as it was then.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

It's not bullshit to say everyone had a choice. In hindsight it was wrong to not have better ways of supporting the choice to not vaccinate. At the time no one had much choice but to make a decision about the best policy to follow based on the prevailing expert opinion and consensus.  Which I might add is still the same now as it was then.

Coward.

Does it feel good to hide behind such disgusting garbage? Make you feel proud does it?

Sick fcks.

[eyeball]

57 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Coward.

Does it feel good to hide behind such disgusting garbage? Make you feel proud does it?

Sick fcks.

What are you babbling about, hiding from what exactly? Hindsight is used to learn from as well as confirm. Yes, we could have gone into the pandemic with attitudes.

Are you suggesting, in hindsight, that the spectacle you people put on through COVID is how we should all conduct ourselves next time? Tens if not hundreds of thousands of more Canadians would have died if we'd done that.

That would have been the brave or proud thing to do? That's nuts.

 

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Kind of weak tea there   Just because it's a study you're not fond of doesn't invalidate it.

And where are you seeing that? It obviously isn't 'settled' at all - it came very close to tearing canada apart and has left permanent scars that aren't going away quickly. I watched with my own eyes as it tore families and couples apart.

I feel like you're slipping back into your old leftie trick of attempting to dismiss serious issues you want to avoid.  I've pointed this trait out before.  "oh that hypercritical thing that almost tore us apart? Meh -t hat's nothing, look over here at this shiny thing...."

 

So you were fine with the jewish gas chambers? As long as enough people are for it it's all good?

 

If we decide we don't like that - we CAN look at changing the system. Again - a discussion worth having,.

 

I get it.  The idea that 1 should die that 10 be saved is compelling. If we assume all life is equal then taking the action that wastes the least amount of life is prudent.  BUT - that eliminates the freedom of the individual and human rights. it says nobody has rights as long as the majority says otherwise.  The so-called tyranny of the majority.

Was it ok when we threw the japanese in jail ands stole their property in ww2? That was for the greater good - should we be doing that again?

One way or another we should figure out how to circle that square before the next crisis.

You're mixing up what I personally support, and what is supported by "the" public.  

You support having domain over your body, which makes sense but it's not the case in law every time.  People have had to submit to medical procedures due to the courts, such as blood transfusions, in the past. Or had their freedom taken because they were deemed not mentally fit. I doubt that you could craft a law that cuts the fine line there.

I'm not dismissing serious issues, I'm answering your questions.  I'm not even debating you, although you seem to think I am.

And... yes... the study is new.  Let's wait to see how the reviews go.  

Nothing controversial in what I'm saying.  If you want to bat it around like a kitten with a rubber mouse, feel free.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

If the force was physical you'd have a point raising it as an issue but it simply wasn't.

 

The vaccine is physical, the needle is physical, it's effect on your body is physical....  how are you thinking its not physcial?

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Perhaps next time we'll have better support systems and attitudes in place for those who choose to pass on vaccines but the simple fact of the matter is there will always be a risk. The prevailing expert consensus at the time was to vaccinate as many people as possible and maintain other measures that were in place. I think it was the right thing to because hindsight indicates we had a considerably lower rate of death and disease from COVID in Canada compared to countries that were not as diligent or committed to the prevailing consensus. The US and Brazil being the most notable. 

Not the issue.  The medical consesus was that young men were at virtually no risk. We forced them to take it. And we did, lets not pretend otherwise.  And many died as a result, and  a lot more got very sick and may have permanent damage.

So what we did was take people who were not in danger, and put them in danger in order to benefit (theoretically) third parties who might be in danger.

Are you ok with that. and will you be ok if that logic is applied in the future.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

It's not bullshit to say everyone had a choice. In hindsight it was wrong to not have better ways of supporting the choice to not vaccinate.

I agree with the second part, there's a lot more we could have done there.

The first part... it's long been held by the courts that a 'choice' thats subject to coersion is not a choice. If i hold a gun to your kids head and demand you give me your money or i'll kill him,,, would you REALLY claim later that you gave me the money by your own choice and free will?  No - and nether would the judge if i tried to pull that defense.

" DO what i say or i'll leave you jobless in the middle of covid" is a pretty serious threat. 

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You're mixing up what I personally support, and what is supported by "the" public.  

I don't think so.

Quote

You support having domain over your body, which makes sense but it's not the case in law every time.  People have had to submit to medical procedures due to the courts, such as blood transfusions, in the past.

That's not accurate.  They've had to have their kids submit to it to prevent their deaths, and again that's the court saying that a 3rd party shouldn't be allowed to take risks with an individual's life.

Quote

Or had their freedom taken because they were deemed not mentally fit.

 Not really applicable is it. Obviously if someone can't choose someone else will have to do so for them but that's not germaine to this conversation.

Quote

I doubt that you could craft a law that cuts the fine line there.

I'm pretty sure you could - it would simply say that a person has the right to determine what they will do with their body up to the point where the actions violate the rights of another.

Quote

I'm not dismissing serious issues, I'm answering your questions.  I'm not even debating you, although you seem to think I am.

