Make sure you read this CDC Report

[JustRalph]

https://twitchy.com/grateful-calvin/2024/03/09/most-transparent-administration-in-history-jack-cdc-releases-report-on-vaccine-myocarditis-n2393782

It’s a real doozy, about. Myocarditis

[Jeff P]

You KNOW if the vaccines really were safe and effective:

Government alphabet agencies wouldn't be making such a full on censorship effort to hide the data.

Instead they'd upload their huge medical databases populated with patient level data to the cloud and invite everyone who wanted to see the data to download it.

The only redaction would be the patient identities.

They'd also be begging every news organization on the planet to do their own analysis of the data and run headlines reporting how safe the product is.

But that's not what they are doing is it?

And I'm having a hard time figuring out why. :rolleyes:


-jp
.

[xtb]

https://twitchy.com/grateful-calvin/2024/03/09/most-transparent-administration-in-history-jack-cdc-releases-report-on-vaccine-myocarditis-n2393782

It’s a real doozy, about. Myocarditis

"FUCK YOU PEASANTS" This is perfect, exactly what is being said! :lol:


So mostpost, you think anyone, especially experts, who question the CDC about the safety of the covid shots is a "nutcase". Why do you suppose the CDC would redact every page of a 148 page report about serious side effects from the covid shots? If the shots are "safe and effective", wouldn't they want this report released to show that to be true? Do you still think the CDC is not hiding anything? I know, dumb question. Of course you still think the CDC is not hiding anything and you will go to your grave claiming the shots are safe and effective, because that's what you are supposed to say.

[PaceAdvantage]

This country has been completely brainwashed.

On a whole host of issues and topics.

There are people in this world who want to hear NOTHING negative or suspicious or anything that raises ANY doubt about this particular precious vaccine. To them this vaccine is like GOD. Sacred.

You better dare say NOTHING bad about it.

It's really because deep down, they know they fucked up...they let their guard down...they bought into all the bullshit...and they don't want to hear a single negative word about it because they don't want their little bubble being burst or they don't want to think they made a mistake.

It's fascinating and bizarre all at the same time. Very smart people otherwise.

I just brought this report up to someone visiting my home right now, and they don't want to hear a word about it...they don't want to know about a completely redacted report...they don't wonder why it might be redacted...they don't even want to discuss it at all...

Their response "I'm not anti-vaccines"

LMAO

Somehow implying that *I* am anti-vaccines (PLURAL EMPHASIZED) for bringing the topic up, which I am most certainly not.

It's literally a cult at this point.

[46zilzal]

Phoney practitioners UNLICENSED an UNEDUCATED

[PaceAdvantage]

Phoney practitioners UNLICENSED an UNEDUCATEDnon sequitur alert

[xtb]

Phoney practitioners UNLICENSED an UNEDUCATED

46GPT experiences another glitch.

[PalaceOfFortLarned]

Phoney practitioners UNLICENSED an UNEDUCATED

Everybody I agree with is Educated.

Everybody I don't agree with Uneducated.

That is an amazing Hippocratic Oath you hold dear to your heart.

[davew]

at least JOE has determined mRNA vaccines can cure cancer :ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

[46zilzal]

from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10547603/#:~:text=Myocarditis%20can%20present%20as%20acute, setting%20of%20COVID%2D19%20difficult.

Quote: Viral infections are a known cause of myocarditis, resulting in a focal to global inflammation of the myocardium . This inflammation can progress to tissue necrosis and subsequent wall dysfunction, raising the risk of sudden cardiac death . Although current literature linking COVID-19 to non-ischemic myocardial injury is insufficient, other forms of coronavirus, such as Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and SARS-CoV, have been found in
cardiac tissue of animals

Myocarditis can present as acute-onset heart failure or cardiogenic shock, which in turn causes symptoms that overlap with COVID-19, including dyspnea, cough, and even fevers . These nonspecific symptoms make clinical diagnosis of myocarditis in the setting of COVID-19 difficult.

Lastly, although not addressed within the study, we wanted to address the theorized link between COVID-19 vaccinations and myocarditis. It was proposed that because SARS-CoV-2 S glycoproteins have similar structure to cardiac-myosin heavy chain protein, antibodies designed to react against the virus glycoprotein reacted against the cardiac proteins instead, resulting in myocarditis. However, a study comparing several peptides from the SARS-CoV-2 spike to 35 cardiac proteins associated with cardiac autoimmunity found that there were no peptides from the spike that matched any cardiac antigen more than 60% in similarity

[46zilzal]

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/myocarditis.html

Although cases of myocarditis and pericarditis are rare, when cases have occurred, they have most frequently been seen in adolescent and young adult males within 7 days after receiving the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The severity of myocarditis and pericarditis cases can vary; most patients with myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination have experienced resolution of symptoms by hospital discharge.

https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/coronavirus-and-your-health/coronavirus-vaccine-your-questions-answered/myocarditis-and-covid-19-vaccines-should-you-be-worried

There have been rare cases of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) following the Moderna and the Pfizer vaccine in the UK, and it has been listed as a very rare side effect.

