Myocarditis and the Covid Vaccination

Status
Not open for further replies.

DFSNOLE

Ultimate Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Sep 25, 2002
44,414
22,292
1,853
DeFuniak Springs Country Club
Have you gotten Covid? Because I have, most likely one of the Omicron variants, and that means I know exactly how my body will react and how good of an immune response I have. It's complicated with immune imprinting, but what we know is that the original series is very durable for healthy individuals with regard to hospitalization/death. And that those who get Covid are also protected against hospitalization/death and this is more durable than the vaccine. (Remember when the CDC was saying the opposite?) So, if you are immune compromised or very old and have ongoing health issues, you might want to get the new booster (we wait for the CDC to recommend), but the 95%+ of individuals who reside in the US that have a good immune response because of previous vaccinations or having been infected should just move on with their lives until something changes with their health. Each new booster, because of immunity imprinting can have unpredictable results in immunity. That last takeaway for me is critically important. On the other end, young children, the data indicates around 75-80% have already been infected and getting vaccinated could lower their immunity, which is difficult to fully digest. If I knew then, what I knew now, I would not have suggested my then 18 year old son get vaccinated. Just wasn't necessary and had a small risk of hopefully temporary vaccination injury (1 in 3000 to 5000). Again, the credence do no harm is something I believe in.

I also point out that I don't get the Flu vaccine, even though I am getting up there in age, because it hasn't been particularly protective (well less than 50% over the last 10 years). But, immune imprinting, as I understand it is important.

"Immune memory causes a primary infection to impart an enduring imprint (8–11). Despite a lifetime of repeated exposures to divergent influenza viruses, the relative strength of an individual’s immune response to vaccination or infection correlates with the antigenic similarity of the vaccine or infecting strain to that person’s initial exposure. Until recently, the first encounter was invariably an infection. Because of recent changes in vaccine policy in the United States and Europe, infants and toddlers are now encouraged to receive influenza vaccines before they experience an influenza infection (12, 13). We have little information, however, about the immunological memory to influenza virus established when the primary exposure is vaccination rather than infection."

So, there is a lot we don't know about the repeated use of vaccines and its effect on immunity. Just something to think about. I am not an expert, but think there is a lot of unknown effects of repeated inoculations.
You tend to use a lot of definitive terms and quickly shut down any differing opinions. Are you a physician? If so, which specialty? Are you involved in medical research? I'm curious where your expertise lies.
 

fsufool

Ultimate Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
10,680
13,883
1,853
New Hampshire
www.shaferfinancial.com
You tend to use a lot of definitive terms and quickly shut down any differing opinions. Are you a physician? If so, which specialty? Are you involved in medical research? I'm curious where your expertise lies.

I don't shut down anything. I post on actual data and ideas I have found. I provide sources for anyone to look up themselves. And no not an expert in anything medical as I have stated many times. Consider me a lay person who has a PhD and can read and understand science research. I'm not understanding your problem with what I post? Is this not a place to post on a variety of topics? Are people not smart enough to take what anyone posts, including me, in context?

So I have been called a heretic and now as someone that "shuts down differing opinions" and uses "a lot of definitive terms," yet I can't see anything I have posted on this thread as either. Can you offer examples of me shutting down different opinions or using definitive terms?

What I have seen is people calling into question the data I post. Like the data on myocarditis from the vaccine versus Covid in 16-25 year olds. In fact, I was asked to provide that, which I then provided two journal articles supporting it even though the poster could have easily found them.

And I have posted that I don't fully understand the immunity imprinting issue, but that it is something that does have bearing on repeated vaccination. Again, something that is out there in the scientific literature.

Here is my final thoughts on the post you responded too:

"So, there is a lot we don't know about the repeated use of vaccines and its effect on immunity. Just something to think about. I am not an expert, but think there is a lot of unknown effects of repeated inoculations."

Here is another part where I clearly note this is my thinking and what I would do. Not what anyone else should do:

"If I knew then, what I know now, I would not have suggested my then 18 year old son get vaccinated. Just wasn't necessary and had a small risk of hopefully temporary vaccination injury (1 in 3000 to 5000). Again, the credence do no harm is something I believe in."

Again, how does this "shut down other peoples opinions?" It's just my opinion based on what I have seen in the data. Other people will come to different conclusions no doubt.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gussnoles

fsufool

Ultimate Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
10,680
13,883
1,853
New Hampshire
www.shaferfinancial.com
I have been watching this for the last year. There has been plenty of peer reviewed papers about this from around the world.
I am posting a small section from a summation by Vinay Prasad, a full professor at UCSF in Epidemiology and Biostatistics. His speciality is blood cancers.

"But regardless, these findings already clearly dispel the true misinformation online: Yes, sorry to break it to you, vaccines can have risks of myocarditis EXCEEDING risks of myocarditis from infection. Pls stop saying otherwise.

And here is why it matters:

  1. There is marked uncertainty as to whether dose 3’s actually lowers severe outcomes & hospitalizations in young men. The FDA is making a huge regulatory gamble with boosters, and they are cheered on by many who are not adept at data analysis.
  2. Boosting 16-40 yo men might not be in their best interest (it might be net detrimental). We simply do not know with confidence. If it is revealed that it is not in their best interest, this administration will have dropped a nuclear bomb on vaccine confidence for 20 years. God help us all.
  3. We could have spaced out dose 2 in young men, or considered omitting it entirely, as some colleagues and I have been saying since June, in an effort to capture most of the gains and eliminate most of the harms of vaccination. This can still be done for Pfizer.
  4. The US FDA must halt use of Moderna in Men <40, as other nations have. Just like they dragged their feet with J&J and VITT, they drag their feet here, and people needlessly suffer due to their inaction.
These new data are of immediate and vital interest. Vaccination is important, but maximizing benefit and minimizing harms is the key. I do not see that the agencies meant to do this are pursuing it in the US.

Perhaps that is why Marion Gruber and Phil Krause, the Director and Deputy Director of vaccine products at FDA, resigned: they wanted no part of this."

Background: the Myocarditis risk increases each vaccination given to young especially in men. While the risk of hospitalization/death from Covid is very low for the unvaccinated in the under 40 age group and the gains after the first vaccination are minimal if any. Since we know that vaccination plus multiple boosters isn't stopping infection, the question still remains why vaccinate the under 40 or at least why more than once when any gains occur. While the incidence was very rare 1.7 out of 100,000 and for young men (16-25) it is 1 in 3000 to 5000, there is still a foundational point to make. In medicine you shouldn't be giving medicine that causes more issues than it saves.

