Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, myata said:

1. Common knowledge is not burden.

2. Many European health authorities did not recommend them for children and young adults. This is Germany, for example: Healthy people aged between 18 and 59 years (including pregnant people) are recommended a basic immunisation as well as a booster to build up a basic immunity.
3. "OMG can't wait to have my 6.5 month old vaccinated!". Is it criminal yet? (what is?)

1. Comparative results of various national vaccines strategies is not common knowledge.  Stop posting things that are obviously wrong.
2. Ok but where's the study ?  Your say-so isn't 'common knowledge'.
3. Characterizing of your opponents in this way tells me you don't have solid evidence.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Then they should make you stay home when you're sick. But that does not excuse forcing you to take a vaccine before you're sick

I'm reminded of stories about anti-vaxxers asking if it's too late to be vaccinated as they were being intubated.

Too late for excuses at that point.

The idea was to avoid being out to avoid getting sick as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok but where's the study ?

C'mon Michael. Responsible health authorities did not recommend these treatments for the age group in question because they bring very minor if any statistically significant benefits while having non-negligible risks of serious side effects. This is a condition the medical oath gives a very clear answer to. The responsible people had based their decision on the responsibility toward the science; and the society. Not in Canada though. And this is no less than a failure of: the professional standard; the medical oath; the responsibility to the society, any way one looks at it factually and objectively.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, myata said:

C'mon Michael. Responsible health authorities did not recommend these treatments for the age group in question because they bring very minor if any statistically significant benefits while having non-negligible risks of serious side effects. This is a condition the medical oath gives a very clear answer to. The responsible people had based their decision on the responsibility toward the science; and the society. Not in Canada though. And this is no less than a failure of: the professional standard; the medical oath; the responsibility to the society, any way one looks at it factually and objectively.

Ok, well you don't have a study.  Your response to my question was that it was common knowledge.  You call certain health authorities 'responsible', implying others were irresponsible.  

Did other countries act as Canada did with regards to public health?  I'm pretty sure a lot did.   So are we second guessing then ?

It's an interesting enough question because I don't know the answer and I like to learn.  But I would like someone with an open mind as well as some expertise to lead me through it.  I'm sure you understand why.

 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, GroundskeeperWillie said:

I don't think there are documented cases like that in real life.  I bet you got this idea from TV.

No, it was in the news.

It’s too late’: US doctor says dying patients begging for Covid vaccine

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/22/us-coronavirus-covid-unvaccinated-hospital-rates-vaccines

The misinformed are still just as misinformed about vaccine to this days. Case we in point.

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Then they should make you stay home when you're sick. But that does not excuse forcing you to take a vaccine before you're sick

🤣 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, it was in the news.

It’s too late’: US doctor says dying patients begging for Covid vaccine

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/22/us-coronavirus-covid-unvaccinated-hospital-rates-vaccines

The misinformed are still just as misinformed about vaccine to this days. Case we in point.


 

That's not a 'documented case' - that's a british newspaper quoting one doctor.  A doctor with an agenda to try to convince people to take the vaccine. :)

🤣

Awwww - did i make you cry again?  Couldn't think of  any actual response? No? poor little guy :)

If you're a health risk when you're infected then you should stay home when you're infected, but  it's weird that you'd think that somehow the 'future crime' of being infected should mean they can keep you home before you're sick.

That's like locking someone up because they MIGHT have a car accident someday and someone could get hurt :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, GroundskeeperWillie said:

I don't think there are documented cases like that in real life.  I bet you got this idea from TV.

There are some documented cases of guys like Dr. Sohrab "I hate karma" Latchmedial and Mick "I hate karma" Dickson "dying suddenly" after being outspoken against anti-vaxers.

The Dr's quote was "I won't shed any tears for anti-baxers who die of covid", and he died suddenly about 10 days after vaxing, at age 55 or so.

Mick Dickson famously said:

  • "Novak Djokovic's WEASEL words cut no ice and he has damaged his reputation with his 'misinformation' around the Australian Open... after helping to create a player union, his leadership credentials have been BADLY damaged"

Dickson "died suddenly" at the Australian Open of all places. He was 59, and not part of the "Extremely elderly with co-morbidities" crowd that are the most frequent covid victims. 

