| JustRalph |
06-28-2022 01:42 AM |
Heart inflammation 44 times more likely
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustRalph
(Post 2813977)
|
It's only the tip of the iceberg. |
| boxcar |
06-28-2022 01:09 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustRalph
(Post 2813977)
|
Yeah, but it's still safe and effective. AND...AND...we always have to remember the UNTOLD number of lives that were saved by taking the jabs. |
| Jeff P |
06-28-2022 01:13 PM |
1 Attachment(s)
I think most people know by now... but I'd really like to see the CDC, FDA, and the Press do the right thing and report the truth.
--Edit:
Oh, look. Another spike in Bot traffic just after a vaccine thread started getting a few posts.
(Clickable thumbnail below.)
-jp
.
|
| PaceAdvantage |
06-28-2022 01:15 PM |
I liked this part:
Quote:
Our study has several limitations. First, the National Health Data System provides little clinical and no laboratory information concerning cases. The cases included in this study were identified solely on the basis of the diagnosis codes associated with hospital admissions. We therefore could not detect asymptomatic or mild forms of myocarditis and pericarditis that would not require hospitalization.
|
Meaning, National Health Data System doesn't want people knowing about this?
SCIENCE! |
| classhandicapper |
06-28-2022 01:25 PM |
Quote:
We therefore could not detect asymptomatic or mild forms of myocarditis and pericarditis that would not require hospitalization.
|
I've been screaming about this from day 1. I had multiple arguments with good friends of mine that were very pro vax, booster etc... late last year and until recently that even if the reported cases weren't a very high number, there had to be people out there with severe cases that didn't seek help that died (no autopsy) and people with mild cases that we don't even know about because the person had no serious symptoms or they were mild and went away quickly. That does not mean damage wasn't done, even if it was mild. |
| 46zilzal |
06-28-2022 08:08 PM |
and here I thought only CHIROPRACTORS were the most common quacks we run into on a daily basis
|
| AndyC |
06-28-2022 08:19 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by 46zilzal
(Post 2814166)
and here I thought only CHIROPRACTORS were the most common quacks we run into on a daily basis
|
The most common quacks would be retired podiatrists. |
| PaceAdvantage |
06-28-2022 08:54 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by 46zilzal
(Post 2814166)
and here I thought only CHIROPRACTORS were the most common quacks we run into on a daily basis
|
Take it up with Nature magazine. Pretty respected publication last I looked. |
| Jeff P |
06-28-2022 10:46 PM |
The older of the two studies mentioned in the article in the original post at the top of this thread:
JAMA Cardiology | April 20, 2022
SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Myocarditis in a Nordic Cohort Study of 23 Million Residents:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2791253
Quote:
Øystein Karlstad, MScPharm, PhD1; Petteri Hovi, MD, PhD2; Anders Husby, MD, PhD3,4; et al
|
Quote:
JAMA Cardiol. 2022;7(6):600-612. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2022.0583
|
Quote:
Abstract
Importance Reports of myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination have emerged.
Objective To evaluate the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination by vaccine product, vaccination dose number, sex, and age.
Design, Setting, and Participants Four cohort studies were conducted according to a common protocol, and the results were combined using meta-analysis. Participants were 23 122 522 residents aged 12 years or older. They were followed up from December 27, 2020, until incident myocarditis or pericarditis, censoring, or study end (October 5, 2021). Data on SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, hospital diagnoses of myocarditis or pericarditis, and covariates for the participants were obtained from linked nationwide health registers in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.
Exposures The 28-day risk periods after administration date of the first and second doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, including BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and AZD1222 or combinations thereof. A homologous schedule was defined as receiving the same vaccine type for doses 1 and 2.
Main Outcomes and Measures Incident outcome events were defined as the date of first inpatient hospital admission based on primary or secondary discharge diagnosis for myocarditis or pericarditis from December 27, 2020, onward. Secondary outcome was myocarditis or pericarditis combined from either inpatient or outpatient hospital care. Poisson regression yielded adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and excess rates with 95% CIs, comparing rates of myocarditis or pericarditis in the 28-day period following vaccination with rates among unvaccinated individuals.
