1 in 5,000 young men have heart issues from COVID vax.
— Liz Wheeler (@Liz_Wheeler) January 3, 2023
Yearly commotia cordis cases? ~15. (RARELY over age 20).
1,598 athlete cardiac arrests since Jan 2021. 69% fatal.
(Average athlete cardiacs before vax was 29/yr).
“Science” ignores this.
That’s why people ask questions.
Goose06 said:
I didn't see the citation for the sports related cardiac arrests but have seen a similar stat posted elsewhere. Can you link the citation here?
Certainly worth further investigation
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 4, 2023
TRADUCTOR said:Goose06 said:
I didn't see the citation for the sports related cardiac arrests but have seen a similar stat posted elsewhere. Can you link the citation here?
Watch Monday Night Football.
they pulled a graph from this website and cropped off the big caution disclaimer in yellow. here, see for yourself. go to the link and scroll down to "excess mortality."Quote:
Because of the unexpected and varying mortality experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, the calculated baseline applied in the EuroMOMO estimation of excess number of deaths do not include data from 2020 and onwards, as these data will distort the estimated level of baseline number of deaths.
Due to the exclusion of data from the COVID-19 pandemic, the trend incorporated in the statistical estimation of the baseline are presently forecasted beyond the intended duration. This prolonged forecast has introduced an increasing bias over time, which can cause incorrect estimations of the excess mortality, particularly when the numbers are cumulated.
Because of this enhanced bias when cumulating data, the cumulated outputs should not be considered reliable at this point and must be interpreted very cautiously.
Quote:
And at the OxyContin launch party, where the court filing says Sackler spoke of a "blizzard of prescriptions" for the potent painkiller, he added: "The prescription blizzard will be so deep, dense, and white."
I still regularly see people wearing these (often as family units) out in the store/public. It's purely a religious article of faith at this point, not simply ignorance or a questionable bit of medical advice.Quote:
Just like smoking a single cigarette never killed anyone, wearing a face mask for a few hours or a few days does not cause irreversible damage either. But the immediate short-term physiological effects are detectable: A recent study led by Pritam Sukul, senior medical scientist at the University Medicine Rostock in Germany, found masks to cause hypercarbia (high concentration of CO in the blood), arterial oxygen decline, blood pressure fluctuations, and concomitant physiological and metabolic effects. On a time scale of weeks or months, these effects appear to be reversible. But how can we know what can happen to people who wear masks for several hours a day for several years? Will we have to wait for decades before concluding that masks are bad for people's health, as was the case with cigarettes?
Not necessarily, for we are able to assess face masks in terms of the air quality breathed by the wearers. One important parameter for air quality is CO concentration. Over the years, a lot of data has been accumulated in this field from miners, astronauts, submariners, and other people exposed to high concentrations of CO. Measurable negative effects on mental alertness already occur at CO concentrations over 600 parts per million (ppm), which is only slightly higher than the average concentration in open air (a little more than 400 ppm). Values higher than 1,000-2,000 ppm are not recommended for living spaces, especially for children and pregnant women. 5,000 ppm is the commonly accepted limit in working environments or in submarines and spaceships. Concentrations in the range of 10,000-20,000 ppm are not immediately life-threatening but can only be withstood for short periods. Even higher concentrations may lead to loss of consciousness and death.
So what kind of CO concentration are people exposed to when they wear a face mask? Measuring the concentration of CO inside the small volume of a face mask while it is being used poses practical problems, and there are no standardised methods and procedures to evaluate this. Nevertheless, during the past few years, several papers dealing with this subject were published.
Some of these papers were criticised, but often baselessly. For instance, some fact checkers claimed that the same amount of CO could be found without face masks in exhaled breath. This is true, but trivial. The studies mentioned above measured the amount of CO in the inhaled air under face masks; the fact checkers measured the air exhaled. Other fact checkers provided a priori statements by "experts," including a sports reporter.
