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

Moonbox · February 9, 2024

16 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's riskier with all of them according to that page. Look again. Moderna is just the worst of the three.

Now you're just outright lying! 🤣

As usual, you can't scurry away fast enough from the numbers that prove that not only your conclusion wrong, but also your limp and desperate re-imagined meaning of the quote you keep repeating.

Edited February 9, 2024 by Moonbox

CdnFox · February 9, 2024

7 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Now you're just outright lying! 🤣

As usual, you can't scurry away fast enough from the numbers that prove that not only your conclusion wrong, but also your limp and desperate re-imagined meaning of the quote you keep repeating.

Nope - it literally says it's lower on all of them. People can read it. The moderna is the worst but they're all bad. It's obvious that you're just trying to bullshit. Hell you named the file 'vaccine bullshiting, - lol you even admit it in the file name. LOL

Overall, the risk of myocarditis is greater after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination and remains modest after sequential doses including a booster dose of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. However, the risk of myocarditis after vaccination is higher in younger men, PARTICULARLY after a second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine.

And you're still too much of a coward to answer my question.

The hissy-fit continues apace.

Moonbox · February 10, 2024

53 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Nope - it literally says it's lower on all of them. People can read it.

Yes, they can. The chart's here, showing the opposite of what you're saying, as usual.

This is peak CdnFox performative jackassing.

CdnFox · February 10, 2024

22 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Yes, they can. The chart's here, showing the opposite of what you're saying, as usual.

This is peak CdnFox performative jackassing.

Says what i said. And what they said.

It says that Overall, the risk of myocarditis is greater after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination and remains modest after sequential doses including a booster dose of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. However, the risk of myocarditis after vaccination is higher in younger men, PARTICULARLY after a second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine.

And you're still too much of a coward to answer my question.

The hissy-fit continues apace.

Moonbox · February 10, 2024

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Says what i said. And what they said.

It says that the chances of getting post-covid myocarditis is higher for unvaccinated men under 40 than for the same group after getting the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines - circled in blue, green and red.

That's why they say:

"But the risk of myocarditis associated with the vaccine was lower than the risk associated with COVID-19 infection before or after vaccination – with one exception. Men under 40 who received a second dose of the Moderna vaccine had a higher risk of myocarditis following vaccination."

The ONE exception being the Moderna vaccine, with numbers circled in purple.

If you have a problem with their numbers, let's hear it, otherwise we can safely conclude that you're caught red-handed bullshitting...again.

CdnFox · February 10, 2024

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

It says that the chances of getting post-covid myocarditis is higher for unvaccinated men under 40 than for the same group after getting the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines - circled in blue, green and red.

That's why they say:

"But the risk of myocarditis associated with the vaccine was lower than the risk associated with COVID-19 infection before or after vaccination – with one exception. Men under 40 who received a second dose of the Moderna vaccine had a higher risk of myocarditis following vaccination."

The ONE exception being the Moderna vaccine, with numbers circled in purple.

If you have a problem with their numbers, let's hear it, otherwise we can safely conclude that you're caught red-handed bullshitting...again.

Says what i said. And what they said.

It says that Overall, the risk of myocarditis is greater after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination and remains modest after sequential doses including a booster dose of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. However, the risk of myocarditis after vaccination is higher in younger men, PARTICULARLY after a second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine.

And you're still too much of a coward to answer my question.

The hissy-fit continues apace.

WestCanMan · February 11, 2024

On 2/9/2024 at 6:54 PM, CdnFox said:

Says what i said. And what they said.

It says that Overall, the risk of myocarditis is greater after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination and remains modest after sequential doses including a booster dose of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. However, the risk of myocarditis after vaccination is higher in younger men, PARTICULARLY after a second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine.

And you're still too much of a coward to answer my question.

The hissy-fit continues apace.

I never heard of any "young men" getting myocarditis from covid.

CdnFox · February 11, 2024

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I never heard of any "young men" getting myocarditis from covid.

well the report says some did. The thing is as i pointed out to moonbeam it doesn't say in these reports if the ones who did had underlying conditions

I was very clear to point out i specifically said 'healthy' males under 40. We already know that as a group males under 40 were at more risk of the vaccine than covid but - i suspect the ones with no underlying conditions were probably even more so.

