COVID-19

[ulukinatme]

@ulukinatme - just following up on the risks you are speaking of. Wondering if you have data to share that would show an increase in myocarditis from athletes and why that gives you pause about vaccines?

View attachment 3053942

Q&A: COVID-19, Vaccines, and Myocarditis

Benefits of COVID-19 vaccines outweigh a very small risk of heart complications

covid19.nih.gov

I don't have anything specific to athletes other than anecdotes I've read from various players like Bronny that have gone down over the last two years. There was some information obtained via the Freedom of Information Act that they were trying to hold back. Among 10,000,000 people that signed up for the CDC's v-safe program almost 10% of the responders reported they had to make an appointment (Emergency room, remote appointment, etc) following the jab, and another 25% had to miss work or school for various reasons after. The data is limited, but it poses more questions than answers and it begs the question why the CDC didn't release the information willingly if there wasn't more to it. There's been a lack of transparency during the pandemic, and citizens were fed a lot of garbage by the media and experts to coerce them to take the jab or take other precautions that weren't always necessary or effective.

New data is out on COVID vaccine injury claims. What's to make of it?

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, facing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking a vast trove of data about the safety and side-effects of the COVID-19 vaccines, made a pledge in August.

www.reuters.com

 

[TorontoGold]

I don't have anything specific to athletes other than anecdotes I've read from various players like Bronny that have gone down over the last two years. There was some information obtained via the Freedom of Information Act that they were trying to hold back. Among 10,000,000 people that signed up for the CDC's v-safe program almost 10% of the responders reported they had to make an appointment (Emergency room, remote appointment, etc) following the jab, and another 25% had to miss work or school for various reasons after. The data is limited, but it poses more questions than answers and it begs the question why the CDC didn't release the information willingly if there wasn't more to it. There's been a lack of transparency during the pandemic, and citizens were fed a lot of garbage by the media and experts to coerce them to take the jab or take other precautions that weren't always necessary or effective.

New data is out on COVID vaccine injury claims. What's to make of it?

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, facing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking a vast trove of data about the safety and side-effects of the COVID-19 vaccines, made a pledge in August.

www.reuters.com

What information would make you reconsider your position and outweigh the anecdotes?

I can certainly see the 25% figure of missing work to be a reasonable figure as I had to take half days for booster 1 and 2. It wiped me out. I'm not an MD so I don't know if that's to be expected. Perth has way more insight on this than I do.

How are you grading the information from the sources you are trusting, what is the factor that makes those sources more reliable than what is in the "mainstream"? Is it their qualifications? Industry history? Source of financing ie. not Big Pharma?

 

[Lberry]

Lol @ Reuters. About as left leaning as you can find.

 

[Old Man Mike]

My training is science and college teaching --- What the hell does "left" or "right" have to do with COVID science?

The mere insertion of that juxtaposition makes me VERY suspicious and wary of severe antiscience bias. ... and stop reading this.

 

[Blazers46]

My training is science and college teaching --- What the hell does "left" or "right" have to do with COVID science?

The mere insertion of that juxtaposition makes me VERY suspicious and wary of severe antiscience bias. ... and stop reading this.

I think it’s pretty simple coming from someone on the conservative side. “Trust the science” when it comes to vaccines and all things Covid but it’s apparently inconvenient for other political items such a gender, sports, and even “equity” v “equality” to an extent.

 

[sixstar]

Q&A: COVID-19, Vaccines, and Myocarditis

Benefits of COVID-19 vaccines outweigh a very small risk of heart complications

covid19.nih.gov

This is either a purposefully misleading graphic in the name of vaccine propaganda or embarrassingly poor middle school level data science from someone clearly incapable of doing their job, because the graphic does not account for:

1. the probability of contracting COVID as a function of vax status
2. the risk of getting hospitalized from COVID
3. the cumulative risk of myo from multiple shots (2 per 100k per shot)

In order to calculate the probability of myocarditis from COVID (call this P(D)), three things must happen:

1. you must contract COVID [P(A)]
2. you must be hospitalized from COVID [P(B)]
3. you must contract myo from your hospitalized COVID case [P(C)]

So, P(D) = P(A) * P(B) * P(C)

Let's do some high school math and fix this. Let's assume that this graph is addressing younger age groups, who are more likely to get myo. This is the age 18-29 cohort.

