>Among males 16 to 24 years of age, the excess number of myocarditis events per 100000 vaccinees in the 28-day risk periods after the first dose of BNT162b2 was 1.55 (95% CI, 0.70-2.39) events and after the second dose was 5.55 (95% CI, 3.70-7.39) events, and it was 1.75 (95% CI, −0.20 to 3.71) events after the first dose of mRNA-1273 and 18.39 (95% CI, 9.05-27.72) events after the second dose
>During the 28-day risk period after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, there were 73 myocarditis cases. Excess events of myocarditis were 3.26 (95% CI, 1.90-4.61) events per 100000 individuals with a positive test result among all males, and 1.37 (95% CI, −0.14 to 2.87) events per 100000 individuals with a positive test result among males aged 16 to 24 years
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2791253
>pic related
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1.full.pdf
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Why is it second dose specifically? If the vax was that bad how come the body can withstand first dose just fine? What did anti vaxers mean by this?
>Why are two injections of a harmful substance worse than one?
The first dose isn't fine. Maybe the first dose of Pfizer poses a lower risk than infection, but it doesn't stop infection, and it isn't clear if infection induced myocarditis is derived from a particularly bad case (which the vaccine does seem to protect from) or from genetic factors + a mild case. If it is the latter, you were probably worse off as a young man getting any doses before your inevitable infection.
What are cumulative effects for 10,000 Alex.
the first dose is what generates the antibodies
the second dose recruits the antibodies to attack your own cells which are producing the antigen
Probably this. That's how allergies work; you react the second time you're exposed to the allergen, not the first.
The israeli supremacists and their Chinese allies manufactured the first shot to be safe in order to quell public fears about the vaccine before issuing the second deadly shot.
There are deadly fatal prions that are completely undetectable and take 10 years before you even experience any symptoms. Who knows what kind of shit the enemies of the White colonizers have been able to manufacturer in secret.
Why the frick are you anti-Semitic morons so prolific? Get a grip, moron.
Because the israelites are over represented in nearly all positions of power in this country including banking, media, congress, the judiciary system, and anti-White political activism.
The israelites claim to have been persecuted by Whites for thousands of years going all the way back to the Roman genocide of Judea. Wouldn't it make sense that their elites are holding a grudge and are working together for a single purpose?
Or can you offer an alternative explanation to their over representation that doesn't involve collusion?
I think people don't understand just how insanely overrepresented they are. Black / white difference is a joke compared to that. They would need to have 400iq for this to be legit.
when a comment is that ridiculous it becomes indistinguishable from parody. being offended by this is your choice since it is equal parts as likely to be a joke
Idk what the scientific reason is behind it but it's well established that the second dose hits a lot harder. It's common for people to have side effects like a fever after the second dose but not the first
The first dose changes the key shape.
The second dose inserts the new key and breaks it off. Unfortunately the heart has a lot of the same receptors as the gonads.
>pre-print
Black person
you couldn't name a single receptor on either of those organs to save your life
>>pre-print
>Black person
it's been published since then, and the same authors published very similar results in nature you moronic homosexual
Not my heckin gonadarinos. If I didn't use IQfy I might need those!
What kind of dumb frick tries to turn a key that isn't inserted properly?
You, you are that kind.
you can have covid, even unsymptomatic, get vaccinated and then identify you have myocarditis. you can get vaccinated and then contract covid, and then identify you have myocarditis.
which one caused myocarditis for either case? science has a clear answer to this question
Are you incapable of reading anything longer than a tweet? One shot gives a higher risk than having chink flu and two gives a *much* higher risk. If it had nothing to do with the vax there wouldn't be a risk difference between first and second shots.
Maybe you contracted covid between the jabs and that's what's causing the heart problems.
Then why would you be many times more likely to catch it after you already had one shot? Doesn't sound very Safe And Effective to me...
Are you referring to your twitter screenshot? It doesn't deserve an answer, but as always your eagerness to simp for pharmaceutical corporations and your terror over a virus with a 99.9999999999999% survival rate is sickening.
you are one certified room temperature IQ moron
i phrased a clear question in my post
and you're just too moronic and only fall for the bait image macro. you're everything that's wrong with people today. an entire generation groomed to have 5 second attention span to read the equivalent of a single comic panel.
I assumed you meant the tweet because it was more coherent.
>science has a clear answer to this question
Of course it does. They'll blame invisible, hypothetical covid over the vaccine because the narrative demands it, studies like OP be damned.
>They'll blame invisible, hypothetical covid over the vaccine because the narrative demands it, studies like OP be damned.
wrong, moron
just as i expected, you're scientifically illiterate. do humanity a favor and sterilize your whole family to remove that genetic trash from the gene pool
you literally lack the neuronal connections to come up with the correct answer to this. you will never be scientifically literate. like someone with aphantasia can't imagine an apple in their head, you can't answer this
>invisible
>hypothetical
The human race is doomed thanks to people like you
Cool
Vaccines have a 99.9999999999999% survival rate but you're still cowering like a b***h and you've been flooding this imageboard with your alarmism for years. Maybe you should get a life, or at least get a real hobby, because posting "I don't like scientists" on a science board is a poor excuse for one.
>Vaccines have a 99.9999999999999% survival rate
Standing in front of an exposed Nuclear reactor has a 99.99999% survival rate.......... for a few days.
NOTHING has a survival rate on a long enough time line.
The main factor is "quality of life" during that limited "survival rate".
Did you have a point to make?
>anon's point must have went over my tiny head
*gone
That has now been retconned.
So then when the frick is everyone going to die? You ducking morons have been screeching
>science has a clear answer to this question
last chance 4u to attempt an answer
what the frick room are you in thats just a bunch of /misc/tards going 'jabbed will be dead by easter'
>this level of cope
>shifting the safe and effective goalposts so far that your criteria is now "well it didn't cause mass death"
lmao at your picrel
remember when it was supposed to be 100% safe and 100% effective?
I dunno seems more like digging up the goalposts by their roots at this point.
sort of like with covid.
>10% IFR
>ok maybe 3% IFR
>ok maybe 0.005% IFR overall and the average age of mortality is the same as the average life expectancy
>b-but long covid, guise!
these morons have a 2-week long memory, if it they didn't have well-poisoning bullshit like red deer picture to latch onto, and instead actually had to own up to their own inconsistencies and failures of modelling they'd probably rope
How far more will the goalposts move?
>Well it only reduced average life expectancy by 20%, that's not too bad for an experimental new treatment that could have longterm use for longevity...
Experts and Fact Checkers say heart attacks are safe and effective for most people.
That's unironically true. Your chances of surviving a heart attack are surprisingly very high.