Myocarditis has also been listed as a rare possible side effect of the Novavax vaccine, after a very small number of cases were reported during clinical trials.

For every million doses given of the monovalent Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, there have been 10 reports of myocarditis and 6 reports of pericarditis, according to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (as of 23 November 2022). There have been 14 reports of myocarditis and 8 reports of pericarditis for every million doses given of the monovalent Moderna vaccine over the same period.

[PalaceOfFortLarned]

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/myocarditis.html

Although cases of myocarditis and pericarditis are rare, when cases have occurred, they have most frequently been seen in adolescent and young adult males within 7 days after receiving the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The severity of myocarditis and pericarditis cases can vary; most patients with myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination have experienced resolution of symptoms by hospital discharge.

https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/coronavirus-and-your-health/coronavirus-vaccine-your-questions-answered/myocarditis-and-covid-19-vaccines-should-you-be-worried

There have been rare cases of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) following the Moderna and the Pfizer vaccine in the UK, and it has been listed as a very rare side effect.

Myocarditis has also been listed as a rare possible side effect of the Novavax vaccine, after a very small number of cases were reported during clinical trials.

For every million doses given of the monovalent Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, there have been 10 reports of myocarditis and 6 reports of pericarditis, according to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (as of 23 November 2022). There have been 14 reports of myocarditis and 8 reports of pericarditis for every million doses given of the monovalent Moderna vaccine over the same period.

So in your very informed opinion, knowing a virus had a 99.97% survival rate and was almost entirely a virus that would wipe out the old and those with serious health problems, you can't tell me you believe what you are shoveling.

And well into a year of knowing facts that people under 50 were .1% and kids under 18 at near 0%, would you have still demanded them to take the shots?

Because that is EXACTLY what happened.

[mostpost]

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/myocarditis.html

Although cases of myocarditis and pericarditis are rare, when cases have occurred, they have most frequently been seen in adolescent and young adult males within 7 days after receiving the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The severity of myocarditis and pericarditis cases can vary; most patients with myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination have experienced resolution of symptoms by hospital discharge.

https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/coronavirus-and-your-health/coronavirus-vaccine-your-questions-answered/myocarditis-and-covid-19-vaccines-should-you-be-worried

There have been rare cases of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) following the Moderna and the Pfizer vaccine in the UK, and it has been listed as a very rare side effect.

Myocarditis has also been listed as a rare possible side effect of the Novavax vaccine, after a very small number of cases were reported during clinical trials.

For every million doses given of the monovalent Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, there have been 10 reports of myocarditis and 6 reports of pericarditis, according to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (as of 23 November 2022). There have been 14 reports of myocarditis and 8 reports of pericarditis for every million doses given of the monovalent Moderna vaccine over the same period.
You are 11 to 15 times more likely to get Myocarditis from COVID itself than from the vaccine. You are thousands of times more likely to die from Covid

[Jeff P]

The largest study of its kind I am aware of comes from Israel.

The observations were made between March 2020 and January 2021 before the mRNA Vaccines were rolled out at scale. This made it easy to exclude the vaccinated from the data, which the researchers did, and end up with a large number of study cohorts, which the researchers also did (retrospective study cohort 196,992 adults and control cohort 590,976 adults.)

The last two sentences (direct quote) from the study Abstract:
" Post COVID-19 infection was not associated with either myocarditis (aHR 1.08; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.56) or pericarditis (aHR 0.53; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.13). We did not observe an increased incidence of neither pericarditis nor myocarditis in adult patients recovering from COVID-19 infection. "

The full study was published in The Journal of Clinical Medicine.

The Incidence of Myocarditis and Pericarditis in Post COVID-19 Unvaccinated Patients—A Large Population-Based Study:
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/8/2219


An abbreviated version can also be found on the NIH.gov site.

The Incidence of Myocarditis and Pericarditis in Post COVID-19 Unvaccinated Patients—A Large Population-Based Study:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/

As far back as January 2021 Israeli researchers were reporting Covid infection wasn't responsible for the increase in myocarditis and pericarditis.



-jp
.

