That you guys actually think about winners and losers during a world wide pandemic that killed millions of people and debilitated our societies, economies, and communities is everything wrong with the politicization of [BLEEP] everything. Not everything is best seen through your Pub/Dem lenses.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

That you guys actually think about winners and losers during a world wide pandemic that killed millions of people and debilitated our societies, economies, and communities is everything wrong with the politicization of [BLEEP] everything. Not everything is best seen through your Pub/Dem lenses.

Please, spare me this crap. You were among those vilifying us non-vaxers and saying how we needed to be forced to take it or be locked up. You guys called us murderers and “right wing” conspiracy theorists that didn’t deserve to live in society.


No, it was YOUR side that made it political, don’t try and flip the script, YOU wrote…

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

That you guys actually think about winners and losers during a world wide pandemic that killed millions of people and debilitated our societies, economies, and communities is everything wrong with the politicization of [BLEEP] everything. Not everything is best seen through your Pub/Dem lenses.

Please, spare me this crap. You were among those vilifying us non-vaxers and saying how we needed to be forced to take it or be locked up. You guys called us murderers and “right wing” conspiracy theorists that didn’t deserve to live in society.


No, it was YOUR side that made it political, don’t try and flip the script, YOU wrote…

Please show proof that people on this board said this.

You're just making stuff up to get mad about.

---

That you guys actually think about winners and losers during a world wide pandemic that killed millions of people and debilitated our societies, economies, and communities is everything wrong with the politicization of [BLEEP] everything. Not everything is best seen through your Pub/Dem lenses.

Please, spare me this crap. You were among those vilifying us non-vaxers and saying how we needed to be forced to take it or be locked up. You guys called us murderers and “right wing” conspiracy theorists that didn’t deserve to live in society.


No, it was YOUR side that made it political, don’t try and flip the script, YOU wrote…

Oh bull [BLEEP].

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Please, spare me this crap. You were among those vilifying us non-vaxers and saying how we needed to be forced to take it or be locked up. You guys called us murderers and “right wing” conspiracy theorists that didn’t deserve to live in society.


No, it was YOUR side that made it political, don’t try and flip the script, YOU wrote…

Please show proof that people on this board said this.

You're just making stuff up to get mad about.

There was one guy who used to be on here that rather publicly said those who don't take the jab should be locked up. Whatever happened to him...


...too soon?

---

https://twitter.com/healthbyjames/status...ISJadX_aKQ

Ever thought that these deaths are the result of having caught COVID?  Is it possible that COVID affects the heart more than the vaccine?

---

R.I.P. Stroudcrowd1

https://twitter.com/healthbyjames/status...ISJadX_aKQ

Ever thought that these deaths are the result of having caught COVID?  Is it possible that COVID affects the heart more than the vaccine?

What they aren't telling you is it is not across the board and affecting everyone. So if the vaccinated are getting it from getting covid, you would expect to see the same thing in the unvaccinated.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

https://twitter.com/healthbyjames/status...ISJadX_aKQ

Ever thought that these deaths are the result of having caught COVID?  Is it possible that COVID affects the heart more than the vaccine?

It does, we know it, he ignores it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Ever thought that these deaths are the result of having caught COVID?  Is it possible that COVID affects the heart more than the vaccine?

What they aren't telling you is it is not across the board and affecting everyone. So if the vaccinated are getting it from getting covid, you would expect to see the same thing in the unvaccinated.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Who said we aren't seeing it.  These people dropping dead. Do we know if they had the vaccine or not or have had COVID or not.  From very early on (pre vaccine), they said that COVID was impacting the heart and that was a contributor to COVID deaths.

---

R.I.P. Stroudcrowd1

Ever thought that these deaths are the result of having caught COVID?  Is it possible that COVID affects the heart more than the vaccine?

It does, we know it, he ignores it.

Lol, get real, dude. You constantly amaze me with your apologetics. Are some young people dying from Covid? Certainly. It's rare. Really [BLEEP] rare. It's been that way from the onset. However, that's true for the vaccine as well, and we're don't have clear data to tell us which is worse across the demographic spectrum. Don't get me wrong, you will confidently assert one over the other, but you don't actually have the data to support it outside of some cherry-picked studies. Our "trusted" institutions removed age charts and didn't actually bother to implement consistent standards. 

It's pretty clear that the vaccine creates a risk of myocarditis in men under 40 that is greater than Covid, and myocarditis is a strong precursor to heart failure. Plenty of young people are dying as a result of that vaccine, and you won't convince me otherwise, because it's rational to assume the vaccine IS playing a role. The BEST you can say is that it's really rare that someone die from the vaccine, and even then, you have millions of believers who can't acknowledge that it's even possible. Are you a believer FSG?  

