This just is not true in the slightest. Link a medical research study that shows myocarditis and/or cardiac arrest is more likely caused by the vaccine itself as opposed to COVID-19.
Science and studies are backed by my perspective and not the lie you just tried to push. Comments like yours is the reason that so many people like you and Sundance believe BS pseudoscience and conspiracies. Also, no COVID-19 is not the flu, which is why that is not what is is called.
Here is link to just one of many studies that are on my side.
Source: American Heart Association
https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-poses-higher-risk-for-myocarditis-than-vaccines#:~:text=COVID%2D19%20infection%20poses%20higher%20risk%20for%20myocarditis%20than%20vaccines,-By%20American%20Heart&text=The%20overall%20risk%20of%20myocarditis,new%20study%20in%20England%20shows.
Now show yours. I'll wait. Guarantee you cannot find a single peer reviewed, medical research study that successfully supports the narrative you are failing to advance. 
It is more of an age and health thing with younger folks is what I am pointing out.
Older folks obviously have more of an issue with anything, especially if they are ill. The Flu automatically is worse on them.
This is where the statistics come into it.
But more than likely it was neither. 
This is not a peer reviewed medical research study or based on research at all. This is like a general observation. This is an attempt to make a correlation and proves nothing about causation.
Secondly, again how do you know that the spike was not caused by effects of members of the military catching covid-19 before the vax rollout and the effects being realized months after? Many people experience effects of viruses and diseases many months or even years after catching them. This is a vague report and not based on any medical research or verified data.
How, many of these reported cases actually caught covid-19 before getting vaccinated? Without this information, this is just biased, meaningless information really that shows and proves absolutely nothing without knowing the confirmed cases of covid-19 in these troops. What you linked does not discuss this at all, which shows me it is not very reliable. The source you linked is also highly questionable.
No sir. What I am pointing out is these types of things, Flus and viruses, etc. are generally worse on older folks. So, statistically speaking, they will not affect the young as much.
Yes, you can find all sorts of papers online detailing this even with this one. Older folks did not do as well, period.
Therefore, with younger folks, in this instance you would look at what new factor was introduced. Then you would evaluate these numbers after that. The new factor was the shot that was introduced.
Then you can see the spike and the issues with the young. Keep in mind this is while the virus is mutating and getting weaker, etc.
In other words, you did not see this beforehand at the rate you did afterwards with the young.
Yes, you can read the papers for yourself if you like. Some are quite esoteric and detailed though.
Hope that clears up what I was saying.
You are completely missing the point, so this is obviously over your head.
Without knowing who had positive cases of covid-19 prior to vaccination within this military population, there is no way definitely state that vaccinations and not covid-19 causes myocarditis. This is my entire argument, which you have not discredited with what you linked. You have also still not provided me with medical, research based study that proves otherwise because one does not exist. Meanwhile, my study if you actually read it, was taken from 43 million people, including young people as young as 6 years old, which shows that what you are saying is 100% false, even regarding young people, COVID-19, and rates of myocarditis in young people with COVID versus vaccination.
So where is your research or experimental study? This just sounds like one you concocted in your head to push your narrative, yet you have not linked a single medical, research study that shows this because you cannot find one. This should be easy to find if backed by actual medical research.
I think it is over your head what I am saying. I am simply saying the odds are very small it was either. You did not see these being brought up before the shot was introduced, only afterwards at the same time the virus was weakening.
I am not even saying it cannot be both, or a combination. Perhaps the virus weakens the system and then the shot weakens it further. Sure, I can see that. But when you test for antibodies and isolate for just the shot, etc. that is my point.
I have looked over countless papers and studies and they seem to show nothing of the sort you are implying. But I will gladly go back and check again when I get home.
Sure, when I get home later I can post some studies or have someone forward me some to send you. But they should be easy enough to find online if you are interested.
Of course, if you insist on absolving the shot by any method, like saying they may have had the virus before, or after -- sure, you can always do that.
But the numbers seem to reflect the rise after the shot is introduced. You can always offer a lagging affect. But there does not seem to be the numbers in those that did not get the shot but got the virus, etc., etc.
My entire point is that most likely he did not get this from either one but the odds are if it is one it would be the shot. Even if it is .01% to .1% etc.
Once I get back from jogging and eating, I will look back at it. 
Yessir -- they should be easy to find. Just type it in and it should lead you to some of them. If you still cannot find any -- let me know later.
Case closed. This means you cannot find one otherwise you would link it. 