I'll use the official UK HSA dataset from the same time this graphic was originally developed.

First, we have to look at COVID case rates per 100k because in order to get myo from COVID, you have to first contract COVID. We also know that the shot doesn't prevent someone from capturing COVID.

Using UK HSA official data:

• unvax case rate was ~700 - 1540 per 100k (Note, unvax ranges due to differences in NIMS vs ONS population estimates.)
• 3-dose case rate was ~2180 per 100k in 3-dose cohort.

Using UK HSA official data:

• unvax hospitalization rate ranged from ~5-10 per 100k
• 3-dose case rate was ~4 per 100k.

Remember - the vax ARR was extremely low, and even nearly negligible for those under 60.

Let's do some math now. We will use the average of the unvaxxed rates since nobody could agree on NIMS vs. ONS estimates.

Unvax Probability of contracting COVID: [(700 + 1540) / 2)] / 100k
Unvax Probability of hospitalization from COVID: [(5 + 10) / 2] / 100k
Unvax Probability of myocarditis from COVID hospitalization: ~226 / 100k

Weighted probability of myo for unvax: 1.898 / 100k

3-Dose Probability of contracting COVID: ~1992 / 100k
3-Dose Probability of contracting COVID: ~4 / 100k
3-Dose Probability of contracting COVID: ~226 / 100k
ADD: Probability of vax myo: 2 / 100k per shot => 6 / 100k

Weighted probability of myo for 3-dose: 24.008 / 100k

simple probabilistic math using UK HSA's official data.


Now, here you go, courtesy of the bee:

 

[TorontoGold]

This is either a purposefully misleading graphic in the name of vaccine propaganda or embarrassingly poor middle school level data science from someone clearly incapable of doing their job, because the graphic does not account for:

1. the probability of contracting COVID as a function of vax status
2. the risk of getting hospitalized from COVID
3. the cumulative risk of myo from multiple shots (2 per 100k per shot)

In order to calculate the probability of myocarditis from COVID (call this P(D)), three things must happen:

1. you must contract COVID [P(A)]
2. you must be hospitalized from COVID [P(B)]
3. you must contract myo from your hospitalized COVID case [P(C)]

So, P(D) = P(A) * P(B) * P(C)

Let's do some high school math and fix this. Let's assume that this graph is addressing younger age groups, who are more likely to get myo. This is the age 18-29 cohort.

I'll use the official UK HSA dataset from the same time this graphic was originally developed.

First, we have to look at COVID case rates per 100k because in order to get myo from COVID, you have to first contract COVID. We also know that the shot doesn't prevent someone from capturing COVID.

Using UK HSA official data:

• unvax case rate was ~700 - 1540 per 100k (Note, unvax ranges due to differences in NIMS vs ONS population estimates.)
• 3-dose case rate was ~2180 per 100k in 3-dose cohort.

Using UK HSA official data:

• unvax hospitalization rate ranged from ~5-10 per 100k
• 3-dose case rate was ~4 per 100k.

Remember - the vax ARR was extremely low, and even nearly negligible for those under 60.

Let's do some math now. We will use the average of the unvaxxed rates since nobody could agree on NIMS vs. ONS estimates.

Unvax Probability of contracting COVID: [(700 + 1540) / 2)] / 100k
Unvax Probability of hospitalization from COVID: [(5 + 10) / 2] / 100k
Unvax Probability of myocarditis from COVID hospitalization: ~226 / 100k

Weighted probability of myo for unvax: 1.898 / 100k

3-Dose Probability of contracting COVID: ~1992 / 100k
3-Dose Probability of contracting COVID: ~4 / 100k
3-Dose Probability of contracting COVID: ~226 / 100k
ADD: Probability of vax myo: 2 / 100k per shot => 6 / 100k

Weighted probability of myo for 3-dose: 24.008 / 100k

simple probabilistic math using UK HSA's official data.