>I'm a tard who uses tard words
>Science says heart attacks are safe and effective
It means the "vaccines" are bad for people, especially younger people under 50, and especially males under 30 years of age.
>https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2791253
Even taking the number of the highest amount of cases (that 71.5 for pfizer), it's a ten-thousandth of a percent. Stop being an illiterate monkey and go apply yourself on another subject, chasing this false understanding isn't doing you any good here.
It's more than infection induced serious side effects for young men. Science and scientists pushed an untested medicine that hurt more young men than it helped, and then they supported governments in trying to force people to take it.
>that hurt more young men than it helped
That's just what you want to believe, isn't it?
No
>Science and scientists pushed an untested medicine that hurt more young men than it helped
I got myocarditis from the shots and was literally fine within a week. All my friends my age who also got covid are developing long-term health complications from it. I'll take a couple nights of some chest ouchies versus not being able to breathe right ever again, thanks.
You can just admit you're an anti-vaxxer and stop pretending you have an argument.
>who also got covid
and the ones who ONLY got covid had 0 problems, like me and anyone else who is not a fricking idiot (you). And Im not an antivaxer, I vaxxed my kids against literally everything under the sun.
based.
Just look at every other correlation study, and you'll find endless correlations without causation. Reason being, either the people making these endless useless ecological correlations are truly that inept or truly that malicious.
Obviously, the #1 biggest confound to these associations across ALL ecological correlations is covid itself. What's the false negative rate for tests? What are the odds that ratio of people had covid and it was missed in testing between vaccinations? You'll find virtually no studies even mention these obvious caveats and none of them try to account for it either.
So, yeah, either gross negligence or maliciously evil.
>What are the odds that ratio of people had covid and it was missed in testing between vaccinations?
And also happened to have myo? Zero.
oh look, it's this homosexual again
I can't understand why anyone is surprised by this, your immune system attacks and kills cells that present foreign proteins. The vaccines get into the blood what organ has more exposure to blood than the heart?
>let's inject synthetic lnp containing sarscov2 spike protein mrna into the body that get into the bloodstream
these vaccines are a trojan horse they gain far more access to your organs than natural infection does because the body doesn't recognise them as foreign until they have already entered the cell. Whereas the body immediately starts attacking the virus when it naturally enters through your eyes, nose, mouth. Fricking clown world
Nope. Missed covid infections explain both the variability and the demographics and the symptoms. Most likely explanation is "shitty scientists trying to get more funding doing lazy big data ecological shit without doing real work".
You don't get how this works. Scientists who might want to study this need to create some precedent or reason to acquire the funding to do so. Comparatively effortless "studies" merely giving correlation from government data can help to achieve this. Unsurprisingly any effort made to control for coronavirus itself as a confound eliminates these supposed effects, which is why the ecological studies never raise this obvious point because it'd shoot their bid for funding from ignorant administrators in the face.
Look at the diagnostic error rate of covid, now look at the supposed rate of "vaccine correlated" issues. The latter is entirely accounted for and accountable by the former. Everyone involved in this stupid argument is just a useful idiot, and the sad thing is purely by coincidence (idiotic scientists publishing irresponsible bullshit omitting critical context and likely causes).
I should also add being able to slap your name on any "big ticket" something career wise is also important, and the absolute easiest way to hitch your wagon to that ride is meaningless correlations you can retroactively put on a resume or pump up as some "key research". On and on it goes.
>covid infection so severe it causes heart inflammation but is missed during the largest mass pcr testing with redacted cycle threshold values in history
>we unblinded the stage III clinical trials before 6 months and now I have the audacity to complain about the quality of non clinical data
go get your 5th shot
Deflection. Not surprising. You people have a bible you stick to and preach like gospel, and refuse to read. What I wrote invalidates your preaching. The hilarity of an npc thinking it's woke.
you wrote nothing you fricking moron. Imagine needing a rct to tell you to no take this shit when we know it distributes everywhere when it was meant to stay in the deltoid. The animals developed pathology from the lnp without the mrna let alone with it. Do you need a rct trial to prove to you you'll die if jump of the a 10 story building. It's called the null hypothesis
If I wrote nothing why don't you know what the estimated error rate is in the ecological studies you cite? The core refutation would be citing it and showing the statistical probability *accounting for* the sample error rate.
Which you people never - EVER - do.
You know less about the null hypothesis than you know about this topic. Don't kid yourself. You have my challenge, and I bet you don't even know how to even start. Useful. Idiots.
to what agenda am I being a useful idiot?
what on earth do you think injecting people with the wuhan variant spike protein in 2022 can do? other than create an inappropriate immune response to the current and future variants
You people are the incidental useful idiots of some scientists publishing useless noise, utterly uninformative garbage as ecological studies (which they often are), always declaring the "need for more research" while failing to mention the obvious. Which, again, is that the diagnostic error rate estimates for missed diagnosis FAR exceeds the ecological correlation and most likely explains that correlation.
The useful idiots in this situation fall for the hype without realizing giving attention to these malicious/inept morons. That is ALSO why MOST of these ecological studies you people parrot DOES NOT INCLUDE any estimate of nor reference to other studies that could derive a margin of error for missed diagnosis.
If you pay the frick attention you will understand why what I just wrote means "Gross negligence or pure malice". Because doing that on purpose to mislead people for your own ends is evil as frick.
>The useful idiots in this situation fall for the hype without realizing giving attention to these malicious/inept morons
"The useful idiots in this situation fall for the hype without realizing they're giving attention to these malicious/inept morons"
*Accidentally a word
yes it is anons on IQfy incentivizing the corruption in science not the pharmaceutical, WHO, government complex.
How many boosters have you had?
Exactly. I don't want to close his posts but they're obviously misdirected as frick.
>I don't want to close his posts
wtf does that mean
It's funny how you're so far up your own ass you can't pay attention. What I just explained is the simple self-serving nature any competitive enterprise can develop, and exactly how to mislead for attention for benefit when your whole career necessarily thrives on attention.
Who do you think would get the more important positions, or added funding, or additional notoriety, and personal benefit? How do you think they get it? The more people go hounding for a fraction of a fraction of a percent - out of tens of millions - easily explained by a missed covid diagnosis.
Note how you, and everyone else, continues to fail my challenge. Not one of you will come forward with the odds this is explained by missed diagnosis. So who is right? The one explaining why you're useful idiots, or you cowards too afraid to admit you don't even know how you've been fricking had? By simple human selfishness no less. For frick sake. You invent mass conspiracies when basic individual evil and stupidity explains it all.
>your whole career necessarily thrives on attention.
