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

20 hours ago, eyeball said:

It has been proven however to be of immense benefit to the rest of the human population which is vastly more important in the scheme of things.

It was not proven with any confidence that not recommending these treatments for healthy children 0 - 18, who statistically did not need them, had any measurable effect on the severity of the outcome, if other necessary measures were implemented timely and competently. If someone had such a magical ball they have to be able to show it predicting reliably and accurately all kinds of complex social events.

Many countries, given the absence of such evidence and a real possibility of severe side effects did not recommend them for this age group. Social engineering is not what democratic governments are elected for. This is not science-based policy, but another attempt at social engineering at its worst: opaque; arbitrary; zero accountability decision making; manipulation and misleading pseudo-information aimed at scaring and confusing people to a predetermined ends rather than giving them reliable, objective and honest information.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Black Dog said:

Sigh. Where to start with all this bullshit.

First, Germany, France and other European countries only restricted its use in people under 30, Canada only for those 18-24. The vaccine remained available and authorized for all older age groups in all those jurisdictions. The vaccine was not "killed" or "pulled".

Why do you think that happened Black Dog?

We were told that the vaccines were safe and effective before they rolled them out. They went through trials. They were safe and effective. "If you get the vax, you don't have to worry about getting covid. You don't have to worry about giving covid to granny."

When conservatives started talking about myocarditis and pericarditis in young people we were all 'informed' that we were wrong, and "the entire medical and scientific community" said that it wasn't happening. They also said "They have a better chance of getting myocarditis and pericarditis from a covid infection."

From our POV, the people who can see that the emperor's junk, it was really surprising to find out that entire countries didn't believe what "the entire medical and scientific community" here were saying.

We never got a hint that there was trouble in paradise here. Our MSM was still pimping the vax unabated, even to kids as young as 5.

We went from "shut up stupid, it's perfect and no one dies" to "don't look over there, we're ignoring their idiocy. The vaxes are still safe". 

I trust pfizer and moderna as far as I can throw the Sun. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myata said:

It was not proven with any confidence that not recommending these treatments for healthy children 0 - 18, who statistically did not need them, had any measurable effect on the severity of the outcome,

In hindsight...it's all so easy to see and say what coulda shoulda woulda happened...in hindsight. May next time we'll do a little better.  But $10 says the right-wing will still lose its shit over it first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

In hindsight...

No, not at all. At no time, by any objective standard, was this a catastrophic problem it was painted in the propaganda. This means that there was no objective justification for any government overreach, legal or no. The medical oath is very clear what goes next: you cannot allow any net harm to the patient. Every treatment has to be reasonable and proportional to the problem of the patient. Social engineering based on bubblegum models just isn't a part of it.

You have to prove that the treatment's benefit strongly outweighs serious side effects for every age group it's recommended for. No.

You have to prove that vaccinating it would result in a strong overall improvement, even after all other reasonable measures were implemented, competently and effectively. No.

Even if you ever reached this stage, in the absence of a real catastrophic emergency it still wouldn't give you an automatic mandate to coerce people into the treatment. Wasn't even close. Decree-happy social engineering at its worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

"shut up stupid, it's perfect and no one dies"

Cite?  I recall hearing there was always a risk but it was very slight and the risks of not being vaccinated were greater.

We know there's always a slight risk when we get out of bed everyday that it might be the last time. But we get up anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Cite?  I recall hearing there was always a risk but it was very slight and the risks of not being vaccinated were greater.

We know there's always a slight risk when we get out of bed everyday that it might be the last time. But we get up anyway.

There was tonnes of it.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=there+is+no+risk+to+the+covid+vaccine+quote#fpstate=ive&ip=1&vld=cid:7e148d9b,vid:OrjMLONm-Bw,st:0

Biden actually said if you got vaccinated you couldn't catch covid.  While the scientists tended to be more along the lines of "we don't THINK the risk is high at all compared to the risk of covid as far as we can tell and the vaccine is MOSTLY effective to a very high level" the authorities were OFTEN a lot more like "Oh no - 100 percent safe and 100 percent effective guaranteed" .

And i heard that over and over.  "There's no evidence of risk for taking the vaccine".  That was a common statement especially in the first year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And i heard that over and over.  "There's no evidence of risk for taking the vaccine".  That was a common statement especially in the first year

Prove it. It sounds to me like you'rev simply remembering what you wanted to hear. There's always a risk with every vaccine, bar none. If you didn't know this you simply weren't paying attention. If you had expectations of 100% safety you were in la la land. If you persisted in expecting that you obviously had no intention of ever leaving la la land.

