Running List of Professional Athletes w/ Heart Problems?

80,527 Views | 884 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by ProgN
1872walker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Any studies that show results to the contrary? Especially in all ages?

Any studies showing the long-term effects of these? Adverse events that may be more detrimental than beneficial across the spectrum of those vaccinated?
GeorgiAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Smudge said:

GeorgiAg said:

Smudge said:

Zobel said:

The 95% was accurate. They didn't amend the study. If you go outside and check to see if a rock is wet or not every day for a three month period and it's a monsoon season, maybe you find it wet 95% of the time. That's what you'd write in your paper. If your study was a year, and it never rained other than in monsoon, maybe you'd find 25% of the time. That doesn't make your study false, or wrong. It makes it limited.

You love to bag on the reduction in efficacy against symptomatic illness. But why not focus on the efficacy against hospitalization and death?

Through six months they found 91% efficacy against illness but 96% against severe disease.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2110345

So how long do we need to window? How long do you wait before publishing? Ten years? What's the cost?

Does it change with variants? Yes. With time? Yes. And we add that knowledge to the knowledge from the trials.


Sure. That's not the point. The point was that vaccines were shoved down our throats, lives ruined, businesses ruined, etc., because of those data in the phase 3 trials which you just admitted were "limited" and obviously only a small piece of the larger picture. If you're going to set sweeping policy based on limited data you're ****ing insane and it's completely malicious. Especially when you factor in that the policy setters stood to gain large financial benefits for recommending said policy based on the trials.

At least you finally admitted that those trials were limited and only a snapshot of what was going on.
Hindsight is 20-20. We were faced with an unknown health crisis. Hospital ICUs were at full capacity even with all the lockdowns, masks, closed schools etc... With no lockdowns, our health care system would have been overwhelmed.

Who predicted the variability and severity of the virus? LMK because I need him to pick some football games or go to Vegas with me.

Vaccination reduced the amount of severe disease so we could open back up again without hospitals being overrun.


There is no ****ing way you believe what you just wrote.
"Believe" have nothing to do with it. I have current medmal case where a kid sat in an ER for 5 hours before he was even triaged. He had testicular torsion and lost his testicle. Y'all wanna come testify at trial for me? I know the defense lawyers are going to be arguing, covid, covid, covid.

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/10-states-nearing-or-exceeding-hospital-capacity-during-covid-s-summer-resurgence

https://www.ajc.com/news/are-headed-for-crisis-hospital-beds-dwindle-virus-cases-soar/I1KwQCh0Sji5zVq1MoywJL/
Smudge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Further clinical trials. Observational studies. Random surveillance.

For example
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00345-0/fulltext

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2117128

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33378-7

And a meta analysis of 41 randomized controlled trials from Cochrane
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015477/full
I've studied all four in detail. McMenamin's studies have actually solidified much of the evidence for the harm from the vaccine in younger folks. Even in that study you linked (the Lancet one) those 20-49 (she actually did another one on those under 20 in a separate study) got far fewer vaccines and proportionately higher low severity cases (far less severe cases). One: backing up that the vaccine wasn't needed for young, healthy folks. And Two: More jabs actually reduced efficacy.

But, these are just another distraction... none address the issue with young athletes and younger healthy people having heart/lung issues. This doesn't look to be happening as much with the older population. The scientific community needs to go all on on finding out why. The problem with that is the scientific community has to risk a lot in order to do this. I have several friends in epidemiology, what they say to me and what they say at work are vastly different. Untold money spent and a lifetime of work to get to their points in their careers... no way they're going to risk it. They're actually relived that their respective labs have all "moved on" from handling covid related projects on the daily.
Class of '00
Gig 'em!
DrEvazanPhD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GeorgiAg said:

Smudge said:

GeorgiAg said:

Smudge said:

Zobel said:

The 95% was accurate. They didn't amend the study. If you go outside and check to see if a rock is wet or not every day for a three month period and it's a monsoon season, maybe you find it wet 95% of the time. That's what you'd write in your paper. If your study was a year, and it never rained other than in monsoon, maybe you'd find 25% of the time. That doesn't make your study false, or wrong. It makes it limited.

You love to bag on the reduction in efficacy against symptomatic illness. But why not focus on the efficacy against hospitalization and death?

Through six months they found 91% efficacy against illness but 96% against severe disease.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2110345

So how long do we need to window? How long do you wait before publishing? Ten years? What's the cost?

Does it change with variants? Yes. With time? Yes. And we add that knowledge to the knowledge from the trials.