[mostpost]

You KNOW if the vaccines really were safe and effective:

Government alphabet agencies wouldn't be making such a full on censorship effort to hide the data.

Instead they'd upload their huge medical databases populated with patient level data to the cloud and invite everyone who wanted to see the data to download it.

The only redaction would be the patient identities.

They'd also be begging every news organization on the planet to do their own analysis of the data and run headlines reporting how safe the product is.

But that's not what they are doing is it?

And I'm having a hard time figuring out why. :rolleyes:


-jp
.

There are literally dozens of studies out there and they all show the same thing. There is a small increase in the incidence of myocarditis. But it is generally short lived and has few lasting effects. On the other hand an unvaccinated person who contracts Covid is 11 to 15 times more likely to suffer from Myocarditis as a vaccinated person.

[Jeff P]

The study with the largest sample size I am aware of was published in ELSEVIER on the Science Direct site almost a month ago.


ELSEVIER | Feb 12, 2024
COVID-19 vaccines and adverse events of special interest: A multinational Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X24001270

Methods

Using a common protocol, this observational cohort study compared observed with expected rates of 13 selected AESI across neurological, haematological, and cardiac outcomes. Expected rates were obtained by participating sites using pre-COVID-19 vaccination healthcare data stratified by age and sex. Observed rates were reported from the same healthcare datasets since COVID-19 vaccination program rollout. AESI occurring up to 42 days following vaccination with mRNA (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273) and adenovirus-vector (ChAdOx1) vaccines were included in the primary analysis. Risks were assessed using observed versus expected (OE) ratios with 95 % confidence intervals. Prioritised potential safety signals were those with lower bound of the 95 % confidence interval (LBCI) greater than 1.5.

Results

Participants included 99,068,901 vaccinated individuals. In total, 183,559,462 doses of BNT162b2, 36,178,442 doses of mRNA-1273, and 23,093,399 doses of ChAdOx1 were administered across participating sites in the study period. Risk periods following homologous vaccination schedules contributed 23,168,335 person-years of follow-up. OE ratios with LBCI > 1.5 were observed for Guillain-Barré syndrome (2.49, 95 % CI: 2.15, 2.87) and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (3.23, 95 % CI: 2.51, 4.09) following the first dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis showed an OE ratio of 3.78 (95 % CI: 1.52, 7.78) following the first dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine. The OE ratios for myocarditis and pericarditis following BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and ChAdOx1 were significantly increased with LBCIs > 1.5.

Conclusion

This multi-country analysis confirmed pre-established safety signals for myocarditis, pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. Other potential safety signals that require further investigation were identified.


From page 5 of the PDF version or about 1/5th of the way down from the top in the html version:

Table 5
Aggregated OE Ratios by last dose, cardiovascular conditions, period 0–42 days.

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0264410X24001270-fx4.jpg


The authors compiled OE (Observed vs. Expected) Ratios for AESI (Adverse Events of Special Interest) using the health care records of more than 99 Million people vaccinated against Covid-19 in eight countries (Argentina, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, New Zealand, and Scotland.)

Looking at the last or most recent dose from each of the three major vaccine makers - Oxford/Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna:

For EVERY DOSE:

The OE Ratios for both Myocarditis and Pericarditis were higher than expected and statistically significant.

For both Pfizer and Moderna:

The Myocarditis OE Ratios were MORE THAN TWO TIMES HIGHER than expected.

Sample size: 99 Million vaccinated, 242.8 Million doses, and 23.1 Million person-years of follow-up.


-jp
.

[xtb]

There are literally dozens of studies out there and they all show the same thing. There is a small increase in the incidence of myocarditis. But it is generally short lived and has few lasting effects. On the other hand an unvaccinated person who contracts Covid is 11 to 15 times more likely to suffer from Myocarditis as a vaccinated person.

Please show us some of these studies that show an unvaccinated person who contracts Covid is 11 to 15 times more likely to suffer from Myocarditis as a vaccinated person.

[davew]

Please show us some of these studies that show an unvaccinated person who contracts Covid is 11 to 15 times more likely to suffer from Myocarditis as a vaccinated person.

don't hold your breath, mostly propaganda was saying for many months after proof to the contrary ... 'if you are vaccinated, you can not catch covid'

[xtb]

don't hold your breath, mostly propaganda was saying for many months after proof to the contrary ... 'if you are vaccinated, you can not catch covid'

I know, the studies Musty speaks of don't exist. It's an outright lie. It's what he does. He is either incredibly dumb or he's getting paid to post his lies.

[woodtoo]

I know, the studies Musty speaks of don't exist. It's an outright lie. It's what he does. He is either incredibly dumb or he's getting paid to post his lies.