This vaccine should have been rolled out to the elderly and at-risk ONLY. Greed rolled it out to everyone else. Hospitals are literally trying to make this a yearly requirement, despite data showing long-term inefficiency in the general populace. We are being misled, and you are playing a role in that. There's statistically no valid reason to be giving this thing to our healthy kids and young adults. Especially not yearly. 

I said it would take 5 years. We're on year 3. There's a problem lurking in the background. People are starting to murmur. Investigations next, followed by obfuscation. 

All that said, is that video accurate? Probably not. We have access to millions of cameras, and it's probably pretty easy to put together a montage of just about anything you want. I'm certain many of those deaths would have occurred with or without Covid and with or without the vaccine. However, I can almost certainly guarantee that if they were young and died of Covid, they had 4-5 comorbidities as well, because that's what the DATA has shown us. You remember data, right? ...That thing that's supposed to guide us when making large scale decisions?  

It's crazy to me how bad the medical community has been at zooming out and looking at the big picture. The more I have learned about the healthcare process over the course of this pandemic, the more I realize how badly it's broken. I guess I expected the doctors and administrators of hospitals to be the bulwark against the allures of profit-driven systems, but, instead, you are beholden to it. Every single good individual I know in the healthcare industry talks about how bad insurance is, and many will tell you about a personal experience with exploitative drug or device peddlers manipulating data to be the first to market, but as a collective?... you guys are beholden to the system. You're immersed in it and have gotten used to your role as subservient players in the industry. Your mission is noble but passive. 

What can we do, right? We'll just unquestioningly repeat data that comes from studies that were used by big pharma to make money and justify laws that were enforced by big government to get money to stay in power. We're just the little guys, right?

---

To be fair, FSG was never for government enforced mandates... although, threats to remove Medicare might as well be the same thing. Hospitals just can't function without that money.

---

What they aren't telling you is it is not across the board and affecting everyone. So if the vaccinated are getting it from getting covid, you would expect to see the same thing in the unvaccinated.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Who said we aren't seeing it.  These people dropping dead. Do we know if they had the vaccine or not or have had COVID or not.  From very early on (pre vaccine), they said that COVID was impacting the heart and that was a contributor to COVID deaths.

In how many instances are you finding out post-mortem that someone who dropped dead was vaccinated and / or boosted? Maybe I'm not doing enough research, but by my count, the number is zero.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

Could you clarify that comment?

---

Could you clarify that comment?

Poorly worded on my part. I was asking about data on people who have died due to a cardiac event, and if they were:
1) Unvaccinated, and never had Covid
2) Unvaccinated and had Covid
3) Vaccinated / boosted and never had Covid
4) Vaccinated / boosted and had Covid

My initial comment was supposed to be that; although there have been a number of people dropping dead of a cardiac event outside of the normal age range for such an event, the data on whether they have been vaccinated or had Covid prior is rarely, if ever, released. In those cases, I'm sure it's due to HIPA or the wishes of the family / next of kin.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

I get that, and I prefer the standard of privacy, but once this got politicized, no one cared about HIPAA as they tried to introduce vaccination mandates and travel cards. If businesses can ask if you've been vaccinated to enter, we should be able to know what percentage of SADS are vaccinated. I don't care if individuals get their names protected, but the aggregate should be public knowledge, and doctors should be collecting it. We should know the exact questions you are asking, but our healthcare authorities are not demanding that info.

I said, in this thread, over a year ago, that our institutions were doing a terrible job of gathering data. Things have been so muddied that we can't possibly know the answers to these questions. You can't tell me that forward thinking scientists don't know how to create clear control groups or measure, categorize, and track data. Again, this was over a year ago. I was warning that because of the way we were implementing this, we would never be able to pin down these problems... and I'm just an average guy. Now look what's happening... this was entirely preventable.

---

Is it still Covid-19?

Or is it something like Crazy-23?

---

Who said we aren't seeing it.  These people dropping dead. Do we know if they had the vaccine or not or have had COVID or not.  From very early on (pre vaccine), they said that COVID was impacting the heart and that was a contributor to COVID deaths.

In how many instances are you finding out post-mortem that someone who dropped dead was vaccinated and / or boosted?  Maybe I'm not doing enough research, but by my count, the number is zero.