Results Among 23 122 522 Nordic residents (81% vaccinated by study end; 50.2% female), 1077 incident myocarditis events and 1149 incident pericarditis events were identified. Within the 28-day period, for males and females 12 years or older combined who received a homologous schedule, the second dose was associated with higher risk of myocarditis, with adjusted IRRs of 1.75 (95% CI, 1.43-2.14) for BNT162b2 and 6.57 (95% CI, 4.64-9.28) for mRNA-1273. Among males 16 to 24 years of age, adjusted IRRs were 5.31 (95% CI, 3.68-7.68) for a second dose of BNT162b2 and 13.83 (95% CI, 8.08-23.68) for a second dose of mRNA-1273, and numbers of excess events were 5.55 (95% CI, 3.70-7.39) events per 100 000 vaccinees after the second dose of BNT162b2 and 18.39 (9.05-27.72) events per 100 000 vaccinees after the second dose of mRNA-1273. Estimates for pericarditis were similar.
Conclusions and Relevance Results of this large cohort study indicated that both first and second doses of mRNA vaccines were associated with increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis. For individuals receiving 2 doses of the same vaccine, risk of myocarditis was highest among young males (aged 16-24 years) after the second dose. These findings are compatible with between 4 and 7 excess events in 28 days per 100 000 vaccinees after BNT162b2, and between 9 and 28 excess events per 100 000 vaccinees after mRNA-1273. This risk should be balanced against the benefits of protecting against severe COVID-19 disease.
|
Last week, the director general of the Danish Health Authority Søren Brostrøm was asked if it was a mistake to vaccinate children.
Link to an article from the Danish Press here:
https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2022-...Anews%3A%3A%3A
Fyi, after hitting the green accept cookies button (the text is in Danish) my browser navigated to the article about the interview (also in Danish.)
From there I cut and pasted Danish text from the article into Google's Translate Page.
The Danish text from the article about whether or not it was a mistake to vaccinate children translates to English as follows:
Quote:
When Søren Brostrøm hosted 'Go' evening Live 'on TV 2 on Wednesday night, he was asked if it was a mistake to vaccinate children.
- With what we know today: yes. With what we knew then: no, was the answer.
|
Strange the director general of the Danish Health Authority would say that. :eek:
-jp
. |
| mostpost |
06-29-2022 12:20 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
(Post 2814185)
The older of the two studies mentioned in the article in the original post at the top of this thread:
JAMA Cardiology | April 20, 2022
SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Myocarditis in a Nordic Cohort Study of 23 Million Residents:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2791253
Last week, the director general of the Danish Health Authority Søren Brostrøm was asked if it was a mistake to vaccinate children.
Link to an article from the Danish Press here:
https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2022-...Anews%3A%3A%3A
Fyi, after hitting the green accept cookies button (the text is in Danish) my browser navigated to the article about the interview (also in Danish.)
From there I cut and pasted Danish text from the article into Google's Translate Page.
The Danish text from the article about whether or not it was a mistake to vaccinate children translates to English as follows:
Strange the director general of the Danish Health Authority would say that. :eek:
-jp
.
|
According to your study, one out of every 10,400 vaccinated persons will develop either myocarditis or pericarditis. Less than one hundredth of one percent.
Myocarditis and Pericarditis are caused by a viral infection. Covid is a viral infection. In fact a person with Covid 19 is 16 times more likely to develop Myocarditis than some one who is not infected. And, there are a helluva lot of other ways a person with Covid can die.
The truth is, cases of myocarditis and Pericarditis associated with Covid vaccines are usually mild, short lived and result in no permanent damage. |
| Jeff P |
06-29-2022 12:32 AM |
Maybe you should reach out to the Director General of the Danish Health Authority and set him straight.
Surely he was mistaken when he said vaccinating children was a mistake based on what we know now (as a result of the newer studies.)
