One of the great things about being a conspiracy theorist is not having myocarditis. -Unknown

submitted by Tom_BombadilBombadildo from self.whatever

all 23 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]SoCo 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The newly released study about young boys with myocarditis, found that those who had it, had full length spike proteins in their blood. Their bodies were still producing spike proteins, like their mRNA vaccines instructed, but should have stopped by then, and which are known to cause myocarditis alone. Not only that, but those spike proteins were full length and not bound by anti-bodies! A good reason for stopping usage for all until this major dangerous vaccine failure is understood.

One is left to wonder how contagious and damaging the vaccine derived spike proteins are alone. Is the vaccination and its risks communicably transmittable?

It was also weird how those found antibacterial immune responses to the myocarditis, eluding to a secondary infection of humans' bacteria/microbial colonies....a possible secret secondary attack.

Maybe telling our bodies to make the entire S-protein, the virus' weapon, was a bad idea, like all the medical profession said in the beginning, but no one expected their warnings to be ridiculously not headed. Its so obviously lab designed...no other virus uses magnetic coupling to bind; they all uses hydrophobic polar binding. A human said, let's just use a magnet to attach this spike to the ace-2 receptor...real good, with their largely too-perfect of a cross-section matching with ace-2's to be natural.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (21 children)

Statistics suggest that you're two to five times more likely to get myocarditis from catching SARS-CoV-2 while unvaccinated than you are from getting the vaccine.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8989373/

[–]SeethingPeasant 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

You didn't happen to notice the top of that website where it says "an official website of the government", you know the same government that lied about the safety and effecacy of said vaccine, while knowing that the vaccine was horrendously unsafe and not effective. The same government that tried to get people fired from their jobs for not taking it, the same one who tried to force vaccine passports on us. The same government who still refuses to acknowledge the vast and serious side effect and are still advocating for people getting boosted. The same gov that forced us to wear masks knowing they did more harm than good. The same government who, when many, many highly accredited doctors and scientists tried to speak out with concerns and data about the vaccine that could have saved countless lives, were targeted on social media by the government and removed from social media, labeled as conspiracy theorists, and had their medical licenses revoked...... Even tho they were right. But yea, trust "that science" from the government that independent agencies have debunked.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

The fact that PubMed is a government website is irrelevant. All it does is republish scientific journals.

That said, it's true that this particular paper is published by CDC scientists, and that the Director of the CDC serves at the pleasure of the President. It's an agency that operates mostly autonomously, but the President can always issue orders to the Director if that's deemed necessary.

I linked it because it appears to be the biggest and most thorough study, but if you want a more independent study, that's understandable. Here. This one was a collaboration between Penn State and Osmania Medical College in India. Same conclusions.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2022.951314/full

[–]musky-the-nigger 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

It all sounds great on paper, until you realize the 'vax' does not prevent infection. So you have a risk of heart problems at vax time, and then again at covid infection time. Right?

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

The vaccine doesn't completely prevent infection, no. It makes infection less likely and significantly reduces the severity of illness. We were hoping for total prevention, but we fell short of that.

These two studies do not address the question of how likely you are to get myocarditis from infection when you're three, six, twelve months out from being vaccinated. That's true.

[–]musky-the-nigger 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

We were hoping for total prevention, but we fell short of that.

No, we got manipulated into consuming a dangerous unproven therapeutic whose harm approaches the harm of the disease itself.

These two studies do not address the question of how likely you are to get myocarditis from infection when you're three, six, twelve months out from being vaccinated. That's true.

So your comparison is meaningless and you are as bad as OP.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

No, we got manipulated into consuming a dangerous unproven therapeutic whose harm approaches the harm of the disease itself.

That does not appear to be the case. One useful metric is to just look at all-cause mortality: the simple question of whether more unvaccinated people or vaccinated people are dying. Of anything.

And in the U.S., Switzerland, Chile, and a number of other countries with good record-keeping, the answer is very clear: more unvaccinated people are dying.

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination

Of course, when you look at that graph, you can see that unvaccinated deaths are rapidly converging on vaccinated deaths. It appears that the pandemic is over and there would be little point in getting vaccinated for the first time now.

So your comparison is meaningless and you are as bad as OP.

No, not meaningless. It's a data point. You're much more likely to get myocarditis from SARS-CoV-2 than from a vaccine. And you're less likely to develop life-threatening symptoms from a SARS-CoV-2 infection if you're vaccinated.

These two studies don't prove conclusively that you're more likely to develop myocarditis if you're unvaccinated. However, we can see just at a glance that you're more likely to die if you're unvaccinated.

[–]musky-the-nigger 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

You are ignoring my point about two opportunities for myocarditis. 1 from vax and 2 from covid. This risk is additive. So why add risk? Because you are an establishment boot licker I guess.