100%

[Inner Dirt]

I know, the studies Musty speaks of don't exist. It's an outright lie. It's what he does. He is either incredibly dumb or he's getting paid to post his lies.


I will pick the bolded, at first I thought he was just trying to be an annoying troll.

[jimmyb]

I know, the studies Musty speaks of don't exist. It's an outright lie. It's what he does. He is either incredibly dumb or he's getting paid to post his lies.

He needs to justify his 20 boosters

[Jeff P]

I found a meta-analysis of studies by researchers at Penn State from 2022, and I suspect it's the study Mostpost was referring to.

Myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection vs. COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2022.951314/full

Methods: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the WHO Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease) and trial registries were searched up to May 2022, for randomized controlled trials and observational cohort studies reporting the risk of myocarditis associated with the COVID-19 vaccines and the risk associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We estimated the effect of COVID-19 infection and vaccines on rates of myocarditis by random-effects meta-analyses using the generic inverse variance method. Meta-regression analyses were conducted to assess the effect of sex and age on the incidence of myocarditis.

Results: We identified 22 eligible studies consisting of 55.5 million vaccinated cohorts and 2.5 million in the infection cohort. The median age was 49 years (interquartile range (IQR): 38–56), and 49% (IQR: 43 to 52%) were men. Of patients diagnosed with myocarditis (in both vaccination and COVID-19 cohort) 1.07% were hospitalized and 0.015% died. The relative risk (RR) for myocarditis was more than seven times higher in the infection group than in the vaccination group [RR: 15 (95% CI: 11.09–19.81, infection group] and RR: 2 (95% CI: 1.44-2.65, vaccine group). Of patients who developed myocarditis after receiving the vaccine or having the infection, 61% (IQR: 39–87%) were men. Meta-regression analysis indicated that men and younger populations had a higher risk of myocarditis. A slow decline in the rates of myocarditis was observed as a function of time from vaccination. The risk of bias was low.

Figure 2. Association of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination versus SARS-CoV-2 infection. The risk of myocarditis from infection was more than 7-fold higher than vaccination.

https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/951314/fcvm-09-951314-HTML/image_m/fcvm-09-951314-g002.jpg


Figure 3. Myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination stratified by vaccine type. The risk of myocarditis was highest in the Moderna vaccine group.

https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/951314/fcvm-09-951314-HTML/image_m/fcvm-09-951314-g003.jpg




One thing sticks out to me here.

The reported RR (Risk Ratio) for Pfizer and Moderna in Figure 3 in this study are statistically significant - and they similar to the OE (Observed vs Expected) ratios reported by the authors of the newer/larger sample size GVDN cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals I posted above (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=181398&page=2).


-jp
.

[PaceAdvantage]

mostpost dismisses SCIENCE when it means he can still live in his cult-like existence

He wants none of YOUR SCIENCE Jeff...it shatters his little world...

He will never address your posts because he is without the ability to do so...so he ignores

[Inner Dirt]

mostpost dismisses SCIENCE when it means he can still live in his cult-like existence

He wants none of YOUR SCIENCE Jeff...it shatters his little world...

He will never address your posts because he is without the ability to do so...so he ignores


I hope you aren't just noticing that he runs and hides when he is dumb enough to engage someone personally knowledgeable of a subject or a quick study of it, in a debate, and gets lit up like a Christmas tree.


Just from reading his posts and seeing his website Jeff makes a living or a "great side hustle"* writing and selling horse handicapping software. You have to be pretty bright to write computer code, as I do some myself.:lol::lol::lol:. Anyway, besides whatever his day job is, Jeff either has a medical background or understands the jargon and is a quick learner.



Why Cliffy keeps trying to take on someone with expert or close knowledge on a subject he has none on is baffling. For the record I am still waiting for Cliffy to show subject knowledge other than how to hurl 3rd grade level insults or find pictures of naked young boys, he is damn good at those.



*Side hustle is new jargon I picked up, reading posts on MSN.

[Tom]

mostpost thinks he's Professor Proton.

[Jeff P]

mostpost dismisses SCIENCE when it means he can still live in his cult-like existence

He wants none of YOUR SCIENCE Jeff...it shatters his little world...

He will never address your posts because he is without the ability to do so...so he ignores

Appreciate the sentiment.

But you and I both know it's not MY science.

I'm just a computer programmer who's always been fascinated by the natural world we live in.

A lay person who took a deep dive down a rabbit hole when the pandemic arrived once I realized so much of what they were telling us didn't make sense.