Now, here you go, courtesy of the bee:

View attachment 3053953

In your hubris I think you skipped over the data sourced in the graphic this was cited - The benefit of vaccination against COVID-19 outweighs the potential risk of myocarditis and pericarditis - Netherlands Heart Journal

No need to prepare your own equation.

Over 9 million Israeli residents were included, of whom more than 5.4 million had received at least one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Possible cases were identified based on the International Classification of Diseases, Nineth Revision (ICD-9) codes for myocarditis and reviewed case by case to determine the likelihood of the diagnosis. In total, 136 patients were diagnosed with definite or probable myocarditis, mainly within proximity of the second vaccination, corresponding with an overall cumulative incidence of 3.83 per 100,000 in males and 0.46 per 100,000 in females.

Another study that was cited that shows incidence rates at 3.5/100,000

In conclusion, myocarditis incidence after RNA vaccines is very rare (0.0035%) and has favorable clinical course

https://www.internationaljournalofcardiology.com/article/S0167-5273(22)00127-9/fulltext

Additionally, a study that compared just a COVID infection (no hospitalization just tests administered at hospitals) and vaccination. No surprise, the rate ratio is considerably higher for unvaccinated people

Results​

A total of 11,441 COVID-19 patients from Hong Kong were included, of which four (mean age: 71.2; 50% male) suffered from myopericarditis (rate per million: 326; 95% confidence interval [CI] 127–838). The rate was higher than the pre-pandemic background rate in 2019 (rate per million: 5.9, 95% CI 5.4–6.5) with a rate ratio of 55.0 (95% CI 21.4–141.; Table 1). As of 31st August 2021, 2,811,500 doses of CoronaVac (37.05%) and 4,776,700 doses of BioNTech (62.95%) have been administered [5]. The mean age of the individuals vaccinated with CoronaVac was 61.58 (SD: 11.08) and with Comirnaty was 56.81 (SD: 13.43) [6]. The proportion of male in individuals vaccinated with CoronaVac was 48.7% and with BioNTech was 47.4% [6]. 42 patients developed myopericarditis within 14 days after vaccination, 16 of which belonged to the 12–15 age group. Out of the 42 patients, 41 patients were vaccinated with BioNTech vaccine, while one patient was vaccinated with CoronaVac vaccine. Compared to the background rates, the rate of myopericarditis among the vaccinated subjects in Hong Kong was similar (rate per million: 5.5; 95% CI 4.1–7.4) with a rate ratio of 0.93 (95% CI 0.69–1.26). The rates of myocarditis after vaccination in Hong Kong were comparable to those vaccinated in the United States, Israel, and the United Kingdom (Fig. 1).

Comparisons of the risk of myopericarditis between COVID-19 patients and individuals receiving COVID-19 vaccines: a population-based study - Clinical Research in Cardiology

Background Both COVID-19 infection and COVID-19 vaccines have been associated with the development of myopericarditis. The objective of this study is to (1) analyse the rates of myopericarditis after COVID-19 infection and COVID-19 vaccination in Hong Kong, (2) compared to the background rates...

link.springer.com

Again, where are all the studies showing that heart health is worse after vaccination than infection? You can save the napkin math for those that rely on anecdotal evidence.

 

[Lberry]

Given how it went, I'd rather shart than get the covid vaccine. Not sure if that's very analytical but it's true.

Surprise surprise, natural immunity wins out.

 

[SeekNDestroy]

Given how it went, I'd rather shart than get the covid vaccine. Not sure if that's very analytical but it's true.

Surprise surprise, natural immunity wins out.

Is your first name Ding?