Every single doctor that has spoken out against this madness has been deplatformed, litigated and had their medical license threatened. You live in a schizophrenic fantasy world.
>you've been fricking had
I've had covid and it was nothing you probably have antibody dependent enhancement https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/616004c52e87ed08692f5692/627933433cc6dc1c869df8ad_GVB%27s%20analysis%20of%20C-19%20evolutionary%20dynamics%20update%20May%202022.pdf
Once again, can't do a simple thing plainly outlined. I challenged you, find the odds this is explained by missed diagnosis. What have you done? Anything you can to avoid doing that.
Useful idiots.
oh man you really think this is some kind of gotcha you got there you fricking moron. Every single data point shows worst outomes for second shot. Reality is not compatible with your fricking "coincidence" fantasy world. Nobody is going to waste his time doing chores to impress you. Get fricked.
Extra this.
>cant perform basic data analysis
>cant even properly consume statistics
>believes data is facts
Checks out.
Not that other anon, but you don't have a "reality". You have numbers on a paper. You think this creates a reality because you are so numerically illiterate that numbers are like magic to you.
If you can't perform the basic statistical analysis that other anon is asking you to do, you *do not understand* the statistical results of the reports you're citing, which is why you read the abstracts and look at tables and declare you have "facts". You have no idea what you're even reading, which is why you see a number in a paper and believe you are viewing objective reality when all you're looking at is a statistical analysis of partial data.
t. professional mathematician that works in data science
Yeah, you basically got it. They've made about 3 threads now all with the same underlying theme. Every single time a point is raised explaining why something they've done is cherrypicked, doesn't make sense, etc, they just ignorantly see it as some "win" or point of pride. I've often wondered if other people working with statistics are as nihilistic as I've become over the widespread innumeracy.
If you missed it, my favorite "blatantly stupid oof", so far, is this one
. One of them cites a paper that directly refutes their whole worldview. It necessarily demonstrates vaccines are highly effective, and so much so it has a high potential to greatly increase false negative rates on seroprevalence testing. The response was just to ignore that and double down, claiming the vaccine instead makes you more likely to catch the virus because... "It just does look numbers I cherrypicked".
I'm sure you've met people, like I have, who are just lost causes. I can't think of a more lost cause than someone literally toppling their entire worldview by citing a paper they didn't read, and when that's pointed out goes "Dhurrr no it doesn't". I'd think it trolling, but I've met people this genuinely narcissistic before.
Why does moderna have such a big difference in excess rates of myocarditis to Pfizer? Why is the second injection higher across the board?
Also
Because it's far more effective, producing more false negatives on covid testing, producing more missed cases of covid.
You know, the study the antivaxxer linked that blows all your bullshit out the water? "mRNA-1273" is the Moderna vaccine, genius.
>Because it's far more effective, producing more false negatives on covid testing, producing more missed cases of covid.
Let's pretend that is true, even though it isn't. Those cases should be milder. Why is Modernas rate so much higher than that of unvaccinated people who simply got infected?
Where is your evidence that asymptomatic false positive cases in unvaccinated populations have the rates of myocarditis responsible for that volume of confounding?
Don't forget this crutch of relying on hocus pocus false negatives goes both ways. We don't know the total number of people infected, but we do know the total number of people vaccinated. Thus the rate of myocarditis in infected is probably much smaller than is even shown in these studies.
>You know, the study the antivaxxer linked that blows all your bullshit out the water? "mRNA-1273" is the Moderna vaccine, genius.
What's your point?
>Let's pretend that is true, even though it isn't.
Let's agree on reality first mmmk? This study conclusively shows that it is. By definition. If it wasn't, it would not be the primary concern for false negatives. There is no universe in which your denying reality makes sense.
>Those cases should be milder. Why is Modernas rate so much higher than that of unvaccinated people who simply got infected?
Because some people are more effected by mild covid than others, and if the vaccine has a higher false negative rate those will be misclassified as "not having covid". Also water is wet.
>Where is your evidence that asymptomatic false positive cases in unvaccinated populations have the rates of myocarditis responsible for that volume of confounding?
The fact moderna has a far higher false negative rate, and covid causes myocarditis. And none of the ecological studies you morons cite ever accounts for false negatives. Gee I wonder why that is?
>Don't forget this crutch of relying on hocus pocus false negatives goes both ways. We don't know the total number of people infected, but we do know the total number of people vaccinated. Thus the rate of myocarditis in infected is probably much smaller than is even shown in these studies.
That's gibberish. Utter gibberish. Not knowing the total number is irrelevant when you've a good sample size across demographics, therefore knowing the RATE of myocarditis across demographics, which is very high for covid. Nothing from what you wrote allows you to conclude "therefore it's much smaller", you're just assuming that.
>What's your point?
More false negatives means more missed covid, which is obviously responsible for the myocarditis.
Let's agree on reality first mmmk? This study conclusively shows that it is. By definition. If it wasn't, it would not be the primary concern for false negatives. There is no universe in which your denying reality makes sense.
That is a flawed preprint. Read the comments on it.
>Because some people are more effected by mild covid than others
So your theory is that false negative asymptomatic vaccinated young men are having heart damage from the flu? How would you differentiate between these imaginary incidents and genuine vaccine induced myocarditis? Is there any measure of vaccine induced myocarditis that you have seen that controls for your theory?
>The fact moderna has a far higher false negative rate
Quality citation required
>covid causes myocarditis
No it doesn't. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/8/2219 Vaccines do though, look at the studies in OP.
>Not knowing the total number is irrelevant
Incorrect. You can calculate the accurate rate of diagnosed incidents of myocarditis in a population with a known total (vaccinated). You will ALWAYS overestimate the same rate in a population that is greater (real infected) than your number (known infected).
Furthermore, why are the incidents of infection induced myocarditis so much more common among the elderly than young, while the inverse is true of those suffering from myocarditis immediately after vaccination? This is a significant deviation from the pattern of infection induced myocarditis, and suggests at the very least that the vaccine is exacerbating the problem for young men (although it is obvious to most that it is the cause).
Even the CDC haven't tried your delusional line of reasoning here. Do you think you might be the narcissist? https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2022-02-04/04-COVID-Kracalic-508.pdf
> No it doesn't. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/8/2219 Vaccines do though, look at the studies in OP.
Yes it does.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8328065/
https://www.cureus.com/articles/83633-covid-19-infection-and-incidence-of-myocarditis-a-multi-site-population-based-propensity-score-matched-analysis
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737
On and on it goes. You are citing one anomaly, and an anomaly explained by the study itself.
>The difference in the population characteristics may explain the dissimilarity between the results of the studies as young males are known to exhibit a higher incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis.