Here is his final point:

Many doctors missed the plot: the purpose of talking about myocarditis is not to be critical of vaccines— they are a tremendous good— but to take seriously safety signals so that we can personalize or tailor appropriate vaccine strategies to the right ages to maximize efficacy and minimize harm. That’s Medicine 101.

Here is a presentation from a MD/PhD practitioner on the subject. Not too technical, folks can follow along.
Key Takeaway: We should not be afraid of the data....

 

DFSNOLE

Ultimate Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Sep 25, 2002
44,414
22,292
1,853
DeFuniak Springs Country Club
Here is a presentation from a MD/PhD practitioner on the subject. Not too technical, folks can follow along.
Key Takeaway: We should not be afraid of the data....

I can't open your link on my phone. Here's an article from John Hopkins advocating for Covid vaccines for children.

 

fsufool

Ultimate Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
10,680
13,883
1,853
New Hampshire
www.shaferfinancial.com
I can't open your link on my phone. Here's an article from John Hopkins advocating for Covid vaccines for children.


Noted this: "Dr. Messina notes that myocarditis is a much more common complication of having COVID-19 than from getting vaccinated."

This isn't even close to being true. Now many studies indicating the falsehood of that statement (including ones I posted on here and another one noted in the presentation I just posted). John Hopkins has been really bad about running with the narrative without regards to what the data actually demonstrates.

Also of note is that Great Britain has stopped recommending Covid Vaccination for children under the age of 12 unless they have some very specific diagnosis'. They join a host of countries in stopping vaccination of children.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gussnoles

DFSNOLE

Ultimate Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Sep 25, 2002
44,414
22,292
1,853
DeFuniak Springs Country Club
Noted this: "Dr. Messina notes that myocarditis is a much more common complication of having COVID-19 than from getting vaccinated."

This isn't even close to being true. Now many studies indicating the falsehood of that statement (including ones I posted on here and another one noted in the presentation I just posted). John Hopkins has been really bad about running with the narrative without regards to what the data actually demonstrates.

Also of note is that Great Britain has stopped recommending Covid Vaccination for children under the age of 12 unless they have some very specific diagnosis'. They join a host of countries in stopping vaccination of children.
A quick Google search shows multiple similar articles from nationally respected sources. Anyone can cherry pick a source to push their agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChiefWB

hlambo1951

All-ACC
Gold Member
Jan 22, 2016
374
545
253
I have been watching this for the last year. There has been plenty of peer reviewed papers about this from around the world.
I am posting a small section from a summation by Vinay Prasad, a full professor at UCSF in Epidemiology and Biostatistics. His speciality is blood cancers.

"But regardless, these findings already clearly dispel the true misinformation online: Yes, sorry to break it to you, vaccines can have risks of myocarditis EXCEEDING risks of myocarditis from infection. Pls stop saying otherwise.

And here is why it matters:

  1. There is marked uncertainty as to whether dose 3’s actually lowers severe outcomes & hospitalizations in young men. The FDA is making a huge regulatory gamble with boosters, and they are cheered on by many who are not adept at data analysis.
  2. Boosting 16-40 yo men might not be in their best interest (it might be net detrimental). We simply do not know with confidence. If it is revealed that it is not in their best interest, this administration will have dropped a nuclear bomb on vaccine confidence for 20 years. God help us all.
  3. We could have spaced out dose 2 in young men, or considered omitting it entirely, as some colleagues and I have been saying since June, in an effort to capture most of the gains and eliminate most of the harms of vaccination. This can still be done for Pfizer.
  4. The US FDA must halt use of Moderna in Men <40, as other nations have. Just like they dragged their feet with J&J and VITT, they drag their feet here, and people needlessly suffer due to their inaction.
These new data are of immediate and vital interest. Vaccination is important, but maximizing benefit and minimizing harms is the key. I do not see that the agencies meant to do this are pursuing it in the US.

Perhaps that is why Marion Gruber and Phil Krause, the Director and Deputy Director of vaccine products at FDA, resigned: they wanted no part of this."

Background: the Myocarditis risk increases each vaccination given to young especially in men. While the risk of hospitalization/death from Covid is very low for the unvaccinated in the under 40 age group and the gains after the first vaccination are minimal if any. Since we know that vaccination plus multiple boosters isn't stopping infection, the question still remains why vaccinate the under 40 or at least why more than once when any gains occur. While the incidence was very rare 1.7 out of 100,000 and for young men (16-25) it is 1 in 3000 to 5000, there is still a foundational point to make. In medicine you shouldn't be giving medicine that causes more issues than it saves.

Here is his final point:

Many doctors missed the plot: the purpose of talking about myocarditis is not to be critical of vaccines— they are a tremendous good— but to take seriously safety signals so that we can personalize or tailor appropriate vaccine strategies to the right ages to maximize efficacy and minimize harm. That’s Medicine 101.
My first thought and ONLY THOUGHT, when I saw this thread, was- what is this crap doing on a fsu football forum. Take this crap elsewhere.
 

DFSNOLE

Ultimate Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Sep 25, 2002
44,414
22,292
1,853
DeFuniak Springs Country Club
My first thought and ONLY THOUGHT, when I saw this thread, was- what is this crap doing on a fsu football forum. Take this crap elsewhere.
Your second thought should've been to check out the name of this board. This is not a sports forum. It is an off-topic board where this is completely appropriate.
 

fsufool

Ultimate Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
10,680
13,883
1,853
New Hampshire
www.shaferfinancial.com
A quick Google search shows multiple similar articles from nationally respected sources. Anyone can cherry pick a source to push their agenda.

Multiple countries have now limited the vaccination at this point to over 12 to 15. Why do you think they do this? I have listed multiple studies demonstrating the falsehood of that statement. So, at the very least, that statement is not consensus. And since there is basically no chance of a healthy child dying of Covid and 70%+ kids are asymptomatic when they are infected and of course 95%+ have either been infected or gotten vaccinated, why continue to take chances with children's health?

Precautions other countries use for under 18 based on data we now know:

Not use Moderna for under 18 or not at all.
Not Vaccinate young children
Refused or only closed schools for a short time
Reduced masking................

Kids didn't die in those countries either.

My opinion: If kids have certain health issues, then yes. But, there is no scientific reason a young kid should get vaccinated at this point from what we know. That is probably why most parents in the USA haven't gotten their young kids vaccinated. As a plus, immunity from getting infected is more durable than from being vaccinated (contrary to what was being said last year). I understand why people could have a different opinion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gussnoles

DFSNOLE

Ultimate Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Sep 25, 2002
44,414
22,292
1,853
DeFuniak Springs Country Club
Multiple countries have now limited the vaccination at this point to over 12 to 15. Why do you think they do this? I have listed multiple studies demonstrating the falsehood of that statement. So, at the very least, that statement is not consensus. And since there is basically no chance of a healthy child dying of Covid and 70%+ kids are asymptomatic when they are infected and of course 95%+ have either been infected or gotten vaccinated, why continue to take chances with children's health?