You're not really debating or even answering really.  I think you're kind of dancing around the issue.  Perhaps that's ecause you're not sure what the answers are and that's fair but we can both agree you're not bringing much in the way of actual discussion to the table     seriously - where do we draw that line.

Quote

And... yes... the study is new.  Let's wait to see how the reviews go.  

Sure.

Quote

Nothing controversial in what I'm saying.  If you want to bat it around like a kitten with a rubber mouse, feel free.

OH please - people don't have a right to their body isn't controvesial? if we took what you said at face value women don't have any right whatsoever to an abortion.  Now - you might or might not believe that but if you think that isn't a controversial concept you're bat crap crazy!

[Nationalist]

17 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What are you babbling about, hiding from what exactly? Hindsight is used to learn from as well as confirm. Yes, we could have gone into the pandemic with attitudes.

Are you suggesting, in hindsight, that the spectacle you people put on through COVID is how we should all conduct ourselves next time? Tens if not hundreds of thousands of more Canadians would have died if we'd done that.

That would have been the brave or proud thing to do? That's nuts.

 

You don't know that. It is a grand assumption that the lockdowns and restrictions helped anyone. In fact...in hindsight...we were told by those who went through the Spanish flu pandemic, to NOT lock down. Get outside.

Nothing I've ever seen, has proven any of that chickenshit helped anything but to sooth the terror your government generated.

People died. Well it's a design flaw. We die. The vast...vast majority did what I did. Go "Achew" and "cough cough" for a day or two...and had something even your bought and paid for "science" conveniently forgot about...natural immunity. 

Meh...I could go on and on but...'nough to say, we happened to have been right all along.

In hindsight.

[eyeball]

19 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

how are you thinking its not physcial?

There were no reports of anyone being dragged into vaccination chambers, getting strapped into place where an agent of the state injected you against your will.

Something like this.

 

Edited January 31 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

1. I don't think so.

2. That's not accurate.  They've had to have their kids submit to it to prevent their deaths, and again that's the court saying that a 3rd party shouldn't be allowed to take risks with an individual's life.

3. .i..t would simply say that a person has the right to determine what they will do with their body up to the point where the actions violate the rights of another.

4. You're not really debating or even answering really.  I think you're kind of dancing around the issue.  Perhaps that's because you're not sure what the answers are and that's fair but we can both agree you're not bringing much in the way of actual discussion to the table     seriously - where do we draw that line.

5. Sure.

6. OH please - people don't have a right to their body isn't controvesial?

7. if we took what you said at face value women don't have any right whatsoever to an abortion.  Now - you might or might not believe that but if you think that isn't a controversial concept you're bat crap crazy!

1. So you think that I suppose the Nazis and Japanese internment?  Well I don't but who knows if you believe me.

2. The kid sued the government saying their rights were violated.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.858660

3. Seems super ambiguous to me.  I think that you could justify forced vaccination using an interpretation of that.  But I'm not a lawyer though.

4. Sorry pal.  I'm doing my best.  You're loading the questions to say I'm a Nazi, so can you blame me for not being that interested in your lil Spanish Inquisition here?

5. Great.  We agree on something.

6. You're right it's controversial, but only due to recent events.  I'm not proposing anything that isn't already in place I mean.  You're attacking the messenger.

7.  Mmmm hmmm.   The government has a lot of power, that's what I'm saying.  Don't throw a fit at me for telling you... 

It's like Adam blaming the Snake... You don't want truth, don't talk to me.  Simple.

 

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Meh...I could go on and on but...'nough to say, we happened to have been right all along.

In hindsight.

I'm sorry but hindsight has already beat you to this.

Vaccine hesitancy, COVID conspiracies led to thousands of deaths, high cost for health care system, report finds

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-report-the-high-human-cost-of-misinformation/

[CdnFox]

29 minutes ago, eyeball said:

There were no reports of anyone being dragged into vaccination chambers, getting strapped into place where an agent of the state injected you against your will.

Something like this.

 

So for example when native women were severely pressured into being sterilized so they couldn't have more kids and later regretted it - the state is ok to do that? You're fine with that kind of thing?

I"m sorry but  threatening to take away someone's livelihood and their home and their food and their family with it is NOT giving them 'choice'.  Lets not descent into ridiculousness here. People were made to do it who didn't want to.  Some of them died.  Some were badly hurt.

Those are facts. Unless you're going to argue that the whole 'putting a gun to their kids head' thing is perfectly fine and in no way coersion then you're going to have to accept this was not a choice of their own free will and they died.  How is that ok?

[GroundskeeperWillie]

On 1/29/2024 at 11:16 PM, CdnFox said:

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

 

I have read an article by the World health council.  It mentioned that there are viral plasmid DNAs in the vaccines that can integrate themselves into the recipient's genes. Also I have read the letter of Surgeon General of Florida (Dr.  Ladapo) to the heads of CDC and FDA.  In his letter, he made serious charges about the safety of the vaccines.  Apparently the CDC and FDA "responded" by giving him word-salads.

I can provide links to these studies if anybody is interested.  Just send me a message.  I am not sure if I am allowed to post the articles on here.