Looking back, I think the first thing that sent me down the rabbit hole was that Johns Hopkins digital dashboard with the interactive map showing all those cases and deaths in red.

Imo, that was the single most effective well crafted webpage I've ever seen for controlling a narrative.

Millions, strike that, tens of millions of us, including myself, at least at first, were mesmerized by it.

But there was just one problem.

The digital dashboards all had a fatal flaw.

One that wasn't obvious to 99% of the people looking at them.

That fatal flaw was revealed the first time John Ioannidis of Stanford University and others published seroprevalence results:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9613797/

If you applied just the tiniest bit of critical thinking:

Infections reported on the digital dashboards (and infections that would later be reported in medical studies) were confirmed by positive pcr test.

Test kits were at a premium in early 2020. The vast majority of people getting tested were those with symptoms severe enough that they felt genuinely sick.

If you didn't present as genuinely sick you weren't getting tested.

Seroprevalence testing proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the actual number of infections was orders of magnitude HIGHER than the number of cases reported by the Johns Hopkins digital dashboard.

It followed the actual infection case fatality rate was orders of magnitude LOWER than the digital dashboards were showing and what the people pushing the narrative would have us believe.

...the respective age groups median IFR estimates were 0.001%, 0.010%, 0.023%, 0.050%, 0.15%, and 0.49% (Axfors and Ioannidis, 2022 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Eur.+J.+Epidemiol.&title=Infection-fatality+rate+of+COVID-19+in+community-dwelling+elderly+populations&author=C.+Axfors&author=J.P.A.+Ioannidis&volume=37&issue=3&publication_year=2022&pages=235-249&pmid=35306604&))


That's what initially sent me down the rabbit hole.

At the time, I couldn't possibly imagine, not in a million years, the fustercluck that was waiting there.

End of Part I.


-jp
.

[classhandicapper]

That fatal flaw was revealed the first time John Ioannidis of Stanford University and others published seroprevalence results:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9613797/

He took a LOT of heat for that little bit of truth telling. I didn't read that study. It was over my head. But I read an analysis of that study I did understand and immediately understood the risks were way lower than being presented and it was very significant to consider age and health status.

I got the first two doses (I was already in my 60s and could get it fairly quickly), but then I started reading English language news papers that were covering the results out of Israel and how it was failing to protect people. At the same time the early red flags about the risks of the vaccine itself were creeping into the non mainstream conversation. So I didn't' get a booster.

I don't feel badly about my decisions. I was acting on the information I had at the time and felt I was WAY ahead of the mainstream US narrative at the time. It wouldn't be so bad if honest mistakes were being made, but the government, media, health care experts etc...were clear cut and obvious lying sacks of shit on many of the questions. IMO they were/are pure evil vermin. That's what has me so pissed off. Some of them should clearly be in jail or worse.

And to be clear, I'm still not sure what the vaccine risks were/are. I just know on a risk reward basis it looks like a terrible bet for many young healthy people. And that goes double if you already had Covid. So mandating to everyone regardless of age and health was a bad mistake and mandating to people that already had Covid was criminally stupid

[Jeff P]

He DID take a lot of heat didn't he?

As did many others.

And as many others still are.


-jp
.

[Jeff P]

According to the CDC (https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#nationwide-blood-donor-seroprevalence-2022), seroprevalence testing shows 58.7% of the US population had Covid antibodies from prior infection as of 06-30-2022.

Clickable thumbnail attached below

According to the US Census site (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045222#PST045222) the population of the US was about 333.3 million as of 07-01-2022.

58.7% of 333.3 million works out to about 195.7 million people in the US who had at least one Covid infection as of 06-30-2022.

According to the interactive chart on the USAFacts.Org site (https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states/) about 67% of the US population or 223.3 million people were fully vaccinated for Covid as of 06-30-2022.



Something else sticks out to me about the Penn State study from post #23 (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2933056&postcount=23) above:

The authors looked at randomized controlled trials and observational cohort studies reporting the risk of myocarditis associated with the COVID-19 vaccines and the risk associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection up to May 2022.

They identified 22 eligible studies consisting of 55.5 million vaccinated cohorts and 2.5 million in the infection cohort.



The authors included 55.5 million in their Vaccine Cohort or 24.85% of the 223.3 million people in the US who were fully vaccinated for Covid as of 06-30-2022.

But they only managed to include 2.5 million in their Infection Cohort or 1.2% of the 195.7 million people who were reported by the CDC to have Covid antibodies (and therefore at least one prior Covid infection) as of 06-30-2022.

Read those two sentences again and let it sink in.