Precautions other countries use for under 18 based on data we now know:

Not use Moderna for under 18 or not at all.
Not Vaccinate young children
Refused or only closed schools for a short time
Reduced masking................

Kids didn't die in those countries either.

My opinion: If kids have certain health issues, then yes. But, there is no scientific reason a young kid should get vaccinated at this point from what we know. That is probably why most parents in the USA haven't gotten their young kids vaccinated. As a plus, immunity from getting infected is more durable than from being vaccinated (contrary to what was being said last year). I understand why people could have a different opinion.
You list outliers and treat them as gospel while at the same time, dismissing John Hopkins, The Mayo Clinic, the CDC, the WHO etc., etc., etc.
You have a bias and search for "data" to confirm that bias. Admit it. You won't though.
As Mark Twain said, there are "lies, damn lies and statistics."
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChiefWB

goldmom

Ultimate Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Mar 29, 2002
64,201
51,423
1,853
Jacksonville
You list outliers and treat them as gospel while at the same time, dismissing John Hopkins, The Mayo Clinic, the CDC, the WHO etc., etc., etc.
You have a bias and search for "data" to confirm that bias. Admit it. You won't though.
As Mark Twain said, there are "lies, damn lies and statistics."
But Twain never said that only one group had all the truth and the other only had lies.
 

fsufool

Ultimate Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
10,680
13,883
1,853
New Hampshire
www.shaferfinancial.com
You list outliers and treat them as gospel while at the same time, dismissing John Hopkins, The Mayo Clinic, the CDC, the WHO etc., etc., etc.
You have a bias and search for "data" to confirm that bias. Admit it. You won't though.
As Mark Twain said, there are "lies, damn lies and statistics."

Actually no. I list CURRENT scientific journal articles. And, you never answer questions on why multiple countries are not recommending vaccinations for young children. Maybe they share my bias??????? You are stuck on a narrative. Again, why would Britain, who was as adamant about vaccinations as any organization, would change course?

So yes, I have a bias toward science results and doing no harm. I understand risk analysis. Again, I understand why people would not agree. We have several years of fear mongering on the subject by the public health community.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gussnoles

DFSNOLE

Ultimate Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Sep 25, 2002
44,414
22,292
1,853
DeFuniak Springs Country Club
Actually no. I list CURRENT scientific journal articles. And, you never answer questions on why multiple countries are not recommending vaccinations for young children. Maybe they share my bias??????? You are stuck on a narrative. Again, why would Britain, who was as adamant about vaccinations as any organization, would change course?

So yes, I have a bias toward science results and doing no harm. I understand risk analysis. Again, I understand why people would not agree. We have several years of fear mongering on the subject by the public health community.
Yeah. Okay. The articles I listed were CURRENT but they don't fit your anti-CDC agenda so you dismiss them.

As I have said numerous times, and you have ignored as many, COVID-19 was a Novel Coronavirus. The science evolved constantly. Decisions were made based on worse and not best case scenarios because that was the safest and wisest thing to do. When dealing with a national health crisis, it's always better to err on the side of caution. Hindsight is always 20/20.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 89nole

Deerfuel2

Veteran Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Jul 26, 2008
4,099
3,713
853
Monticello Fl
J P would you mind sharing your background just a bit so those of us who are not in a research/health field can better understand your depth of knowledge? For example, you just labeled the poster’s link as heresy, which would indicate some scientific experience on your part to qualify you to use the term. TIA.
Just know that it must be easy to change usernames. I knew this lunatic poster named FSU-Fred, he was a crazy person.
 

Deerfuel2

Veteran Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Jul 26, 2008
4,099
3,713
853
Monticello Fl
Yeah. Okay. The articles I listed were CURRENT but they don't fit your anti-CDC agenda so you dismiss them.

As I have said numerous times, and you have ignored as many, COVID-19 was a Novel Coronavirus. The science evolved constantly. Decisions were made based on worse and not best case scenarios because that was the safest and wisest thing to do. When dealing with a national health crisis, it's always better to err on the side of caution. Hindsight is always 20/20.
No it is not always better to err on the side of caution. The "hindsight" that you keep referring to is a cop out. There was plenty of extremely smart and capable people that had differing opinions during the early days of the pandemic. They were shutdown from being heard. And history proves them right. Don't act like the unnecessary flaws in the response were unavoidable. Without the hysterical people making decisions, many of the negative effects of the pandemic response would have been avoided
 

DFSNOLE

Ultimate Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Sep 25, 2002
44,414
22,292
1,853
DeFuniak Springs Country Club
No it is not always better to err on the side of caution. The "hindsight" that you keep referring to is a cop out. There was plenty of extremely smart and capable people that had differing opinions during the early days of the pandemic. They were shutdown from being heard. And history proves them right. Don't act like the unnecessary flaws in the response were unavoidable. Without the hysterical people making decisions, many of the negative effects of the pandemic response would have been avoided
Okay Mr. Hindsight.
 

NoleSince1961

Veteran Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Nov 28, 2020
2,035
3,652
853
^^^^^It seems to me that some of the folks alleging that others have "agendas" or "narratives" pretty clearly have their own. LOL. Why not rationally consider both sides?
To be fair though, how many My Pillow execs and doctors of demon astrology did the CDC promote as credible Covid mitigation voices?

Do you not find it reasonable that folks might not "rationally consider" Dr. Lindell and Dr. Emanuel and similar less-qualified-to-be-given-equal-consideration experts on epidemiology, along with DJT's own difficult-to-overlook public wonderings about bleach and the like, after pronouncing that Covid would miraculously disappear that first April as warm weather arrived, his later admission that he underplayed the seriousness to avoid panic, etc.

Credibility is earned, it's not just some "every voice is equally valid" populist dream, especially when the stakes are so incredibly high, as in millions of people at risk, life-and-death high. Of course any reasonable government official responsible for making the hard decisions is expected to err on the side of caution.

Obviously, any expert can end up being more or less correct on any issue after the fact, and looking-back evaluations about what we could have done better are critical to doing better next time. I'm not suggesting in the least that traditional indicators of expertise ALWAYS tell us whom to listen to more, but when placing bets, I sure hope our public health experts place their bets smartly, given the limited data available at that time, and with good scientific rigor and best intentions.
 