And the risk seemed to go up sharply with all of them with each booster.

But you'll always get the moonboxes of the world - the facts are right there in two studies, the numbers add up form other sources, the presence of the toxins that are believed to have caused this have been confimed by several agencies including health canada.... but no, he's going to deny the facts and the math and the science and demand that it's all just a misunderstanding of english.

Le Sigh,

SpankyMcFarland · February 11, 2024

The claims made in this article are dramatic and have been in the public domain for weeks but we don’t see them on the news or in major medical publications like the NEJM, Lancet or BMJ. Why is that? I suspect there is scepticism about the methods used and the authors involved. One of them, Jessica Rose, is described as an independent researcher which could apply to all sorts of people outside the field and another, Peter A. McCullough, is associated with a foundation that bears his name - a peculiar situation for a researcher. I found this wiki entry on a person with the same name which I presume is him. It does not inspire confidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough

Edited February 11, 2024 by SpankyMcFarland

CdnFox · February 11, 2024

10 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The claims made in this article are dramatic and have been in the public domain for weeks but we don’t see them on the news or in major medical publications like the NEJM, Lancet or BMJ. Why is that?

It's in a number of major ones. Sage is not 'minor' and neither is NCBI (national institute of health), the CDC published in, a bunch of others. I mean if you don't think the center for disease control is somewhat 'major' then something's wrong with you.

AND - the SECOND one that Moonbox posted gets pretty much EXACTLY the same results and has ALSO been widely posted.

Once again you have to lie to try to make your point. Which means you don't have a very good point

Very typoical leftist tho - "I can't discredit the work so somehow i must discredit the source". Pathetic.

WestCanMan · February 11, 2024

11 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The claims made in this article are dramatic and have been in the public domain for weeks but we don’t see them on the news or in major medical publications like the NEJM, Lancet or BMJ. Why is that? I suspect there is scepticism about the methods used and the authors involved. One of them, Jessica Rose, is described as an independent researcher which could apply to all sorts of people outside the field and another, Peter A. McCullough, is associated with a foundation that bears his name - a peculiar situation for a researcher. I found this wiki entry on a person with the same name which I presume is him. It does not inspire confidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough

The Lancet and NEJoM were early adopters of the "vaxes uber alles" movement.

They published their bogus "study" discrediting HCQ back when the MSM was trying to put us all on cattle-cars to Vaxschwitz. It became clear at that point that anyone who was on a verboten track would receive the Didier Raoult treatment.

Looking back, does it make sense that Fauci is still the Golden Child and Raoult has been subjected to an international witch hunt?

Fauci directly lied to the entire world about the likeliest origin of covid, and intentionally blocked information about the GOF-enhanced virus that he personally approved funding for from the public. It is by far the biggest conflict of interest scandal in the history of the world by orders of magnitude, but no one cares... WTF?

I've honestly never seen anything officially linking NEJoM and The Lancet with TNI, but if they aren't I might die from shock.

Edited February 11, 2024 by WestCanMan

eyeball · February 11, 2024

6 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

the MSM was trying to put us all on cattle-cars to Vaxschwitz

image.png.bfdee9b089b8f1eb95cc483fe0937c63.png

SpankyMcFarland · February 11, 2024

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's in a number of major ones. Sage is not 'minor' and neither is NCBI (national institute of health), the CDC published in, a bunch of others. I mean if you don't think the center for disease control is somewhat 'major' then something's wrong with you.

AND - the SECOND one that Moonbox posted gets pretty much EXACTLY the same results and has ALSO been widely posted.

Once again you have to lie to try to make your point. Which means you don't have a very good point

Very typoical leftist tho - "I can't discredit the work so somehow i must discredit the source". Pathetic.

Anybody conducting a medical discussion who accuses those who disagree with them of lying is difficult to take seriously. For some reason you imagine you know what I think and claim I’m trying to conceal that truth. What I am saying here may well turn out to be inaccurate but I can assure you I believe it to be that case. You posted the article so let me first ask you, is that the same Peter McCullough whose wiki page I have posted? It sure looks like the same. Was Dr. McCullough correct in his claims about HCQ or invermectin?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/group-physicians-combats-misinformation-unproven-covid-19-treatments/story?id=83097330

You should at least concede that the claims in the paper are already hotly disputed.