-jp
.
|
| Jeff P |
06-29-2022 12:02 PM |
Fauci Experiences Covid Rebound Covid
By Paul Farrell For Dailymail.Com | Updated: 22:52 EDT, 28 June 2022
Anthony Fauci says that he's experienced rebound Covid symptoms after taking a Pfizer's antiviral Paxlovid - which studies now show is NOT effective for people who are vaccinated:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...id-course.html
Quote:
• Dr. Anthony Fauci said that he's on his second course of Paxlovid after testing positive again for Covid-19
• According to Pfizer's own data, the drug is limited in its abilities to fight Covid-19 in a vaccinated person
• The CDC issued a warning about the potential for Covid-19 rebound symptoms after taking Paxlovid in May 2022
• The warning noted that none of the reported rebound cases saw patients suffer a severe case of Covid-19, though Fauci described his symptoms as 'much worse'
• A UC San Diego study found that patients who were experiencing Covid rebound symptoms suffered because Paxlovid did not get to enough infected cells
• At the same conference where he announced the rebound, Fauci called for an 'aggressive' national vaccine campaign
|
Quote:
Dr. Anthony Fauci confirmed on Tuesday that he is suffering from 'Covid rebound' symptoms after being treated with Paxlovid.
Paxlovid, a drug that was anointed as America's silver bullet against COVID-19 by some health officials and even President Joe Biden, may not have any effectiveness for people that are already vaccinated, according its manufacturer Pfizer's own data.
Fauci, 81, broke the news while speaking remotely at the Foreign Policy Global Health Forum.
Earlier this month, Fauci tested positive for the virus with mild symptoms including fatigue. As his symptoms got slightly worse, Fauci began a five day course of Paxlovid.
Following that course, Fauci said that he tested negative for the virus three days in a row. He decided to test again on the fourth day. The result came back positive.
In May, the Centers for Disease Control issued a formal warning regarding a Covid-19 rebound as result of a course of Paxlovid.
The agency said that some patients who were prescribed Paxlovid suffered a recurrence of symptoms or tested positive for Covid between two and eight days after recovery.
The CDC announcement said that there was not enough data to make a conclusion on the cause for the rebound. The agency noted that none of the reported rebound cases saw patients suffer a severe recurrence.
In his announcement about his Covid rebound, Fauci said that his symptoms were 'much worse' after he tested positive for the second time.
According to a June 22 University of California San Diego School of Medicine study, Covid-19 rebound symptoms after a course of Paxlovid are caused because not enough of the drug was getting to infected cells to stop all viral replication.
The study refers to this as a lack of exposure to the drug.
The day after that study was published, Pfizer published its Phase 2/3 Paxlovid trial data.
The data analyzed Paxlovid's ability to prevent hospitalization or death depending on a person's vaccination status and individual risk profile.
It found that a fully vaccinated person with little personal risk had little to gain from using the drug.
|
-jp
. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
(Post 2814263)
By Paul Farrell For Dailymail.Com | Updated: 22:52 EDT, 28 June 2022
Anthony Fauci says that he's experienced rebound Covid symptoms after taking a Pfizer's antiviral Paxlovid - which studies now show is NOT effective for people who are vaccinated:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...id-course.html
-jp
.
|
Fauci, the 'expert' of all covid experts. |
| Inner Dirt |
06-29-2022 12:37 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by xtb
(Post 2814271)
Fauci, the 'expert' of all covid experts.
|
I find it shocking people blindly believe in a guy who changes his mind every time the wind blows a different direction. I always wondered how he used to come up with his daily Covid protocol. Was he using a magic 8 ball, Ouija board, or throwing darts? Face it, there is no such thing as a Covid expert. |
| Elkchester Road |
06-29-2022 12:44 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inner Dirt
(Post 2814280)
I find it shocking people blindly believe in a guy who changes his mind every time the wind blows a different direction. I always wondered how he used to come up with his daily Covid protocol. Was he using a magic 8 ball, Ouija board, or throwing darts? Face it, there is no such thing as a Covid expert.
|
Absolutely. And whether the Left likes it or not...it is becoming apparent. |
| classhandicapper |
06-29-2022 01:26 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost
(Post 2814199)
Myocarditis and Pericarditis are caused by a viral infection. Covid is a viral infection. In fact a person with Covid 19 is 16 times more likely to develop Myocarditis than some one who is not infected. And, there are a helluva lot of other ways a person with Covid can die.
The truth is, cases of myocarditis and Pericarditis associated with Covid vaccines are usually mild, short lived and result in no permanent damage.
|
Most of that has been shot down or called into question by more recent studies. |
| Jeff P |
06-29-2022 04:10 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elkchester Road
(Post 2814284)
Absolutely. And whether the Left likes it or not...it is becoming apparent.
|
Agree.