 

[sixstar]

In your hubris I think you skipped over the data sourced in the graphic this was cited - The benefit of vaccination against COVID-19 outweighs the potential risk of myocarditis and pericarditis - Netherlands Heart Journal

data and math aren't hubris. that's an objectively terrible graphic. and I didn't prepare my own equation; i used foundational probability.

Another study that was cited that shows incidence rates at 3.5/100,000

https://www.internationaljournalofcardiology.com/article/S0167-5273(22)00127-9/fulltext

so do you want me to update the model with the higher 3.5/100k rate instead of the 2/100k rate? it will make the discrepancy look even worse for the vax cohort.

Additionally, a study that compared just a COVID infection (no hospitalization just tests administered at hospitals) and vaccination. No surprise, the rate ratio is considerably higher for unvaccinated people

Comparisons of the risk of myopericarditis between COVID-19 patients and individuals receiving COVID-19 vaccines: a population-based study - Clinical Research in Cardiology

Background Both COVID-19 infection and COVID-19 vaccines have been associated with the development of myopericarditis. The objective of this study is to (1) analyse the rates of myopericarditis after COVID-19 infection and COVID-19 vaccination in Hong Kong, (2) compared to the background rates...

link.springer.com

first, and most importantly, those results are not statistically significant. probably because the rate of myoperi per case was astronomically higher than expected. here's some more math for you: if the baseline rate 95% CI is between 5.4 and 6.5, the standard deviation would be 0.56. a rate of 326 would be 576 sigma deviations beyond the baseline. that's an insane assertion. like, insane. outliers wreak havoc on small cohorts; the authors, however, did not choose to discuss the statistical insignificance of their data. odd.

second, the post-vax myoperi follow-up window was only 14 days and fully relied on those results being reported to a centralized database. this window should've been much larger, and this paper didn't even address/adjust for potential under-reporting factor (URF).

third, this study has an imbalanced cohort; the mean ages of the CoronaVac was 61.58 (SD: 11.08) and 56.81 (SD: 13.43) for Comirnaty - while myoperi is most common in young people. what were the mean ages of positive cases? doesn't even say. that's either lazy or ignorant. how can researchers compare unbalanced cohorts 1:1?

finally, the study discloses that the rate of myoperi in ages 12-15 was 13.5x higher than baseline, but these numbers are washed away because results are reported across the full cohort rather than summarized with age stratification. that's why it showed a lower rate: a mean age of 57 (with 13.5 SD).

make sure you read the studies before you use them as arguments. that's a really poor reference.

Again, where are all the studies showing that heart health is worse after vaccination than infection? You can save the napkin math for those that rely on anecdotal evidence.

i have never argued this. in order for heart health to be worse after vax than infection, the adverse event rates would need to be in single-to-double digits rather than in fractional digits, and we've never seen a product on market that has adverse events in even the single digits. of course, fractional adverse events are always rare if they don't happen to you, so no need to care i suppose.

 

[PerthDomer]

data and math aren't hubris. that's an objectively terrible graphic. and I didn't prepare my own equation; i used foundational probability.



so do you want me to update the model with the higher 3.5/100k rate instead of the 2/100k rate? it will make the discrepancy look even worse for the vax cohort.



first, and most importantly, those results are not statistically significant. probably because the rate of myoperi per case was astronomically higher than expected. here's some more math for you: if the baseline rate 95% CI is between 5.4 and 6.5, the standard deviation would be 0.56. a rate of 326 would be 576 sigma deviations beyond the baseline. that's an insane assertion. like, insane. outliers wreak havoc on small cohorts; the authors, however, did not choose to discuss the statistical insignificance of their data. odd.

second, the post-vax myoperi follow-up window was only 14 days and fully relied on those results being reported to a centralized database. this window should've been much larger, and this paper didn't even address/adjust for potential under-reporting factor (URF).

third, this study has an imbalanced cohort; the mean ages of the CoronaVac was 61.58 (SD: 11.08) and 56.81 (SD: 13.43) for Comirnaty - while myoperi is most common in young people. what were the mean ages of positive cases? doesn't even say. that's either lazy or ignorant. how can researchers compare unbalanced cohorts 1:1?

