vaccination side effects

[RiaX]

Does it count if I used google on some of the bigger words?

Nope. At least WRT to this

 

[_Dog]

You are posting an abstract for a presentation at a upcoming conference. There is no article, nothing peer reviewed. You want me to take this seriously when it talks about the "Covid shot"?
Almost seems worth it to go to this Conference just to see the roasting this guy is going to get.

My question is still unanswered.

Should I rephrase, in your professional capacity, are you advising people to ignore the article, and the results of the study?

Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS)
"A total of 566 pts, aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen in a preventive cardiology practice had a new PULS test drawn from 2 to 10 weeks following the 2nd COVID shot and was compared to the previous PULS score drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre- shot. Baseline IL-16 increased from 35=/-20 above the norm to 82 =/- 75 above the norm post-vac; sFas increased from 22+/- 15 above the norm to 46=/-24 above the norm post-vac; HGF increased from 42+/-12 above the norm to 86+/-31 above the norm post-vac. These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac.We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination."

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712

 

[RiaX]

We are telling you to ignore the abstract of the article because it doesnt mean a thing.

Post the FULL results and discussion and we will have a look at it otherwise dont waste our time

 

[Daveogg]

My question is still unanswered.

Should I rephrase, in your professional capacity, are you advising people to ignore the article, and the results of the study?

Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS)
"A total of 566 pts, aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen in a preventive cardiology practice had a new PULS test drawn from 2 to 10 weeks following the 2nd COVID shot and was compared to the previous PULS score drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre- shot. Baseline IL-16 increased from 35=/-20 above the norm to 82 =/- 75 above the norm post-vac; sFas increased from 22+/- 15 above the norm to 46=/-24 above the norm post-vac; HGF increased from 42+/-12 above the norm to 86+/-31 above the norm post-vac. These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac.We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination."

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712

Yes

 

[Geoff.D]

You are posting an abstract for a presentation at a upcoming conference. There is no article, nothing peer reviewed. You want me to take this seriously when it talks about the "Covid shot"?
Almost seems worth it to go to this Conference just to see the roasting this guy is going to get.

Easier. Refer the article to that TWIV group you uncovered. They seem to do a pretty good job of analysing articles and research papers even "peer-reviewed" ones.

BTW did you watch/listen to the rest of that video? I, unfortunately, blew my entire data allowance on it and did not get to the end.

 

[RiaX]

Easier. Refer the article to that TWIV group you uncovered. They seem to do a pretty good job of analysing articles and research pares even "peer-reviewed" ones.

BTW did you watch/listen to the rest of that video? I, unfortunately, blew my entire data allowance on it and did not get to the end.

Sorry Geoff. Shouldve rather bought data instead of all that IVM stock.

(im just playing btw)

 

[Geoff.D]

How would you know if you had/have blood clots?

When your heart pumps, it sounds like you are going over speed bumps in your 4 x 4?

 

[Geoff.D]

Sorry Geoff. Shouldve rather bought data instead of all that IVM stock.

(im just playing btw)

You don't know which video I am referring to, but Daveogg does know. (It is number 831, and deals extensively with research done on Remdevisir, as well as the primary paper reviewed.)

PS: I have no IVM stock ---- I wait until the doctor prescribes it --- and he WILL prescribe it if the need arises.

 

[PsyWulf]

My question is still unanswered.

Should I rephrase, in your professional capacity, are you advising people to ignore the article, and the results of the study?

Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS)
"A total of 566 pts, aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen in a preventive cardiology practice had a new PULS test drawn from 2 to 10 weeks following the 2nd COVID shot and was compared to the previous PULS score drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre- shot. Baseline IL-16 increased from 35=/-20 above the norm to 82 =/- 75 above the norm post-vac; sFas increased from 22+/- 15 above the norm to 46=/-24 above the norm post-vac; HGF increased from 42+/-12 above the norm to 86+/-31 above the norm post-vac. These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac.We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination."

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712

Yes

Double Yes,no verification,source,methodology,proof or confirmation
Right now its as good as all the other debunked studies the antivaxx have applauded over the months
Fraud or incompetency at best

 

[RiaX]

You don't know which video I am referring to, but Daveogg does know. (It is number 831, and deals extensively with research done on Remdevisir, as well as the primary paper reviewed.)

PS: I have no IVM stock ---- I wait until the doctor prescribes it --- and he WILL prescribe it if the need arises.

yoh yoh guys are my jokes that bad ?

 

[Geoff.D]

yoh yoh guys are my jokes that bad ?

Yes.

 

[SoldierMan]

Dr Shankara Chetty on the Spike Protein - not good news.

Dr. Shankara Chetty – Plan je kroz vakcinaciju trajno izložiti populaciju toksičnom spike-proteinu

Dr. Shankara Chetty je južnoafrički liječnik opće prakse, s naučnim iskustvom u genetici, naprednoj biologiji, mikrobiologiji i biohemiji. U svijetu je postao poznat po uspješnom liječenju pacijenata ...

odysee.com

 

[KantSnyer]

Dr Shankara Chetty on the Spike Protein - not good news.