The Infection Cohort in the author's meta-analysis was pulled together from studies like this one, listed as #36 in the citations section towards the very bottom.

If you read that study you'll find the following in the third paragraph down from the top:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7114e1.htm

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).


Everyone in the Infection Cohort was confirmed by a positive test.

You'd want that right? (Because you wouldn't want anyone in the Infection Cohort who wasn't infected.)

On the surface that sounds really good.

But it misses the big picture.


The Vaccine Cohort in the meta-analysis captured about 25% of the US population that was fully vaccinated when the study was ended.

I think it's a safe bet the Vaccine Cohort is representative of the overall US population that was fully vaccinated when the study was ended.


But the Infection Cohort?

I think it's a safe bet the Infection Cohort is NOT representative of the overall US population that had been infected when the study was ended.

The ONLY people in the Infection Cohort were those who felt genuinely sick enough to seek treatment. (Again just 1.2% of the 195.7 million people who were actually infected.)


The other 98.8% of the people in the health care databases used by the authors of this study who were actually infected?

They never sought treatment. Could it be because they never felt sick enough to do so?

There's a HUGE BIAS in the Infection Cohort of this study.

It has the same fatal flaw as the Johns Hopkins Dashboard in early 2020.


Fwiw, I've reached out to the authors with some questions.

If they respond to me I'll come back to this thread and post an update.



-jp
.

[JustRalph]

mostpost thinks he's Professor Proton.

Bob Newhart?

[classhandicapper]

As usual, great post Jeff.

There's one thing that I don't understand about all these studies. Let's assume one of either the vaccine or infection has a greater risk of causing myocarditis or similar heart issues than the other.

A lot of the population has clearly had both vaccination and infection.

In fact, maybe the combination is of greater risk than each alone?

That makes it harder to know where the greater risk is actually coming from.

Are they controlling for that in some way?

I think you'd want to study the people that definitely had an infection but did not get vaccinated as some kind of partial control. It would be harder to look at those that were vaccinated but never had an infection because many of them may not even know they had it.

[Jeff P]

As usual, great post Jeff.

There's one thing that I don't understand about all these studies. Let's assume one of either the vaccine or infection has a greater risk of causing myocarditis or similar heart issues than the other.

A lot of the population has clearly had both vaccination and infection.

In fact, maybe the combination is of greater risk than each alone?

That makes it harder to know where the greater risk is actually coming from.

Are they controlling for that in some way?

I think you'd want to study the people that definitely had an infection but did not get vaccinated as some kind of partial control. It would be harder to look at those that were vaccinated but never had an infection because many of them may not even know they had it.

Re: The bolded text from your quote --

That's exactly what they should study.

That's exactly what the authors of the Penn State meta-analysis didn't study.

Yet it's exactly what the headlines crafted by the CDC and mainstream media led everybody to believe the authors of the Penn State meta-analysis had studied.

And that's exactly my point about the 'phuckery' waiting once you go down the rabbit hole.

The only way you study that is you enlist the unvaccinated into a study and do seroprevalence testing among them. Break them out into two groups: The unvaccinated with and without Covid antibodies. Follow them for a few years and report their medical outcomes including myocarditis.

But for some reason nobody in the scientific community (especially not here in the US) has shown the slightest bit of interest in funding that study.


-jp
.

[Jeff P]

New England Journal of Medicine | March 14, 2024
RSV Prefusion F Protein–Based Maternal Vaccine — Preterm Birth and Other Outcomes:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2305478?query=featured_home

Abstract

Background Vaccination against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) during pregnancy may protect infants from RSV disease. Efficacy and safety data on a candidate RSV prefusion F protein–based maternal vaccine (RSVPreF3-Mat) are needed.

Methods We conducted a phase 3 trial involving pregnant women 18 to 49 years of age to assess the efficacy and safety of RSVPreF3-Mat. The women were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive RSVPreF3-Mat or placebo between 24 weeks 0 days and 34 weeks 0 days of gestation. The primary outcomes were any or severe medically assessed RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease in infants from birth to 6 months of age and safety in infants from birth to 12 months of age. After the observation of a higher risk of preterm birth in the vaccine group than in the placebo group, enrollment and vaccination were stopped early, and exploratory analyses of the safety signal of preterm birth were performed.