You cite a study with different population characteristics. One study does not trump a veritable cornucopia of country after country, institution after institution, all affirming what you are denying. Based on a study that, itself, admits the differences in population can explain that outlier.
>That is a flawed preprint. Read the comments on it.
Behold the usual epistemic double standard. You find a snowflake outlier to deny every other study in EXISTENCE on, and you hinge further denial on calling the preprint flawed. Well, turnabout is fair play, only unlike your rejection of this clinical trial publication I actually provided numerous example citations for mine.
>So your theory is that false negative asymptomatic vaccinated young men are having heart damage from the flu? How would you differentiate between these imaginary incidents and genuine vaccine induced myocarditis? Is there any measure of vaccine induced myocarditis that you have seen that controls for your theory?
Recall this: "And none of the ecological studies you morons cite ever accounts for false negatives. Gee I wonder why that is?"
Oh look, you're deflecting by shifting the burden of proof.
I think we're done here. I'll just wait until the study is fully published.
>Yes it does.
>https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8328065/
>https://www.cureus.com/articles/83633-covid-19-infection-and-incidence-of-myocarditis-a-multi-site-population-based-propensity-score-matched-analysis
>https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737
Those were probably caused by the vaccines they took. That's your logic by the way.
>The difference in the population characteristics may explain the dissimilarity between the results of the studies as young males are known to exhibit a higher incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis.
Only when vaccinated. You really should stop citing such poorly written studies! As you can see old males are far more likely to be injured by infection induced myocarditis than young males. But young males are far more likely to be vaccine injured.
>Recall this: "And none of the ecological studies you morons cite ever accounts for false negatives. Gee I wonder why that is?"
And you haven't found one that accounts for the mythical often spoke of but never seen vaccinated asymptomatic false negative myocarditis either. Nor have you clarified how your moronic theory accounts for the differences between Pfizer and Moderna's rates, and for the difference in age brackets associated with infection and vaccine induced myocarditis. Why is that?
>Nor have you clarified how your moronic theory accounts for the differences between Pfizer and Moderna's rates
I'll leave by pointing out this is, well, as always another lie. Because all you have is lying.
>Because it's far more effective
Obviously, a more effective vaccine would cause more false negatives if the study linked is true. Which I believe it to be. As I said, we'll have to wait until it's published to satisfy your hypocritical epistemology.
Until then, I am satisfied everyone knows how blatantly dishonest you are when you're so easy to be caught out in an obvious lie. If you want comparative efficacy of vaccines, plenty of studies exist on those, and moderna tends to come out massively on top. But you didn't ask for that. You lied - again.
That flawed preprint does not compare vaccine effectiveness. It compares moderna's failure to provide normal antibodies that trigger a positive test with unvaccinated infected people.
>Which I believe
And that's nice, because blind belief is all you've got. You can't explain why Pfizer and Moderna differ so greatly between all four events. If the difference were explained by Moderna being more effective, the four events though different numbers should change proportionately and the second event should not be so outlandish. Nor should the rate exceed the rate of infection induced myocarditis. Of course this isn't the case, and you can't explain it. You can't explain why vaccine induced myocarditis hits young men while covid hits old men. You will not produce a study that supports your narrative while also meeting your pie in the sky demand to adjust for an irrelevant and unknown false positive rate. You have nothing but a flawed unfalsifiable theory that you will cling to for eternity because it protects your ego and 'belief'.
False negative*
>That flawed preprint does not compare vaccine effectiveness. It compares moderna's failure to provide normal antibodies that trigger a positive test with unvaccinated infected people.
This is quite possibly the most moronic thing I've read on IQfy. And that's saying something.
Your spurious preprint doesn't compare the false positive rate of Pfizer and Moderna. It is irrelevant to the question of why Moderna has sees higher rates of myocarditis compared to Pfizer.
Moderna produces far more spike proteins per dose than Pfizer. You can look up the numbers, but it requires some digging. I calculated it a while ago.
Post the fricking calculations and analysis then Einstein. You have written a fricking thesis paper in this thread about how missed diagnosis can account for the results in all of these papers, and that they are all funding shills faking science. Yet you haven't posted anything scientific to support your claims. A little hypocritical, is it not?
He's just trolling to bump the thread anon.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.04.18.22271936v1
There are plenty, here's one that one of you fricktards posted thinking it showed the opposite.
The hypocrisy is entirely on you dipfricks unable to do basic math or research. I've demonstrated that thoroughly, and literally keep citing one of your own studies to rub your faces in it. Also, this has been posted, but you can't read. Same as the rest of you.
"I can't do a risk ratio analysis therefore that proves people calling me out on my ignorance are hypocrites!!" - This is why you people are so fricking stupid. Pure narcissism, deflection, and lying.
Just admit you morons can't do basic math already. Everyone knows it.
Oh and since you obviously didn't read the thread or anything, let me put it in terms your tiny peabrain can comprehend.
FROM or WITH the vaccine? Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
>still coping
take your meds and post your calculations, moran
From or with? It's a simple question. Lots of copium used to deflect from it suddenly when you guys had zero issue crying about the conflation before.
Suddenly people point out YOU are doing the conflating and it's "a cope" to point that out. Hilarity.
>The chance of a pretty much untested technology causing any side effects is less likely than thousands of research papers, with follow up studies, being categorically incorrect.
You are a stupid frick
SAFE AND EFFECTIVE!
How many times does big pharma and their lapdog uni-party fake governments have to tell you this before you understand the Science!
thank you for bringing it to my attention that covid causes myocarditis
>thank you for bringing it to my attention that covid causes myocarditis
>i will now inject myself with an extinct spike protein 4 times in two years exposing myself to far more of it than I otherwise would have while ruining my immunes systems ability to have an adaptable response to future variants
Galaxy brain, if the correlation is due to missed covid instead of the vaccine your whole ad hoc story crumbles.
That is why you are too scared, and too willfully stupid, to even try to learn how to find out. You'd rather believe a lie because it's too embarrassing to admit you're that easy to mislead. On an anonymous fricking imageboard you're too fricking cowardly to even try to find out. You'd rather be special and pretend you know things you don't.
is there a limit to how much spike protein you will inject into yourself?
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/sars-cov2-spike-protein-is-a-toxin?s=r
>no u
>no u
Still waiting for you to check the odds of missed infection. Any minute now. Surely you, so clever as to know all this totally secret knowledge, you know how to do a simple probability. Surely.
Nobody said any of it was secret, homosexual. You're not owed the burning of your strawman garbage by anyone other than yourself.
