vaccination side effects

[_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.

Interesting how far one doctor would go to discredit another doctor in the name of vaccines.

The doctor did the observation over 8 years, and post his results, and the American Heart Association finds it credible enough to mention, but our forum doctor immediately lam-blasts the results, with no inside knowledge of the study. Neither was our forum doctor part of the vaccine development, but vehemently defends it from any scrutiny while the vaccine manufacturers absconds themselves from any liability?
Meantime we have multiple cases of heart issues after vaccination, but a forum doctor dismisses any possible plausible cause ..... instead, he rather looks forward to the roasting?

No wonder people have lost faith in doctors, and their opinions.

Guess this forum doctor will now go onto my ignore list together with 2 dozen other employed bots ie. Cosmicwulf, dinosaur tetra, lion, etc. - paid bots/humans employed by the industry to keep the narrative going .......

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

 

[Mephisto_Helix]

2 dozen paid bots, jesus the tonfoil is strong with this one

 

[Daveogg]

Interesting how far one doctor would go to discredit another doctor in the name of vaccines.

The doctor did the observation over 8 years, and post his results, and the American Heart Association finds it credible enough to mention, but our forum doctor immediately lam-blasts the results, with no inside knowledge of the study. Neither was our forum doctor part of the vaccine development, but vehemently defends it from any scrutiny while the vaccine manufacturers absconds themselves from any liability?
Meantime we have multiple cases of heart issues after vaccination, but a forum doctor dismisses any possible plausible cause ..... instead, he rather looks forward to the roasting?

No wonder people have lost faith in doctors, and their opinions.

Guess this forum doctor will now go onto my ignore list together with 2 dozen other employed bots ie. Cosmicwulf, dinosaur tetra, lion, etc. - paid bots/humans employed by the industry to keep the narrative going .......

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

Here you go Dog, a black friday special for you.

Gundry MD ® | Dr. Gundry Supplements and Wellness Resources

Gundry MD is the authoritative source of health articles, Gundry MD wellness products, and more from heart surgeon, researcher, and best-selling author Dr. Steven Gundry.

gundrymd.com

EDIT Shame he might miss it, I am on the ignore list - tragic

 

[Daveogg]

2 dozen paid bots, jesus the tonfoil is strong with this one

Still waiting for my payment, what was it R27000 per covid death on the death certificate. I need that damn money to pay for the ski chalet in the alps, could they get on with it please.

 

[Brontosaurus]

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

And you post utter garbage from dodgy websites like it matters....

 

[Geoff.D]

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?

Spot on with this! It is easy to play the number game and think you are proving something but mostly it is just not correct, because there are always underlying assumptions that are not tabled.

 

[SoldierMan]

And you post utter garbage from dodgy websites like it matters....

Amazing retort!
4/10

 

[Geoff.D]

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".

Yes, I understood the point you were making -- these conferences are all the same, no matter what the theme or specialisation or science is. Been there done that ad nauseum, in the telecommunications and satellite industry for years, even generated some of that BS myself at times.

I actually really enjoyed that video, complex at times but not overly so, because the group is actually well aware of the spread of their audience (they have been at it for a long time).

Was not too difficult to in parallel look up some of the terms they were using as well. (probably why my data usage peaked and crossed some or other glass ceiling triggering the BS throttling that Telkom imposes towards the end of the month).

Have found a few things sort of backing the points made but nothing complete and comprehensive.

Thanks for the time you took to respond, appreciate it.

 

[Seven_Nine_Eight]

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?

The graphs are from Tables 3 (COVID-related) and 4 (All cause). Sort by age and compare the Age specific rate per 100 000. Here are for the 10-59, 60-69 and 70-79 for unvaccinated vs fully vaccinated.

I'll add the "Within 21 days of first dose" and "21 days or more after first dose" just now.

EDIT for other vaccination status groups for ages 10-59.

 

[JohnStarr]

Wow, for those that watched the video, it is devastating for people who have been vaccinated.

Some experts have been saying for a while now that cardiac conditions are happening as a result of the vaccines.

Now it seems not only are the risks in the short term for some people, but the risks down the road of developing cardiac issues could be high for people as well.

You're licking your greasy lips at that prospect, aren't you?

 

[Daveogg]

Spot on with this! It is easy to play the number game and think you are proving something but mostly it is just not correct, because there are always underlying assumptions that are not tabled.

So what question are you asked before a vaccination - basically are you healthy.