Results The analyses included 5328 pregnant women and 5233 infants; the target enrollment of approximately 10,000 pregnant women and their infants was not reached because enrollment was stopped early. A total of 3426 infants in the vaccine group and 1711 infants in the placebo group were followed from birth to 6 months of age; 16 and 24 infants, respectively, had any medically assessed RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease (vaccine efficacy, 65.5%; 95% credible interval, 37.5 to 82.0), and 8 and 14, respectively, had severe medically assessed RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease (vaccine efficacy, 69.0%; 95% credible interval, 33.0 to 87.6). Preterm birth occurred in 6.8% of the infants (237 of 3494) in the vaccine group and in 4.9% of those (86 of 1739) in the placebo group (relative risk, 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08 to 1.74; P=0.01); neonatal death occurred in 0.4% (13 of 3494) and 0.2% (3 of 1739), respectively (relative risk, 2.16; 95% CI, 0.62 to 7.56; P=0.23), an imbalance probably attributable to the greater percentage of preterm births in the vaccine group. No other safety signal was observed.

Conclusions The results of this trial, in which enrollment was stopped early because of safety concerns, suggest that the risks of any and severe medically assessed RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease among infants were lower with the candidate maternal RSV vaccine than with placebo but that the risk of preterm birth was higher with the candidate vaccine. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04605159.)


From the Results section:

Preterm Birth:
Vaccine Group: 237 of 3494 -- relative risk: 1.37X
Placebo Group: 86 of 1739

Neonatal Death:
Vaccine Group: 13 of 3494 -- relative risk: 2.16X
Placebo Group: 3 of 1739

Strange that the authors wrote the trial was halted over preterm births (1.37X) and not neonatal deaths (2.16X.)

My question would be why would anyone think it's a good idea to be vaccinating expectant mothers mid to late term?


-jp
.

[PaceAdvantage]

My question would be why would anyone think it's a good idea to be vaccinating expectant mothers mid to late term?


-jp
.Gots to expands that revenue stream baby...it's all abouts the benjis

[classhandicapper]

I'm starting to worry they are messing around with mRNA vaccines that actually do shed and vaccinate other people you come into contact with. I know in the past I heard Bill Gates talk about that technology as something in the future, but Malone hinted that it already exists. These sick sociopaths will definitely release something like that without it being discussed publicly.

[Jeff P]

I'm really hoping they have the common sense not to do that.

Some interesting charts from the St Louis Fed (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU01076960):

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=34004&d=1710968943

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=34005&d=1710968943



A 45% spike in disability appeared in the labor statistics starting in January 2021.

Of course nobody has the slightest idea why. :eek:


-jp
.

[PaceAdvantage]

They'll blame COVID itself...of course...

They'll say LONG COVID! LMAO

A report came out not too long ago (not sure if you linked to it Jeff), that explained, basically, LONG COVID is a MYTH...and DOES NOT DIFFER from the lingering effects of the COMMON FLU we've known all these many years.

[Jeff P]

Is this is the report?

by Kristina Sauerwein | 12-14-2023
Washington University School of Medicine St Louis
‘Long flu’ has emerged as a consequence similar to long COVID:
https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/long-flu-has-emerged-as-a-consequence-similar-to-long-covid-19/

The new study comparing the viruses that cause COVID-19 and the flu also revealed that in the 18 months after infection, patients hospitalized for either COVID-19 or seasonal influenza faced an increased risk of death, hospital readmission, and health problems in many organ systems. Further, the time of highest risk was 30 days or later after initial infection.

Regarding both viruses, patient vaccination status did not affect results. Those in the COVID-19 cohort were hospitalized during the pre-delta, delta and omicron eras.


Patients Hospitalized faced increased risk.

Patient vaccination status did not affect results.


Interesting Chart from page 5 of the State of Washington's most recent Breakthrough Cases update:
https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/420-339-VaccineBreakthroughReport.pdf

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=34017&d=1710992432



The gray line running left to right across the chart shows 70% of Covid Hospitalizations for most of 2023 were fully vaccinated.

70% of Hospitalizations (not cases.)

But nobody has the slightest idea why disability spiked 45% in the Labor Statistics starting in January 2021.

Yay Science. :eek:


-jp
.

[Jeff P]

The Epoch Times | By Marina Zhang | 03-11-2024
COVID Vaccine Gene Could Integrate Into Human Cancer Cells: Researcher:
https://archive.is/JJphv

What Mr. McKernan and his team have found contradicts the latest arguments from fact-checkers.

Following his discovery of DNA contamination in COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, genomic researcher Kevin McKernan has recently found that the DNA in these vaccines can potentially integrate into human DNA.

The COVID-19 vaccine spike sequence was detected in two types of chromosomes in cancer cell lines following exposure to the COVID mRNA vaccine. Mr. McKernan’s findings, which he presents on his Substack (https://archive.is/KrT3j) blog, haven’t been peer-reviewed.

