Shocking! 30% of adolescents developed cardiovascular symptoms after Covid-19 vaccinations

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: AlienBorg

I'm a scientist, I've had study I was involved in published in actual scientific journals.

MDPI is not a scientific journal, MDPI is a money making scam that lies about having scientific integrity. It's a pay to play publisher who don't use peer review as the actual scientists and peer reviewers point out

Predatory Publishers make billions out of these scams. If you read the links I posted one of their own peer reviewers detauils how its a unethical money making scam that has no scientific integrity - actual scientists are warned not to submit work to them as it damages their credibility

The reason for the latter is my deep concern that having your results published in any of MDPI journals puts them under high risk of invalidation, furthermore it leads to likely damage of your scientific reputation.

Earlier I had flagrantly bad experience with this publisher, who disregarded my thorough review of the manuscript [1] and published it despite my rejection, retaining even its initial form (i.e. without improvements introduced). There was no sound scientific discussion offered by both, the authors of [1] and MDPI staff.

For months I am waiting from MDPI for the contact with the other reviewer who (as they claim) was reviewing this work simultaneously with me. I am also waiting for them to connect me with the external associated editor who prompted publication of [1] some weeks after my rejection, without notifying me. I tend to believe these people either do not exist or they never had any expertise on the subject, read merely pressed “publish it” button.

...

They foremost misuse YOU and your colleagues for THEIR personal profit (i.e. the money you are to pay for this publication) offering in return high risk of rejection of YOUR results by the scientific community. Some of my colleagues from Max‐Planck and Helmholtz Societies, NOAA, EGU, AGU, etc. do not consider publications in MDPI journals reliable and authentic. You can further get acquainted with the “predatory” open access publishing following [2, 3], I am a witness of such in relation with MDPI. I regret that the authors of [1] (some of who I do know not superficially) lost their reputation in (not only) my eyes subsequently. As to the lead author of [1], Mr. Keyhong Park, I cannot call him a scientist, as he betrays fundamental principles of Science.

As I said earlier there's a lot of very high quality proper scientific publications and research showing that under 18s shouldn't recueve the vaccine - this isn't one of them though as MDPI are a money making scam with no credibility and break fundamental scientific principles.

If you question the integrity of this publisher then surely you will need to question the integrity of all other publishers who seem to publish most of the publications, with many of them to be of very low quality, retracted, or just not worth of publishing at all.

I see nothing flawed in the publication from Thailand despite the small sample. But if small samples were an issue then surely many papers in favour of the vaccines would not have been published in the first place.

You're not the only person who has published btw.

originally posted by: daniellemill

originally posted by: AlienBorg
Cardiovascular Manifestation of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Adolescents

Note: This is a peer-reviewed publication from a study in Thailand concerning a number of cardiovascular manifestations after vaccination with the Pfizer mRNA vaccines in adolescents aged 13-18 years from two schools who received the second dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Here. I will give part of the Abstract and here is the link to the study from Thailand.

www.mdpi.com...


Abstract

Data including demographics, symptoms, vital signs, ECG, echocardiography, and cardiac enzymes were collected at baseline, Day 3, Day 7, and Day 14 (optional) using case record forms. We enrolled 314 participants; of these, 13 participants were lost to follow-up, leaving 301 participants for analysis. The most common cardiovascular signs and symptoms were tachycardia (7.64%), shortness of breath (6.64%), palpitation (4.32%), chest pain (4.32%), and hypertension (3.99%). One participant could have more than one sign and/or symptom. Seven participants (2.33%) exhibited at least one elevated cardiac biomarker or positive lab assessments. Cardiovascular manifestations were found in 29.24% of patients, ranging from tachycardia or palpitation to myopericarditis. Myopericarditis was confirmed in one patient after vaccination. Two patients had suspected pericarditis and four patients had suspected subclinical myocarditis. In conclusion, Cardiovascular manifestation in adolescents after BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccination included tachycardia, palpitation, and myopericarditis. The clinical presentation of myopericarditis after vaccination was usually mild and temporary, with all cases fully recovering within 14 days. Hence, adolescents receiving mRNA vaccines should be monitored for cardiovascular side effects. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05288231

The results are really worrying.

Out of 301 participants 88 of them (!) experienced cardiovascular issues after the two doses of the Pfizer vaccine. The percentage is about 29.24% of the adolescents from both schools and even though the sample is not large it raises red flags for any vaccine or medical intervention with this profile.

Will you give this vaccine to adolescents or young children who have the lowest possible risk of getting harmed from SARS-CoV-2 (risk is miniscule) knowing that it could cause almost 30% of them to experience a range of cardiovascular symptoms such as tachycardia (high heart rate), palpitations, shortness of breath, chest pain, myocarditis, pericarditis, hypertension.

Now imagine you vaccinate 300,000 adolescents or 3 million adolescents. What kind of results are you expecting with almost a 30% chance of getting any of the symptoms and diseases described above.

Something wasn't and it's still not right.
With this profile you just withdraw the vaccine imho.

