Study of 38 million vaccinated adults shows 1 out of 100 were admitted with cardiac arrhythmias

originally posted by: Jeremyhuex
Speaking of heart problems, I developed heart problems after 2 doses of Pfizer. No booster for me.

Impossible. Several people in this thread have plainly stated that it is so unlikely that anyone claiming it is clearly wrong. You meant to say that you were diagnosed with a previously undetected heart problem completely unrelated to the vaccine. /sarc

Sorry for your condition man. That sounds awful - are you able to treat it ok or does it have strict requirements that impede your normal way of life / routine?

I dont even care if people want to take the vaccine - my issue is with the blatant lies about its efficacy, safety and need. Just be honest with all 3 of those things and then give people a choice. No one should be forced to take anything without being given all of the risks associated with it. How do you give informed consent on something when they wont tell you the truth about something as basic as safety? They have no long term studies so any suggestion that the data is available is bullsquat.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot


Only as already covered you can't use VAERs data that way. But thanks for confirming that I can discount the numbers you quoted.

Says who? Some paid-off self-appointed Data Czar? The manner I am using that data is exactly the same as the 'scientists' in the OP. So, I guess that BS is done!

You comment about quote function is funny as you had to edit your post to quote correctly.

Yeah, I had to make an edit...so that anything at all would show up. Your error was THAT severe!

The CDC.

You mean the Corrupt Data Czar?

And no you are not.

From the CDC disclaimer: " VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also known as “safety signals.”"

Just how do you think One can get that kind of data? I mean, without queries into the data; like I have been doing, and those scientists in the OP did (that's how they got their number of 1700 and change).

The difference is their query vs mine. I wrote the query correctly, and got a lower number than they did, with newer data.

No, I'm sorry, but I'm using VAERS just as it was intended; combining the mining of VAERS data with other research in order to form my hypothesis.

If you think the CDC corrupt then why are you using their data ?

You aren't using VAERs as intended, in fact you are using it in a completely inappropriate was as covered in the disclaimer.

Yeah, okay; show me how my use in completely inappropriate...IF you can.

ETA: If you have a better data source for the US, share the link, please.

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot


Only as already covered you can't use VAERs data that way. But thanks for confirming that I can discount the numbers you quoted.

Says who? Some paid-off self-appointed Data Czar? The manner I am using that data is exactly the same as the 'scientists' in the OP. So, I guess that BS is done!

You comment about quote function is funny as you had to edit your post to quote correctly.

Yeah, I had to make an edit...so that anything at all would show up. Your error was THAT severe!

The CDC.

You mean the Corrupt Data Czar?

And no you are not.

From the CDC disclaimer: " VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also known as “safety signals.”"

Just how do you think One can get that kind of data? I mean, without queries into the data; like I have been doing, and those scientists in the OP did (that's how they got their number of 1700 and change).

The difference is their query vs mine. I wrote the query correctly, and got a lower number than they did, with newer data.

No, I'm sorry, but I'm using VAERS just as it was intended; combining the mining of VAERS data with other research in order to form my hypothesis.

If you think the CDC corrupt then why are you using their data ?

You aren't using VAERs as intended, in fact you are using it in a completely inappropriate was as covered in the disclaimer.

Yeah, okay; show me how my use in completely inappropriate...IF you can.

ETA: If you have a better data source for the US, share the link, please.

I already did, it's covered in the disclaimer I posted.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot


Only as already covered you can't use VAERs data that way. But thanks for confirming that I can discount the numbers you quoted.

Says who? Some paid-off self-appointed Data Czar? The manner I am using that data is exactly the same as the 'scientists' in the OP. So, I guess that BS is done!

You comment about quote function is funny as you had to edit your post to quote correctly.

Yeah, I had to make an edit...so that anything at all would show up. Your error was THAT severe!

The CDC.

You mean the Corrupt Data Czar?

And no you are not.

From the CDC disclaimer: " VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also known as “safety signals.”"