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/claim-myocarditis-covid-vaccines-carries-serious-risk-death-flawed-study/

What is the reference for the second article you refer to there?

Edited February 11, 2024 by SpankyMcFarland

CdnFox · February 11, 2024

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Anybody conducting a medical discussion who accuses those who disagree with them of lying is difficult to take seriously.

And yet that was your original claim - that the works were not credible. And you're right it's VERY hard to take you seriously.

And you are not "conducting" a medical discussion, you are arguing politics. It is insane to suggest that objecting based on what publication carried a study is "medical" or "scientific". It isn't.

And i know what you think because you express it. By your own words and actions you're judged. The aforementioned hypocrisy is a good example.

And i see you're still trying to discredit the source and claim the authors are 'liars' somehow. There are TWO articles, with multiple authors.

Sorry kid - as you say, it's very very very hard to take you seriously. If there's something in the resaerch you have concerns about, the methedology or something from either of the two - we might talk about that. OR you can be like Moonbox and just pretend they don't say what they very clearly say and that math doesn't work

But at the end of the day you've shown you' care more about your own bias than facts or science.

SpankyMcFarland · February 11, 2024

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And yet that was your original claim - that the works were not credible. And you're right it's VERY hard to take you seriously.

And you are not "conducting" a medical discussion, you are arguing politics. It is insane to suggest that objecting based on what publication carried a study is "medical" or "scientific". It isn't.

And i know what you think because you express it. By your own words and actions you're judged. The aforementioned hypocrisy is a good example.

And i see you're still trying to discredit the source and claim the authors are 'liars' somehow. There are TWO articles, with multiple authors.

Sorry kid - as you say, it's very very very hard to take you seriously. If there's something in the resaerch you have concerns about, the methedology or something from either of the two - we might talk about that. OR you can be like Moonbox and just pretend they don't say what they very clearly say and that math doesn't work

But at the end of the day you've shown you' care more about your own bias than facts or science.

I am fully aware that we are just discussing stuff here. Nobody should take any of this seriously and very few will even read it.

Where is the evidence that I am lying? That is such a childishly silly charge. I am telling you what I believe. Do I ever accuse you of lying? Of course not.

I am sceptical of the article by McCullough firstly because I don’t believe many of his other claims about Covid. I am happy to look at any paper but unfortunately his come with a lot of baggage. As detailed in the review I included, one of the claims made about the persistence of spike protein in the article has already been denied by the actual author referenced.

What is the reference to the other article? As with the first one I will first look to the authors to see what their expertise is and what their publishing history is. That matters in research, especially with claims that are controversial.

Time is a wonderful judge of scientific claims. Of course, I have no idea how this will work out. We’ll see how it ages.

Edited February 11, 2024 by SpankyMcFarland

WestCanMan · February 11, 2024

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

It sure looks like the same. Was Dr. McCullough correct in his claims about HCQ or invermectin?

1) Let's separate the statement "HCQ works!" from "It should have been possible to do studies to find out if HCQ worked before people were branded as heretics for suggesting that we look into that possibility", shall we? They are two completely different topics.

I don't really care if HCQ helps or not. That was never the point. The point is that it never should have been dismissed out of hand.

The people (LPOC and Dems) who were just navel-gazing and non-committal about fighting covid throughout Jan, Feb and the first half of March 2020 never should have went batsh1t crazy about the possibility that a cheap, off-patent drug might help fight covid. What was that about?

The Dems and Libs went from 3 months of saying things like "Meh, covid probably won't affect Canadians all that much, so let's give China all of our PPE", and "Keep riding the NYC subway like usual" and "Let's go to Chinatown and hug as many strangers as we can" and "Blocking passengers from China is racist". Those are [from memory] exact quotes or summations of the staged press releases from Trudeau, DeBlasio and Pelosi from Jan right through to the middle of March. That's exactly what their "fight" against covid consisted of. It was a pillow fight, nothing more. It seemed like they were actually more intent on spreading it at the beginning than preventing it. They were even telling people NOT to wear masks.