Pretty much invalidated your own argument and proved you are full of $hit.
This just is not supported by any peer-reviewed, medical research study or experiment. Not a single one in the medical community to date shows a higher rate of myocarditis in the vaccinated without COVID-19 versus those with just positive COVID-19 contraction.
Why would they? Any doctor that had a different opinion than faucci . Has a job in a different field now.
The narrative that a as pushed " for the publics safery" went against everything that Americans thought of as freedom.
Freedom to open a business to the public...
No not without a mask and social distance but not food or bar just necessary for survival gas stations grocery store and banks....
They were necessary workers....
Can't fly on a plane without a mask, couldn't go anywhere without the mask
The economy collapsed because no.one was going to work.... school shut down to remote learning. The response to the virus was unnecessary and steps should be taken to remove this assumed authority the government weilds in some executive action privilege.
Where have you been? There are masses or right-leaning, extremist, doctors speaking out against the vaccine over the last 2-3 years. You ever watch or listen to Joe Rogan? He has them on all of the time.
Interestingly enough, not a single one of these doctors or any group of these doctors has been able to put together a peer-reviewed, medical study backed by actual data or the experimental method that shows any of the vaccines caused myocarditis at a higher rate than the actual COVID-19 virus. It should be easy to do since so many people seem to be able to easily make the connection and claim on their own right? Why wouldn't a pool of these contrarian doctors put a study together that proves it? It would end the debate right?
@DeezyAZ81
It does not look as if you looked yet. Here a couple that will give you the reason some scientists have come to this conclusion:
https://news.yale.edu/2023/05/05/yale-study-reveals-insights-post-vaccine-heart-inflammation-cases
When new COVID-19 vaccines were first administered two years ago, public health officials found an increase in cases of myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle, particularly among young males who had been vaccinated with mRNA vaccines. It was unclear, however, what exactly was causing this reaction.
In a new study, Yale scientists have identified the immune signature of these heart inflammation cases.
These findings, published May 5 in the journal Science Immunology, rule out some of the theorized causes of the heart inflammation and suggest potential ways to further reduce the incidence of a still rare side effect of vaccination, the authors say.
Myocarditis is a generally mild inflammation of heart tissue which can cause scarring but is usually resolved within days. The increased incidence of myocarditis during vaccination was seen primarily in males in their teens or early 20s, who had been vaccinated with mRNA vaccines, which are designed to elicit immune responses specifically to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), among males aged 12 to 17, about 22 to 36 per 100,000 experienced myocarditis within 21 days after receiving a second vaccine dose. The incidence of myocarditis was 50.1 to 64.9 cases per 100,000 after infection with the COVID-19 virus among males in this age group.
For the new study, the Yale research team conducted a detailed analysis of immune system responses in those rare cases of myocarditis among vaccinated individuals. The team was led by Carrie Lucas, associate professor of immunobiology, Akiko Iwasaki, Sterling Professor of Immunobiology, and Inci Yildirim, associate professor of pediatrics and epidemiology.
They found that the heart inflammation was not caused by antibodies created by the vaccine, but rather by a more generalized response involving immune cells and inflammation.
“The immune systems of these individuals get a little too revved up and over-produce cytokine and cellular responses,” Lucas said.
Earlier research had suggested that increasing the time between vaccination shots from four to eight weeks may reduce risk of developing myocarditis.
Lucas noted that, according to CDC findings, the risk of severe forms of myocarditis is greater in individuals who contract the COVID-19 virus than in those who receive vaccines. She emphasized that vaccination offers the best protection from COVID-19-related disease.
“I hope this new knowledge will enable further optimizing mRNA vaccines, which, in addition to offering clear health benefits during the pandemic, have a tremendous potential to save lives across numerous future applications,” said Anis Barmada, an M.D./Ph.D. student at Yale School of Medicine, who is a co-first author of the paper with Jon Klein, also a Yale M.D./Ph.D. student.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.adh3455
To first assess whether patients with myopericarditis generate overexuberant humoral responses to vaccination, we performed enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) for SARS-CoV-2–specific S, S1 subunit, and receptor binding domain (RBD) antibodies. Compared with healthy vaccinated controls (VCs, n = 16), including those closer in age to patients where there is an increased risk for vaccine-associated myopericarditis [younger VCs (YVC), n = 6], patients with myopericarditis (n = 9) had no evidence of enhanced anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (fig. S2, A to C). Given the rather moderately reduced levels of SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies observed in the patients, we next investigated whether the development of myopericarditis was associated with blunted generation of neutralizing antibody responses in these patients. We performed plaque reduction neutralization tests (PRNT50) and found a reduction in the estimated 50% serum inhibitory concentration (IC50) between patients and healthy VCs with no prior history of SARS-CoV-2 exposure (Fig. 2A), possibly owing to the differences in sample collection time relative to vaccination (3 to 11 days for patients versus 7 days for controls). These results suggest that patients with myopericarditis do not display enhanced SARS-CoV-2–specific and neutralizing antibody responses at the time of acute disease presentation but rather show comparable or potentially blunted responses compared to healthy VCs.