Interesting write up from Alex Berenson.
Alex Berenson Substack | 06-29-2022
On Covid, schools, and the death of the liberal expert class:
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/...th-of/comments
Quote:
The New Yorker just ran its second big negative piece on Ron DeSantis in a week, proof of how much the woke media fears the governor of Florida. (Yes, I read the New Yorker so you don’t have to.)
The article is nominally about DeSantis’s support for age-appropriate teaching of gender and sexuality in public schools. Or, as the Democrats like to call it, “Don’t Say Gay.” The wokesters have not figured out that label is not quite the devastating comeback they think.
|
Quote:
But I digress, briefly. As you would expect, the article treats DeSantis as a political opportunist. But, unlike most woke media reporters these days, the author actually took the time both to talk to conservatives who support DeSantis’s views and to try to understand why those views are gaining so much ground right now. (As opposed to just repeating Fox News misinformation racism misogyny America is the worst endlessly.)
The result was something close to the truth - and the best explanation I have seen for the way Covid continues to drive our politics, even if no one is talking about it anymore. I urge you to read these three paragraphs - especially the sentence I have bolded - closely:
When I asked Republican activists and operatives about the rise of the school issues, they told a very similar story, one that began with the pandemic, during which many parents came to believe that their interests (in keeping their kids in school) diverged with those of the teachers and administrators. As Roberts, the Heritage Foundation president, put it to me, parents who were in many cases apolitical “became concerned about these overwrought lockdowns, and then when they asked question after question, there was no transparency about them, which led them to pay more attention when their kids were on Zoom. They overheard things being taught. They asked questions about curricula. They were just stonewalled every step of the way.” The battles regarding the covid lockdowns, Roberts told me, opened the way for everything that came after. “This is the key thing,” he said. “It started with questions about masking and other aspects of the lockdowns.”
Both parties right now are trying to answer the question of how fundamentally covid has changed politics. “From 2008 to 2020, elections were decided on the question of fairness—Obama ’08, Obama ’12, and Trump ’16 were all premised on the idea that someone else was getting too much, and you were getting too little, and it was unfair,” Danny Franklin, a partner at the Democratic strategy firm Bully Pulpit Interactive and a pollster for both Obama campaigns, told me. But the pandemic and the crises that followed (war, inflation, energy pressures) were not really about fairness but an amorphous sense of chaos. “People are looking for some control over their lives—in focus groups, in polls, once you start looking for that you see it everywhere,” Franklin said.
Both parties had shifted, in his view. Biden had sought to reassure Americans that the government, guided by experts, could reassert its control over events, from the pandemic to the crisis in energy supply. Republicans, meanwhile, had focused on assuring voters that they would deliver control over a personal sphere of influence: schools that would teach what you wanted them to teach, a government that would make it easier, not harder, to get your hands on a gun. A moral panic about gender identity might seem anachronistic, but it served a very current political need. Franklin said, “It’s a way for Republicans to tell people that they can have back control of their lives.”
SOURCE
The problem - for Biden, for AOC, for the New York Times, for all the people in Park Slope who went to the right schools and believe in the current thing and know paradise is just around the corner if only we raise our taxes a little more - is that “the government, guided by experts” hasn’t had a great couple of years.
To say the least.
The profound failure of lockdowns and now vaccines have woken many average folks to the dangers of bureaucratic overreach, expert overconfidence, and authoritarianism in the name of safety.
They took our rights. The media and public health authorities would like you to forget the closed playgrounds and shuttered malls and mask mandates of 2020. And the vaccine mandates of last fall. They want you to forget that for a while, the federal government tried to take the right to work from tens of millions of unvaccinated people. State and local governments went even further; and countries like Canada and Australia further still. UNTIL 10 DAYS AGO, CANADA DID NOT ALLOW UNVACCINATED PEOPLE ON PLANES - effectively curtailing their right to travel in a country that stretches more than 4,000 miles from British Columbia to Newfoundland.
And they took our rights FOR NOTHING.
You and I and they know everything they did failed.
