Massive drop off in live births.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: chr0naut

They have now been tested in use???

Do you think it's ok to build a plane while flying?

But planes are tested at the same time they are first flown.

Is that with millions of passengers on board that have been told it's safe?

In November, recently retired head of vaccine R&D at Pfizer, Kathrin Jansen, said “we flew the aeroplane while we were still building it. We couldn’t wait for data, we had to do so much at risk.” That’s two far-reaching admissions in two months proving that the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were pushed to market at warp speed which virtually guarantees that proper scientific protocols were abandoned.

OK, so has the rush resulted in a bad vaccine, or have the results in the real-world use shown that the Pfizer vaccine (that she actually ran a 30,000 patient study on) was in fact one of the best of any of the approved vaccines?

Did you see the peer reviewed prospective active study from Switzerland?
Is 1 in 35 incidence of myocardial injury acceptable, in your opinion?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: chr0naut

They have now been tested in use???

Do you think it's ok to build a plane while flying?

But planes are tested at the same time they are first flown.

Is that with millions of passengers on board that have been told it's safe?

In November, recently retired head of vaccine R&D at Pfizer, Kathrin Jansen, said “we flew the aeroplane while we were still building it. We couldn’t wait for data, we had to do so much at risk.” That’s two far-reaching admissions in two months proving that the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were pushed to market at warp speed which virtually guarantees that proper scientific protocols were abandoned.

OK, so has the rush resulted in a bad vaccine, or have the results in the real-world use shown that the Pfizer vaccine (that she actually ran a 30,000 patient study on) was in fact one of the best of any of the approved vaccines?

Did you see the peer reviewed prospective active study from Switzerland?
Is 1 in 35 incidence of myocardial injury acceptable, in your opinion?

Please cite the specific study.

I do know that there is and ongoing study published in 2021 which showed myocarditis was more common than previously expected, however this study was begun in 2008, prior to the existence of COVID-19 vaccines:

Cohort profile: The Swiss Transplant Cohort Study (STCS): A nationwide longitudinal cohort study of all solid organ recipients in Switzerland

That study showed that incidence of myocarditis among transplant recipients is around 3.7% (equivalent to 12.94 cases in 35), but it fluctuates considerably by year. The majority of these cases occurred prior to 2021.

I also know that there was another study of myocarditis in hospital staff after vaccination:

Sex-specific differences in myocardial injury incidence after COVID-19 mRNA-1273 Booster Vaccination

This second study used passive surveillance after booster vaccination and had no unvaccinated or pre-vaccination measurements for control.

If one were to use the first study I posted as a control in the second study, then it would appear that the Pfizer vaccine was slightly protective against myocarditis, however, I do not believe that the two studies were similar enough to draw such conclusion from.

However, it is also clear that the second study's authors implied the baseless assumumption, from the outset, that measured myocarditis levels were caused by the vaccine. Instead, the incidence of undiagnosed myocarditis in the general populace is likely to be at similar or higher levels (as per the first study).

The second study did note that none of its participants had any serious consequence, and that the condition was transitory and mild.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: chr0naut

They have now been tested in use???

Do you think it's ok to build a plane while flying?

But planes are tested at the same time they are first flown.

Is that with millions of passengers on board that have been told it's safe?

In November, recently retired head of vaccine R&D at Pfizer, Kathrin Jansen, said “we flew the aeroplane while we were still building it. We couldn’t wait for data, we had to do so much at risk.” That’s two far-reaching admissions in two months proving that the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were pushed to market at warp speed which virtually guarantees that proper scientific protocols were abandoned.

OK, so has the rush resulted in a bad vaccine, or have the results in the real-world use shown that the Pfizer vaccine (that she actually ran a 30,000 patient study on) was in fact one of the best of any of the approved vaccines?

Did you see the peer reviewed prospective active study from Switzerland?
Is 1 in 35 incidence of myocardial injury acceptable, in your opinion?

However, it is also clear that the second study's authors implied the baseless assumumption, from the outset, that measured myocarditis levels were caused by the vaccine. Instead, the incidence of undiagnosed myocarditis in the general populace is likely to be at similar or higher levels (as per the first study).

If they were not caused by the vaccine, as you appear to imply in the above quote......would the condition be deemed transitory?

The second study did note that none of its participants had any serious consequence, and that the condition was transitory and mild.

No serious consequences because they were told to take it easy.... not over exert themselves.....until the troponin levels came down...

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: chr0naut

They have now been tested in use???

Do you think it's ok to build a plane while flying?

But planes are tested at the same time they are first flown.

Is that with millions of passengers on board that have been told it's safe?

In November, recently retired head of vaccine R&D at Pfizer, Kathrin Jansen, said “we flew the aeroplane while we were still building it. We couldn’t wait for data, we had to do so much at risk.” That’s two far-reaching admissions in two months proving that the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were pushed to market at warp speed which virtually guarantees that proper scientific protocols were abandoned.

OK, so has the rush resulted in a bad vaccine, or have the results in the real-world use shown that the Pfizer vaccine (that she actually ran a 30,000 patient study on) was in fact one of the best of any of the approved vaccines?