>this is wrong because of the odds of missed infection but you have to prove my argument
>I'm too scared to do a single google search so spoon feed me waaahhh
You people are cowards and useful idiots. You can't do basic maths, and you can't do basic research. Yet you think you're special, and preserve that narcissism by devoting your time to idiotic conspiracy theories instead of improving yourselves. Because that'd take real work.
Waiting for ONE of you to check. One of you. Bet none of you will, because you'd have to admit you were wrong.
thanks for countering disinformation anon, should I actually be worried about the number of shots I take though? Have to get my booster for work
Consult your doctor not some frick on the internet.
like there is a difference
still no argument.
no, more like
>this study is wrong because of missed infection - no, I don't have any data that would bear out my supposition
if you tell me how many shots of spike protein you've had I'll do the calculation
your hypothesis doesn't add up, the odds do not suggest any such thing moron. Your argument is stupid and also doesn't even work.
Cut your throat homosexual, you're spewing argument for hostility and spreading misinformation by innuendo. You haven't presented anything to be fricking smug about to begin with and your confidence under your own argument is garbage tier at best.
fricking hell mate, how many times have you gone "no u!!" in this thread?
Suddenly all the truthers posting all those PDF's can't figure out how to research something. Convenient when it's always what annihilates your bullshit. Very convenient.
careful bro they'll start busting out the podcasts and youtubes from the same 2 grifters
is consensus cracking really necessary on this basketweaving forum
Right? The dumbest people are always the ones absolutely certain they're too clever to be tricked. That's why it's effortless to publish a moronic correlation grift and get millions of eyes on it with no value to anyone whatever. With such a blatantly fricking obvious caveat.
All to invent moronic conspiracy theories when self-serving "you idiots parrot it and it helps my career" explains the whole thing. "All because big meanie people in the news called me a stupid poo poo head so I felt bad waaah."
That's really all this is. Toddlers refusing to grow up and reacting perpetually to a media cycle and buying whoever sells them any swamp land to counter their hurt fricking fee fees. These morons deserve to be scammed.
they retweet the gospel from their authority figures - unlike all those damned NPCs
>make claim
>don't provide any evidence
>"heh you have to find the evidence or else it's checkmate"
you're so disingenuous it's funny
It's actually toxic if you've met them off IQfy.
https://zenodo.org/record/6564414
D'awww look who tried to google his way out of a simple challenge.
Guess what numbnuts, VAERS is a correlation not causation database. Of course they're not co-associated IF THEY DID NOT FRICKING TEST FOR IT. It's almost like that is what the definition of "missed covid infection" fricking means.
You people are so fricking stupid it's unreal. "Let me quote the very thing proving what the man says" thanks dipshit.
I told you I'd try to prove your argument for you because you clearly can't if you told me how many shots of spike protein youve taken
what source did you use for the missed asymptomatic infection
You can look up false negative and false positive rates, and there's also research discussing this very issue with ecological studies. For the group proclaiming to "do their research" somehow none of you know this, and that's my whole point.
I know what the math checks out to be, and there are studies doing the same thing you can easily find yourself. Instead of doing so, galaxy brains like this anon
try to avoid that by pulling up more correlations that obviously have the same problem.
If you don't see the problem with this, my giving you research discussing it wouldn't help you.
mass testing billions of people regardless of symptoms or not with pcr cycle thresholds in excess of 25 massively overstates cases
yep.
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19/navigating-false-negatives-covid-rapid-tests
Seriously people stop huffing your own farts. Have any of you even looked up the false negative rate? It's huge. The false positive rate is minuscule.
no one was using rapid antigen tests when the data for the studies in this thread was collected.
you overplayed covid with alarming case numbers with high cycle threshold pcr tests an non pharmaceutical interventions this induced enough fear for people to inject themselves with the spike protein that will cause ADE. Now that the real mortality is beginning you end pcr tests, npis and replace them with rapid antigens which have a false negative rate to downplay the real mortality
Cool story bro.
Has frick all to do with anything. Say, you wanna go find out why all the "positive association" correlations you idiots post align perfectly with the false negative rates on age groups?
Anyone but me find it a funny coinkidink that children have the highest false negative rate and mysteriously the highest rate of "vaccine associated" myocarditis? Almost like it's, you know, because they got covid after vaccination?
it's dose dependent you brainlet
NOPE! It's INCONSISTENT.
Check OP's post, check yours, check each large ecological study from the UK, US, etc. What you find is the dose-response relationship is inconsistent, and associates more with false negative than dose-response. You're engaged in cherrypicking.
It is in your own image, and I'm hardly surprised you people can't read. The authors have to make an excuse for why the response doesn't correspond to a 3rd dose, but they don't actually do the margin of error calculation for it.
Let me put that in dumbass terms for you: The authors wrote an excuse and avoided actually running the numbers. Because they know that excuse does not salvage their bullshit.
>and associates more with false negative
You don't know that you fricking idiot you don't know how many false negatives there are
I see what you're doing, you're trying to mislead the anti vaxxers for your big pharma masters by presenting them the same level of brain dead pseudo statistical analysis most of them try to do "actually this % isnt 0 and this % isnt zero so clearly the one causes the other"
Myocarditis doesn't come from asymptomatic infection. You need to let go of this cope. It comes from very serious infections, or more commonly, vaccination.
https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/covid-19-associated-with-asymptomatic-myocarditis-in-college-athletes
Man it must suck to be unable to google things before your foot slams into your mouth.
doesn't control for vaccination status. you must be one of the shills that did paxlovid
Oh how fascinating. You receive information you don't like, and suddenly you're concerned about confounds!
https://googlethatforyou.com?q=asymptomatic%20covid%20myocarditis
Here you go. If you don't like that one go have fun. There are plenty of studies on fully unvaccinated populations too.
you can post the google link but not a study link. Making me make your argument for you is not a good argument shill
There are literally thousands. If you actually care, there you go. If not, not surprised.
Not my fault you can't click links. If it isn't on first page result type "unvaccinated" in quotes to specify.
For people who "do their research" you're all surprisingly terrified of doing your research. Unless it already agrees with you. How interesting.
do you think covid causes myocarditis by binding to ace2 receptors triggering an immune attack?
They aren't asymptomatic unvaccinated cases of myocarditis, and certainly such events (even undocumented, undiagnosed) do not exist in the numbers required to meet the threshold required to debunk OP.
You also need to explain the difference in number of cases between vaccine events and the difference between vaccine brands (the latter of which also happens to correlate with dosage in the case of moderna being far greater than pfizer).
/thread
Nobody is saying asymptomatic infection isn't a thing.
image is titled poorly but it showing asymptomatic isn't prevalent enough
Ah I see.