This was never a pandemic at around a 1% death rate.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You are ignoring my point about two opportunities for myocarditis. 1 from vax and 2 from covid. This risk is additive. So why add risk? Because you are an establishment boot licker I guess.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm just saying those two papers don't give us the data to do the math. If you have a 1 per 100K chance of getting myocarditis from the vaccine, and a 6 per 100K chance of getting myocarditis from an unvaccinated infection, then you would need roughly (it's not strictly additive) a 5 per 100K chance of getting myocarditis from a post-vaccine infection in order to make the myocarditis risk equal. Is the chance of myocarditis from a post-vaccine infection that high? We don't have the data in front of us. Maybe it exists; I don't know; looking for it more homework than I feel like doing right now.

This was never a pandemic at around a 1% death rate.

The word "pandemic" is not defined by death rate.

[–]musky-the-nigger 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not ignoring it. I'm just saying those two papers don't give us the data to do the math.

Exactly. Yet here you are trying to argue with a false comparison on behalf of Pfizer. I'll see you in hell sir.

[–]stickdog 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

OK, all of that data is totally confounded by clear overestimates in vaccination rates (shown by the fact that many demographics have well over 100% vaccination rates!) as well as clear overestimates among unvaccinated mortalities (just because you don't have a medical record of vaccination does not mean that you haven't been vaccinated).

And none of that corrupt data are broken out by young healthy people or by variant.

It has now been well over two years. So where is a single observational study that even so much as ATTEMPTS to compare the OVERALL health outcomes of mRNA vaccinated populations to the OVERALL health outcomes of demographically comparable mRNA unvaccinated populations?

[–]SeethingPeasant 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Also, myocarditis and pericarditis wasn't a problem until after the vaccine had come out. Then once people started getting it from the jab, all of a sudden "well the unvaccinated can get it too!!" The truth is the vaccinated are getting sick and dying at an alarming rate and you know it. No amount of cope and propaganda can change that.

And no it doesn't reduce infection or severity. The hospitals are filled with the vaccinated, and the vaccinated keep getting covid, my sister has been vaccinated and boosted as per recommendations and has had covid 4 times. Me and my family are #CrispAndCleanNoVaccine only had it once, and I'm around people all day every day, been around tons of people with covid, only ever had it once which seems to be pretty on par for the natural. I got young kids, they had covid, no issues and haven't had it since as well. If the math doesn't add up, check your work. The narrative failed to add up unless you buy into the cult ideaology and blindly follow. But good luck, we will be praying for all the jabbed.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Also, myocarditis and pericarditis wasn't a problem until after the vaccine had come out. Then once people started getting it from the jab, all of a sudden "well the unvaccinated can get it too!!"

Of course they were problems. We didn't just invent myocarditis and pericarditis. For example, here's a Finnish study published in 2017 - two years before COVID existed, and three years before any mRNA vaccines existed - about the hundreds of Finnish children under 15 who have been admitted to the hospital for myocarditis.

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.116.005306

my sister Me and my family I got young kids

I mean, more power to you and your family, but you know you can't get reliable population data just by looking around you, right?

I see this all the time whenever anyone's just trying to confirm their own biases. "I don't know a SINGLE PERSON who doesn't think Donald Trump is a piece of shit." Well, okay, good for you, but I assure you they exist.

[–]stickdog 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They don't address anything meaningful at all.

By pooling vaccinated individuals in the "COVID-19 infected" cohort, all these scientists did was show that vaccination plus COVID-19 causes more myocarditis issues than does vaccination without COVID-19.

[–]SeethingPeasant 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Citing more government shills.

Bought and paid for journals just like the bought and paid for climate disaster science. Big Pharma pays government agencies, policitians, bureaucrats, doctors, and scientists lots of money and stocks to sell their drugs. It's alot harder to sell drugs if you tell people the truth about them. Fauci and the gov were 100% wrong about AIDS but there were doctors at the time who were 100% right about aids and they were called..... Wait for it...... CONSPIRACY THEORISTS, followed by character assassination and revoking of their licenses. Remember the whole antivax movement 10 or so years ago? Well the doctor who originally published the paper linking the mmr vaccine to autism was right, the cdc, fda, and manufacturer all knew that it did and destroyed any and all evidence they had of it, then wrote a fake letter discrediting him, and had Hollywood and the news media destroy his character. All he did was say "the other vaccine is much safer, or wait 3 years to give kids the vaccine" and they brought the machine down on him. Big Pharma has a history of using the system as their personal lap dogs to protect and insulate themselves, and use the system as salesmen as well. This is nothing new, hell we didn't even get the same formula of the jab that they tested (which the study they did they just removed any person who had adverse effects and called it safe, if I remember correctly they started with 1500 people and ended with around 235 who didn't have any issues and said it was safe).

It's funny, all the government backed agencies still recommend the shot, and say "the unvaccinated are still the problem" but the independent, non biased agencies say "there are serious problems and concerns with the shot and should be stopped immediately, the vaccinated are the only ones still getting sick and filling hospitals, over 1300 serious side effects, less than a year into you have well over 20,000 deaths that they could not recategorize or deny (with hundreds of thousands of deaths being attributed to other stuff so they could still sell the jab), and it doesn't stop transmission or infection, which is the main things it was supposed to do, not to mention now you can get VAIDS as well meaning byebye immune system. At this point, you'd have to be simple, brainwashed, or a paid shill to still push the crap you are pushing.