J P

Contributor
Gold Member
Feb 1, 2002
219
119
453
Coming from someone treats COVID patients daily, if the same criteria was applied to patients with COVID, especially the earlier strains, over 50 percent of adults with COVID could be diagnosed with myocarditis. Currently the common strains are not virulent like the past ones but it can always change. This guy talks but does not follow logic. He provides an article that obviously he did not even read. just googled the title alone. Did not understand the data and then gloats about being a phd.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: ChiefWB

FisherWilcoxTaggart Survivor

Ultimate Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Nov 22, 2020
8,358
23,764
1,853
To be fair though, how many My Pillow execs and doctors of demon astrology did the CDC promote as credible Covid mitigation voices?

Do you not find it reasonable that folks might not "rationally consider" Dr. Lindell and Dr. Emanuel and similar less-qualified-to-be-given-equal-consideration experts on epidemiology, along with DJT's own difficult-to-overlook public wonderings about bleach and the like, after pronouncing that Covid would miraculously disappear that first April as warm weather arrived, his later admission that he underplayed the seriousness to avoid panic, etc.

Credibility is earned, it's not just some "every voice is equally valid" populist dream, especially when the stakes are so incredibly high, as in millions of people at risk, life-and-death high. Of course any reasonable government official responsible for making the hard decisions is expected to err on the side of caution.

Obviously, any expert can end up being more or less correct on any issue after the fact, and looking-back evaluations about what we could have done better are critical to doing better next time. I'm not suggesting in the least that traditional indicators of expertise ALWAYS tell us whom to listen to more, but when placing bets, I sure hope our public health experts place their bets smartly, given the limited data available at that time, and with good scientific rigor and best intentions.
OK Fred.....thanks.
 

fsufool

Ultimate Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
10,680
13,883
1,853
New Hampshire
www.shaferfinancial.com
Coming from someone treats COVID patients daily, if the same criteria was applied to patients with COVID, especially the earlier strains, over 50 percent of adults with COVID could be diagnosed with myocarditis. Currently the common strains are not virulent like the past ones but it can always change. This guy talks but does not follow logic. He provides an article that obviously he did not even read. just googled the title alone. Did not understand the data and then gloats about being a phd.
 

GeddyLee09

Veteran Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Mar 10, 2005
5,637
4,623
853
To be fair though, how many My Pillow execs and doctors of demon astrology did the CDC promote as credible Covid mitigation voices?

Do you not find it reasonable that folks might not "rationally consider" Dr. Lindell and Dr. Emanuel and similar less-qualified-to-be-given-equal-consideration experts on epidemiology, along with DJT's own difficult-to-overlook public wonderings about bleach and the like, after pronouncing that Covid would miraculously disappear that first April as warm weather arrived, his later admission that he underplayed the seriousness to avoid panic, etc.

Credibility is earned, it's not just some "every voice is equally valid" populist dream, especially when the stakes are so incredibly high, as in millions of people at risk, life-and-death high. Of course any reasonable government official responsible for making the hard decisions is expected to err on the side of caution.

Obviously, any expert can end up being more or less correct on any issue after the fact, and looking-back evaluations about what we could have done better are critical to doing better next time. I'm not suggesting in the least that traditional indicators of expertise ALWAYS tell us whom to listen to more, but when placing bets, I sure hope our public health experts place their bets smartly, given the limited data available at that time, and with good scientific rigor and best intentions.
Speaking of biases, narratives and agendas. :rolleyes:
 

trunole1

Veteran Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Jan 2, 2017
3,721
3,801
853
Science has always been the anti religion. The problem today is that people believe the source that supports their viewpoint. Anything else is blasphemy.
Science has always been the anti religion

Only by those that treat it like religion. There is no such thing as "Settled Science"

Does anyone still trust " Big Pharma"? Apparently YES! SMH
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsufool and F4Gary

fsufool

Ultimate Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
10,680
13,883
1,853
New Hampshire
www.shaferfinancial.com
Many doctors missed the plot: the purpose of talking about myocarditis is not to be critical of vaccines— they are a tremendous good— but to take seriously safety signals so that we can personalize or tailor appropriate vaccine strategies to the right ages to maximize efficacy and minimize harm. That’s Medicine 101.
Another study. This is NOT a RCT study. Its an observation study, which can't compare various groups, so no causation can be established. From the Lancet.



"However, consistent with the few published case series of myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, we observed that nearly half of patients (71/151) with follow-up cardiac MRIs had residual late gadolinium enhancement, suggestive of myocardial scarring."


"Although late gadolinium enhancement during the acute episode of myocarditis has been shown in children and adults to be a possible indication of future adverse cardiac events, including arrythmias, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, transplantation, and death, the importance of late gadolinium enhancement noted on follow-up cardiac MRIs in patients with viral myocarditis is unclear."

"Current guidelines recommend restricting patients with myocarditis (eg, athletes) from competitive sports for 3–6 months, although we noted some variability among health-care providers in clearing patients for a return to all physical activity. There are no standard criteria for myocarditis recovery, and we did not identify any clinical feature or diagnostic test results associated with recovery status in the patients we evaluated. Forthcoming expert guidelines regarding the follow-up management and testing of patients with myocarditis could help standardise care in the future."

"In summary, after at least 90 days since onset of myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, 81% of patients were considered recovered by their health-care provider. At the time of follow-up, these patients reported quality of life measures similar to pre-pandemic reports among individuals of similar ages in the USA. 50% of patients reported at least one symptom at follow-up. Among a subset of 151 patients who had follow-up cardiac MRI results, 54% had an abnormal finding. The CDC is conducting additional follow-up on patients who were not considered recovered at least 12 months since symptom onset, to better understand their longer term outcomes."
 

fsufool

Ultimate Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
10,680
13,883
1,853
New Hampshire
www.shaferfinancial.com
Another study. This is NOT a RCT study. Its an observation study, which can't compare various groups, so no causation can be established. From the Lancet.



"However, consistent with the few published case series of myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, we observed that nearly half of patients (71/151) with follow-up cardiac MRIs had residual late gadolinium enhancement, suggestive of myocardial scarring."


"Although late gadolinium enhancement during the acute episode of myocarditis has been shown in children and adults to be a possible indication of future adverse cardiac events, including arrythmias, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, transplantation, and death, the importance of late gadolinium enhancement noted on follow-up cardiac MRIs in patients with viral myocarditis is unclear."

"Current guidelines recommend restricting patients with myocarditis (eg, athletes) from competitive sports for 3–6 months, although we noted some variability among health-care providers in clearing patients for a return to all physical activity. There are no standard criteria for myocarditis recovery, and we did not identify any clinical feature or diagnostic test results associated with recovery status in the patients we evaluated. Forthcoming expert guidelines regarding the follow-up management and testing of patients with myocarditis could help standardise care in the future."