Sure. That's not the point. The point was that vaccines were shoved down our throats, lives ruined, businesses ruined, etc., because of those data in the phase 3 trials which you just admitted were "limited" and obviously only a small piece of the larger picture. If you're going to set sweeping policy based on limited data you're ****ing insane and it's completely malicious. Especially when you factor in that the policy setters stood to gain large financial benefits for recommending said policy based on the trials.

At least you finally admitted that those trials were limited and only a snapshot of what was going on.
Hindsight is 20-20. We were faced with an unknown health crisis. Hospital ICUs were at full capacity even with all the lockdowns, masks, closed schools etc... With no lockdowns, our health care system would have been overwhelmed.

Who predicted the variability and severity of the virus? LMK because I need him to pick some football games or go to Vegas with me.

Vaccination reduced the amount of severe disease so we could open back up again without hospitals being overrun.


There is no ****ing way you believe what you just wrote.
"Believe" have nothing to do with it. I have current medmal case where a kid sat in an ER for 5 hours before he was even triaged. He had testicular torsion and lost his testicle. Y'all wanna come testify at trial for me? I know the defense lawyers are going to be arguing, covid, covid, covid.

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/10-states-nearing-or-exceeding-hospital-capacity-during-covid-s-summer-resurgence

https://www.ajc.com/news/are-headed-for-crisis-hospital-beds-dwindle-virus-cases-soar/I1KwQCh0Sji5zVq1MoywJL/
Yet you voted for Biden.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
1872walker said:

Any studies that show results to the contrary? Especially in all ages?

Any studies showing the long-term effects of these? Adverse events that may be more detrimental than beneficial across the spectrum of those vaccinated?

No, because the vaccines work at preventing severe COVID and death.

Yes, there are ongoing studies for safety and efficacy. Every day there are studies published. This is the largest medical event of the century. There have been tens of thousands of papers published, and it is ongoing.

No, right now there are not adverse effects that outweigh the benefits. The safety signal that came up was myocarditis and it is rare and typically self-resolving.

Read the Cochrane review, or at least the summary. It's the summary and analysis of a ton of research around the globe, and Cochrane is considered the best.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You continue to state things as fact without any evidence whatever. If there's an adverse risk benefit to young people not covered in the paper, show it.

Or I'll do it for you.
https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/12/05/jme-2022-108449

I think the case for boosters for young people is much more tenuous than the initial doses. But this is based on research not twitter posts and feels.

If you have any evidence for the safety signals post it. Otherwise it's just the same old thing, unfounded speculation
Smudge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

You continue to state things as fact without any evidence whatever. If there's an adverse risk benefit to young people not covered in the paper, show it.

Or I'll do it for you.
https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/12/05/jme-2022-108449

I think the case for boosters for young people is much more tenuous than the initial doses. But this is based on research not twitter posts and feels.

If you have any evidence for the safety signals post it. Otherwise it's just the same old thing, unfounded speculation


Not sure what to tell you… not going to take the time to go dig up these studies for some blowhard on Texags. Your lancet study literally shows reduced efficacy with the third dose. Right there. Black and white. If you're not even going to read the studies you share, why would I put forth the effort to go dig anything up. I'm not lying or speculating. Everything I'm stating is verifiable fact. Just because you don't believe me or don't want to take your own time to read through even the studies you post isn't on me.
Class of '00
Gig 'em!
BluHorseShu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

You continue to state things as fact without any evidence whatever. If there's an adverse risk benefit to young people not covered in the paper, show it.

Or I'll do it for you.
https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/12/05/jme-2022-108449

I think the case for boosters for young people is much more tenuous than the initial doses. But this is based on research not twitter posts and feels.

If you have any evidence for the safety signals post it. Otherwise it's just the same old thing, unfounded speculation
I applaud your details and facts Zobel. And I believe most people agree…Unfortunately we have reached a point in the current political climate where some groups will refute anything that contradicts the narrative they've committed to. Too many people point to studies without understanding how to understand and compare the data against other research. Ironically, I was diagnosed with a heart problem after my vaccines . Completely out of the blue. There is a long list of potential things that could have caused it, but I likely had it for many years and wouldnt have discovered it had I not gone for my colonoscopy (I think the doc may have scoped up too far… ), or suffered sudden cardiac death (had to wear defibrillator). I run marathons etc, but genetics, prior illnesses when young , stress, too many things could cause problems. Too many are confusing correlation with causation because of biases…and refuse to step back and see this.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Where?