This is so stupid I can't even fathom how you came up with it. What the frick do you think you're "proving" with that? The point plainly written about myocarditis was a statement by a moron - apparently a genius compared to you - that asymptomatic infection "doesn't happen".
That has nothing at all to do with the simple fact false negative rates far exceed supposed "vaccine myocarditis". Hence your desperation to think of gloriously moronic lies like this, and pretend you've "pwned" someone on something never argued.
So there's your answer. You fricking morons can't read. Same answer as always.
>false negative rates far exceed supposed "vaccine myocarditis"
you've been in this thread for at least 7 hours maybe you could just post some actual evidence to show your point
Literally every single study estimating false negative rate for this disease. All of them. You will not find a single one that is anywhere close to just how stupidly rare myocarditis is in these ecological studies.
All of them, you fricking moron. Google and pick one. The rate on an ecological scale will always be multiples higher by far. Literally any and all of them.
You people spent 7 hours not even looking up one. My point is proven.
like this one you posted before?
As explained before, you dumb fricks can't read.
you can't answer this shill
you can't produce a single shred of evidence showing asymptomatic unvaccinated myocarditis cases exist in numbers to negate the vaccine induced myocarditis studies and then you think because I am also unable to produce that evidence (because it does not exist) that proves your point
worst shilling ever
So you're so terrified of a very simple challenge you'd rather lie about what was written instead? Okay. Thanks for conceding.
>you have to provide the evidence to my argument and if you don't my argument is true without evidence
brah them spike proteins are crossing your blood brain barrier
Yep, this vaxcattle has lost the plot.
your dick must be pretty sore from all the intellectual raping you've done in this thread
lmaoing at your denial, he savaged every single one of you
You're not fooling anyone buddy
you seem to take it very personnally
is your ego hurt ?
I just stumbled into the thread and saw your gaping bleeding buttholes, thought I'd give kudos to the dude
I don't plan on sticking around, but feel free to give me (you)s anyway, I might give you some love and attention later this day if I'm feeling bored 🙂
>same 17 posters
Sad!
I am happy to have entertained. Though I think anyone can show just how transparent, desperate, weak, these people are. It is like standing with your arms spread in a boxing ring and they're terrified to throw a punch. All a single one of them had to do was look at the numbers - and even given direct search terms were too terrified to do so.
Even as trolls, that's just pathetic. Have fun, if you return.
I actually get psyoped by how bad your shilling is I can't think of why someone would think it's worthwhile. Are you false flagging? is it deep satire? is there actually a group of people browsing this thread that can be convinced by posting google search links as evidence large enough that it's worth the effort
maybe it's actually the unvaxed will die of aids from the gp120 inserts or a mareks disease situation
False negatives do not imply myocarditis.
You have failed to provide a singe study showing myocarditis post infection in unvaccinated asymptomatic young men.
You have failed to explain why the first and second vaccine events have such different rates of myocarditis. You have failed to explain why pfizer and moderna have such drastically different rates of myocarditis.
>You have failed to provide a singe study showing myocarditis post infection in unvaccinated asymptomatic young men.
https://googlethatforyou.com?q=asymptomatic%20covid%20myocarditis
Your willful ignorance is not someone else's failure. That's your narcissism talking.
none of those studies are asymptomatic unvaccinated cases of myocarditis
>filename is "no asymptomatic infection"
>abstract literally says it found 300 asymptomatic infections
They tested ten million people and found 300 PCR positives. That's 3/100.000.
So much for muh PCR false positives, even if all of these were wrong.
The paper tells us very little about asymptomatic transmission because that population is essentially COVID free.
kek at the shills refusing to answer this
No there aren't. Also how do you explain the massive jump in cumulative harm between each vaccine event? And why are these jumps so different between the different vaccine brands?
That was when they caught it after they had been vaccinated. It's within the margin of error.
wow
vaxxtards absolutely btfo
pathetic
where does it say it controlled for covid infection? whoops
That is not the issue there. The issue is the RATE of these incidents is WELL WITHIN the false negative rate for testing. Plus, rapid onset or rapidly cleared infections would still produce delayed problems.
Guess which group delays going to hospital the most? Young men. Guess which group would therefore have the lowest test accuracy rate? Young men. The cheapest tests and most widely used have the narrowest window of accurate testing, and all the datasets finding these inconsistent correlations (between nations it is not consistent - another red flag) rely on these mass inaccurate results with high false negative rates.
So the problem here is the same problem with the ecological studies. Reporting "no covid association" does not mean "did not have covid". It means "test was negative". Depending on which test, and the testing window, false negative rate can approach 100%. THAT is the issue with posting more correlation in response to "this is an artifact of false negatives".
So you can't prove it was covid induced? What a shame. Unfortunately we have to work with the data we have anon, we can't just make up shit just because we are braindead vaxxtards.
Go easy on the vaxcattle, they're fragile.
does the covid vax change your brain?
it does everything and nothing depending on whatever seethers are talking about at the time
pretty sure the pfizer vaccine did 9/11
so it's like the goobermint then?
I can't believe people trusted the science, kek.
>I can't believe people trusted the science, kek.
But muh government and muh TV said it was "safe and effective"!
CHUDCENTISTS?
soiencebros... we got too wienerless
>events after the first dose of mRNA-1273 and 18.39
This is smoking tier of RR, there is something there for sure
labratbros?
sciencists
So you're telling me to take the Pfilzer vaccine like every government already recommended?
>b-b-b-but myocarditis is caused by the s-scary v-v-v-v-irus too!
Uhhh, no, chud.
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/8/2219
If you want myocarditis, yes.
>mdpi
chudscilets?
>Multiple countries drop moderna after it becomes obvious it is causal due to the uptick in excess myocarditis in one demographic that covid doesn't go after
>Multiple studies from different nations showing the same fricking thing
>Giga schizo tries to thread the cope needle in his mental gymnastics class
>Claims it is some magical undetected asymptomatic covid damaging the hearts of young men
>For some reason this occurs at a higher rate than that of symptomatic covid cases
>Only in young men, conspicuously contrasting to the demographics of infection induced myocarditis
>Tries to palm off a study comparing moderna's propensity for false positives with placebo groups as reason for Pfizer's rates differing so greatly from Moderna's
Why can't morons into stratification?
grug notice blue line bigger than red line. grug wonder how can small red line be cause for big blue line. grug thinks pokey witchdoctor evil.
>My unhealthy fascination watching the morons contradict themselves while trying to argue pokey witchdoctor evil
You can't explain why the rate of myocarditis in Moderna recipients exceeds that of infected people.
You can't explain why Moderna and Pfizer differ so much in their proportional increase between injection 1 and 2.