"In summary, after at least 90 days since onset of myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, 81% of patients were considered recovered by their health-care provider. At the time of follow-up, these patients reported quality of life measures similar to pre-pandemic reports among individuals of similar ages in the USA. 50% of patients reported at least one symptom at follow-up. Among a subset of 151 patients who had follow-up cardiac MRI results, 54% had an abnormal finding. The CDC is conducting additional follow-up on patients who were not considered recovered at least 12 months since symptom onset, to better understand their longer term outcomes."
Journal articles are coming on fast now, this one from The Journal of Insulin Resistance



"
Results: In the non-elderly population the “number needed to treat” to prevent a single death runs into the thousands. Re-analysis of randomised controlled trials using the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology suggests a greater risk of serious adverse events from the vaccines than being hospitalised from COVID-19. Pharmacovigilance systems and real-world safety data, coupled with plausible mechanisms of harm, are deeply concerning, especially in relation to cardiovascular safety. Mirroring a potential signal from the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, a significant rise in cardiac arrest calls to ambulances in England was seen in 2021, with similar data emerging from Israel in the 16–39-year-old age group.

Conclusion: It cannot be said that the consent to receive these agents was fully informed, as is required ethically and legally. A pause and reappraisal of global vaccination policies for COVID-19 is long overdue."

"Volunteering in a vaccine centre, I was one of the first to receive two doses of Pfizer’s messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccine, at the end of January 2021. Although I knew my individual risk was small from COVID-19 at age 43 with optimal metabolic health, the main reason I took the jab was to prevent transmission of the virus to my vulnerable patients. During early 2021, I was both surprised and concerned by a number of my vaccine-hesitant patients and people in my social network who were asking me to comment on what I regarded at the time as merely ‘anti-vax’ propaganda.

I was asked to appear on Good Morning Britain after a previously vaccine-hesitant film director Gurinder Chadha, Order of the British Empire (OBE), who was also interviewed, explained that I convinced her to take the jab.

But a very unexpected and extremely harrowing personal tragedy was to happen a few months later that would be the start of my own journey into what would ultimately prove to be a revelatory and eye-opening experience so profound that after six months of critically appraising the data myself, speaking to eminent scientists involved in COVID-19 research, vaccine safety and development, and two investigative medical journalists, I have slowly and reluctantly concluded that contrary to my own initial dogmatic beliefs, Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine is far from being as safe and effective as we first thought. This critical appraisal is based upon the analytical framework for practicing and teaching evidence-based medicine, specifically utilising individual clinical expertise and/or experience with use of the best available evidence and taking into consideration patient preferences and values."

"Contrary to popular belief, what the trial did not show was any statistically significant reduction in serious illness or COVID-19 mortality from the vaccine over the 6-month period of the trial, but the actual numbers of deaths (attributed to COVID-19) are still important to note. There were only two deaths from COVID-19 in the placebo group and one death from COVID-19 in the vaccine group. Looking at all-cause mortality over a longer period, there were actually slightly more deaths14 in the vaccine group (19 deaths) than in the placebo group (17 deaths). Also of note was the extremely low rate of COVID-19 illness classed as severe in the placebo group (nine severe cases out of 21 686 subjects, 0.04%), reflecting a very low risk of severe illness even in regions chosen for the trial because of perceived high prevalence of infection.

Finally, the trials in children did not even show a reduction in symptomatic infections but instead used the surrogate measure of antibody levels in the blood to define efficacy, even though the relationship between Wuhan-spike vaccine-induced antibody levels and protection from infection is tenuous, at best. The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDAs) own website states that:

[R]esults from currently authorised SARS-COV-2 antibody tests should not be used to evaluate a person’s level of immunity or protection from COVID-19 at any time, and especially after the person received a COVID-19 vaccination.15

"Such data have shown that one of the most common mRNA COVID-19 vaccine-induced harms is myocarditis. A study across several Nordic countries showed an increased risk from mRNA vaccination over background, especially in young males.21 Authorities have repeatedly maintained that myocarditis is more common after COVID-19 infection than after vaccination.22 However, trial data demonstrating that vaccination reduces the risk of myocarditis in subsequent infection is elusive, and in fact the risks may be additive. Incidence of myocarditis rocketed from spring 2021 when vaccines were rolled out to the younger cohorts having remained within normal levels for the full year prior, despite COVID-19,23 with the most up-to-date evidence, a paper from Israel24 found that the infection itself, prior to roll-out of the vaccine, conferred no increase in the risks of either myocarditis or pericarditis from COVID-19, strongly suggesting that the increases observed in earlier studies were because of the mRNA vaccines, with or without COVID-19 infections as an additional risk in the vaccinated.24"

"A number of reports have produced concerning rates of myocarditis, depending on age, ranging from 1 in 6000 in Israel27 to 1 in 2700 in a Hong Kong study in male children and adolescents aged 12–17 years.28 Most of the epidemiology studies that have been carried out have measured myocarditis cases that have been diagnosed in a hospital setting, and do not claim to be a comprehensive measure of more mild cases (from which long-term harm cannot be ruled out). In addition, under-reporting of adverse events is the scourge of pharmacovigilance data.29"

And finally this profound statement (Remember this is a peer reviewed journal article)

"There are four key drivers and seven sins that are at the root of the medical misinformation mess:

  • Drivers:
    • Much published medical research is not reliable or is of uncertain reliability, offers no benefit to patients or is not useful for decision makers;
    • Most healthcare professionals are not aware of this problem;
    • Even if they are aware of this problem, most healthcare professionals lack the skills necessary to evaluate the reliability and usefulness of medical evidence; and
    • Patients and families frequently lack relevant, accurate medical evidence and skilled guidance at the time of medical decision making.1
  • Sins:
    • Biased funding of research (that’s research that’s funded because it’s likely to be profitable, not beneficial for patients)
    • Biased reporting in medical journals
    • Biased reporting in the media
    • Biased patient pamphlets
    • Commercial conflicts of interest
    • Defensive medicine
    • An inability of doctors to understand and communicate health statistics.6
Ioannidis and colleagues highlight that:

‘Ignorance of this problem, even at the highest levels of academic and clinical leadership, is profound’1
Compounded over several decades, these upstream and downstream risk factors for misinformation have had a devastating effect in the healthcare environment we find ourselves in today. Over-prescription of drugs is considered such a public health threat that two leading medical journals in the past 10 years (the BMJ and JAMA Internal Medicine) have launched campaigns to reduce the harms of too much medical intervention. According to the cofounder of the Cochrane Collaboration, Peter Gøtzsche, prescribed medications are the third most common cause of death globally after heart disease and cancer.7 This is not surprising when one understands that most published research is misleading specifically where benefits from drug trials are exaggerated, and harms downplayed (Box 18)."