Here's the table that shows efficacy by dose and age group.
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableHTML?isHtml=true&tableId=tbl2&pii=S1473-3099%2822%2900345-0
Smudge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Where?

Here's the table that shows efficacy by dose and age group.
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableHTML?isHtml=true&tableId=tbl2&pii=S1473-3099%2822%2900345-0



Class of '00
Gig 'em!
oh no
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I run marathons but now I have a heart problem after covid vaccines. I'm thankful that I'm save from covid and I'm going to assume the heart problem is from something else.

There! That will shut those silly conspiraloons up and prove once and for all that a real study or investigation is not necessary!
Smudge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
oh no said:

I run marathons but now I have a heart problem after covid vaccines. I'm thankful that I'm save from covid and I'm going to assume the heart problem is from something else.

There! That will shut those silly conspiraloons up and prove once and for all that a real study or investigation is not necessary!


Ha! Have a dear friend who's one of the best ultra runners in the world. Lives in Boulder, over 100k YouTube and Instagram followers, etc… same exact thing. A pillar of health. Stroked out with clots two weeks post vax. Spent a week in the icu. Won't admit anything! Doctors tried to find every reason other than the vaccine. Anytime he asked direct questions they shut him down and ran more tests. Absolutely mind blowing to watch it play out. Late spring '21 when it happened. But he's milked it. Obviously couldn't run or exercise for a while so is definitely using his "comeback" to get more views and engagement.
Class of '00
Gig 'em!
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Can you explain what you're seeing? Because I don't see the efficacy lowered. The efficacy is higher with three doses than two for all categories and all age groups.

They even have a paragraph comparing relative effectiveness of two vs three doses. Reading their discussion they did this to reduce bias between vaccinated and non vaccinated population (ie if the vaccinated population is more healthy on average since there is an age skew to vaccination rates).

Quote:

We estimated the relative effect of three doses versus two doses of each vaccine type (table 3). For mild or moderate disease we found an additional benefit of a third dose of BNT162b2 in adults aged 2059 years (relative vaccine effectiveness 59.8% [95% CI 497681]) and in adults aged 60 years or older (71.6% [556828%]) who had previously received two doses of BNT162b2 (table 3). A third dose of CoronaVac also increased protection in adults aged 2059 years (35.7% [221473]) and in adults aged 60 years or older (46.9% [296606]) who had received two doses of CoronaVac (table 3). For severe or fatal disease we found an additional benefit of a third dose in adults of all ages for both vaccine types, with a relative vaccine effectiveness of 64.9% (293844) for three versus two doses of BNT162b2, and 87.9% (795933%) for three versus two doses of CoronaVac among those aged 80 years or older (table 3). Additional protection against death was offered by a third dose in all ages for both vaccines (table 3).


https://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableHTML?isHtml=true&tableId=tbl3&pii=S1473-3099%2822%2900345-0
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

The efficacy is higher with three doses than two for all categories and all age groups.
What does efficacy mean to you? Zero transmissions? Zero diagnoses?

Or just "fewer ascribed deaths due to covid?"

look, I was not always a skeptic, just looking for info. Early Feb 2020? Took the precaution of getting surgical masks, gloves, sanitizer, alcohol (both isopropyl and drinkable) and settled back to watch what happened.

When I had to go into town, I wore a mask. I socially distanced. I wiped my hands. On a ranch, we were the definition of socially distanced. Only way for either of us to contract covid was if it was severely airborne and blew in our direction through an open window.

Never happened. FTR: Both in our mid 60s. both with health issues welll before covid.
Smudge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Can you explain what you're seeing? Because I don't see the efficacy lowered. The efficacy is higher with three doses than two for all categories and all age groups.

They even have a paragraph comparing relative effectiveness of two vs three doses. Reading their discussion they did this to reduce bias between vaccinated and non vaccinated population (ie if the vaccinated population is more healthy on average since there is an age skew to vaccination rates).