You can't explain why vaccinated cases of myocarditis occur nearly exclusively in young people, while the infected cases of the same occur mostly in older people.
Also you cannot explain how the well established tiny rate of infection induced myocarditis could in any way create the confounding data required to dirty the Moderna rate.
Even if your hypothetical asymptomatic false negative ghost cases existed and made up 100% of the normal rate of infection induced myocarditis, there would simply not be enough events to reach the huge rate of myocarditis seen after the second Moderna vaccine.
>huge
Hey broski wanna go ahead and give the actual rate per capita? I like to see idiots cite numbers.
>You can't explain why the rate of myocarditis in Moderna recipients exceeds that of infected people.
Sure I can. You're a liar, and in spite of repeated corrections and multiple studies cited you continue to lie. Easy. Covid causes huge spikes in myocarditis rates. Nothing more to say than "you're an obvious troll", but some moron might believe you.
I know you've been baiting me for nigh on 50 posts but I don't mind.
Rate are in OP.
Neat, so, mind telling us what the false negative rate per capita matching your study is for that age demographic?
No studies cite this because it is irrelevant. The number of infection induced cases is so low that even if they were ALL asymptomatic cases it couldn't possibly create the spike of moderna incidents.
>No studies cite this because it is irrelevant. The number of infection induced cases is so low that even if they were ALL asymptomatic cases it couldn't possibly create the spike of moderna incidents.
Really? So you totally checked those numbers and have them to show, right?
I'm waiting.
how does that compare to the rate of myocarditis if the person actually gets covid?
and is myocarditis (mild inflammation) actually bad? it sounds like normal immune system response to an infection
After infection the rates were 1.37 per 100k for young men (and 3.26 per 100k for all men overall, meaning this type of myocarditis disproportionately occurred in men who were not in the young age bracket) .
After the second Moderna vaccine the rates were 18.39 per 100k for young men (and 4.97 among all males, meaning this type of myocarditis disproportionately occurred in men who were young).
This difference in victim age brackets really is stark. The same is also true of Pfizer but to a lesser degree.
>Is myocarditis good for you
Don't think so bro. Most people probably won't have permanent heart damage, some will. The point is more that they absolutely rolled the dice with this and that we should not trust science or scientists with our health (outside of dire emergencies) when they are willing to take such chances.
>3.26 per 100k overall
CDC says it's 150 per 100k overall.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm
>by age, risk ratios ranged from approximately 7.0 for patients aged 16–39 years to >30.0 for patients aged <16 years or ≥75 years
Since the base rate is ~9, patients 16-39 years old with covid get myocarditis about 63 per 100,000.
That's way higher than even your unreliable numbers.
>Is myocarditis good for you
I didn't say it was good for you. I asked if it's bad. Severe myocarditis seems to be extremely rare.
Oh he knows. There's a reason I call him "Liar".
The barrier to entry to participate in that data was to go to fricking hospital
>First, the risk estimates from this study reflect the risk for myocarditis among persons who received a diagnosis of COVID-19 during an outpatient or inpatient health care encounter and do not reflect the risk among all persons who had COVID-19.
I don't think you can really claim that the two studies in OP are unreliable. Sure, handwave the preprint if you want, but the nordic study is both massive, methodologically near flawless, peer reviewed, and subject to scrutiny from multiple nations health nerds.
Yes severe myocarditis is pretty rare.
Yes, the rate of infection induced myocarditis among unvaccinated populations is not large enough to create the Moderna number. See OP for numbers. This is unavoidable. The differing target age groups is also unavoidable.
>No studies cite this because it is irrelevant. The number of infection induced cases is so low that even if they were ALL asymptomatic cases it couldn't possibly create the spike of moderna incidents.
So you ran those numbers from multiple national sample studies, NOT your SOLE cherrypicked lowball study, right? So you totally know what the various error rates would be, right?
I'm waiting for your numbers sir. You claim to know, so you can show me how you know, right?
It's self evident. It isn't a sole cherrypicked lowball study. There are datasets from the Nords and the UK in OP that show the same pattern. Massive rates of vaccine induced myocarditis that eclipses the rates found within the unvaccinated populations. Rates that are the inverse of one another in each age group.
Okay so lying again. No. I'm talking the error rate you'd expect from false negatives on myocarditis from infection.
You know, from those 5 or so studies I gave you. Where you totally ran those numbers, which is why you're discounting it without showing me your numbers.
What would the error margin be given EVERY OTHER study like those I sent you? It's "self evident" after all you can give me a margin of error calculation right? You aren't totally numerically illiterate, right?
Yup, I've ran the numbers. I won't do your homework for you or spoonfeed your moronic ass, but after removing the flawed studies you spammed and calculating the real rate of mythological false negative asymptomatic cases among vaccinated young men, I can confirm it does not significantly alter the data in any meaningful way. Nor does it explain the disproportionate differences between the four vaccine events in question. Nor does it explain the inverse outcomes for young and old when comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated respectively. In short, your theory sucks! It sucks so much that the ons and Nords didn't even bother adjusting for it! It's that bad!
My sides. I'm dying.
So, YOU say you know better. I say prove it. Now you say "Oh I totally do but I don't wanna".
Sure skipper. We alllll believe ya.
Look if you're too lazy and stupid to do your own math I guess we'll have to leave it at that. I've got to go and have sex with my harem of supermodel girlfriends in my Porsche pickup truck. Remember kids, don't get vaccinated, don't trust the government, and especially don't trust scientists!
>Yup, I've ran the numbers.
Oh and as an added bonus to why this is so funny to me - I never gave you general large sample assessments of asymptomatic covid myocarditis. I gave you, primarily, myocarditis samples because you cherrypicked the lowest one on Earth you could find. One so lowballed it explicitly admits the difference is probably due to the sample.
You don't know what the risk rate is for false negatives in young males, let alone any of the other relevant numbers to even run in the first place. If you did run myocarditis diagnosis alone, without qualification, that'd STILL be wrong because you'd have to MATCH methodology for population diagnostics. There are large qualitative differences in policies between nations and sometimes hospitals, all of which would have to be accounted for to ensure you aren't capturing artifacts.
All that, and more, is why shitty convenience ecological studies don't even pretend they've tried to account for it. That requires actual work. Work only some people are doing, and none of which I've cited to you nor you've referenced or cited.
Thanks for conceding (:
>because you cherrypicked the lowest one on Earth you could find. One so lowballed it explicitly admits the difference is probably due to the sample.
Which study are you talking about? I only posted OP.