This doctor is writing from the perspective of "Evidence Bases Medicine." For those that don't know, Evidence Based Medicine is a movement among physicians several decades old. "Evidence based medicine (EBM) is the conscientious, explicit, judicious and reasonable use of modern, best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. EBM integrates clinical experience and patient values with the best available research information."

Think about that for a moment, the physicians have an internal movement, with its own journal, to encourage the medical industry to use the best evidence available to care for patients. Why did the medical profession spawn this movement if there wasn't an issue?
 
  • Like
Reactions: trunole1

fsufool

Ultimate Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
10,680
13,883
1,853
New Hampshire
www.shaferfinancial.com

fsufool

Ultimate Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
10,680
13,883
1,853
New Hampshire
www.shaferfinancial.com
Journal articles are coming on fast now, this one from The Journal of Insulin Resistance



"
Results: In the non-elderly population the “number needed to treat” to prevent a single death runs into the thousands. Re-analysis of randomised controlled trials using the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology suggests a greater risk of serious adverse events from the vaccines than being hospitalised from COVID-19. Pharmacovigilance systems and real-world safety data, coupled with plausible mechanisms of harm, are deeply concerning, especially in relation to cardiovascular safety. Mirroring a potential signal from the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, a significant rise in cardiac arrest calls to ambulances in England was seen in 2021, with similar data emerging from Israel in the 16–39-year-old age group.

Conclusion: It cannot be said that the consent to receive these agents was fully informed, as is required ethically and legally. A pause and reappraisal of global vaccination policies for COVID-19 is long overdue."

"Volunteering in a vaccine centre, I was one of the first to receive two doses of Pfizer’s messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccine, at the end of January 2021. Although I knew my individual risk was small from COVID-19 at age 43 with optimal metabolic health, the main reason I took the jab was to prevent transmission of the virus to my vulnerable patients. During early 2021, I was both surprised and concerned by a number of my vaccine-hesitant patients and people in my social network who were asking me to comment on what I regarded at the time as merely ‘anti-vax’ propaganda.

I was asked to appear on Good Morning Britain after a previously vaccine-hesitant film director Gurinder Chadha, Order of the British Empire (OBE), who was also interviewed, explained that I convinced her to take the jab.

But a very unexpected and extremely harrowing personal tragedy was to happen a few months later that would be the start of my own journey into what would ultimately prove to be a revelatory and eye-opening experience so profound that after six months of critically appraising the data myself, speaking to eminent scientists involved in COVID-19 research, vaccine safety and development, and two investigative medical journalists, I have slowly and reluctantly concluded that contrary to my own initial dogmatic beliefs, Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine is far from being as safe and effective as we first thought. This critical appraisal is based upon the analytical framework for practicing and teaching evidence-based medicine, specifically utilising individual clinical expertise and/or experience with use of the best available evidence and taking into consideration patient preferences and values."

"Contrary to popular belief, what the trial did not show was any statistically significant reduction in serious illness or COVID-19 mortality from the vaccine over the 6-month period of the trial, but the actual numbers of deaths (attributed to COVID-19) are still important to note. There were only two deaths from COVID-19 in the placebo group and one death from COVID-19 in the vaccine group. Looking at all-cause mortality over a longer period, there were actually slightly more deaths14 in the vaccine group (19 deaths) than in the placebo group (17 deaths). Also of note was the extremely low rate of COVID-19 illness classed as severe in the placebo group (nine severe cases out of 21 686 subjects, 0.04%), reflecting a very low risk of severe illness even in regions chosen for the trial because of perceived high prevalence of infection.

Finally, the trials in children did not even show a reduction in symptomatic infections but instead used the surrogate measure of antibody levels in the blood to define efficacy, even though the relationship between Wuhan-spike vaccine-induced antibody levels and protection from infection is tenuous, at best. The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDAs) own website states that:



"Such data have shown that one of the most common mRNA COVID-19 vaccine-induced harms is myocarditis. A study across several Nordic countries showed an increased risk from mRNA vaccination over background, especially in young males.21 Authorities have repeatedly maintained that myocarditis is more common after COVID-19 infection than after vaccination.22 However, trial data demonstrating that vaccination reduces the risk of myocarditis in subsequent infection is elusive, and in fact the risks may be additive. Incidence of myocarditis rocketed from spring 2021 when vaccines were rolled out to the younger cohorts having remained within normal levels for the full year prior, despite COVID-19,23 with the most up-to-date evidence, a paper from Israel24 found that the infection itself, prior to roll-out of the vaccine, conferred no increase in the risks of either myocarditis or pericarditis from COVID-19, strongly suggesting that the increases observed in earlier studies were because of the mRNA vaccines, with or without COVID-19 infections as an additional risk in the vaccinated.24"

"A number of reports have produced concerning rates of myocarditis, depending on age, ranging from 1 in 6000 in Israel27 to 1 in 2700 in a Hong Kong study in male children and adolescents aged 12–17 years.28 Most of the epidemiology studies that have been carried out have measured myocarditis cases that have been diagnosed in a hospital setting, and do not claim to be a comprehensive measure of more mild cases (from which long-term harm cannot be ruled out). In addition, under-reporting of adverse events is the scourge of pharmacovigilance data.29"

And finally this profound statement (Remember this is a peer reviewed journal article)

"There are four key drivers and seven sins that are at the root of the medical misinformation mess:

  • Drivers:
    • Much published medical research is not reliable or is of uncertain reliability, offers no benefit to patients or is not useful for decision makers;
    • Most healthcare professionals are not aware of this problem;
    • Even if they are aware of this problem, most healthcare professionals lack the skills necessary to evaluate the reliability and usefulness of medical evidence; and
    • Patients and families frequently lack relevant, accurate medical evidence and skilled guidance at the time of medical decision making.1
  • Sins:
    • Biased funding of research (that’s research that’s funded because it’s likely to be profitable, not beneficial for patients)
    • Biased reporting in medical journals
    • Biased reporting in the media
    • Biased patient pamphlets
    • Commercial conflicts of interest
    • Defensive medicine
    • An inability of doctors to understand and communicate health statistics.6
Ioannidis and colleagues highlight that:


Compounded over several decades, these upstream and downstream risk factors for misinformation have had a devastating effect in the healthcare environment we find ourselves in today. Over-prescription of drugs is considered such a public health threat that two leading medical journals in the past 10 years (the BMJ and JAMA Internal Medicine) have launched campaigns to reduce the harms of too much medical intervention. According to the cofounder of the Cochrane Collaboration, Peter Gøtzsche, prescribed medications are the third most common cause of death globally after heart disease and cancer.7 This is not surprising when one understands that most published research is misleading specifically where benefits from drug trials are exaggerated, and harms downplayed (Box 18)."