Look at this video that Pelosi used to convey her covid message at the end of Feb, almost exactly a month after Trump blocked passengers from China: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/nancy-pelosi-visits-san-franciscos-chinatown/2240247/

Watch the video, and just look for the examples of Pelosi doing the exact things that you're not supposed to do during a pandemic. It's like a "What not to do" video.

She's in large, cramped crowds, with no mask, hugging people, both outside and even indoors.

Then when the subject of HCQ came out they all suddenly kicked into high gear. "OMG HCQ WILL NEVER WORK!!!!! TRUMP IS JUST TRYING TO GET RICH FROM HCQ INVESTMENTS!!!!!! DIDIER RAOULT IS A DISGRACED HACK!!!!!! HIS EXPERIMENTS AREN'T EVEN SCIENTIFIC, THEY'RE AN ABOMINATION!!!!"

Honestly, the first thing that leftists ever did with a sense of real urgency was flame HCQ. Then when the first (soon-to-be-retracted) study came out "showing" that HCQ didn't work, it was instantly over and every leftist on earth agreed that it was 100% conclusive evidence that HCQ wouldn't work, ever.

What would it take for leftists to think that the vax doesn't work?

In a little clinical trial done with ALL 38M RESIDENTS OF CANADA, we found that after vaxing 85% of the population in 2021, covid deaths went up by 24% in 2022. Leftists still have absolute faith that the vax works though.... 86% of the covid deaths were among the multi-vaxed, but hey, it's groovy.

Can you see why I don't believe you?

2) Does ivermectin work? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/

Conclusions:

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

That's the very last thing that Pfizer and Moderna want to hear, because ivermectin is off-patent, so instead of costing over $100/dose for several doses it's less than $50 to cure several people with covid.

I can't say for certain because I don't do clinical trials and I don't know when I've had covid or just the flu, but if I start to cough, I take some ivermectin, then I don't cough anymore. I'm 55 and I don't sick with covid or the flu. Don't. Get. Sick. Same for my wife.

Ivermectin apparently worked in Uttar Pradesh, deaths plummeted there compared to neighbouring states that didn't try it. Buuuut apparently when something works that well its not proof of anything. Correlation doesn't show causation, right? Just like when we vaxed 85% of our country and deaths spiked.... No biggie, hey? Somehow there's proof that the vax works in all those excess covid deaths. Correlation shmorelation, hey?

OftenWrong · February 11, 2024

18 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

1) Let's separate the statement "HCQ works!" from "It should have been possible to do studies to find out if HCQ worked before people were branded as heretics for suggesting that we look into that possibility", shall we? They are two completely different topics.

I don't really care if HCQ helps or not. That was never the point. The point is that it never should have been dismissed out of hand.

The people (LPOC and Dems) who were just navel-gazing and non-committal about fighting covid throughout Jan, Feb and the first half of March 2020 never should have went batsh1t crazy about the possibility that a cheap, off-patent drug might help fight covid. What was that about?

The Dems and Libs went from 3 months of saying things like "Meh, covid probably won't affect Canadians all that much, so let's give China all of our PPE", and "Keep riding the NYC subway like usual" and "Let's go to Chinatown and hug as many strangers as we can" and "Blocking passengers from China is racist". Those are [from memory] exact quotes or summations of the staged press releases from Trudeau, DeBlasio and Pelosi from Jan right through to the middle of March. That's exactly what their "fight" against covid consisted of. It was a pillow fight, nothing more. It seemed like they were actually more intent on spreading it at the beginning than preventing it. They were even telling people NOT to wear masks.

Look at this video that Pelosi used to convey her covid message at the end of Feb, almost exactly a month after Trump blocked passengers from China: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/nancy-pelosi-visits-san-franciscos-chinatown/2240247/

Watch the video, and just look for the examples of Pelosi doing the exact things that you're not supposed to do during a pandemic. It's like a "What not to do" video.

She's in large, cramped crowds, with no mask, hugging people, both outside and even indoors.