Meanwhile, studies that rely on robust capnographic methods that calculate inhaled CO levels from the end-tidal volume of CO under strictly controlled conditions have corroborated our findings about elevated CO levels in masks. In short, there is strong evidence that people wearing face masks, especially the FFP2/N95 type, breathe a concentration of carbon dioxide several times higher than the recommended concentration limits, in the range of over 5,000 ppm and often over 10,000 ppm. In other words, masks may multiply the external CO concentration by a factor of 10, if not more.
Individuals wearing a tight, N95-style face mask are thus breathing air of comparable quality to the air in spacecrafts and submarines. Astronauts and submariners, though, are well trained and in peak physical condition; masks, meanwhile, are often worn by the elderly, the young, and people affected by chronic pathologies. A recent study of more than 20,000 German children who wore masks for an average of more than four hours per day showed that 68% of them reported these kinds of problems.
There are additional risks associated with face masks that should be considered, such as psychological effects and infections from pathogens accumulated in the mask tissue, but we believe that the increased concentrations of CO breathed by mask-wearers is a clear and demonstrated adverse effect that should be known and considered when deciding policies. In short, face masks are not harmless.
Wearing a face mask is not a purely symbolic gesture like wearing a lapel pin or waving a flag, as some people have come to believe. It is not simply an expression of social solidarity, belief in science, or support for health care workers. It can have important adverse effects on healthespecially in the case of N95sand, at the very minimum, citizens should be alerted to the downsides of masking before they make up their minds on the issue. Face masks should be mandated only in special circumstances, and ordinary citizens should wear them only when there is a real and evident risk of infection.
samurai_science said:
Cancer will be on the horizon for these "safe" "vaccines" pretty soon, it happened in the trials.
Here you go! https://t.co/91y0GqtyrR
— Ivor Cummins (@FatEmperor) January 5, 2023
It's called a search engine..Goose06 said:
I didn't see the citation for the sports related cardiac arrests but have seen a similar stat posted elsewhere. Can you link the citation here?
Raise a lot of hell first.dreyOO said:
I'll never have the proof, but my son got really sick from something that started with wearing the daily face diapers to school. Forced to wear them although he already had natural immunity. Forced to wear them by the fat, lazy teachers unions. This boy was the picture of health his whole life until then.
Never again. Fortunately his pediatrician wrote exemptions after they tried reinstituting mask rules.
And if the whackos push it again, we WILL home school.
Zobel said:
because it's not a study, it's just a list of people who died or had issues. just scanning at random it includes mike leach (#6), a 61 year old former moto champion who had cancer (#17), a 40 year old wrestler who has hodgkins lymphoma (#19), a 62 year old former pro soccer player (#57), a 58 year old who died of prostate cancer (#58) etc.
you can't compare this list with the actual study in an actual journal. you should just compare it to total cancer and heart related deaths in the whole world, or something.
Zobel said:
Yeah, I think the benefit outweighs the harm. Maybe along the lines of the annual flu shot or varicella, but still. Not a lot of kids dying from those either, but at the population level the vaccines are a positive.
I think you need to qualify evidence. Reports in media or revisions downward are a kind of evidence but they're not on the same level as like a study done by Ionnadis or whatever. If you really want to gauge the quality of reporting it would probably best be done with excess
Mortality, but there are lots of potential confounders. I suspect if you look you'll find a lot of high quality studies that support the general consensus that COVID had a direct impact on death. Even if we take an infection fatality rate in the low range of estimates like 0.3% you still end up with a million deaths once everyone in the US gets it once.
That is an argument against vaccination as it goes on though. Once everyone has had the virus a couple of times you have a strong survivorship bias in the fatality rate. Those who were likely to die, did. Subsequent waves have fewer vulnerable people to kill and by result fewer people to benefit from the vaccines. But it's mostly academic because a very very high majority of Americans are already vaccinated.