This doctor is writing from the perspective of "Evidence Bases Medicine." For those that don't know, Evidence Based Medicine is a movement among physicians several decades old. "Evidence based medicine (EBM) is the conscientious, explicit, judicious and reasonable use of modern, best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. EBM integrates clinical experience and patient values with the best available research information."

Think about that for a moment, the physicians have an internal movement, with its own journal, to encourage the medical industry to use the best evidence available to care for patients. Why did the medical profession spawn this movement if there wasn't an issue?
Finally found this article from years ago. This was where I started to follow the "Evidence Based Medicine" movement.


They give you a couple free articles to read a month. So, you should be able to read it. Read it at your own peril...........
 
  • Like
Reactions: trunole1 and F4Gary

trunole1

Veteran Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Jan 2, 2017
3,721
3,801
853
Finally found this article from years ago. This was where I started to follow the "Evidence Based Medicine" movement.


They give you a couple free articles to read a month. So, you should be able to read it. Read it at your own peril...........
Browsed through the Atlantic. Totally confirmed my opinion on the medical community today, The anti- science approach on CovId remains and continues to be the most deplorable example of horrible medical research I have seen in my lifetime. The stifling of voices of objection absolutely repugnant.
 

surfnole

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 29, 2002
12,352
767
853
I thought I recognized that name of the author in the Atlantic study and I did.

The rate of covid death of those infected was 1% on the diamond princess and this was largely old people in close quarters. No manipulation of data on this study biases etc. They closed population the rate on the Carl Vinson I believe another close environment was also very low. Far below what our governments were telling us.

"The one situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the Diamond Princess cruise ship and its quarantine passengers. The case fatality rate there was 1.0%, but this was a largely elderly population, in which the death rate from Covid-19 is much higher."

Stats from the US aircraft carrier Roosevelt another closed environment with a much healthier population. "Among the 1331 crew members with suspected or confirmed Covid-19, 23 (1.7%) were hospitalized, 4 (0.3%) received intensive care, and 1 died. ,"


 
  • Like
Reactions: trunole1

fsufool

Ultimate Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
10,680
13,883
1,853
New Hampshire
www.shaferfinancial.com
I thought I recognized that name of the author in the Atlantic study and I did.

The rate of covid death of those infected was 1% on the diamond princess and this was largely old people in close quarters. No manipulation of data on this study biases etc. They closed population the rate on the Carl Vinson I believe another close environment was also very low. Far below what our governments were telling us.

"The one situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the Diamond Princess cruise ship and its quarantine passengers. The case fatality rate there was 1.0%, but this was a largely elderly population, in which the death rate from Covid-19 is much higher."

Stats from the US aircraft carrier Roosevelt another closed environment with a much healthier population. "Among the 1331 crew members with suspected or confirmed Covid-19, 23 (1.7%) were hospitalized, 4 (0.3%) received intensive care, and 1 died. ,"



Peer Reviewed Journal Article. Ioannidis (who is generally supportive of vaccinations) is the second author.
Over 400 citations on this very long and somewhat technical article:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9491114/

Governments around the world have strongly communicated a high level of threat and called on norms of collectivism, obedience, and solidarity to excuse NPIs and accompanying harms (10). Overamplifying the harms of COVID-19 leads to citizens becoming more acceptant of the lifestyle changes (97)........................


Many authorities responding to the pandemic often stated they aimed to protect the vulnerable. However, several adopted measures seem to have especially hurt this group instead of helping. Several measures disrupted and contracted the social networks of older adults during the crisis. Pre-pandemic racial/ethnic network disparities were exacerbated, with negative consequences for the physical and mental health outcomes of these groups (211). As networks are important not only in daily life, but especially in times of crisis, social distancing led to a limited ability to weather the crisis, especially for vulnerable populations (211). Many countries have chosen to put vulnerable elderly people in complete isolation. This forced social and physical isolation is a serious stressor (313). Resilience may have been further compromised (314, 315), creating paradoxical effects (10). Both regular and routine health care for non-COVID-19 disease was disrupted, posing a threat to health outcomes for many diseases (243, 292). The long-term consequences of the relative neglect of the public health care system, and that people were hesitant to visit their physician for the non-COVID-19 problems (279, 316–319), remain unfathomed. E.g., it was estimated originally that about 28.5 million operations worldwide were postponed during the initial 12-week peak of the crisis (320). Once more, vulnerable populations were hit hardest, increasing pre-existing inequalities (321).........

We could have done better in our response to COVID-19. Vast power was given to experts who had (or claimed) expertise on COVID-19. This resulted in an exclusive focus on illness and deaths from COVID-19, with implemented and mandated NPIs of unprecedented severity, and which had been recommended against in previous pandemic plans (54, 55, 141, 361). These NPIs were also implemented without adequate consideration of their collateral effects (as discussed above and predicted in previous pandemic plans). The response bypassed the lessons learned from past pandemics and other emergencies.


Governments and public health authorities worldwide have imposed their decisions, while having trouble using evidence-based policy and decision making (13, 359, 366)........
This has harmed many groups in society (10, 367). Many scientists also went along with the narrative that the most aggressive NPIs were necessary for the greater good, for instance, experts advising on how to modify behavior [e.g., (366, 368)]. Others have pointed out that the debate has been highly polarized and should ideally be more open-minded and nuanced (369). Society has fallen prey to groupthink (11) with the perpetuation of dysfunctional entrenched patterns in responding to the pandemic (13). It seems more important than ever to uphold and renew important values that societies fare by, to enhance the well-being of their citizens (370). Healing society should focus on people's dignity, rights, values, and humanity (370). Concurrently, it becomes imperative to use evidence-based policy and decision making (359, 371) and reflexivity (13), as used in the EM process (363).


This next one is from Ionnidis, but is purely his expert opinion. Much more accessible and a quick read!


https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/saving-democracy-from-pandemic

I pulled a couple of the more interesting thoughts out for folks:

Anyone who believes that it’s possible to cleanse “science” of error through brute force censorship has no understanding of how science works or how accurate, unbiased evidence is accumulated in the first place. The idea of arbitrators who select what is correct and dismiss what is incorrect is the most alien possible concept to science. Without the ability to make errors or make (and improve on) inaccurate hypotheses, there is no science. The irony is that scientists understand (or at least should understand) and embrace (or at least should embrace) the fact that we all float in a sea of nonsense; it is the opportunist influencers and pundits, lacking in any understanding of the scientific method, who believe in the possibility of pure, unconflicted “truth.”...........