This has been some research, like this which shows that the risk of myocarditis is higher from getting COVID than getting any vaccine.

https://theconversation.com/myocarditis-...tterbutton

Before COVID-19 the incidence of myocarditis was between one and 10 cases per 100,000 people per year. Rates are highest in males between 18 and 30 years old. Interestingly, most cases of myocarditis in the highest risk group are in otherwise healthy and active people.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the risk of myocarditis after infection with COVID-19 is much higher, at 146 cases per 100,000. The risk is higher for males, older adults (ages 50+) and children under 16 years old.

Based on a study out of Israel, the risk of post-vaccine myocarditis is 2.13 cases per 100,000 vaccinated, which is within the range usually seen in the general population. This study is consistent with others in the United States and Israel which put the overall incidence of post-vaccine myocarditis between 0.3 and five cases per 100,000 people.

---

R.I.P. Stroudcrowd1

In how many instances are you finding out post-mortem that someone who dropped dead was vaccinated and / or boosted?  Maybe I'm not doing enough research, but by my count, the number is zero.

This has been some research, like this which shows that the risk of myocarditis is higher from getting COVID than getting any vaccine.

https://theconversation.com/myocarditis-...tterbutton

Before COVID-19 the incidence of myocarditis was between one and 10 cases per 100,000 people per year. Rates are highest in males between 18 and 30 years old. Interestingly, most cases of myocarditis in the highest risk group are in otherwise healthy and active people.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the risk of myocarditis after infection with COVID-19 is much higher, at 146 cases per 100,000. The risk is higher for males, older adults (ages 50+) and children under 16 years old.

Based on a study out of Israel, the risk of post-vaccine myocarditis is 2.13 cases per 100,000 vaccinated, which is within the range usually seen in the general population. This study is consistent with others in the United States and Israel which put the overall incidence of post-vaccine myocarditis between 0.3 and five cases per 100,000 people.

Methinks you didnt read any of the articles associated with the links.  So here's part of one.

"Data for this study were obtained from the Premier Healthcare Database Special COVID-19 Release (PHD-SR), a large hospital-based administrative database.† The monthly number of myocarditis§ and COVID-19¶ inpatient encounters was assessed before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, from January 2019 through May 2021.

A patient-level cohort was created to assess the association between COVID-19 and myocarditis. The cohort included all patients with at least one inpatient or hospital-based outpatient encounter with discharge during March 2020–January 2021. To minimize potential bias from vaccine-associated myocarditis (6), 277,892 patients with a COVID-19 vaccination record in PHD-SR during December 2020–February 2021 were excluded. In addition, 37,896 patients for whom information on sex was missing were excluded. Patients with COVID-19 were defined as those who had their first inpatient or outpatient encounter with a COVID-19 International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) code during March 2020–January 2021. Patients with myocarditis were defined as those who had their first of at least one inpatient encounter, at least two outpatient encounters, or at least one outpatient encounter with a relevant specialist** with a myocarditis ICD-10-CM code during March 2020–February 2021.†† Among patients with COVID-19, the first myocarditis encounter could have occurred during or after the first COVID-19 health care encounter."

At least 2 problems with this:
1) The original sample size was never mentioned in the article, and yet, 277,892 patients that had a COVID-19 vaccination record were excluded.  What % of exclusion did that end up becoming, and how did it affect the correlation?

2) Why are you excluding patients that had a Covid vaccination, when the purpose of the study should be to determine the risk of myocarditis among both vaccinated and unvaccinated?  Of course, that wasn't the original purpose of the study, it was only to prove a link between the unvaccinated having Covid and myocarditis.  All possibilities here should have been tracked and studied, and the data allowed to determine the outcome, but they clearly weren't.  Wonder why that is?

This is what should have been considered as an inpatient study, biases be damned:
1) Unvaccinated and had Covid
2) Vaccinated / boosted and had Covid

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

This has been some research, like this which shows that the risk of myocarditis is higher from getting COVID than getting any vaccine.

https://theconversation.com/myocarditis-...tterbutton

Methinks you didnt read any of the articles associated with the links.  So here's part of one.

"Data for this study were obtained from the Premier Healthcare Database Special COVID-19 Release (PHD-SR), a large hospital-based administrative database.† The monthly number of myocarditis§ and COVID-19¶ inpatient encounters was assessed before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, from January 2019 through May 2021.