Just how do you think One can get that kind of data? I mean, without queries into the data; like I have been doing, and those scientists in the OP did (that's how they got their number of 1700 and change).

The difference is their query vs mine. I wrote the query correctly, and got a lower number than they did, with newer data.

No, I'm sorry, but I'm using VAERS just as it was intended; combining the mining of VAERS data with other research in order to form my hypothesis.

If you think the CDC corrupt then why are you using their data ?

You aren't using VAERs as intended, in fact you are using it in a completely inappropriate was as covered in the disclaimer.

Yeah, okay; show me how my use in completely inappropriate...IF you can.

ETA: If you have a better data source for the US, share the link, please.

I already did, it's covered in the disclaimer I posted.

Well, no. I don't think you did.

What about this little part of the disclaimer? "As part of CDC and FDA’s multi-system approach to post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring, VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also known as “safety signals.”"

You haven't explained just how One should do this detection of unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events. That is to say, by some means other than searching the database for just such events.

This searching for events is just what the authors of the paper in the OP did, and that is all I do to get associations to couple with other data and research. Like virtually every other researcher.

Not sure why you would have trouble understanding simple English.

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot


Only as already covered you can't use VAERs data that way. But thanks for confirming that I can discount the numbers you quoted.

Says who? Some paid-off self-appointed Data Czar? The manner I am using that data is exactly the same as the 'scientists' in the OP. So, I guess that BS is done!

You comment about quote function is funny as you had to edit your post to quote correctly.

Yeah, I had to make an edit...so that anything at all would show up. Your error was THAT severe!

The CDC.

You mean the Corrupt Data Czar?

And no you are not.

From the CDC disclaimer: " VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also known as “safety signals.”"

Just how do you think One can get that kind of data? I mean, without queries into the data; like I have been doing, and those scientists in the OP did (that's how they got their number of 1700 and change).

The difference is their query vs mine. I wrote the query correctly, and got a lower number than they did, with newer data.

No, I'm sorry, but I'm using VAERS just as it was intended; combining the mining of VAERS data with other research in order to form my hypothesis.

If you think the CDC corrupt then why are you using their data ?

You aren't using VAERs as intended, in fact you are using it in a completely inappropriate was as covered in the disclaimer.

Yeah, okay; show me how my use in completely inappropriate...IF you can.

ETA: If you have a better data source for the US, share the link, please.

I already did, it's covered in the disclaimer I posted.

Well, no. I don't think you did.

What about this little part of the disclaimer? "As part of CDC and FDA’s multi-system approach to post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring, VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also known as “safety signals.”"

You haven't explained just how One should do this detection of unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events. That is to say, by some means other than searching the database for just such events.

This searching for events is just what the authors of the paper in the OP did, and that is all I do to get associations to couple with other data and research. Like virtually every other researcher.

Not sure why you would have trouble understanding simple English.

It also says this.

The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted or used to reach conclusions about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines.

So you can't use VAERs to arrive at specific rates as you did. The issue with simple english seems to be yours.

And the paper in the OP still isn't using VAERs to reach their results.

Well over a million people in the UK have heart problems. Thousands are detected every year, mostly amongst adults. With the majority of adults having received a Covid vaccine this means ........ that the majority of people diagnosed with heart problems this year had recently been vaccinated!!!!!!!

Logic. Not tinfoilhattery.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
Well over a million people in the UK have heart problems. Thousands are detected every year, mostly amongst adults. With the majority of adults having received a Covid vaccine this means ........ that the majority of people diagnosed with heart problems this year had recently been vaccinated!!!!!!!

Logic. Not tinfoilhattery.

Exactly. The report in the OP shows a small increase post vaccination over the base rate (but less than post infection).

However as typical of this site too many people read the raw numbers, ignore anything that doesn't agree with what they want to be true, and arrive at a completely erroneous conclusion.

a reply to: ScepticScot

You still haven't explained just how One should do this detection of unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events. That is to say, by some means other than searching the database for just such events.

originally posted by: Jimy718
a reply to: ScepticScot

You still haven't explained just how One should do this detection of unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events. That is to say, by some means other than searching the database for just such events.