Then when the subject of HCQ came out they all suddenly kicked into high gear. "OMG HCQ WILL NEVER WORK!!!!! TRUMP IS JUST TRYING TO GET RICH FROM HCQ INVESTMENTS!!!!!! DIDIER RAOULT IS A DISGRACED HACK!!!!!! HIS EXPERIMENTS AREN'T EVEN SCIENTIFIC, THEY'RE AN ABOMINATION!!!!"

Honestly, the first thing that leftists ever did with a sense of real urgency was flame HCQ. Then when the first (soon-to-be-retracted) study came out "showing" that HCQ didn't work, it was instantly over and every leftist on earth agreed that it was 100% conclusive evidence that HCQ wouldn't work, ever.

What would it take for leftists to think that the vax doesn't work?

In a little clinical trial done with ALL 38M RESIDENTS OF CANADA, we found that after vaxing 85% of the population in 2021, covid deaths went up by 24% in 2022. Leftists still have absolute faith that the vax works though.... 86% of the covid deaths were among the multi-vaxed, but hey, it's groovy.

Can you see why I don't believe you?

2) Does ivermectin work? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/

Conclusions:

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

That's the very last thing that Pfizer and Moderna want to hear, because ivermectin is off-patent, so instead of costing over $100/dose for several doses it's less than $50 to cure several people with covid.

I can't say for certain because I don't do clinical trials and I don't know when I've had covid or just the flu, but if I start to cough, I take some ivermectin, then I don't cough anymore. I'm 55 and I don't sick with covid or the flu. Don't. Get. Sick. Same for my wife.

Ivermectin apparently worked in Uttar Pradesh, deaths plummeted there compared to neighbouring states that didn't try it. Buuuut apparently when something works that well its not proof of anything. Correlation doesn't show causation, right? Just like when we vaxed 85% of our country and deaths spiked.... No biggie, hey? Somehow there's proof that the vax works in all those excess covid deaths. Correlation shmorelation, hey?

The issue is disgustingly politicized, so that no one can tell what the truth is directly. The bought-media liars will only obfuscate and deceive with contradictory information.

However, it is a fact Trump was given HCQ during Covid by his medical team. We can't know the truth about these non-MRNA treatments technically, but we can derive it by understanding that the president of the United States, as with most world leaders, will always get the best, most up-to-date medical treatment available.

So in that light, HCQ was given because it was beneficial.

eyeball · February 11, 2024

8 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

So in that light, HCQ was given because it was beneficial.

Well he is the most powerful loon on the planet who believed it so, you do what the boss wants right? I mean its not like he was asking for the football and launch-codes or something.

CdnFox · February 11, 2024

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I am fully aware that we are just discussing stuff here.

Are you tho?

Quote

Where is the evidence that I am lying?

In your claim that it was not published in larger or mainstream sources. As i have noted it was published in numerous ones

You then go on to make erroneous conclusions based on that falsehood.

Quote

I am sceptical of the article by McCullough firstly because I don’t believe many of his other claims about Covid

Yeah. You're bias. And because you're bias you've decided to invent reasons and misrepresent the truth to bolster your confirmation bias. That is not good.

If you GENUINELY wonder about it then look for research that says otherwise. If you can find none, and there are two credible papers saying this is the case who's only flaw is you don't LIKE them, then you need to accept them with the appropriate caveates and deal with it like an adult.

It would be fine to say "this appears to be true based on the information we have today but i believe additional studies may yet upset these findings" if you believe that, or even "The peer review process isnt complete, before i make a final judgement i'd like to see that but based on what we know today....."

IF all you've got is excuses to ignore the science then what does that say about you? Deal with what we know. This thread was never really about dissing the vaccines - anyone with a brain knew there were serious risks. This was about the morality of forcing people to take it and putting their lives at risk with no benefit to them against their will and whether that's acceptable (and when) for a society to do.

CdnFox · February 12, 2024

24 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

The issue is disgustingly politicized, so that no one can tell what the truth is directly. The bought-media liars will only obfuscate and deceive with contradictory information.

This is the problem.

In canada - no ban on travel from china because 'racism' - till it was discovered that made our situation much worse and we should have banned travel. But trudeau did it for political reasons.