ICYMI, Djokovic was told that he could compete at the Aussie Open, so he flew all the way there, only to get turned around by the Aussie gestapo. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

A doctor with an agenda to try to convince people to take the vaccine.

No, its a doctor trying to convince misinformed people like yourself that vaccines are not for people that are already sick. That's why he was quoted saying 'It’s too late'

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:Awwww - did i make you cry again?  Couldn't think of  any actual response? No? poor little guy :)

 

 

Don't ask me how I did that lol. I don't know.

Re:eyeball...

You'd think that he invented the vax lol. It's literally impossible to talk to him about it. 

Everything positive about the jab is 100% true, everything negative is false, even after it has been accepted by every Dr and health org on the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Everything positive about the jab is 100% true, everything negative is false,

The simple fact is that the positive benefits of vaccine far outweigh the negative risks. The expert scientific consensus is on par with that of climate science - so is the quality of skepticism come to think of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys, I came across an article on Druthers.ca, it's about a letter from the Surgeon General of Florida to the CDC and FDA.  I think it's highly relevant to this thread.  I will post an excerpt of it to give you a rough idea.  I have also provided the link to the full letter at the bottom of this post so you can read it for yourself.

If this letter piques your interest, there are several more related articles on Druthers.ca.  Feel very free to check out the site, it's a Canadian-based, people-powered newspaper.

 

Let me know what you think.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In February this year, Florida’s Surgeon-General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo sent a letter to the heads of the FDA and CDC, questioning the safety and efficacy of the Covid shots. He referenced a recent study, noted the drastic uptick in reports to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and asked for an honest and transparent answer to his concerns.

The federal agencies responded to the top health official with a four-page “word salad of pandering and gaslighting”, accusing him of spreading dangerous misinformation and disinformation — the canned allegation to anyone that doesn’t embrace the gene-therapy injections as safe, effective and the only way to combat an illness with a ~99% recovery rate.

So, on May 10, 2023, Dr. Ladapo blew the whistle, big time!

In a powerful letter citing more than a dozen studies, Dr. Ladapo exenterates the “health” agencies, accusing the unelected officials — FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf and CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky — of knowingly forcing dangerous injections into not only the arms of the American public, but the world.

Dr. Ladapo posted the letter to Twitter saying: “When I asked the feds for more honesty and transparency around COVID-19 vaccine data, they replied with a word salad of pandering and gaslighting. Here’s my response. Let’s try again.”

Here is Dr. Ladapo’s letter:

Drs. Califf and Walensky,

Your ongoing decision to ignore many of the risks associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, alongside your efforts to manipulate the public into thinking they are harmless, have resulted in deep distrust in the American health care system. Beginning with Operation Warp Speed, and possibly to be continued with an additional $5 billion investment in Project NextGen, the federal Government has relentlessly forced a premature vaccine into the arms of the American people with little to no concern for the serious adverse ramifications.

It is critical to acknowledge and address the negative global impact caused by the emergence of COVID-19. Nonetheless, after two years, your collective decisions to deny that natural immunity confers comparable or superior protection to COVID-19 vaccination, push mRNA COVID-19 boosters for the young and healthy and delay acknowledging the risks of vaccine-induced myocarditis have only sowed doubt between the American people and the public health community. Data are unequivocal: after the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) reporting increased by 1,700%, including a 4,400% increase in life-threatening conditions. We are not the first to observe such a trend. Dismissing this pronounced increase as being solely due to reporting trends is a callous denial of corroborating scientific evidence also pointing to increased risk and a poor safety profile. It also fails to explain the disproportionate increase in life-threatening adverse events for the mRNA vaccines compared to all adverse events.

Based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own data, rates of incapacitation after mRNA vaccination far surpass other vaccines. This is illustrated in a recent Lancet publication (Rosenblum H. et al.Lancet 2022 – pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35271805) that reports up to one third of individuals being “unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, or [receiving] care from a medical professional” in the days following mRNA vaccination.