The proof sits in super-cold freezers where millions of vials of mRNA shots, the greatest medical breakthrough since fentanyl, sit slowly decaying. The proof is in the hospitals and pharmacies that are not offering those jabs to kids under 5, because demand is near-zero… and maybe because some of the physician-administrators who make millions of dollars a year running those hospitals know in their hearts that the risk-benefit analysis for mRNA shots for kids is all risk/no benefit and actually want to do the right thing for once. Not enough to say anything publicly, let’s not get crazy, but enough to make the shots a little harder to get.
And Dr. Anthony Fauci - double-boosted Anthony Fauci - gave us some more proof today.
Fauci Suffers Covid Symptom Rebound After Course of Pfizer's Paxlovid
It couldn’t have happened to a nicer megalomaniac. (This is your excuse to retire, Tony! You got yerself the long Covid!)
So, no, I don’t plan to let Covid and the vaccines go anytime soon. Those of us on Team Reality can’t let the Faucis of the world run from their failure, we can’t pretend it didn’t happen. No mulligans here. Especially because the mRNA shots may have long-run risks we are still just beginning to see.
So the New Yorker frames the proposition the two parties are offering exactly right. The Democrats offer expertise, Ivy League brilliance, the smartest folks in the room; the Republicans personal control.
But why wouldn’t people trust their own judgment over that of “experts” after the disaster of the last couple of years? What the left cannot seem to understand is that I’m not the problem - which is why kicking me off Twitter didn’t save the mRNA shots or the mandates. Ron DeSantis is not the problem either.
Reality is the problem for the left. Reality wants a course correction, and in four months voters are set to deliver that message to the Democratic Party with a foghorn blast.
|
-jp
. |
| Elkchester Road |
06-29-2022 04:19 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
(Post 2814352)
|
I am predicting MANY replies to your Post, Jeff. That, of course, is a very good thing.
Thank you :) |
| Jeff P |
06-29-2022 07:24 PM |
2 Attachment(s)
eugyppius | Substack | 06-28-2022
Omicron BA.5 Prefers Hypervaccinated Masking West Germans, Avoids the Former DDR:
https://www.eugyppius.com/p/omicron-...ypervaccinated
Quote:
Vaccine failure in one map
|
(clickable thumbnail showing cases heat map below)
Quote:
This is the Omicron BA.5 wave in central Europe, and it is attended by a curious phenomenon: Every day, you can see more clearly the borders of the old DDR in the district-level data. I’ve traced these in green just to make the phenomenon clearer.
Yes yes, there are systematic demographic differences between East and West Germans, and there are probably some differences in testing rates, but above all, there is an important difference in vaccine uptake. In this map of triple vaccination rates across my country, the old DDR borders are also evident:
|
(clickable thumbnail showing triple vaccination rate map below)
Quote:
East Germans have direct experience with government propaganda, and have proven more resistent to the vaccination campaign than Westerners. Their reward, after being much maligned by state media, is now higher levels of natural immunity and lower rates of BA.5 infection, which appears to prefer vaccinated populations.
As the effects of vaccine failure grow clearer, you have to wonder how long the pandemicists will be able to publish even simple infection statistics, without raising extremely awkward questions.
|
I've been following this anonymous writer's Substack since the beginning of the Pandemic.
Literally everything Covid this author has written about happening in Europe has also happened here in the US after a lag time of about 8 to 10 weeks. (The vaccines were rolled out over there first.)
If BA.5 is burning through the triple vaccinated in Europe right now but not hitting everyone else nearly as hard:
The same thing will happen here in the US 8 to 10 weeks out.
For anyone interested, here's a follow up that was penned several hours later by the same author:
https://www.eugyppius.com/p/sars-2-d...utm_medium=web
-jp
. |
| Jeff P |
06-29-2022 08:34 PM |
Interesting thread (in English) that sheds some light on why each new Omicron variant might be hitting the vaccinated in the Netherlands harder than the previous one:
https://nitter.net/rintrahradagast/s...90966511001602
Quote:
So what could possibly be the reason? Well, Urk is a perfect demonstration of my theory: Unvaccinated communities will have a big Omicron wave, followed by widespread immunity against Omicron, preventing waves of new Omicron variants.