My friend got lung problems after taking a course of vaccination against covid 19! Everyone has a different level of immunity and it is worth taking this vaccine carefully!

You meant it's worth being careful before taking this vaccine.

And why take it if it had this profile? There are several documented and recorded cases where the vaccine can be harmful or even lethal.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: AlienBorg

I'm a scientist, I've had study I was involved in published in actual scientific journals.

MDPI is not a scientific journal, MDPI is a money making scam that lies about having scientific integrity. It's a pay to play publisher who don't use peer review as the actual scientists and peer reviewers point out

Predatory Publishers make billions out of these scams. If you read the links I posted one of their own peer reviewers detauils how its a unethical money making scam that has no scientific integrity - actual scientists are warned not to submit work to them as it damages their credibility

The reason for the latter is my deep concern that having your results published in any of MDPI journals puts them under high risk of invalidation, furthermore it leads to likely damage of your scientific reputation.

Earlier I had flagrantly bad experience with this publisher, who disregarded my thorough review of the manuscript [1] and published it despite my rejection, retaining even its initial form (i.e. without improvements introduced). There was no sound scientific discussion offered by both, the authors of [1] and MDPI staff.

For months I am waiting from MDPI for the contact with the other reviewer who (as they claim) was reviewing this work simultaneously with me. I am also waiting for them to connect me with the external associated editor who prompted publication of [1] some weeks after my rejection, without notifying me. I tend to believe these people either do not exist or they never had any expertise on the subject, read merely pressed “publish it” button.

...

They foremost misuse YOU and your colleagues for THEIR personal profit (i.e. the money you are to pay for this publication) offering in return high risk of rejection of YOUR results by the scientific community. Some of my colleagues from Max‐Planck and Helmholtz Societies, NOAA, EGU, AGU, etc. do not consider publications in MDPI journals reliable and authentic. You can further get acquainted with the “predatory” open access publishing following [2, 3], I am a witness of such in relation with MDPI. I regret that the authors of [1] (some of who I do know not superficially) lost their reputation in (not only) my eyes subsequently. As to the lead author of [1], Mr. Keyhong Park, I cannot call him a scientist, as he betrays fundamental principles of Science.

As I said earlier there's a lot of very high quality proper scientific publications and research showing that under 18s shouldn't recueve the vaccine - this isn't one of them though as MDPI are a money making scam with no credibility and break fundamental scientific principles.

If you question the integrity of this publisher then surely you will need to question the integrity of all other publishers who seem to publish most of the publications, with many of them to be of very low quality, retracted, or just not worth of publishing at all.

I see nothing flawed in the publication from Thailand despite the small sample. But if small samples were an issue then surely many papers in favour of the vaccines would not have been published in the first place.

You're not the only person who has published btw.

I never claimed I was the only person in the world to have a paper published in a real journal - no idea why you're implying I think I am.

The integreity of other journals is scrutinised; it's done by impact factors and I worked with a UnI prof developing systems to detect papers that cut corners and lying with numbers to expose dodgy studies.

Small samples will always give innacurate results, it's one of the first rules of designing a study. The 30% claim is obviously false as it's not been witnessed anywhere in the world and the actual incidence rate is 1 in 100,000 not 1 in 3.

It's a small sample size and claims an incidence rate a thousand times higher than any other paper on the subject so clearly not an accurate result - extrodinary clains require extrodinary evidence and this paper doesn't do that and is submitted to a journal only interested in profit and will do no checks and publish anything if you pay £500 rather than an actual scientific journal that stays true to the scientific method and uses proper peer review system.

The vaccinie trials weren't small samples. There were over 20,000 involved in the vaccine trials and it had the most man hours and scrutiny of any prior scientific study and paper - pfizer lied with numbers to come up with the 97% effective claim (real figure was 62%) but apart from that there are no faults in the original studies.

There's plenty of actual scientific papers in real scientific journals detailing this subject and proving that under 18s should not take the vaccine unless they have co-morbidities; but this paper is clearly wrrong and real scientists don't publish their work in such 'journals'.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
Covid increases the risk of cardiovascular illness.

Young males were the demographic least likely to take measures to avoid catching Covid

Coincidence?

Maybe if you use cherry picked big pharma funded studies. It will always show their 200 billion dollar cash cow in a favorable light.

Then you have other studies that show the exact opposite. So someone is lying here, and I know I don't trust companies with a track record of knowing killing people for profit like with vioxx and countless other pharma products.

twitter.com...

Almamlouk et al.
➡️Autopsies of 548 hearts of people who died of or with COVID.
➡️0% had COVID-induced extensive myocarditis.

Hulscher et al.
➡️Autopsies of 28 hearts of people who died after vaccination.
➡️100% died of vaccine-induced myocarditis.

I'm sure Lebron's son having a heart attack at 18 with the best access to health care on the planet is normal.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: AlienBorg

The interesting thing here is. Did the vaccine cause the issue? Or did the vaccine take an already existing issue and enhanced it? If they can figure out the mechanism they can devise treatment.