If the answer is no, you don't get the vaccination and you remain in the "Received only the first dose, at least 21 days ago" box - note that mortality(1124,3). If the answer is yes I am healthy you get the jab and go into the "Received the second dose, less than 21 days ago" box (Mortality 464,6).

So their is a selection bias, that perfectly explains the difference in mortality as you go from 1st dose to second dose. Although without thinking critically it is hidden and incorrect assumptions can then be made.

But big picture, far from what was put up by the OP, vaccinated covid and non covid mortality is (far) lower than unvaccinated.

 

[SoldierMan]

You're licking your greasy lips at that prospect, aren't you?

No, that would be you projecting. I don't think like you.

 

[JohnStarr]

paid bots/humans employed by the industry to keep the narrative going .......

Proof, or failingly anecdotal.
That comment you made there keeps another narrative going.

 

[JohnStarr]

No, that would be you projecting. I don't think, like you.

Corrected.

Just curious as to peoples' motivations for making some of the comments they do.

 

[Daveogg]

The graphs are from Tables 3 (COVID-related) and 4 (All cause). Sort by age and compare the Age specific rate per 100 000. Here are for the 10-59, 60-69 and 70-79 for unvaccinated vs fully vaccinated.
View attachment 1199908
I'll add the "Within 21 days of first dose" and "21 days or more after first dose" just now.

Ok Ill accept you made a genuine error looking at all your graphs can you work it out?

 

[Seven_Nine_Eight]

Ok Ill accept you made a genuine error looking at all your graphs can you work it out?

The graphs are from the data provided. If there is an error then I am happy to correct it.

 

[Daveogg]

The graphs are from the data provided. If there is an error then I am happy to correct it.

So you used "Age Specific" data to create your graphs. (But in your OP you quoted age adjusted).
10-59 age group Vaccinated will have a bias towards older and Unvaccinated will have a bias towards younger.
As time progresses this bias is less but still significant( and your graphs show this).
What your graphs show is old people die more often than young people.
Not as you projected vaccinated die more often than unvaccinated.
In fact if you study my posts above, once you age adjust, Vaccinated die less often from known Covid AND all other causes (although I would GUESS unknown Covid accounts for this).

 

[Seven_Nine_Eight]

So you used "Age Specific" data to create your graphs. (But in your OP you quoted age adjusted).

Actually no, I use the Age-specific rate per 100 000 from Tables 3 and 4 for all these graphs including the one you refer to as OP.

10-59 age group Vaccinated will have a bias towards older and Unvaccinated will have a bias towards younger.
As time progresses this bias is less but still significant( and your graphs show this).
What your graphs show is old people die more often than young people.
Not as you projected vaccinated die more often than unvaccinated.
In fact if you study my posts above, once you age adjust, Vaccinated die less often from known Covid AND all other causes (although I would GUESS unknown Covid accounts for this).

Fair enough, I see flytek alluded to this earlier:

edit: here's one answer
"However, the results for people aged 10-59 and for those who have received only one dose of the vaccines appear inconsistent and, at first glance, alarming. A closer look at the methods and consideration of who is included in each vaccination group at different points in time provides insight as to the likely explanation. The “10-59” age group covers an obviously large range. This was done to avoid statistical problems and privacy concerns associated with reporting the very small numbers of deaths that occur in people of these ages in any one week. But at any given point in time, there are therefore very large differences in the age distribution between unvaccinated and vaccinated 10-59 year olds, with vaccinated individuals being much older on average. This makes it appear as though mortality rates are higher among the vaccinated group and what is urgently needed to correct for this is analyses that are both age-standardised and age-stratified, or stratified by smaller age groups."

expert reaction to new stats from the ONS on deaths involving COVID-19 by vaccination status, England: deaths occurring between 2 January and 24 September 2021 | Science Media Centre

www.sciencemediacentre.org

I agree that smaller age-groups are needed. What we are seeing is that in the 60-69 and 70-79 the all cause mortality rate is lower in vaccinated vs unvaccinated groups. Good news for sure.

Of course if we stratify the ages in 10 year increments from 10-59 then it cannot be true that ALL of them will also have an all-cause mortality rate that is lower in vaccinated vs unvaccinated groups.

This implies that there should be at least one ten-year increment (between 10-59) that has an all-cause mortality rate that is greater in vaccinated vs unvaccinated groups to explain the higher rate we see in the 10-59 group.

I hope they include these age stratifications in the next dataset.

 

[Aasvoël]

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)

Or people who are already frail/sick, especially the older ones don't get the vaccine to reduce futher stress on their body vs mostly healthy people who can get the vaccines?

 

[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

So can we conclude the answer to your original question is no?