Detection of unusual patterns is one thing.

It can't be used for reaching conclusions about adverse reactions from vaccines.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718
a reply to: ScepticScot

You still haven't explained just how One should do this detection of unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events. That is to say, by some means other than searching the database for just such events.

Detection of unusual patterns is one thing.

It can't be used for reaching conclusions about adverse reactions from vaccines.

There you go again assuming things that have already been stated as NOT TRUE. You need to change that mind set of "FROM" to "ASSSOCIATED".

And the other thing; explain how the "detection" of unusual patterns is different from reaching a conclusion about an association.

And, please; don't use that "appeal to authority" crap this time. That "authority" you are appealing to is known to mislead...intentionally.

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718
a reply to: ScepticScot

You still haven't explained just how One should do this detection of unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events. That is to say, by some means other than searching the database for just such events.

Detection of unusual patterns is one thing.

It can't be used for reaching conclusions about adverse reactions from vaccines.

There you go again assuming things that have already been stated as NOT TRUE. You need to change that mind set of "FROM" to "ASSSOCIATED".

And the other thing; explain how the "detection" of unusual patterns is different from reaching a conclusion about an association.

And, please; don't use that "appeal to authority" crap this time. That "authority" you are appealing to is known to mislead...intentionally.

Not assuming anything, it's your claims.

From my own research: probability of adverse cardiac event from Vaxx: 0.73%
probability of adverse cardiac event from Covid-19: 0.57%

a reply to: ScepticScot



I'm sorry, again, my bad. Semantics and all, got confused in my age, used the wrong word...here:

probability of adverse cardiac event associated with Vaxx: 0.73%
probability of adverse cardiac event associated with Covid-19: 0.57%

And look! Nothing changed in the probabilities... So, IF I get the Vax there is a 1 in 137 chance there will be an associated Cardiac event, and IF I get the disease there is a 1 in 175 chance of an associated Cardiac event.

Simple math, very clear probabilities.

originally posted by: Jimy718
a reply to: ScepticScot

I'm sorry, again, my bad. Semantics and all, got confused in my age, used the wrong word...here:

probability of adverse cardiac event associated with Vaxx: 0.73%
probability of adverse cardiac event associated with Covid-19: 0.57%

And look! Nothing changed in the probabilities... So, IF I get the Vax there is a 1 in 137 chance there will be an associated Cardiac event, and IF I get the disease there is a 1 in 175 chance of an associated Cardiac event.

Simple math, very clear probabilities.

I might have bought that as what you really meant if it wasn't for the next part of the quote.

From my own research: probability of adverse cardiac event from Vaxx: 0.73%
probability of adverse cardiac event from Covid-19: 0.57%

As far as Cardiac events go; the disease is SAFER than the vaxx!

Sorry your claim still can not be substantiated from VAERs data and adding the word "associated" does not change that.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Sorry your claim still can not be substantiated from VAERs data and adding the word "associated" does not change that.

What can I say; I have the data (entire VAERS database), I have the queries, and the results of those queries. All I have ever seen from you is a collection of words. No data, no database, no math, nothing! of any substance.

I have noticed a distinct lack of knowledge of relational databases, and the queries used , and the language used to script queries. You don't seem to know the worth of data, or even how to collect data (a trait shared with the CDC).

Anyway, you say my work cannot be substantiated with VAERS; prove it! (please understand, I'm saying this with full confidence that you cannot; 1. because you don't have the skills, 2. the data will support my findings)

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Sorry your claim still can not be substantiated from VAERs data and adding the word "associated" does not change that.

What can I say; I have the data (entire VAERS database), I have the queries, and the results of those queries. All I have ever seen from you is a collection of words. No data, no database, no math, nothing! of any substance.

I have noticed a distinct lack of knowledge of relational databases, and the queries used , and the language used to script queries. You don't seem to know the worth of data, or even how to collect data (a trait shared with the CDC).