|
Quote:
We can check this by simply looking at Urk's sewage concentrations over time. It becomes clear they had a big Omicron wave, followed by no additional waves. Their BA.1 wave caused widespread strong broad immunity against other Omicron variants.
|
Quote:
And if you look at a highly vaccinated & boosted and relatively well connected municipality like Voorschoten, you see a currently ongoing Omicron wave that is as big as the original BA.1 wave:
|
Quote:
What does all of this suggest? It suggests original antigenic sin, a process induced by vaccination whereby the body responds to BA.1 infections with an immune response that can be easily escaped by other Omicron variants through a small number of mutations.
|
Quote:
This doesn't just explain why the least vaccinated Dutch municipality has the least SARS-COV-2 RNA in its sewage. It explains why a ~15% vaccinated country like Algeria has not really seen any real COVID waves since march:
|
-jp
. |
| Jeff P |
06-29-2022 08:57 PM |
Continuing...
https://nitter.net/rintrahradagast/s...90966511001602
Quote:
Is all of this a problem, if the Omicron infections are mild? Well, if we accept as a given the evidence that it takes the average person's body at least 6 months to fully recover its CD4+ T cell count from a mild SARS-COV-2 infection, constant reinfections are very disturbing.
|
Quote:
Only time will tell what the constantly ongoing high prevalence of Omicron variants in our communities will cause. But if populations of hundreds of millions of people now suffer ongoing CD4+ T cell depletion, I would expect big problems to emerge as a result.
|
Quote:
Scientists need to hurry up and take a honest look at this ugly question: Is mass vaccination induced antigenic fixation prohibiting entire populations from developing broad durable immunity against the Omicron family of variants after a BA.1 infection?
|
Quote:
When Algeria has had no COVID for the last three months, you can pretend they're just ignoring it. But when the least vaccinated community in a developed country like the Netherlands has the least SARS-COV-2 in its sewage, you need to pay attention and ask: What's going on here?
|
-jp
. |
| Jeff P |
06-30-2022 09:26 AM |
Serious Adverse Events of Special Interest Following mRNA Vaccination in Randomized Trials:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=4125239
Quote:
22 Pages Posted: 23 Jun 2022
Joseph Fraiman
Louisiana State University - Lallie Kemp Regional Medical Center
Juan Erviti
Navarre Health Service
Mark Jones
Bond University - Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare
Sander Greenland
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - Jonathan and Karin Fielding School of Public Health
Patrick Whelan
University of California at Los Angeles
Robert M. Kaplan
Stanford University
Peter Doshi
University of Maryland - School of Pharmacy
Abstract
Introduction: In 2020, prior to COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and Brighton Collaboration created a priority list, endorsed by the World Health Organization, of potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines. We leveraged the Brighton Collaboration list to evaluate serious adverse events of special interest observed in phase III randomized trials of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
Methods: Secondary analysis of serious adverse events reported in the placebo-controlled, phase III randomized clinical trials of Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (NCT04368728 and NCT04470427), focusing analysis on potential adverse events of special interest identified by the Brighton Collaboration.
Results: Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of special interest, with an absolute risk increase of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95% CI -0.4 to 20.6 and -3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an absolute risk increase of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 (95% CI 2.1 to 22.9). The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials (2.3 and 6.4 per 10,000 participants, respectively).
Discussion: The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes such as hospitalization or death.
Note:
Funding Information: This study had no funding support.
|
This is a Preprint where the authors performed a secondary analysis of serious adverse events reported in the placebo-controlled, phase III randomized clinical trials of Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
They found:
The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials.
Their words not mine.
-jp
.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
(Post 2814497)
Serious Adverse Events of Special Interest Following mRNA Vaccination in Randomized Trials:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=4125239
This is a Preprint where the authors performed a secondary analysis of serious adverse events reported in the placebo-controlled, phase III randomized clinical trials of Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
They found:
The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials.
Their words not mine.