finally, the study discloses that the rate of myoperi in ages 12-15 was 13.5x higher than baseline, but these numbers are washed away because results are reported across the full cohort rather than summarized with age stratification. that's why it showed a lower rate: a mean age of 57 (with 13.5 SD).

make sure you read the studies before you use them as arguments. that's a really poor reference.



i have never argued this. in order for heart health to be worse after vax than infection, the adverse event rates would need to be in single-to-double digits rather than in fractional digits, and we've never seen a product on market that has adverse events in even the single digits. of course, fractional adverse events are always rare if they don't happen to you, so no need to care i suppose.

Not going to get into all of the math here, but a flaw in your analysis is counting 1 case of infection related myocarditis as equally bad to vaccine related myocarditis. Infection related is really nasty and has a far worse hospital course.

Another is only looking at myocarditis in your risk calculus. Infection related myocarditis kills more than vaccine related myocarditis, however most COVID deaths are primary respiratory in cause.vthe vaccine doesn't case Lung disease.

Now that we have time the ideal practice should be vaccinating male children before they hit puberty. That gets you vaccine related benefits without the myocarditis risk at all.

 

[sixstar]

what studies/data are you basing that off of?

 

[sixstar]

Separately, UK's Office for National Statistics (ONS) just posted an update to age-stratified all cause mortality by vax status. You can download the dataset here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/pe...eferencetable20220316accessiblecorrected.xlsx

bottom line: i can't seem to find the vax benefit to all cause mortality. in fact, based on this data, it could be the opposite.

here's a plot of age-standardized all cause mortality by vax status over time.


you can also view the data by age groups to show that this isn't a Simpson's Paradox situation.

 

[ulukinatme]

I could be wrong, but I thought we just had a discussion about this...
Doctor's in Switzerland found that 3% of jab recipients had elevated levels of troponin, a protein the heart releases when it is injured, in their system 3 days post-jab. If 1 billion people have received the jab, at a 3% injury level you're talking 30,000,000 people that may have damage done to their heart as a result of the jab and they may not even know it yet. It mostly affected women, but the recipients were also 70% women who were working at the University hospital.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejhf.2978

 

[sixstar]

Still trying to find vax benefit when all cause age-standardized mortality was lower in vax cohort:
1) vs single dose: 10 of the 13 months
2) vs double dose: 9 of the 10 months
3) vs triple dose: 3 of the 4 months

unvax average all cause mortality rate: 44 per 100k
one dose average all cause mortality rate: 66 per 100k (51% higher)
two dose average all cause mortality rate: 74 per 100k (68% higher)
three dose average all cause mortality rate: 55.5 per 100k (26% higher)

 

[TorontoGold]

Using your data, it's pretty clear the benefits. Vaccines being available widely in July 2021 meant that the oldest population group would have been in the 2nd/3rd dose and even then, still did better than the anti-vaxxers.

lmao.

 

[PerthDomer]

I could be wrong, but I thought we just had a discussion about this...
Doctor's in Switzerland found that 3% of jab recipients had elevated levels of troponin, a protein the heart releases when it is injured, in their system 3 days post-jab. If 1 billion people have received the jab, at a 3% injury level you're talking 30,000,000 people that may have damage done to their heart as a result of the jab and they may not even know it yet. It mostly affected women, but the recipients were also 70% women who were working at the University hospital.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejhf.2978

If you randomly checked troponins after any vaccination, viral disease, etc. You'd likely see a bump in a small amount of people. That doesn't mean those people were injured in a real way, just that some troponin got released.

We saw a lot of early literature about cardiac MRI's lighting up in covid infected teens/athletes. Ended up not mattering for the vast majority of infected people. Similar thing here.

 

[ulukinatme]

If you randomly checked troponins after any vaccination, viral disease, etc. You'd likely see a bump in a small amount of people. That doesn't mean those people were injured in a real way, just that some troponin got released.