Quote:

We estimated the relative effect of three doses versus two doses of each vaccine type (table 3). For mild or moderate disease we found an additional benefit of a third dose of BNT162b2 in adults aged 2059 years (relative vaccine effectiveness 59.8% [95% CI 497681]) and in adults aged 60 years or older (71.6% [556828%]) who had previously received two doses of BNT162b2 (table 3). A third dose of CoronaVac also increased protection in adults aged 2059 years (35.7% [221473]) and in adults aged 60 years or older (46.9% [296606]) who had received two doses of CoronaVac (table 3). For severe or fatal disease we found an additional benefit of a third dose in adults of all ages for both vaccine types, with a relative vaccine effectiveness of 64.9% (293844) for three versus two doses of BNT162b2, and 87.9% (795933%) for three versus two doses of CoronaVac among those aged 80 years or older (table 3). Additional protection against death was offered by a third dose in all ages for both vaccines (table 3).


https://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableHTML?isHtml=true&tableId=tbl3&pii=S1473-3099%2822%2900345-0


Yep… misspoke. Time from last shot to first positive Covid test is what I was talking about… not sure why I was looking for that… my bad.
Class of '00
Gig 'em!
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Fewer infections, fewer severe cases, fewer deaths. The number is an odds ratio - if protection against death is 97% that means if you have 100 people matched for risk die, 3 will be vaccinated and 97 will not.

Click that table two link for a breakdown by age, number of shots, and type of efficacy.
Smudge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Here's a good comprehensive with over 150 studies and articles (most of the articles reference many studies). This is the one that our group is going through now. It's more geared toward why most of the initial trials and studies should be completely thrown out because of the manipulation and funding by pharma to reach desired conclusions. Conflict of interest doesn't come close to defining what has been going on.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9610448/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Class of '00
Gig 'em!
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"The pharmaceutical industry is dangerous to health. Further proof with COVID-19"

This seems like a completely objective review.
corndog04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

"The pharmaceutical industry is dangerous to health. Further proof with COVID-19"

This seems like a completely objective review.


Seems legit
Quote:

The overwhelming desire of governments to vaccinate everyone could find an additional explanation through the work of Dr. Pablo Campra (PhD in Chemical Sciences), from the University of Almeria in Spain. This scientist discovered graphene but also microstructures in COVID-19 vaccines. According to the experts he contacted, these microstructures could be part of a Wireless Nanosensors Network, whether as nanosensors, as nanorouters, or as nanoantennae.[28]
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

You continue to state things as fact without any evidence whatever. If there's an adverse risk benefit to young people not covered in the paper, show it.

Or I'll do it for you.
https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/12/05/jme-2022-108449

I think the case for boosters for young people is much more tenuous than the initial doses. But this is based on research not twitter posts and feels.

If you have any evidence for the safety signals post it. Otherwise it's just the same old thing, unfounded speculation

Follow up on boosters not being the same thing as initial rounds - and the new variant vaccines not being worth it.

Time article
https://time.com/6246525/bivalent-booster-not-very-effective-paul-offit/

NEJM perspective piece
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2215780
oh no
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


I'm sure this guy is thankful he's protected from the omicron sniffles.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Now the vaccines tear arteries? They're getting smarter.
BadMoonRisin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's just using their own "logic"
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Didn't you call them stupid, illogical, dishonest, or irrational for doing that?
Dimebag Darrell
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GeorgiAg said:

Smudge said:

GeorgiAg said:

Smudge said:

Zobel said:

The 95% was accurate. They didn't amend the study. If you go outside and check to see if a rock is wet or not every day for a three month period and it's a monsoon season, maybe you find it wet 95% of the time. That's what you'd write in your paper. If your study was a year, and it never rained other than in monsoon, maybe you'd find 25% of the time. That doesn't make your study false, or wrong. It makes it limited.

You love to bag on the reduction in efficacy against symptomatic illness. But why not focus on the efficacy against hospitalization and death?

Through six months they found 91% efficacy against illness but 96% against severe disease.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2110345

So how long do we need to window? How long do you wait before publishing? Ten years? What's the cost?

Does it change with variants? Yes. With time? Yes. And we add that knowledge to the knowledge from the trials.


Sure. That's not the point. The point was that vaccines were shoved down our throats, lives ruined, businesses ruined, etc., because of those data in the phase 3 trials which you just admitted were "limited" and obviously only a small piece of the larger picture. If you're going to set sweeping policy based on limited data you're ****ing insane and it's completely malicious. Especially when you factor in that the policy setters stood to gain large financial benefits for recommending said policy based on the trials.

At least you finally admitted that those trials were limited and only a snapshot of what was going on.
Hindsight is 20-20. We were faced with an unknown health crisis. Hospital ICUs were at full capacity even with all the lockdowns, masks, closed schools etc... With no lockdowns, our health care system would have been overwhelmed.

Who predicted the variability and severity of the virus? LMK because I need him to pick some football games or go to Vegas with me.