-jp
.
|
Quote:
This study had no funding support.
|
That's very important. |
| Actor |
07-01-2022 01:51 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage
(Post 2814030)
Meaning, National Health Data System doesn't want people knowing about this?
|
Didn't you get the memo? When the shots were first made available we were told that availability was on a emergency basis and that tests and studies would normally take years. If you want to wait those years than that's your choice. Blaming those who are working on the vaccine is willful ignorance. |
| maddog42 |
07-01-2022 06:50 AM |
Heart Inflammation Rare after Covid Vaccination
|
| classhandicapper |
07-01-2022 10:12 AM |
I vaccinated twice (Mar and Apr of 21) because at the time I trusted it would be effective and have few and rare side effects. As data started coming out of Israel in around August it was already obvious it was failing and they started talking about boosters. Then questions about safety started creeping into non mainstream sources via highly qualified people. Then the boosters in Israel started failing and the US government started changing definitions and moving the goal post for what "working" means. IMO, on an overall basis the whole thing was an epic failure even if there was some benefit to many, especially some higher risk groups. Even now I'm still not sure what the downside risks are and what damage has been done to my body. There is obviously an attempt to hide and downplay the risks by the mainstream and not all the anti-vax sources are reliable. But for me, not getting boosted was an easy decision. Why should I boost for a virus that was already gone (the original virus) when it didn't even work well for that one, let alone for all the new variants. And of course imo the risks are higher than they letting us know even if I don't know exactly how much higher.
|
| Jeff P |
07-01-2022 06:19 PM |
The US News and World Report article uses the phrases heart inflammation and Myopericarditis interchangeably.
The sixth word in the second paragraph of the article is "(myopericarditis)" and links to another article titled Understanding Myocarditis, Pericarditis, and Endocarditis here:
https://www.myocarditisfoundation.or...ToNcU0hcDDreMT
Yes, it's an article about understanding heart inflammation.
But the word "myopericarditis" (without the quotes) does not appear anywhere in the text of the article. Nor is myopericarditis discussed in the text of the article.
Imo, that's misleading.
Is this an oversight? Or is it intentional?
According to the NIH.gov site Myopericarditis is a specific subset of Pericarditis when both pericarditis (inflammation of the pericardium or heart sac) and myocarditis (inflammation of the myocardium or muscular layer of the heart) occur together.
Link here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK534776/
Quote:
The terms pericarditis refers to inflammation of the pericardium and myocarditis. Both can occur together in clinical practice, and hence the term myopericarditis is used.
|
Further, the text at the above link goes on to list causes of Myopericarditis as:
Quote:
Etiology
The majority of cases of myopericarditis are idiopathic as no definitive cause is identified even after extensive work up. Causes are divided into infectious and non-infectious causes. Most of the infectious causes are viral, and they are often attributed to the following viruses:
Infectious Causes
• Viruses: Coxsackievirus, adenoviruses, herpes viruses, echovirus, Ebstein-Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, influenza virus, hepatitis C virus, parvovirus B19
• Bacterial: Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Streptococcus, Staphylococcus, Haemophilus, Legionella, Mycoplasma
• Fungal: Histoplasma, Aspergillus, Blastomyces, coccidioidomycosis
• Parasites: Toxoplasma, amebic, Chaga disease
Non-Infectious Causes
Drugs (cardiotoxic effects or hypersensitivity reactions): procainamide, isoniazid, hydralazine, alcohol, anthracycline, heavy metals
• Post-radiation to the chest cavity
• Systemic inflammatory diseases: Lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma, Sjogren, mixed connective tissue disease
• Other inflammatory conditions: Granulomatosis, inflammatory bowel disease
• Metastatic cancers: Especially lung cancer, breast cancer, melanoma
• Primary cardiac tumors: Rhabdomyosarcoma
• Metabolic: Hypothyroidism, Renal failure/uremia
• Vaccine-associated myopericarditis
|
Note that I emphasized influenza virus and vaccine-associated myopericarditis in the above text. I did that because both have been known causes of myopericarditis long before the arrival of Covid-19.
I think that's important given the context of the study cited by the authors of the US News and World Report article.