We saw a lot of early literature about cardiac MRI's lighting up in covid infected teens/athletes. Ended up not mattering for the vast majority of infected people. Similar thing here.

That's not what the peer reviewed conclusion said.

 

[sixstar]

View attachment 3053996

Using your data, it's pretty clear the benefits. Vaccines being available widely in July 2021 meant that the oldest population group would have been in the 2nd/3rd dose and even then, still did better than the anti-vaxxers.

lmao.

do you understand the difference between all cause morality and deaths involving COVID-19?
do you understand why all cause mortality is more important, as side effects are captured in all cause mortality, and must play into the risk/reward decision?

 

[TorontoGold]

do you understand the difference between all cause morality and deaths involving COVID-19?
do you understand why all cause mortality is more important, as side effects are captured in all cause mortality, and must play into the risk/reward decision?

do you understand that the timing of when this study is important?
do you understand that older/high risk individuals were targeted at the start of the pandemic to receive vaccines sooner than others?
do you understand that unvaccinated people died at higher rates from COVID-19 than those who had received a vaccination?
do you understand that making the claim that the vaccine is causing death in vaccinated people requires some sort of proof, and again which countries have stopped vaccinations because of the cost/benefit making it so that vaccines are doing more harm than good?

do you understand

 

[PerthDomer]

That's not what the peer reviewed conclusion said.

It said they're mild and TRANSIENT. Transient means temporary.

Also interestingly more common in women than men. We know women's post vaccine rates of clinically significant myocarditis are far smaller than men, not rising above the background rate of myocarditis hospitalization/mortality.

 

[ulukinatme]

It said they're mild and TRANSIENT. Transient means temporary.

Also interestingly more common in women than men. We know women's post vaccine rates of clinically significant myocarditis are far smaller than men, not rising above the background rate of myocarditis hospitalization/mortality.

They only tested them to see if troponins was present 3 days following the jab, they weren't evaluated to see if there were permanent or longer lasting damage. Many will likely have mild issues that resolve, but they wouldn't know the extent without further study. The important thing is myocardial injury is more common than we were previously led to believe.

 

[PerthDomer]

They only tested them to see if troponins was present 3 days following the jab, they weren't evaluated to see if there were permanent or longer lasting damage. Many will likely have mild issues that resolve, but they wouldn't know the extent without further study. The important thing is myocardial injury is more common than we were previously led to believe.

Except that we do. People with chronically reduced cardiac function develop symptoms and get evaluated. We've seen the rates of clinically significant myocarditis and know what they are.

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.120.015912

Other known causes of troponin elevation include endurance exercise in healthy individuals.

 

[ulukinatme]

Except that we do. People with chronically reduced cardiac function develop symptoms and get evaluated. We've seen the rates of clinically significant myocarditis and know what they are.

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.120.015912

Other known causes of troponin elevation include endurance exercise in healthy individuals.

Numbers from who, the CDC or WHO? Whoever downplayed the myocardial numbers to begin with?
We've also seen athletes suffer from cardiac issues prior to the jab, so it can be expected that a healthy individual could have troponin elevation after extended endurance exercise.

 

[sixstar]

do you understand that the timing of when this study is important?

Because it provides longer-term safety data than the vax trials did?

do you understand that older/high risk individuals were targeted at the start of the pandemic to receive vaccines sooner than others?

This doesn't explain why excess mortality continues to persist into 2022.
This also doesn't explain excess mortality in young cohorts with vax.

do you understand that unvaccinated people died at higher rates from COVID-19 than those who had received a vaccination?

If you could prevent the cold with arsenic, you would eliminate cold deaths, but you would have poisoning deaths from arsenic. This is exactly why researchers use all cause mortality as benefit markers. It's exactly why cancer drug trials now include all cause mortality instead of simply looking at cancer reduction. Overall health benefit is the goal, not a narrow focus endpoint.