The population at large would benefit more from scientific skepticism (which doesn’t require a Ph.D.) than from the purging of “bias” by spurious information purifiers. Teaching free citizens about the risk of multifarious biases and how to prevent, detect, and avoid them is a job for educational institutions like schools and universities, not for tech companies, billionaires, federal bureaucrats, or online mobs. Being sensitized about bias has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, and may be the best way to diminish the alarming number of followers of conspiracy theorists. Willingness to acknowledge what we don’t know creates space for respect and dignity; pseudoscientific dogmatism only leads to bullying, violence, and repression. This is as true during times of crisis and emergency as it is during periods of peace and prosperity.........

Many governments have demonstrated in the past three years that they can summarily impose decisions on free people without their consent, and can even whitewash their actions if they backfire. A balancing force is needed in a well-informed democracy to promote thoughtful discussion and the adoption of cautious and moderate policies, rather than conflicted agendas based on the proclamations of manipulated mobs. Intolerance and humiliation may seem like expedients, but tolerance and scientific humility may achieve even more.
 

trunole1

Veteran Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Jan 2, 2017
3,721
3,801
853
Peer Reviewed Journal Article. Ioannidis (who is generally supportive of vaccinations) is the second author.
Over 400 citations on this very long and somewhat technical article:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9491114/

Governments around the world have strongly communicated a high level of threat and called on norms of collectivism, obedience, and solidarity to excuse NPIs and accompanying harms (10). Overamplifying the harms of COVID-19 leads to citizens becoming more acceptant of the lifestyle changes (97)........................


Many authorities responding to the pandemic often stated they aimed to protect the vulnerable. However, several adopted measures seem to have especially hurt this group instead of helping. Several measures disrupted and contracted the social networks of older adults during the crisis. Pre-pandemic racial/ethnic network disparities were exacerbated, with negative consequences for the physical and mental health outcomes of these groups (211). As networks are important not only in daily life, but especially in times of crisis, social distancing led to a limited ability to weather the crisis, especially for vulnerable populations (211). Many countries have chosen to put vulnerable elderly people in complete isolation. This forced social and physical isolation is a serious stressor (313). Resilience may have been further compromised (314, 315), creating paradoxical effects (10). Both regular and routine health care for non-COVID-19 disease was disrupted, posing a threat to health outcomes for many diseases (243, 292). The long-term consequences of the relative neglect of the public health care system, and that people were hesitant to visit their physician for the non-COVID-19 problems (279, 316–319), remain unfathomed. E.g., it was estimated originally that about 28.5 million operations worldwide were postponed during the initial 12-week peak of the crisis (320). Once more, vulnerable populations were hit hardest, increasing pre-existing inequalities (321).........

We could have done better in our response to COVID-19. Vast power was given to experts who had (or claimed) expertise on COVID-19. This resulted in an exclusive focus on illness and deaths from COVID-19, with implemented and mandated NPIs of unprecedented severity, and which had been recommended against in previous pandemic plans (54, 55, 141, 361). These NPIs were also implemented without adequate consideration of their collateral effects (as discussed above and predicted in previous pandemic plans). The response bypassed the lessons learned from past pandemics and other emergencies.


Governments and public health authorities worldwide have imposed their decisions, while having trouble using evidence-based policy and decision making (13, 359, 366)........
This has harmed many groups in society (10, 367). Many scientists also went along with the narrative that the most aggressive NPIs were necessary for the greater good, for instance, experts advising on how to modify behavior [e.g., (366, 368)]. Others have pointed out that the debate has been highly polarized and should ideally be more open-minded and nuanced (369). Society has fallen prey to groupthink (11) with the perpetuation of dysfunctional entrenched patterns in responding to the pandemic (13). It seems more important than ever to uphold and renew important values that societies fare by, to enhance the well-being of their citizens (370). Healing society should focus on people's dignity, rights, values, and humanity (370). Concurrently, it becomes imperative to use evidence-based policy and decision making (359, 371) and reflexivity (13), as used in the EM process (363).


This next one is from Ionnidis, but is purely his expert opinion. Much more accessible and a quick read!


https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/saving-democracy-from-pandemic

I pulled a couple of the more interesting thoughts out for folks:

Anyone who believes that it’s possible to cleanse “science” of error through brute force censorship has no understanding of how science works or how accurate, unbiased evidence is accumulated in the first place. The idea of arbitrators who select what is correct and dismiss what is incorrect is the most alien possible concept to science. Without the ability to make errors or make (and improve on) inaccurate hypotheses, there is no science. The irony is that scientists understand (or at least should understand) and embrace (or at least should embrace) the fact that we all float in a sea of nonsense; it is the opportunist influencers and pundits, lacking in any understanding of the scientific method, who believe in the possibility of pure, unconflicted “truth.”...........

The population at large would benefit more from scientific skepticism (which doesn’t require a Ph.D.) than from the purging of “bias” by spurious information purifiers. Teaching free citizens about the risk of multifarious biases and how to prevent, detect, and avoid them is a job for educational institutions like schools and universities, not for tech companies, billionaires, federal bureaucrats, or online mobs. Being sensitized about bias has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, and may be the best way to diminish the alarming number of followers of conspiracy theorists. Willingness to acknowledge what we don’t know creates space for respect and dignity; pseudoscientific dogmatism only leads to bullying, violence, and repression. This is as true during times of crisis and emergency as it is during periods of peace and prosperity.........

Many governments have demonstrated in the past three years that they can summarily impose decisions on free people without their consent, and can even whitewash their actions if they backfire. A balancing force is needed in a well-informed democracy to promote thoughtful discussion and the adoption of cautious and moderate policies, rather than conflicted agendas based on the proclamations of manipulated mobs. Intolerance and humiliation may seem like expedients, but tolerance and scientific humility may achieve even more.
Many governments have demonstrated in the past three years that they can summarily impose decisions on free people without their consent, and can even whitewash their actions if they backfire.


Amen!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deerfuel2

BelemNole

Veteran Seminole Insider
Mar 29, 2002
37,357
3,926
853
Roseville, CA
From the data I have seen and because I have gotten Covid, I will not be getting any more boosters. (I have 3 total shots)
I will highly suggest to my 20 year old and to my wife to not either. We all have proven immune responses and immunity imprinting is not fully understood.
Are you a doctor? Are you their doctor?
Do you play one on TV?
 

fsufool

Ultimate Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
10,680
13,883
1,853
New Hampshire
www.shaferfinancial.com
Are you a doctor? Are you their doctor?
Do you play one on TV?

So the only ones that can have an opinion are doctors? They are the only ones intellectually capable of understanding data? Why the attack? What are you afraid of? Why are you unable to allow for dissension from the narrative? What difference does it make to you, that I am not getting more Covid jabs?

Why no comment on the now 5 scientific papers posted? Are these not relevant?

Inquiring minds want to know............
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deerfuel2
Status
Not open for further replies.