Here's the Lancet study cited in the article --
Myopericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination and non-
COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic review and meta-
analysis:
http://www.thelancet-press.com/embar...ricarditis.pdf
Here are the Methods and Findings as written by the authors of the study:
Quote:
Methods We did a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching four international databases from Jan 1, 1947, to Dec 31, 2021, for studies in English reporting on the incidence of myopericarditis following vaccination (the primary outcome). We included studies reporting on people in the general population who had myopericarditis in temporal relation to receiving vaccines, and excluded studies on a specific subpopulation of patients, non-human studies, and studies in which the number of doses was not reported. Random-effects meta-analyses (DerSimonian and Laird) were conducted, and the intra-study risk of bias (Joanna Briggs Institute checklist) and certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach) were assessed. We analysed the difference in incidence of myopericarditis among subpopulations, stratifying by the type of vaccine (COVID-19 vs non-COVID-19) and age group (adult vs paediatric). Among COVID-19 vaccinations, we examined the effect of the type of vaccine (mRNA or non-mRNA), sex, age, and dose on the incidence of myopericarditis. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021275477).
Findings The overall incidence of myopericarditis from 22 studies (405 272 721 vaccine doses) was 33·3 cases (95% CI 15·3–72·6) per million vaccine doses, and did not differ significantly between people who received COVID-19 vaccines (18·2 [10·9–30·3], 11 studies [395 361 933 doses], high certainty) and those who received non-COVID-19 vaccines (56·0 [10·7–293·7], 11 studies [9 910 788 doses], moderate certainty, p=0·20). Compared with COVID-19 vaccination, the incidence of myopericarditis was significantly higher following smallpox vaccinations (132·1 [81·3–214·6], p<0·0001) but was not significantly different after influenza vaccinations (1·3 [0·0–884·1], p=0·43) or in studies reporting on various other non-smallpox vaccinations (57·0 [1·1–3036·6], p=0·58). Among people who received COVID-19 vaccines, the incidence of myopericarditis was significantly higher in males (vs females), in people younger than 30 years (vs 30 years or older), after receiving an mRNA vaccine (vs non-mRNA vaccine), and after a second dose of vaccine (vs a first or third dose).
|
The study is about myopericarditis (BOTH Myocarditis and Pericarditus) across a wide variety of vaccines.
It is not about Heart Inflammation and mRNA Covid vaccines.
In my opinion, both the link in the second paragraph of the article text and the headline chosen by US News and World Report "Heart Inflammation Very Rare After COVID Vaccination" are misleading at best.
And that's being kind.
It isn't just heart inflammation. The list of serious adverse events is long.
Other studies, including this one, have found:
Quote:
The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials (2.3 and 6.4 per 10,000 participants, respectively).
|
Thank you for reading,
-jp
. |
| PaceAdvantage |
07-01-2022 07:37 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by maddog42
(Post 2814726)
|
Why post an article from over two months ago?
Your world is changing rapidly...best keep up |
| Jeff P |
07-01-2022 09:02 PM |
I've read through the entire Lancet Study cited in the US News and World Report article.
On the lower right-hand corner of page 2 and continuing on to the upper left-hand corner of page 3 in in the (full) PDF version of the study available here, I found the following:
Quote:
Data synthesis
The primary outcome was the incidence of myopericarditis after any vaccination; secondary outcomes included the incidence of myocarditis, pericarditis, and mortality after any vaccination. Given the heterogeneity in reporting of individual cases of myopericarditis and pericarditis, we define in our review myopericarditis as an umbrella term describing myocarditis, pericarditis, or cases with features of both myocarditis and pericarditis, as reported in the databases or defined within the individual studies. Among studies that reported on myocarditis and pericarditis individually, we pooled the incidence rates of both conditions accordingly.
|
Ok. So the authors of the study used Myopericarditis as an umbrella term describing myocarditis, pericarditis, or cases with features of both myocarditis and pericarditis.
Had I seen this a few hours ago I would have worded my previous post differently.
That said, I still think the ( myopericarditis) link by US New and World Report to a second article that doesn't even mention the word Myopericarditis and the wording of the US News and World Report headline (Heart Inflammation Very Rare After COVID Vaccination) is misleading.
Imo, a writer being paid to write for US News and World Report should have, at the very least, read the full text of the study cited in the article like I did.
Again, thank you for reading,
-jp
. |
| Elkchester Road |
07-01-2022 10:47 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage
(Post 2814845)
Why post an article from over two months ago?
Your world is changing rapidly...best keep up
|
Most current one that toes the line for the Narrative. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:18 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
|
|