Anyway, you say my work cannot be substantiated with VAERS; prove it! (please understand, I'm saying this with full confidence that you cannot; 1. because you don't have the skills, 2. the data will support my findings)

You still don't seem to understand the basic issue. It doesn't ​matter if you have the entirety of the VAER's data downloaded or what queries you may have written.

VAERs data does not allow you to reach a conclusion about the safety of vaccines or anything like that. It expressly explains this on the site before you download it.

As such any conclusions you think you reached from this data are meaningless.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Sorry your claim still can not be substantiated from VAERs data and adding the word "associated" does not change that.

What can I say; I have the data (entire VAERS database), I have the queries, and the results of those queries. All I have ever seen from you is a collection of words. No data, no database, no math, nothing! of any substance.

I have noticed a distinct lack of knowledge of relational databases, and the queries used , and the language used to script queries. You don't seem to know the worth of data, or even how to collect data (a trait shared with the CDC).

Anyway, you say my work cannot be substantiated with VAERS; prove it! (please understand, I'm saying this with full confidence that you cannot; 1. because you don't have the skills, 2. the data will support my findings)

VAERs data does not allow you to reach a conclusion about the safety of vaccines or anything like that. It expressly explains this on the site before you download it.

As such any conclusions you think you reached from this data are meaningless.

So what does it exist for? Is it just a diversion, a lie to occupy and entertain the masses?

Or, is its purpose what is stated on that very same site? That would be the detection of unusual or unexpected patterns in the data.

Pick one, they are exclusive. What I am doing, whether you wish to accept reality or not, is attempting to "detect" specific classes of adverse event. Almost just to "see" IF there is anything at all. AND guess what; I found the same 'stuff' that is in the news today: myocarditis. Myocarditis accounts for 15.7% of all adverse events; they started studying this long before it was in the news, and can YOU guess why? If you guessed; 'it showed up in VAERS like that' you'd be correct.

Myocarditis is one of the "warnings" that are now associated with the vaccines...and it all started with VAERS and my "kind" of data mining.

You have not proven my work cannot be substantiated with VAERS.

originally posted by: ColeYounger
That's outrageous! Pfizer has assured us the vaccines are safe. You're not a criminal, are you?

Are you kidding?... Everyone who doubts these poisons...eeer I mean vaccines, and who post evidence that the vaccines are not safe are all domestic terrorists whom must be dealt with.... After all Fauci himself "represents science" and if anyone disagrees with him and shows his lies those people "are attacking science..."

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Do you think that having more antibodies is better? If you do not have AIDS, and I fill you with medication for that disease just in case you ever catch it ... do you think that nothing happens to your body? spike protein produces inflammation. Do you think that nothing happens to you when they give you 2, 3 or 4 doses for your body to produce? what they inject you goes to all the organs of your body, to all. all generating proteins that inflame the organs. having more antibodies is bad for your body. naturally the body creates them and when it does not need it, it does not generate more. and creates cellular memory in case there is re infection. Here you are filling yourself with proteins that induce generalized inflammation in a very short time. It's like putting on the anti-tetanus every month in case you cut yourself one day

originally posted by: Ezemikedirnt
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Do you think that having more antibodies is better? If you do not have AIDS, and I fill you with medication for that disease just in case you ever catch it ... do you think that nothing happens to your body? spike protein produces inflammation. Do you think that nothing happens to you when they give you 2, 3 or 4 doses for your body to produce? what they inject you goes to all the organs of your body, to all. all generating proteins that inflame the organs. having more antibodies is bad for your body. naturally the body creates them and when it does not need it, it does not generate more. and creates cellular memory in case there is re infection. Here you are filling yourself with proteins that induce generalized inflammation in a very short time. It's like putting on the anti-tetanus every month in case you cut yourself one day

Its not only about antibodies, natural immunity elicits t cell immunity which is far more robust than obsolete spike protein antibodies that have to boosted every 3 months while risking an insane number of side effects. The estimate is 400 thousand dead in the US alone.