The study, (Fraiman J. et al. Vaccine 2022 – pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877) also found an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest for 1 in 550 after mRNA vaccination. As you are aware, this is extraordinarily high for a vaccine. In comparison, the risk of serious adverse events after influenza vaccination is much lower (Lusignan S. Lancet Regional Health – Europe 2021 – thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanepe/PIIS2666-7762(21)00006-5.pdf). For you to claim that serious adverse events such as these are “rare” when Pfizer and Moderna’s clinical trial data indicate they are not, is a startling exercise in disinformation.

I want to reemphasize that these questions could have been answered if you had required vaccine manufacturers to perform and report adequate clinical trials. Although Project NextGen has been launched under another administration, I anticipate with regret, that you will repeat past mistakes and prematurely promote new therapies to Americans without accurately and truthfully weighing data on risks and benefits.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~

Full article: https://druthers.ca/surgeon-general-of-florida-unsafe-vaccines-were-forced-into-arms-of-the-american-people/
 

If the link doesn't work, go to Druthers.ca, then go to Read, then go to By subject, then go to CDC, and then search for the article titled: Surgeon General of Florida: "Unsafe vaccines were forced into the arms of the American people".

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, well you don't have a study. 

No you don't need a "study" for a fact of common knowledge. A number of countries in Europe, including Germany, Scandinavian did not recommend them and you are free to research the rest.

The medical oath requires the practitioner to only apply treatments that have a clear benefit to the recipient that clearly outweighs possible negative side effects including severe ones. If the treatment in that age group had that, there wouldn't be any reasons to not recommend them, as for the other ages. This answers the question as far as I can tell. If both parts: a clear benefit to the recipient; and the risks proven to be significantly less than the benefit; aren't present, approving, prescribing and recommending the treatment would go against the medical oath. That's what the folks in question were involved in under the drumming of propaganda, and nothing short of.

Social engineering for the greater (perceived) good is not a part of the legitimate mandate of the governments, neither public health authorities funded 100% by the citizens. So easy to forget, guessing.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

The simple fact is that the positive benefits of vaccine far outweigh the negative risks. The expert scientific consensus is on par with that of climate science - so is the quality of skepticism come to think of it.

That is not a simple fact at all and saying so is the worst kind of deceptive-lying-bullshit that one would normally associate with the kind of man that would scam an old lady out of her home and savings. You should be deeply embarrassed you said that.

The science is VERY clear at this point that we do not know what the long term effects will be and that there ARE reasons for concern.  The presence of known harmful products have been detected by health canada in the pfizer product at least and nobody knows what the effect will be but it's already being seen as a serious contender for what's causing the heart problems in many people.

The best you can say is at the time we did what we could and we knew there was  a big risk but we decided it was worth taking .

If the "scientific concensus" that it's safe is the same as climate change then climate change is a complete and utter fraud. we knew the product was incomplete, we knew there was a danger in using an untested product, we knew mNRA technology was in its infancy and we knew there would be issues going from zero production to 12 billion doses worldwide in a  few months.  And we had to pull moderna because that really was killing people with some regularity fairly quickly.

 

If you want to argue that it was a risk we had to take maybe you could make that argument but if you have to lie to make your point then you probably don't have a very good point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

The simple fact is that the positive benefits of vaccine far outweigh the negative risks. The expert scientific consensus is on par with that of climate science - so is the quality of skepticism come to think of it.

And i just want to say on top of that that this kind of obvious lie is the VERY reason we have people who don't believe in climate science.  Stick to the truth for god's sake - if you get known for telling the truth then when things matter people will believe you.  Right now that is NOT the reputation you have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, myata said:

No you don't need a "study" for a fact of common knowledge. A number of countries in Europe, including Germany, Scandinavian did not recommend them and you are free to research the rest.

The analysis of the policy decisions and effects aren't common knowledge, and since I didn't make the claim I don't have to go and do research in this question.

Thanks for bringing it up though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2024 at 9:41 AM, Michael Hardner said:

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

That has not been proven. It MAY be so. It may also be the opposite. And even by your argument, trading the death rate of 90 year olds with twenty year olds is hardly a good deal. In any case such uncertainty won't convince me that the government mandated experimental vaccine was a wise choice. That's the crux of it. Those of us who worked in health care know about the risks of respiratory, flu-like viruses per age demographic, we know who it kills and who it generally doesn't.