Initially masks were bad and that's that. Remember that? And the politicians INSISTED that was the case - not 'we think' or 'probably' but "masks do more harm than good - here china have our masks" ( soooo - we DON"T like china i guess?)

THen suddenly it was "masks are critical and that's that'. No 'maybe or if".

Then actual studies were done and it showed masks in very specific circumstances could delay catching ORIGINAL covid for a very short time of exposure - and if you mentioned that you were an 'anti masker spreading disinformation'.

Because if everyone was seen wearing masks - it gave people the impression the gov't had things under control and you had to do what hte gov't said if you want to live, and those who don't are trying to kill you AND your grandmother.

I do believe on the whole the vaccines were a net benefit - not all will but i do. I DO NOT believe that if people had been allowed to choose there would have been ANY difference in the outcome. Not for a second and the evidence backs that position.

But it was all politiaclly motivated - and Justin weaponized covid to drive a wedge between people and win an election.

SpankyMcFarland · March 23, 2024

There has been an expression of concern issued about the article in question:

Quote

The Journal Editor and Sage hereby issue an expression of concern for the following article:

Rose J, Hulscher N, McCullough PA. Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis. Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety. 2024; 15. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/20420986241226566

The Editor and the publisher were alerted to potential issues with the research methodology and conclusions and author conflicts of interest. Sage has contacted the authors of this article on this matter, and an investigation is underway.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20420986241239903

Edited March 23, 2024 by SpankyMcFarland

CdnFox · March 23, 2024

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

There has been an expression of concern issued about the article in question:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20420986241239903

No problem - moonbox posted a different one that got very similar results as a backup

Sorry guy - but there are more than one studies out there now. Can you post one that studied this particular specific issue and concluded there WASN'T a significant risk to healthy males under 40 from the vaccines? Because like i said there's a fair number that say there are.

And until they actually find something wrong with this one - it's still perfectly valid.

SpankyMcFarland · March 25, 2024

On 2/11/2024 at 8:05 PM, OftenWrong said:

The issue is disgustingly politicized, so that no one can tell what the truth is directly. The bought-media liars will only obfuscate and deceive with contradictory information.

However, it is a fact Trump was given HCQ during Covid by his medical team. We can't know the truth about these non-MRNA treatments technically, but we can derive it by understanding that the president of the United States, as with most world leaders, will always get the best, most up-to-date medical treatment available.

So in that light, HCQ was given because it was beneficial.

The fact one person chose to receive a particular treatment proves nothing by itself.

blackbird · March 25, 2024

What is really tragic is if you do a search on youtube, you will find youtube has moved to block all anti-vaccine videos.

I watched one or two documentaries about six months ago of actual people who lost loved ones after they received Covid vaccinations. It had to do with the vaccine apparently causing myocarditis and heart failure. I don't think it is reasonable for youtube to censor all anti-vaccine videos. That is not how democratic countries are supposed to operate. It sounds more like Communist China.

SpankyMcFarland · March 25, 2024

On 3/23/2024 at 7:37 PM, CdnFox said:

No problem - moonbox posted a different one that got very similar results as a backup

Sorry guy - but there are more than one studies out there now. Can you post one that studied this particular specific issue and concluded there WASN'T a significant risk to healthy males under 40 from the vaccines? Because like i said there's a fair number that say there are.

And until they actually find something wrong with this one - it's still perfectly valid.

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. 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? Is what is happening enough to restrict the vaccine in certain cohorts? I don’t think the final answers are in but some suggestions have already been made on the type of vaccine to be given and the timing of them in younger males. Why don’t you contact the local experts in Vancouver if you have such concerns?

Yes, McCullough’s article is valid for now (valid should be enough - perfectly valid sounds like something completely legal a dodgy accountant would come up with) but I still think it was a bad one to pick at the start of this thread. VAERS data was never meant to be used this way. It’s a screening tool that can easily overstate the numbers if misused. He has had to retract at least one paper already on Covid, a serious embarrassment for any researcher, and has had numerous other issues in his work.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10897748/

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.

And just to clarify lest anybody else reading this might have any doubt - I know nothing about this subject.

Edited March 25, 2024 by SpankyMcFarland