How do you even manage to get out of bed knowing you might not make it thru the day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Prove it.

I literally just did.

Quote

It sounds to me like you'rev simply remembering what you wanted to hear. There's always a risk with every vaccine, bar none. If you didn't know this you simply weren't paying attention. If you had expectations of 100% safety you were in la la land. If you persisted in expecting that you obviously had no intention of ever leaving la la land.

Sounds to me like you know i'm right and you're desperate to defend your  jackbooted desire as an authoritarian leftie to stomp on other people's rights :)  

It was constant. "safe and effective" was a mantra. And even if there were any suggestion of risk it was brutally downplayed.  "What?  risks?!?!? One in a billion at best!"   you would always here "very very rare not worth considering" etc etc. 

Well we now know that is not true. The risk to certain male age groups was higher than covid.

 

Quote

How do you even manage to get out of bed knowing you might not make it thru the day?

By using my brain and thinking for myself instead of listening to leftie drones like yourself who'd lie about anything if it suited their echo chamber :) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

In hindsight...it's all so easy to see and say what coulda shoulda woulda happened...in hindsight. May next time we'll do a little better.  But $10 says the right-wing will still lose its shit over it first.

Buddy, that's bullsh1t.

By the time they got to the point where enough "at-risk" adults, elderly, infirm, etc were vaxed that they could move along to middle-aged adults, and then they vaxed the people in their 30s and early forties, and they could finally start giving the vax to young adults and kids, they KNEW that kids didn't need it.

For clarity: In Nov of 2021 Health Canada absolutely knew that healthy kids were not dying from covid. They KNEW it. 

I showed you charts from Health Canada noting that less than 20 people under 20 had died of covid in all of 2020 and the first 11 months of 2021.

The two bars on the left, with 11 and 8 deaths respectively, represent 20% of our entire population, ~8M kids, and only 19 had died by Dec 2021.

CoviddeathsbyageinCanadaDec2021.thumb.png.afb1df2e923bb51351df4f8177783eb8.png

It's always awful when kids die, but ^that's^ not even bad by regular flu standards. 19 deaths in almost 2 full years among 8M kids.

If we leave out Jan and Feb of 2020, before the lockdowns started, that's 19 deaths in the 21 months from March 2020-end of Nov 2021. It's not even 1/mo unvaxed.

Was it ever worth risking using an experimental mRNA vax on all 8M of them at that point?

"Let's roll the dice and see if this vax will kill more than 19 out of 8M kids in two years...." 

Buddy, that is STUPIDITY OF EPIC PROPORTIONS. Especially when they already knew by that point that the vax wasn't particularly effective. The data from Israeli ICUs had been in for a long time. 

The kiddie vax was a combination of "not really necessary", "proven to be largely ineffective", and "an experimental mRNA vax that had never been used on humans until just a few months earlier". That's layers of stupid. It's stupid ont top of stupid on top of experimental and stupid. 

 

For shitsangigs, look how many kids "died of covid" after the vax rollout:

CoviddeeathsbyageNov72022.thumb.png.7140fa0b4469e44be602685808f2c192.png

Throughout 2/3 of Dec 2021 (I'll count that as a whole month to be more than fair) to the end of Oct 2020, only 11 more months, there were 30 additional deaths from 0-11 and 17 new deaths in 12-19. 47 deaths in 11 months. More than 4/mo.

 

I'm not gonna sit here on my arse and pretend to know that any of those 47 new deaths were solely because of the vax, but I'll tell you two f'ing things that you can take to the bank based on everything above this paragraph:

  1. That's absolute roof that vaxing kids did not help them at all, not even 1%
  2. IT WAS F'ING DUMB TO USE AN EXPERIMENTAL VAX ON THEM. ABSOLUTELY RETARDED.

If we find out that the vax actually killed any kids, heads need to f'ing roll.

No one in this country has EVER shown any data at all that backs the message: "We need to use this experimental vax on millions of healthy kids". They were all jabbed for no reason at all. 

If any healthy kids were killed by the vax, rendered infertile, or suffered any massive health problems due to vaxing, I want to see some absolute PROOF that vaxing kids really did seem like a necessity that justified experimentally juicing 8M kids, or I want heads to roll. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

It was constant. "safe and effective" was a mantra.