Plus, I've already taught you the difference between RRR and ARR. This data shows that COVID death ARR is not sufficient to account for increased risk of vax side effects.

do you understand that making the claim that the vaccine is causing death in vaccinated people requires some sort of proof, and again which countries have stopped vaccinations because of the cost/benefit making it so that vaccines are doing more harm than good?

proof, like nationwide data from an official government organization, who also happens to keep the most robust open data source on earth? that kind of proof?

also importantly: the burden of proof is placed on the vax, not the baseline. you have that backwards. Explain how this data proves that the vax is beneficial.

do you understand

clearly, I do. Do some introductory reading on ARR/RRR, medical trial KPIs, and ONS and you will see that everything I'm saying is backed by standard best practice and unaltered ,raw government data. Your responses continually show that you either fail or refuse to understand the definitions and importance of "all cause", ARR, and RRR.

Or are you, honestly, in good faith, going to look at this data and claim that the vax has an overall health benefit, despite the fact that 81.5% of the data points show that the vax underperforms unvax cohorts?

And if you make that claim, would you like to address how vax efficacy numbers benefitted from the "14-28 day vax window" that had previously never been used in medical trials, whereby the studies lumped any cases/hospitalizations/deaths within those windows to the unvaxxed cohort? I'm interested in your answer here.

 

[PerthDomer]

Numbers from who, the CDC or WHO? Whoever downplayed the myocardial numbers to begin with?
We've also seen athletes suffer from cardiac issues prior to the jab, so it can be expected that a healthy individual could have troponin elevation after extended endurance exercise.

Elevated troponin doesn't mean they have a cardiac issue is the point. It means there is leakage of troponin from cardiac myocytes.

All people who suffer cardiac damage have a troponin leak at some point. Some people with troponin leak have any actual heart damage. We generally test for troponin in clinical circumstances where it will change management. If you just tested people for teoponin willy nilly you'd see a lot of elevated troponin that didn't mean anything.

Outside of other symptoms(chest pain, reduced exercise, vital sign anomalies) I'm not testing a patient for their troponin level. If positive a troponin is generally a springboard to do other tests (including another troponin for trend)

 

[TorontoGold]

Because it provides longer-term safety data than the vax trials did?


This doesn't explain why excess mortality continues to persist into 2022.
This also doesn't explain excess mortality in young cohorts with vax.


If you could prevent the cold with arsenic, you would eliminate cold deaths, but you would have poisoning deaths from arsenic. This is exactly why researchers use all cause mortality as benefit markers. It's exactly why cancer drug trials now include all cause mortality instead of simply looking at cancer reduction. Overall health benefit is the goal, not a narrow focus endpoint.

Plus, I've already taught you the difference between RRR and ARR. This data shows that COVID death ARR is not sufficient to account for increased risk of vax side effects.


proof, like nationwide data from an official government organization, who also happens to keep the most robust open data source on earth? that kind of proof?

also importantly: the burden of proof is placed on the vax, not the baseline. you have that backwards. Explain how this data proves that the vax is beneficial.


clearly, I do. Do some introductory reading on ARR/RRR, medical trial KPIs, and ONS and you will see that everything I'm saying is backed by standard best practice and unaltered ,raw government data. Your responses continually show that you either fail or refuse to understand the definitions and importance of "all cause", ARR, and RRR.

Or are you, honestly, in good faith, going to look at this data and claim that the vax has an overall health benefit, despite the fact that 81.5% of the data points show that the vax underperforms unvax cohorts?

And if you make that claim, would you like to address how vax efficacy numbers benefitted from the "14-28 day vax window" that had previously never been used in medical trials, whereby the studies lumped any cases/hospitalizations/deaths within those windows to the unvaxxed cohort? I'm interested in your answer here.

Your own data is arguing against you lol, buddy, you need to look at bit closer. Age standardized mortality is still higher in the anti-science crowd. This is despite the second dose crowd including the most at risk people in society.

This isn't tough.