Dr. Shankara Chetty – Plan je kroz vakcinaciju trajno izložiti populaciju toksičnom spike-proteinu

Dr. Shankara Chetty je južnoafrički liječnik opće prakse, s naučnim iskustvom u genetici, naprednoj biologiji, mikrobiologiji i biohemiji. U svijetu je postao poznat po uspješnom liječenju pacijenata ...

odysee.com

You've cried wolf one too many times here I'm afraid, not going to bother.

 

[SoldierMan]

You've cried wolf one too many times here I'm afraid, not going to bother.

Awesome! You say that like it matters........

 

[notayoba]

Dr Shankara Chetty on the Spike Protein - not good news.

Dr. Shankara Chetty – Plan je kroz vakcinaciju trajno izložiti populaciju toksičnom spike-proteinu

Dr. Shankara Chetty je južnoafrički liječnik opće prakse, s naučnim iskustvom u genetici, naprednoj biologiji, mikrobiologiji i biohemiji. U svijetu je postao poznat po uspješnom liječenju pacijenata ...

odysee.com

And the spike protein from covid? All good and healthy?

 

[SoldierMan]

And the spike protein from covid? All good and healthy?

No, of course not.

 

[Spizz]

Absolutely jaw dropping to watch the usual clowns arguing with doctors over something they saw on YouTube. It’s beyond parody, and yet they think they know what they are talking about and have a valid argument

 

[Dave]

How would you know if you had/have blood clots?

It's simple, if a clot reaches your brain you'll become an anti-vaxxer and want to change your name to Geoff.

 

[Daveogg]

Easier. Refer the article to that TWIV group you uncovered. They seem to do a pretty good job of analysing articles and research papers even "peer-reviewed" ones.

BTW did you watch/listen to the rest of that video? I, unfortunately, blew my entire data allowance on it and did not get to the end.

Hi Geoff.
Sorry to blow your data, I think for a good cause. Here is the thing, you may (or may not) have noticed I have never criticized anyone on this forum for a lack of a formal education in a subject. I do believe the "lay public" now has readily available resources to educate themselves, if willing to put in the graft. For example few years ago I did an online course on the physics of climate change. I believe I can hold a conversation with a climatologist and understand the points from a position of some knowledge (without claiming to be an expert).

If anyone is truly interested in virology ( or parasitology, immunology, evolution ), the TWI (This Week In ) series are excellent. As you noted the TWIVs are now over 800 episodes ( TWiV long predates Covid ) and so a little intimidating to jump in.
A good start is Vincent Racaniello is currently doing his Columbia University Virology lecture series and is available on youtube. Search Virology Live. If you have no background in biology expect it to get quite complex quite quickly but with time (and yes google) I do believe it is accessible to anyone with the motivation.

As far as asking them to analyze the "article" what I was saying is their is no article. Their is is a flyer - an advert - for a talk at a conference. At these conferences, their are general plenary sessions where experts give lectures to the entire attending delegates, then break away sessions where there are multiple talks happening at the same time and delegates choose which to attend. This is what is being "advertised".

 

[Daveogg]

I am not sure if an increase in the all-cause death rate of vaccinated for the 10-59 age group compared to unvaccinated is a vaccine side-effect.
From here:

Deaths by vaccination status, England - Office for National Statistics

Age-standardised mortality rates for deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19), non-COVID-19 deaths and all deaths by vaccination status, broken down by age group.

www.ons.gov.uk

View attachment 1199360

Just to look back to this.
Could you explain where these graphs came from. They are not in the link you posted. Did you take some data and re hash it? If so could you show your workings.

			Deaths involving COVID-19					All deaths
	Number of deaths	Population-years	Age-standardised mortality rate per 100,000 person-years	Lower confidence limit	Upper confidence limit	Number of deaths	Population-years	Age-standardised mortality rate per 100,000 person-years	Lower confidence limit	Upper confidence limit
Unvaccinated	34 474​	12 417 771​	849,7​	840,3​	859,2​	92 711​	12417771​	2187,1​	2172,2​	2202,0​
Received only the first dose, less than 21 days ago	3 880​	1 768 057​	192,4​	182,4​	202,4​	16 634​	1768057​	811,9​	793,4​	830,4​
Received only the first dose, at least 21 days ago	6 663​	4 422 359​	105,3​	102,8​	107,8​	69 672​	4422359​	1124,3​	1115,9​	1132,7​
Received the second dose, less than 21 days ago	171​	1 685 411​	7,2​	6,1​	8,2​	10850​	1685411​	464,6​	455,8​	473,4​
Received the second dose, at least 21 days ago	4 308​	8 433 794​	26,2​	25,4​	27,1​	132825​	8433794​	783,6​	779,1​	788​

From the actual link:
All Cause Mortality Unvaccinated 2187,1 Vaccinated 783,6
Covid Mortality Unvaccinated 849,7 Vaccinated 26,2

Implication : Unvaccinated die from covid at a higher rate than Vaccinated die from everything else. Unvaccinated die from everything else at a higher rate than Vaccinated. (Probably actually covid deaths just not recognised as such)

EDIT:

See the group with the lowest mortality is those who received the second dose of vaccine less than 21 days ago at 464.6.
I could use this fact to prove vaccine are safe as the people who just received it DONT die. But I wont because that would be lying with statistics. Anyone care to explain why?