Did you see the peer reviewed prospective active study from Switzerland?
Is 1 in 35 incidence of myocardial injury acceptable, in your opinion?

However, it is also clear that the second study's authors implied the baseless assumumption, from the outset, that measured myocarditis levels were caused by the vaccine. Instead, the incidence of undiagnosed myocarditis in the general populace is likely to be at similar or higher levels (as per the first study).

If they were not caused by the vaccine, as you appear to imply in the above quote......would the condition be deemed transitory?

Yes.

If, as is believed, the primary cause of myocarditis is a response to endemic viruses, it may be possible that viral interactions that are otherwise symptomless, cause raised troponin levels at various times as the triggering conditions are encountered and dispensed with.

The second study did note that none of its participants had any serious consequence, and that the condition was transitory and mild.

No serious consequences because they were told to take it easy.... not over exert themselves.....until the troponin levels came down...

Or, the raised troponin levels were a normal inflammatory response to something they had established immunity to, and therefore not indicative of disease levels of infection.

a reply to: chr0naut

Has myocardial injury not been officially associated with the covid vaccine?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: chr0naut

Has myocardial injury not been officially associated with the covid vaccine?

Yes, but not with high confidence levels. For the Pfizer vaccine, in VAERS last year, incidence was reportedly somewhere around 1 in 5 million. I haven't kept up with the numbers, though.

a reply to: chr0naut

I have not read the article but as I understand it 1-35 is a lot more cases than 1-5,000,000

Myocardial Injury after COVID-19 mRNA-1273 Booster Vaccination

n conclusion, using active surveillance, mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated mild transient myocardial injury was found to be much more common than previously thought. It occurred in one out of 35 persons, was mild and transient, and more frequent in women versus men. Neither anti-IL-1RA, nor pre-existing vaccine/infection-induced immunity or systemic inflammation

originally posted by: datguy
a reply to: chr0naut

I have not read the article but as I understand it 1-35 is a lot more cases than 1-5,000,000

Myocardial Injury after COVID-19 mRNA-1273 Booster Vaccination

n conclusion, using active surveillance, mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated mild transient myocardial injury was found to be much more common than previously thought. It occurred in one out of 35 persons, was mild and transient, and more frequent in women versus men. Neither anti-IL-1RA, nor pre-existing vaccine/infection-induced immunity or systemic inflammation

The vaguely recalled 1 in 5,000,000 related to my recollection of the number of events of myocarditis recorded in VAERS at the time that were related to the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines.

Currently, in VAERS, there are 1,972 events of myocarditis that occurred after vaccination with the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines.

In the same geographical region that the database covers, there have been 402,938,359 doses of the Pfizer vaccines administered.

This means that the current statistic would be something close to the chance of getting myocarditis from a Pfizer shot of
0.000,004,894,05 - close to 5 chances in a million. Perhaps this was the number and I misremembered it?

One chance in 35 would be equal to there being 11,512,525 cases of myocarditis in America over the last two years, which is an unseasonably large number. In all of 2021, there were less that one hundreth of that number of myocarditis cases in the US, for any reason.

a reply to: chr0naut

One chance in 35 would be equal to there being 11,512,525 cases of myocarditis in America over the last two years, which is an unseasonably large number. In all of 2021, there were less that one hundreth of that number of myocarditis cases in the US, for any reason.

It was an active surveillance study.......they checked everyone......even if they had no symptoms.

It's completely different than waiting for people to turn up at the doctors and then relying on someone to report it to a data system.....and then trusting that the data figures are fully accurate. Many doctors would not take patients with issues seriously......I remember watching an interview with John Campbell with Kyle, he was treated appallingly when he went to seek help over a year ago.

Remember, the markers only stay high for a while (transitory)......but that doesn't mean the damage done is not long lasting.
A myocardial injury can interfere with heart function, and the heart muscle can be permanently damaged.

There could have been many people who were totally unaware that their troponin levels were high after taking the vaccine...and maybe died suddenly and unexpected.

a reply to: Itisnowagain
a reply to: chr0naut


so now, after having had the time to read it and try to understand it.
It seems that the study was only of 777 employees of the University Hospital Basel in Switzerland.

From December 10th, 2021, to February 10th, 2022, 1871 employees of the University Hospital Basel were screened (1294 females [69.2%] and 577 males [30.8%]), of which 835 provided written informed consent to participate in the study, and of these, 777 (93%, 540 females [69.5%] and 237 males [30.5%]) were eligible for analysis

and they only took the Moderna "COVID-19 mRNA-1273 vaccine" and or booster and from what I can understand there are higher instances with those who took the booster as compared to the vaccine

So my questions are, what was the prominent vaccine and booster distributed in the States and are there similar studies being conducted or considered in the States.

I also must ask, why are we not discussing live birth rates and the impacts on fertility? Who changed the subject?

a reply to: datguy


I don't know what they used in the US but I know Moderna Spikevax was the bivalent booster that was given in the UK......maybe some got Pfizer.

I see that Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany and Finland paused the Moderna in October 2021 (before the bivalent) for younger adults because of heart issue concern....and I vaguely remember that they did the same in the UK.....but I could be wrong.