These are expected to be “rare events,” but they can happen, Mr. McKernan told The Epoch Times.

DNA Integration

Since the introduction of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, some members of the public have been concerned that the vaccines may modify the human gene by combining their sequences with the human genome.

“Fact-checkers” refuted this (https://archive.is/o6deV), saying mRNA cannot be changed into DNA. Yet Mr. McKernan’s earlier work shows that DNA in the vaccine vials may be capable of changing human DNA.

Ulrike Kämmerer, a professor of human biology at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany, conducted earlier stages of this research.

Exposing breast and ovarian human cancer cells to Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, Ms. Kämmerer found that about half of the cells expressed the COVID-19 spike protein on their cellular surface, indicating that they had absorbed the vaccines.

After this, he tested to see if any vaccine DNA combined with the cancer cell DNA, a process known as DNA integration. Integration is more of a concern in healthy cells than cancer cells since it disrupts cells’ genetic stability and integrity, increasing cancer risk.

However, because cancer cells already have unstable DNA, the effects of DNA
integration are less clear.

Currently, in biomedical research, most experiments are carried out in cancer cell lines as they are easier to obtain, experiment on, and maintain in the laboratory.

Mr. McKernan detected vaccine DNA sequences on two chromosomes in the cancer cell lines: chromosome 9 and chromosome 12. The sequencing machine detected both instances of integration twice. It is important to get two readings of the DNA integration to ensure the integration is not a result of misreading or random error, he added.

“The integration of ‘vaccine’ genetic information into the genome of cells was not such a surprise for me—more the confirmation of what we had to expect, unfortunately,” Dr. Kämmerer told The Epoch Times.

Mr. McKernan said it is unsurprising that integration was only detected on two chromosomes with two readings of each integration. This is because integration is rare, and the genes must be sequenced many times to get more sensitive results.

The current findings are still preliminary, Mr. McKernan said. More tests are also needed to determine whether DNA integration could be passed on to descendant cancer cells and whether this may affect cancer patients.

Also, since the test was conducted in cancer cells and not in healthy human cells, it does not suggest the same integration would occur in healthy human cells.

However, Hiroshi Arakawa, a researcher at the Institute of Molecular Oncology with a doctorate in molecular biology and immunology, wrote in his blog (https://archive.is/WW5H0) that “what happens in cultured cells can also occur in normal cells” after examining Mr. McKernan’s data.

His review of Mr. McKernan’s data also found signs of DNA integration at chromosomes 9 and 12.

“A wide variety of abnormalities can occur [in normal cells] depending on the site of genome integration,” Mr. Arakawa added.

Not Random Events

The two integration events into chromosome 9 occurred at the same place, as did the integration events into chromosome 12.

Mr. McKernan said that the odds of this occurring is one in 3 billion, highlighting that where the DNA integrates may not be random.

“There’s likely hotspots for this,” he told The Epoch Times, highlighting that in the human genome, jumping genes—short segments of DNA sequences—tend to “jump” into highly activated areas of DNA.

Highly activated DNA tends to play important roles in the human body.

The DNA integration into chromosome 12 occurred within the FAIM2 gene. Once activated, this gene creates a protein involved in programmed cell death. Since cancer cells evade cell death, the integration at chromosome 12 may be a survival-driven change.

Vaccine DNA Is Active in the Cells

Mr. McKernan believes vaccine DNA is highly active in cancer cells. His sequencing machine detected the DNA of cancer cells 30 times but detected spike DNA 3,000 times.

Not only did he detect much higher levels of vaccine DNA, but he also detected new variants in certain segments of the vaccine DNA.

These new DNA variations were not observed in unvaccinated cancer cells nor in the vaccine not exposed to the cancer cells.

Mr. McKernan believes that these new gene variants likely occurred because the cancer cell made copies of the vaccine DNA and created small errors.

What he and his team have found contradicts the latest arguments from fact-checkers claiming (https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/no-evidence-vaccine-dna-risk-raised-by-florida-surgeon-general-2024-02-05/) that the DNA from the mRNA vaccines cannot get into the cell, nor can it be active, he said.

DNA Contamination From mRNA Vaccine Manufacturing

DNA is present in the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines due to the manufacturing process.

This has been verified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health Canada, and the European Medicines Agency.


DNA Integration. ✓

Vaccine DNA highly active in cancer cells. ✓

Detection of new variants in certain segments of the vaccine DNA. ✓

But not observed in unvaccinated cancer cells. ✓

DNA Contamination in the product verified by the FDA. ✓

Fact Checkers who said this was impossible. ✓



-jp
.

[JustRalph]

Scary shit.

Thanks for posting