Vaccination reduced the amount of severe disease so we could open back up again without hospitals being overrun.


There is no ****ing way you believe what you just wrote.
"Believe" have nothing to do with it. I have current medmal case where a kid sat in an ER for 5 hours before he was even triaged. He had testicular torsion and lost his testicle. Y'all wanna come testify at trial for me? I know the defense lawyers are going to be arguing, covid, covid, covid.

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/10-states-nearing-or-exceeding-hospital-capacity-during-covid-s-summer-resurgence

https://www.ajc.com/news/are-headed-for-crisis-hospital-beds-dwindle-virus-cases-soar/I1KwQCh0Sji5zVq1MoywJL/
I cannot imagine having a Biden and Kamala supporter who seriously thought Donald Trump fought Secret Service for the wheel of the car so that he could go partake iin the "insurrection" at the capitol. I feel like this is stuff he and his family should know.
Dimebag Darrell
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oh no said:



I'm sure this guy is thankful he's protected from the omicron sniffles.
This always happens and is very normal. /fully boosted white liberal male feminists
BadMoonRisin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Did they still keep doing it? E.g. lying to scare people?
Dimebag Darrell
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

Now the vaccines tear arteries? They're getting smarter.
I did see at least one doctor explaining how something the spike proteins give off can eat at and tear away at one of the major coronary arteries in some unlucky people. Which i had more of a medical background so I could better remember the process and terminology.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BadMoonRisin said:

Did they still keep doing it? E.g. lying to scare people?

is that what you're doing then? Lying to scare people?
Smudge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Brittmoore Car Club said:

Zobel said:

Now the vaccines tear arteries? They're getting smarter.
I did see at least one doctor explaining how something the spike proteins give off can eat at and tear away at one of the major coronary arteries in some unlucky people. Which i had more of a medical background so I could better remember the process and terminology.
It's the graphene in the vaccines that can cause this. It's also thought that this is what is causing thrombosis and micro-tears causing some of the pulmonary and circulatory swelling.

Now, a couple will be quick to say this is a conspiracy theory, but graphene is found in the blood stream of those vaccinated and even in swabs of the inside of masks. And I'm old enough to remember early in the pandemic where medical institutions were touting the benefits of graphene for a potential miracle material for various reasons. The problem is though they typically show properties of being stringer than steel, the bonds are breaking down forming broken hexagonal chains that *could be* causing these micro tears.

Another thing of note is that the full ingredient list of any and all vaccines is not public knowledge. And pharma is not about to let anyone outside of the Fauci circle jerk aware of whats in them.

Oh, and here's a paper touting the benefits of graphene in relation to covid dated just before the vaccines were released. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7577689/
Class of '00
Gig 'em!
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Graphene? Seriously? Ok. Sorry I had you in the wrong mental category.
Smudge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Graphene? Seriously? Ok. Sorry I had you in the wrong mental category.
right on cue!
Class of '00
Gig 'em!
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oh joy, graphene oxide again.

Guess we won't be far off from the claims that the shots contain an aluminum-carbon lifeform being recirculated again.

The more out there claims do nothing but help the shot shrills discredit all of legitimate problems these shots cause.

Edit: And before I could even hit post, my point gets proven.
BadMoonRisin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's a meme calling out hypocrisy, you idiot. If you don't see that, I cant help you.

Trying to make the government, CDC, NIAH, etc live up to their own standards.

Clearly not everyone who dies who has been vaccinated is a vaccine death. That's not my position.

But the fact that we cant acknowledge that younger and younger people are suddenly dying and wondering why and if it could be vaccine related but they can call someone who got hit by a car and died a COVID death for their super scary tracker is completely ******ed.
Smudge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rapier108 said:

Oh joy, graphene oxide again.

Guess we won't be far off from the claims that the shots contain an aluminum-carbon lifeform being recirculated again.

The more out there claims do nothing but help the shot shrills discredit all of legitimate problems these shots cause.

Edit: And before I could even hit post, my point gets proven.
It's something that has to be considered. There was a large scientific contingent pushing for this in the vaccines... see the paper I linked... for its antibacterial and bonding properties. Remember, anything and everything was being thrown out there. Now there are traces of it in the blood of those vaccinated, and in masks worn by the vaccinated. I don't think anyone legitimately asking these questions thinks it's some nanochip bio tracker...

Do I think it's the cause of the issues, probably not. But could it be a contributor... sure. These questions have to be asked. Period.
Class of '00
Gig 'em!
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.