>You don't know what the risk rate is for false negatives in young males, let alone any of the other relevant numbers to even run in the first place. If you did run myocarditis diagnosis alone, without qualification, that'd STILL be wrong because you'd have to MATCH methodology for population diagnostics. There are large qualitative differences in policies between nations and sometimes hospitals, all of which would have to be accounted for to ensure you aren't capturing artifacts.
Yes, basically you are demanding an unreasonable level of proof to accept the self evident, a level of proof you no doubt do not apply to datasets you happen to agree with.
>All that, and more, is why shitty convenience ecological studies don't even pretend they've tried to account for it. That requires actual work. Work only some people are doing, and none of which I've cited to you nor you've referenced or cited.
Nobody is doing that, because your theory sucks. This whole thread has been one big cope.
>Yes, basically you are demanding an unreasonable level of proof to accept the self evident, a level of proof you no doubt do not apply to datasets you happen to agree with.
Um, no. What I briefly outlined is a cute shadow of what you have to go through to establish causation reasonably. Just to start with. Ideally you'd do a time series longitudinal study where you'd be REAL DAMN CAREFUL and probably use detection methods not subject to extremely high error rates. Especially ones that get much worse after vaccination (false negatives go through the roof).
>Nobody is doing that, because your theory sucks. This whole thread has been one big cope.
D'awww you upset I boxed you in. It's okay you're just a IQfy troll you win some you lose some. It's kinda hard trying to be stupid and clever at the same time.
I should also specify that process is hardly universal, but when you've a confound as difficult to control for as "missed covid infection" due to vaccines increasing the false negative rate, especially when young men already have a high false negative rate, shit gets difficult. It necessarily requires judgment to figure out just how far you have to go and how thorough to have credible evidence.
"Number go uppy after thingy happen" is definitely nowhere near enough in this case. Arguably in any case. Just read any of the few million papers criticizing use of ecological studies.
Number does go uppy after thing happen, there are no reasonable alternative explanations that are falsifiable, so we arrive at the reasonable conclusion that it is probably caused by the vaccines. None of your autism can change this. The damage to trust in science and public health is done. If there were a feasible alternative explanation it would be pursued at any cost. But it hasn't, because there is none.
I'm going to be a gentleman and allow you to get the last word, because clearly you are that type of compulsively spamming fool. Just know this, I am right, you are wrong, the vaccines gave young men more heart problems than the virus, no amount of autistic spluttering about the evidence required for causation will change that, and everyone knows it.
>there are no reasonable alternative explanations that are falsifiable
Uh, yes there is. Doing the actual work to rule out false negatives and confounds, rather than doing zero work at all and publishing the 600th ecological study that has yet another inconsistent correlation telling us nothing.
Oh, also, not trolling with bad science like this. Because it's really easy to b***h slap you for it.
>CDC says
kek
The best tl;dr of this entire debate is "from or with the vaccine".
You magic morons magically swap positions when it suits you.
Vaccine shills would NEVER do that!
As you can see when I corrected the lying fricktard earlier,
tons of studies show coronavirus has a 10 fold or greater increased risk in general populations for conditions like myocarditis. It's a lot worse in young people and false negatives from certain kinds of tests are also a lot more common in young people.
Worth noting if you haven't been following: The lying troll does not cite any study that ever controls for false negative rates. He just dismisses it because it hurts his case - by annihilating it entirely.
>It's a lot worse in young people
Yes, it is. Nobody has been talking about this strawman of overall rates. The age and sex stratified data is the only data that is relevant. The opposite trend of infection induced cases of the same which occur mostly in older people. Your meme theory cannot account for this. Your meme theory also cannot account for the rates of myocarditis post Moderna so exceeding the rates of infection induced myocarditis among young men. It simply is not mathematically possible for the latter to be confounding the former to such a degree.
No studies account for your delusions about false negative asymptomatic cases that happen to have myocarditis.
Uhhh no as I repeatedly pointed out myocarditis rates in studies that AREN'T your sole cherrypicked one are quite high in young people.
Also, again, false negatives are highest in young people.
You just keep lying, saying it "can't account for" exactly what it accounts for.
vgh the white race is being genocided again...
red meat drastically increases the chance to contract heart disease and cancer
>I don't know anything about nutrition
kek
As long as red meat is not overcooked, it is the healthiest base for a diet.
Sugar/carbs, and overcooking meat is what destroy's a person's health, along with all the chemicals put in packaged foods.
Wow, good job, didn't know there were scientist-anons reading pre-prints on this board.
Damn vaxvictims got btfo itt.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh???
All of this conjecture is pointless given the obvious fraud prevalent during the clinical trial, patients being arbitrarily labelled as having left for personal reasons, even though they had adverse reactions. Missing PCR tests, entire trial sites being invented over night, duplicate lab numbers across people.
Don't even need to debate anything at a higher level given the fraud perpetrated at the most basic level.
Trust us guys the trials might've been dodgy, but all the followup stuff is legit!!!!1111oneoneone
>Study has dropout rates like literally all of them
>"Fraud!!!"
>How to let everyone know you know frick all about anything
>Paid lackey tries in vain to protect the ruined reputation of big pharma
Sad!
>Sad!
I mean yeah ya kinda are
woah...
What the frick was even the point of the covid hysteria?
>What the frick was even the point of the covid hysteria?
Well the rich 1% leftists got 1.2 Trillion dollars richer in 2020-2021, while the middle and lower class got 1.2 Trillion dollars poorer.
Also the rich 1% control the politicians, ergo the "governments" as well, and the "governments" got more power over the peasants 99% without causing a revolt.
based cattlemasters.
kek
I don't feel so good...
That's just the myocarditis kicking in.
All the vaxxbrains must feel pretty stupid now that covid is over.
It meant, that you should of stayed on Fortnite.
Bros....can base rate fallacy explain this? How are the percentage of boosted hospitalized higher than the percentage of citizens actually boosted?
aaaaaaaaaait's over.
your meme has been debunked. post stats and calculation.
>your meme has been debunked. post stats and calculation.
>Meme
I mean I guess you people being mathematically illiterate is kind of a meme?
What part of "None of your studies account for error rates" did you morons not understand? Simple question, bub, "From or with"? You guys didn't have issues asking that with covid stats, now you do with vaccine stats?
Hmm, not an argument. Why can't vaccine lovers make a coherent argument? We can all see your theory doesn't stack up.
How can there be the same number of deaths in 0 doses as double doses? Considering theres like 4x as many people double dosed.
Because literally only 2 fricking people unde 60 died. Boosters aren't going to save 80 year olds at this point so we're basically back to old school herd immunity after all the bullshit
What if people who got vaccines were more likely to stay indoors and listen to the gubberment which increased risk of heart attack?
Possible. Sunlight is good.