I've already shared this before, but you know, here's data that tracks from a longer period of time maybe you can look at it and see that anti-vaxxers are getting rinsed at much higher rates. Who knows, maybe there is a big conspiracy at the government of Ontario to push a clearly deadly vaccine??? It's getting hilarious at this point, just admit you're scared of the booboo on your arm and you're willing to take the trade off. There is no sane support for being anti-vax, we should ask Marcus Lamb or Marc Bernier lmao.

https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-epi-confirmed-cases-post-vaccination.pdf?sc_lang=en

 

[sixstar]

Your own data is arguing against you lol, buddy, you need to look at bit closer. Age standardized mortality is still higher in the anti-science crowd.

View attachment 3054003

ONS updated the data set since I posted, and it impacted all the downstream numbers.

My graph was from the original dataset, which is no longer available online. So, yes, the updated data set now shows those numbers.

I've already shared this before, but you know, here's data that tracks from a longer period of time maybe you can look at it and see that anti-vaxxers are getting rinsed at much higher rates.

https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-epi-confirmed-cases-post-vaccination.pdf?sc_lang=en

Who knows, maybe there is a big conspiracy at the government of Ontario to push a clearly deadly vaccine???

yeah, which age group do you fall into? Let's talk ARR because this has been the same story since the beginning of this discussion: no measurable vax benefit < 60 years of age.




and so now you should see the importance of age stratification. Vax benefit is almost purely 70+, which is why the graph that in that report is very specific in its scope: age 60+.



So are you trying to use this data set to argue that I, as a sub-40 year old male, should receive the vax?

It's getting hilarious at this point, just admit you're scared of the booboo on your arm and you're willing to take the trade off. There is no sane support for being anti-vax, we should ask Marcus Lamb or Marc Bernier lmao.

Fear? lol. Quite the opposite. I don't fear a virus that is nearly benign to people under 40. Had COVID twice, treated with IVM, Zinc, Vit C, Vit D, and baby aspirin, and both times, symptoms disappeared in 2 days.

Tell me again, what is the ARR of the shot to someone < 40?

And clarification: I'm not anti-vax; I'm anti vax mandate. Every person can decide for themselves. Again, it's up to you if you want to wear a rubber suit to prevent a lightning death. I'm not scared of COVID, and I don't need the shot. But, you have openly supported vax mandates, and that's what I find indefensible.

 

[GATTACA!]

ONS updated the data set since I posted, and it impacted all the downstream numbers.

My graph was from the original dataset, which is no longer available online. So, yes, the updated data set now shows those numbers.



yeah, which age group do you fall into? Let's talk ARR because this has been the same story since the beginning of this discussion: no measurable vax benefit < 60 years of age.
View attachment 3054005

View attachment 3054006

and so now you should see the importance of age stratification. Vax benefit is almost purely 70+, which is why the graph that in that report is very specific in its scope: age 60+.

View attachment 3054007

So are you trying to use this data set to argue that I, as a sub-40 year old male, should receive the vax?


Fear? lol. Quite the opposite. I don't fear a virus that is nearly benign to people under 40. Had COVID twice, treated with IVM, Zinc, Vit C, Vit D, and baby aspirin, and both times, symptoms disappeared in 2 days.

Tell me again, what is the ARR of the shot to someone < 40?

And clarification: I'm not anti-vax; I'm anti vax mandate. Every person can decide for themselves. Again, it's up to you if you want to wear a rubber suit to prevent a lightning death. I'm not scared of COVID, and I don't need the shot. But, you have openly supported vax mandates, and that's what I find indefensible.

Quite the regimen for something you're definitely 100% not scared of lol.

Wouldn't have thought you needed the horse dewormer since covid is so benign.

 

[sixstar]

Ah yes, because I took supplements and medicine to clear symptoms faster, I'm totally scared of COVID. I'll remember that next time I take Advil for my super scary sore shoulder

And calling IVM a horse dewormer when its discovery led to a nobel prize and it's on WHO's list of essential medicines? Calling IVM a horse dewormer is like calling a bottle of water a dog hydrator.

Solid clown post. 🤡