In this study, we performed multimodal analyses in a cohort of patients who developed myocarditis and/or pericarditis after receiving an mRNA vaccine to SARS-CoV-2, comprising the first system-level analysis of the immune landscape in such patients.
The question of why such adverse events develop more frequently after the second dose is intriguing. Recent system vaccinology approaches revealed that the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine stimulated only modest innate immune responses after the first dose. These responses were substantially enhanced after secondary immunization (59).
Our study has some limitations. Although our cohort of LNP-mRNA vaccine-associated myopericarditis is one of the largest studied to date, and our hypothesis is consistent with published reports from other patients, the number of participants remains limited to make broad conclusions.
In conclusion, our findings likely rule out some previously proposed mechanisms of mRNA vaccine–associated myopericarditis and implicate aberrant cytokine-driven lymphocyte activation and cytotoxicity as well as inflammatory and profibrotic myeloid cell responses in the immunopathology occurring in susceptible patients after mRNA vaccination.
There are several others.
You will note they explain their limitations due to sample size and methodologies.
They are also careful to say that the shots are the best protection against the virus.
They point out that the virus itself can also cause severe myocarditis, etc.
But what they were trying to parse out specifically is whether or not the shot itself increased the cases of myocarditis. It appears that it does.
When you couple this with the studies that also show that the young and healthy handled the virus easier, very rarely with side effects, this is what leads very studied folks to this extrapolation.
This is why these studies were done.
My whole point is that you do not know IF the guy got the shot, or got the second shot. That is why I say it is very likely neither caused it. However, because of his age and health IF he did get the shot -- this is the sort of thing folks will point to.
I am not saying one way or the other; I am simply pointing out what the statistics say. If you are a healthy young male with no prior issues and no drugs, etc. -- then this would have to be considered.
But if you are interested there are many, many more studies and papers you can read on. Some are quite detailed, like the second one I sent. But they are easy enough to understand if you take the time.
Hopefully this helps you understand why some quite reputable folks are saying this about young males.
The studies you are showing is proving my point brother. How are you not understanding this?
The studies you link indicate that the males in the study experienced a spike in myocarditis at 2-3 times the rate when testing positive with COVID-19 virus, as opposed to those that did not test positive for COVID-19.
Thanks for proving me right. Like I said you are much more likely to experience myocarditis from COVID-19, than simply being vaccinated with any of the vaccines, MRNA or not. The studies you just showed me support my argument if you actually read what you are posting.
@DeezyAZ81
I am not sure that is the point you are trying to refute. I am pretty sure he was implying the guy, needlessly, got the shot and it may have caused this. Even had he go the virus it likely did NOT cause this and if he got the shot it did not either. However, IF he got the shot it for sure increased his risk of getting it.
This really should not be that hard to understand.
His latent point is, more or less, the young and healthy were, needlessly, encouraged to get the shot(s).
If he got the virus and the shot -- that would only seem to increase his risk.
This is of course mainly for the young males -- which the folks are concerned with in these studies.
You absolutely cannot absolve the shot and I think you feel you need to try to do that. You really do not need to.
@DeezyAZ81
Maybe an easier way to look at it that may help you is this:
If you are young and healthy, you normally will not have this side affect after an infection.
The shot did not work after the virus mutated, etc.
Young males are at a higher risk for the inflammation if they get the shot.
So, should they take that risk knowing it will increase their odds of getting the inflammation.
Especially if they already had the virus.
This is all JUST for the young and healthy males.
At least I think, and hope, that was the gist of his point.
But, if not, maybe he can come back and clear up what his point was.
“I would recommend it, and I would recommend it to
a lot of people that don’t want to get it, and a lot of
those people voted for me, frankly,” Trump said during
the Tuesday phone interview. “It is a great vaccine.
It is a safe vaccine and it is something that works.”
- trump speaking to his MAGA cult
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