Vaxtards are literally THE WORST humans on the planet.

They started out by just 'knowing' that HCQ absolutely didn't help before it even went through trials. Maybe it doesn't work, but that's not the point: no one knew that in advance. (side note: it's quite possible that random drugs like nicotine of all things might actually help. Smokers are underrepresented in French covid stats, and nicotine is floated as a possible reason. Some trials have also found ivermectin effective: "

  • 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.

Then when one hasty study came out in NEJoM and the Lancet, it was "CONCLUSIVE PROOF, DUMMIES!" and that was the absolute end of it. Done like dinner. One study is all you need apparently.

The fact that the study had to be retracted made no difference to vaxtards. "Reracted, shmacted". 

(The same skeptics who universally accepted a single HCQ trial as absolute evidence that HCQ didn't work completely ignored data from Israeli ICUs which showed the jab didn't prevent covid.)

Then the vax was pimped as being "safe and effective" in advance, and somehow all the skeptics from ^above^ were credulous believers. Huh? that makes no sense...

"You. We're massive skeptics/credulous sheeple. We go all-in on everything well in advance of evidence. Sometimes for, sometimes against, but always with 100% conviction either way." Hmmmmm.

The vaxtards all went from "It's a bilyun persnt safe and efectuv" to "Yeah, it hurts some people, it doesn't slow transmission at all, and massive amounts of people still die, BUT IT STILL WORKS!!!!" with realizing that their story was constantly changing, by how much, or what it meant for their credibility. 

The vaxtards still consider themselves experts with a flawless record of being correct. It's mind-boggling.

This is like pidgeon chess on steroids. It's like if Kennedy declared the Bay of Pigs a complete victory, or if Biden called the Afghan withdrawal a success. (wait a sec... 🤣 )

Edited by WestCanMan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sounds to me like you know i'm right and you're desperate to defend your  jackbooted desire as an authoritarian leftie to stomp on other people's rights

Dang, he's onto us. I hate it when that happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

Cite?  I recall hearing there was always a risk but it was very slight and the risks of not being vaccinated were greater.

There was always a risk, but you didn't know that. 

At the beginning you didn't have to worry about giving it to granny. Then you could get it nut not end up in hospital. Then hospital but not ICU. Then ICU but not dead. Then "ok, a few people died, but not many". Then when 16,000+ multi-vaxed died in 2022 they weren't even talking about covid anymore. They stopped telling is the stats. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

Dang, he's onto us. I hate it when that happens.

Well it did take me a minute.  "Is that pile of crap over there MOVING?!!?" i thought - and it was like "ohhhh i know what's going on... eyeball nobody's buying it! "   :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

There was always a risk, but you didn't know that. 

Can you not see what I just wrote? I repeat...there was always a risk. There's always a risk with any vaccine, everyone knows that. I didn't need to be told that.  WTF is matter with you?

Everything else you wrote is just...hooey as usual. But to be sure the reason its hooey is directly related to the WTF question I just asked you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Can you not see what I just wrote? I repeat...there was always a risk. There's always a risk with any vaccine, everyone knows that. I didn't need to be told that.  WTF is matter with you?

Everything else you wrote is just...hooey as usual. But to be sure the reason its hooey is directly related to the WTF question I just asked you.

 

But they said the risk was lower than the risk of covid.  And that is not true for a large age group of men.  Sooooo.... .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are risks associated with any treatment. What one has to do is assess the risks against the benefits. Here’s a large review of the subject:

Quote

In all age groups studied, the overall risks of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection‐related hospitalization and death are hugely greater than the risks from post‐vaccine myocarditis.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9538893/#ejhf2669-bib-0044

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, eyeball said:

Can you not see what I just wrote? I repeat...there was always a risk.

I see you writing it now. It's like if I just admitted that Harper isn't the PM anymore, when most people already knew that in 2015.

Leftards were acting like no one was getting sick, and like they should be allowed special privileges in society because the vax prevented them from spreading covid. 

That was you, pretending to see the emperor's clothes for a full year. 

Quote

There's always a risk with any vaccine, everyone knows that. I didn't need to be told that.  WTF is matter with you?

You didn't know that. You were one of the most credulous vaxtards here. 

You thought that the vax was so successful and so safe that you advocated for young people to be forced to take it. 

You pretended that the stories about young kids being injured by the vax were all fake, and that young people needed it for their own protection. 