A patient-level cohort was created to assess the association between COVID-19 and myocarditis. The cohort included all patients with at least one inpatient or hospital-based outpatient encounter with discharge during March 2020–January 2021. To minimize potential bias from vaccine-associated myocarditis (6), 277,892 patients with a COVID-19 vaccination record in PHD-SR during December 2020–February 2021 were excluded. In addition, 37,896 patients for whom information on sex was missing were excluded. Patients with COVID-19 were defined as those who had their first inpatient or outpatient encounter with a COVID-19 International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) code during March 2020–January 2021. Patients with myocarditis were defined as those who had their first of at least one inpatient encounter, at least two outpatient encounters, or at least one outpatient encounter with a relevant specialist** with a myocarditis ICD-10-CM code during March 2020–February 2021.†† Among patients with COVID-19, the first myocarditis encounter could have occurred during or after the first COVID-19 health care encounter."

At least 2 problems with this:
1) The original sample size was never mentioned in the article, and yet, 277,892 patients that had a COVID-19 vaccination record were excluded.  What % of exclusion did that end up becoming, and how did it affect the correlation?

2) Why are you excluding patients that had a Covid vaccination, when the purpose of the study should be to determine the risk of myocarditis among both vaccinated and unvaccinated?  Of course, that wasn't the original purpose of the study, it was only to prove a link between the unvaccinated having Covid and myocarditis.  All possibilities here should have been tracked and studied, and the data allowed to determine the outcome, but they clearly weren't.  Wonder why that is?

This is what should have been considered as an inpatient study, biases be damned:
1) Unvaccinated and had Covid
2) Vaccinated / boosted and had Covid

That study is trying to establish the link between COVID and myocarditis, hence the exclusion of vaccinated patients as in those patients, myocarditis might have been triggered by COVID, or the vaccine, or both.

---

R.I.P. Stroudcrowd1

Methinks you didnt read any of the articles associated with the links.  So here's part of one.

"Data for this study were obtained from the Premier Healthcare Database Special COVID-19 Release (PHD-SR), a large hospital-based administrative database.† The monthly number of myocarditis§ and COVID-19¶ inpatient encounters was assessed before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, from January 2019 through May 2021.

A patient-level cohort was created to assess the association between COVID-19 and myocarditis. The cohort included all patients with at least one inpatient or hospital-based outpatient encounter with discharge during March 2020–January 2021. To minimize potential bias from vaccine-associated myocarditis (6), 277,892 patients with a COVID-19 vaccination record in PHD-SR during December 2020–February 2021 were excluded. In addition, 37,896 patients for whom information on sex was missing were excluded. Patients with COVID-19 were defined as those who had their first inpatient or outpatient encounter with a COVID-19 International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) code during March 2020–January 2021. Patients with myocarditis were defined as those who had their first of at least one inpatient encounter, at least two outpatient encounters, or at least one outpatient encounter with a relevant specialist** with a myocarditis ICD-10-CM code during March 2020–February 2021.†† Among patients with COVID-19, the first myocarditis encounter could have occurred during or after the first COVID-19 health care encounter."

At least 2 problems with this:
1) The original sample size was never mentioned in the article, and yet, 277,892 patients that had a COVID-19 vaccination record were excluded.  What % of exclusion did that end up becoming, and how did it affect the correlation?

2) Why are you excluding patients that had a Covid vaccination, when the purpose of the study should be to determine the risk of myocarditis among both vaccinated and unvaccinated?  Of course, that wasn't the original purpose of the study, it was only to prove a link between the unvaccinated having Covid and myocarditis.  All possibilities here should have been tracked and studied, and the data allowed to determine the outcome, but they clearly weren't.  Wonder why that is?

This is what should have been considered as an inpatient study, biases be damned:
1) Unvaccinated and had Covid
2) Vaccinated / boosted and had Covid

That study is trying to establish the link between COVID and myocarditis, hence the exclusion of vaccinated patients as in those patients, myocarditis might have been triggered by COVID, or the vaccine, or both.

Did you not understand that i understood the intention of the study? My disagreement is with the bias of the study from the beginning. They set the study parameters up so as to reach their predetermined conclusion, which disqualifies it as a legitimate study.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

Furthermore, if you read the actual study (which I posted here like a year ago), they only count one dose to get the 2.13% number, which is not considered fully vaccinated, AND they take the general population which includes all ages and genders. It's fun with numbers.

A fully vaccinated male under 40, when given the proper dosage (2 shots), has a higher chance of myocarditis with both the Pfizer and the Moderna vaccines. Moderna was terrible. Pfizer is at least in the ball park, iirc.

---

I might have posted the Oxford study. Can't remember if it was that exact one... but the point still stands. Fun with numbers, folks.

---