Also, the government can't relent on the issue or they will be seriously liable for death an injury since they willfully and knowingly lied to billions of people about the safety and effecacy of the shot. They have to push a false narrative.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Citing more government shills.

Bought and paid for journals just like the bought and paid for climate disaster science. Big Pharma pays government agencies, policitians, bureaucrats, doctors, and scientists lots of money and stocks to sell their drugs.

Do you see the argument you're setting up here?

You're basically saying that anyone who has the money to do research is a "shill," and that therefore no modern science can be trusted. Doesn't matter if they're tenured, doesn't matter if they're in India, the very fact that they're funded and being published means they're lying.

And that simply allows you to work backwards from a conclusion. You conclude, without evidence, whatever is satisfying for you to believe. Then anyone who says what you want to hear is "brave and independent" and anyone who says anything you don't want to hear is a "shill."

[–]stickdog 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Except that they purposeully confounded their results.

Five cohorts were created using coded EHR data among persons aged ≥5 years: 1) an infection cohort (persons who received ≥1 positive SARS-CoV-2 molecular or antigen test result); 2) a first dose cohort (persons who received a first dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine); 3) a second dose cohort (persons who received a second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine); 4) an unspecified dose cohort (persons who received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose not specified as a first or second dose); and 5) an any dose cohort (persons who received any mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose). The any dose cohort is a combination of the other three vaccination cohorts; persons who received 2 doses were included twice in this cohort, once for each dose.†

Vaccine doses specifically coded as booster or extra doses were excluded. Persons with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result ≤30 days before receipt of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine were excluded from the vaccine cohorts; persons who had received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose ≤30 days before a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result were excluded from the infection cohort. In the infection cohort, there were no other exclusions based on vaccination status.

The following index dates were used for cohort entrance: first positive SARS-CoV-2 test result for the infection cohort; first vaccination for the first dose cohort; second vaccination for the second dose cohort; the single vaccination for the unspecific dose cohort; and the first, second, and unspecified vaccination for the any dose cohort. Persons could be represented twice in the any dose cohort if they received a first and second dose; they would have a different index date for each of the doses.

Incidence of three cardiac outcomes (myocarditis; myocarditis or pericarditis; and myocarditis, pericarditis, or MIS) were defined using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnostic codes§ within 7-day or 21-day risk windows after the index date; persons who had received any of these diagnoses during the year preceding the index date were excluded.

...

RRs were not compared across outcomes, risk windows, vaccine dose, or sex and age stratum

So what they did was compare these two ratios:

(incidence of myocarditis/myocarditis or pericarditis diagnoses in within a 7-days or 21-days of a COVID-19 positive test among both vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects who sought treatment for COVID)

divided by

(total number of subjects who sought medical treatment and tested positive for COVID)

vs.

(incidence of myocarditis/myocarditis or pericarditis diagnoses within 7-days or 21-days of a COVID-19 mRNA injection among those who had not tested positive for COVID with 30 days)

divided by

(total number of mRNA injections)

Obviously, if these mRNA injections are causing myocarditis by getting people's immune systems to attack their hearts, this issue will be exacerbated by any COVID-19 infection. So by pooling vaccinated individuals in the "COVID-19 infected" cohort, all these scientists did was show that vaccination plus COVID-19 causes more myocarditis issues than does vaccination without COVID-19.

Furthermore, a myocarditis diagnosis is far more likely to occur in individuals who seek treatment for COVID-19 than in individuals who did not eek treatment for COVID-19, simply because the former cohort is more likely to be tested for any and all health problems during COVID-19 treatment.

[–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That's a far from being a safe vaccine, though. There are probably around 7 different vaccines one could take today. Is any of them optimized to lower this risk? If the spike is such a problem, modifying the vaccine such that it is not a spike, but only the side of the spike would probably save a few hundred lives.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That is certainly a possibility. I worked in biotech for a decade, so I've seen how most good ideas don't pan out, but some of them do.

Considering that this is all published research and we're all talking about it, it's clearly not being buried. And there's hundreds of millions of dollars to be made by any company that can bring the risk down to as close as possible to zero.

So, suffice to say, people more experienced than you or I are working on the problem, around the clock.

Applied mRNA therapy is brand new. My company wanted to produce an hTERT mRNA therapy, but we couldn't get the transfection rate high enough and had to shift gears. The fact that this is all finally happening is really exciting. The possiblities go way, way beyond vaccines.

[–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Glad to see not everyone is a dumbass on this website. So, are you now a retired deca-millionaire?

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ha, I wish. No, the company eventually failed. And while the reasons it failed are complicated, I think I can simplify them down to one sentence: brilliant scientists often make wretched businessmen.

So now I'm just the stay-at-home dad to an autistic kid, but financially I'm fine. I married well :/