Quote

Everything else you wrote is just...hooey as usual. But to be sure the reason its hooey is directly related to the WTF question I just asked you.

With the benefit of hindsight we all know that literally everything that you ever said about the jab was complete drivel and it's not surprising to see that your head is still up your ass. 

Congrats on finally admitting that the vax isn't "a bilyun persent efectuv", and that it does injure some young people. You've come a long way from just a few weeks ago. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sounds to me like you know i'm right and you're desperate to defend your  jackbooted desire as an authoritarian leftie to stomp on other people's rights :)  

He's on a revisionist history tour now. He's pretending that he always knew that the vax didn't work as promised and that it wasn't 100% safe lol.

He's just such a sad-ass troll loser that I always instantly regret clicking on his posts so that I can see them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

He's on a revisionist history tour now. He's pretending that he always knew that the vax didn't work as promised and that it wasn't 100% safe lol.

He's just such a sad-ass troll loser that I always instantly regret clicking on his posts so that I can see them. 

The real problem i have with this type is the argument  "well we did the best we could at the time"  followed by "we shoudlnt' talk about what happened or how to do it better in the future, it's in the past and we should leave it there"

 

Most honest people might buy the first one and accept that covid happened quickly and we had not had these conversations before and people kind of panicked and politicians did what they thought would keep them safe politically. And in fairness many politicans were destroyed by covid and the public's reaction.

But now IS the time to have that conversation.  Because as a society we did some pretty serious violating of people's rights and a discussion about whether that was justified or not AND how far we'd take that in the future is warranted. When is it ok or not ok to violate someone's rights in the name of the greater good?

But I think some people just know what we did was wrrong.  But they don't care that it was wrong, so they just want to ignore it and not talk about it again.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The real problem i have with this type is the argument  "well we did the best we could at the time"  followed by "we shoudlnt' talk about what happened or how to do it better in the future, it's in the past and we should leave it there"

Funny how you people never have any problem with saying 'it's in the past', when the topic is settling land claims or why the middle east is a mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Funny how you people never have any problem with saying 'it's in the past', when the topic is settling land claims or why the middle east is a mess.

That's because of Climate Covid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

There are risks associated with any treatment. What one has to do is assess the risks against the benefits. Here’s a large review of the subject:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9538893/#ejhf2669-bib-0044

There ya go, still peddling vax-Nazi BS. 

I'll admit that it's nice to see health authorities finally admitting that the vax injures people, but all they're ever doing is taking a damage control stance. 

 

Buddy, there are thousands of people who died shortly after receiving the dose in England, the US, etc, and a lot of them were not in the at-risk category for covid. 

Those deaths are being investigated about as fast as the FBI investigates Dems, but there are still many cases of people being killed by the jabs. 

Isn't it weird how they can diagnose a covid death right there on the bed but it takes years to prove a jab-induced death? At some point, don't you think that they're just not really investigating anymore? Why is "died suddenly" a "cause of death" now? Has medical science really regressed that far that we don't know why people are dying anymore?

When was the last time that someone you knew died and Drs just said "We don't know why or how"? Especially with young people. How often do they just drop dead and no one knows why? 

I personally know 2 girls who were injured by the 'vaccine'

Both were 19, both were injured in Langley, and one of them actually had her heart stop and had to be revived. I.e.: she was clinically dead, temporarily. She was taking 5 different meds a day to keep her heart from failing. She is "not allowed to take the vax again" but they didn't give her an exemption letter either, meaning that she'll always be subjected to the same restrictions as the anyone else who's considered "unvaxed". Her injuries were not considered severe enough to get compensation.

Get this: she only got the jab so that she could keep working at BC Biolabs, and the whole time she was off work for nearly dying because of it has been unpaid. They didn't even send her a "Sorry we almost killed you, but we're taking no responsibility" card. 

The other girl had an enlarged heart after the second shot. She still suffers bouts of weakness from it. 

If I know 2 girls who were hurt by it, it's way more than 0.58 cases per 100K. I'd have to know 400,000 people to know 2 people who were injured if that was the case, but 19 y-o girls are at a much lower theoretical rate than 0.58.

We're still being lied to, just not as much as before. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You didn't know that...

 

41 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You thought that...

 

41 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You pretended that...

You're still completely filled to the very brim with yourself aren't you? No need for hindsight to see that.

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
      10,750
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • wwef235 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • User went up a rank
      Mentor
    • NakedHunterBiden earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Videospirit earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Recently Browsing

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