We cannot trust the liars these days, so anecdotal evidence is all I have. For that matter I know several women who were harmed by the vaccine, and one who died. It's incredible to me that in such a small sample as the number of people I know, these statistics stand out. Long term effects remain to be seen.

Your road to good intentions is my road to hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was never a mandate to engineer the society for a perfect outcome as defined and seen by the bureaucrats. That's what happened with residential schools and the conclusion cannot be avoided: in well over a century, we didn't care to think and to make things any better.

It's useless and in my personal view, not smart to march and chant "every child matters" a century after the events when the same thing is happening again in a different area. All the hallmarks are where, unmistakably: bureaucratic power to do whatever they like, on the thought of the day; unrestricted by any checks or controls internal, or external; manipulation of opinion in contrast to transparency, accountability, evidence and clear results. When things wouldn't go as expected, quietly shuffle stuff under the mat and pretend it wasn't there.

We haven't learned anything. And we didn't even care to think, as it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

1. That has not been proven. It MAY be so.

2. It may also be the opposite.

3. And even by your argument, trading the death rate of 90 year olds with twenty year olds is hardly a good deal.

 

1. It can never be 'proven' via double-blind etc. So to say it has "not been proven" is saying nothing.
2. It's not though.  Do YOU think so ?
3. Except that's not the deal.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

The simple fact is that the positive benefits of vaccine far outweigh the negative risks.

That's not proven at all, especially for people who have absolutely no need for an experimental jab to protect them from a virus that isn't dangerous to them. 

Did you see how fast the 4x-vaxed were dying of covid in summer of 2022, right before Health Canada stopped giving out that information? Almost no one died of covid in summer of 2020 and 2021...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

That has not been proven. It MAY be so. It may also be the opposite. And even by your argument, trading the death rate of 90 year olds with twenty year olds is hardly a good deal. In any case such uncertainty won't convince me that the government mandated experimental vaccine was a wise choice. That's the crux of it. Those of us who worked in health care know about the risks of respiratory, flu-like viruses per age demographic, we know who it kills and who it generally doesn't.

We cannot trust the liars these days, so anecdotal evidence is all I have. For that matter I know several women who were harmed by the vaccine, and one who died. It's incredible to me that in such a small sample as the number of people I know, these statistics stand out. Long term effects remain to be seen.

Your road to good intentions is my road to hell.

Even then it's the wrong question.  The right question is 'did forcing people to take it result in lower death rates vs if we'd just let people make that decision on their own and do what they thought was right'.

A significant portion of the population would have taken it anyway. And the at risk groups would have been most likely to do so.

So did forcing others and firing people who didn't actually make much of a difference? Or any? Did we ruin god knows how many lives and rip families apart for no good reason?

I seriously question whether there would have been any substantial difference if we'd just  made a good case for it and let people make their own choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That is not a simple fact at all and saying so is the worst kind of deceptive-lying-bullshit that one would normally associate with the kind of man that would scam an old lady out of her home and savings. You should be deeply embarrassed you said that.

Horrifically shameful is it? LMAO!

Quote

The best you can say is at the time we did what we could and we knew there was  a big risk but we decided it was worth taking .

That's right, except the risk was and still is small and is clearly worth it given how widespread the benefits are.

It's prevented millions of death's around the planet...miliions.

Quote

If the "scientific concensus" that it's safe is the same as climate change then climate change is a complete and utter fraud. we knew the product was incomplete, we knew there was a danger in using an untested product, we knew mNRA technology was in its infancy and we knew there would be issues going from zero production to 12 billion doses worldwide in a  few months.

Well sorry kiddo but the consensus hasn't changed in either case. The vast VAST consensus remains the same for the same reason. Peer review.

Quote

And we had to pull moderna because that really was killing people with some regularity fairly quickly.

Pulled? What are you talking about, I just had a Moderna booster a couple months ago.

Quote

If you want to argue that it was a risk we had to take maybe you could make that argument but if you have to lie to make your point then you probably don't have a very good point.

What lie - you're saying the vast VAST consensus is a result of something some dude on the internet named eyeball said?

I'm actually quite flattered at that - I didn't realize I was so influential. Thanks!  I should put myself up on YouTube, maybe I can make money at this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,753
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Matthew
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Venandi earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • DUI_Offender went up a rank
      Proficient
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...