A good follow-up question that was partly answered in the paper itself -- all students received a full medical checkup before vaccines as part of the study.

That said, there are intermittent cardiac problems that may not show up on a test -- I have one of those; an intermittent cardiac arrythmia. It was caught on my military enlistment medical exam but did not appear on any other exams until about 15 years ago. It's brief (lasts less than a minute), intermittent (I can go months without an episode) but it's real and present.

So... we don't know.

I was also reading up on this thing the other week. The depopulation has begun, I was thinking. But it makes no sense on the other hand. Why kill off the next generation that will be the new working class?? WHat happens to GDP?? I'm closing in on retirerment age and thought for sure, they are going after my age group because of our "drain" to the system due to Social Security, etc, etc.
Yet, I, at least, have not heard of a huge uptick in deaths in my age group. Certinly not like younger ones. Maybe the vaccines are behaving differently in the real world as opposed to the lab??
You guess is as good as mine
Star and Flag for you.

Ya know what.. I missed you guys.
Been a long time since I have posted or even came to this website. The recent UFO hearing is what brought me back.

After reading through this thread, I wish I would have came back during the vaxxx era to be with like minded people.
It was a pretty lonely time then! Got a lot of ridicule for not wearing masks laughably. Cheers to good health everyone!

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Byrd

I ve read the paper and the conclusion.
5 months after is still short term..you don't know long term effects of these vaccines but you're still left with a staggering 30% cardiovascular symptoms after the administration of the two doses.

Except that you aren't.

As the paper says, a number of the students had multiple symptoms, most of which (palpitations, chest tightness) were self-reported and not actually confirmed by a clinical assessment.

Out of 302 patients, only 3 (about one percent) were admitted to a hospital ER for symptoms.

Their tests showed that all symptoms cleared up within two weeks.

You want everyone to die as a result of these vaccines to argue this is a dangerous product. Can you find me another vaccine with a similar profile?

I want everyone to NOT die of Covid.

Compare the result from the vaccine with the numbers from Covid itself

Real Covid: -- 57% still had cardiac complications a year later. Covid vaccines - cleared up within 2 weeks.
Real Covid: -- over 10% develop irregular heartbeats and is permanent side effect in some cases. Covid vaccine, 7.65% but it cleared up within 2 weeks.

(etcetera)

You don't get "long Covid" from vaccines. You do, however, get it from Real Covid and it affects around 1/5th of those who have had Covid

No vaccine is 100% successful. No vaccine is completely without risks. ALL vaccines have had a small number of deaths associated with them. What vaccines do is (relatively) safely give a large population relatively strong immunity against a disease, stopping the disease in its tracks (nobody to infect) in a very short time period. With the "pandemic immunity" you get a large number of deaths, mutations of the pathogen, and a never-ending cycle of the disease showing up again and again for hundreds of years.

originally posted by: Byrd

Let me give you the facts again as you guys trying to turn a blind eye or pretend they aren't there

Cardiovascular manifestations were found in 29.24% of patients, ranging from tachycardia or palpitation to myopericarditis. Myopericarditis was confirmed in one patient after vaccination. Two patients had suspected pericarditis and four patients had suspected subclinical myocarditis. In conclusion, Cardiovascular manifestation in adolescents after BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccination included tachycardia, palpitation, and myopericarditis

You children and adolescents should stay away from this vaccine given the high risk for cardiovascular symptoms presented to them. Almost 30% of all participants. Your metric is terrible by the way, they don't have to get immediate serious harm or die for the vaccine to be questioned and withdrawn or at least not given to children and young adults who are the most healthy from all age groups.

I am afraid it is you who hasn't even read the abstract.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: AlienBorg

The interesting thing here is. Did the vaccine cause the issue? Or did the vaccine take an already existing issue and enhanced it? If they can figure out the mechanism they can devise treatment.

A good follow-up question that was partly answered in the paper itself -- all students received a full medical checkup before vaccines as part of the study.

That said, there are intermittent cardiac problems that may not show up on a test -- I have one of those; an intermittent cardiac arrythmia. It was caught on my military enlistment medical exam but did not appear on any other exams until about 15 years ago. It's brief (lasts less than a minute), intermittent (I can go months without an episode) but it's real and present.

So... we don't know.

Nothing more than excuses for obviously a dangerous vaccine.

We do know and according to the study almost 30% of participants developed cardiovascular issues after the two doses of Pfizer.

No matter how much you try to spin this the truth is just hard to deal with.

Even if it was 5% it would have been a red flag and kids should be nowhere near a vaccine with this profile. There rest of what you said are meaningless.

Abstract first please.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
Covid increases the risk of cardiovascular illness.

Young males were the demographic least likely to take measures to avoid catching Covid

Coincidence?

Maybe if you use cherry picked big pharma funded studies. It will always show their 200 billion dollar cash cow in a favorable light.

Then you have other studies that show the exact opposite. So someone is lying here, and I know I don't trust companies with a track record of knowing killing people for profit like with vioxx and countless other pharma products.

twitter.com...

Almamlouk et al.
➡️Autopsies of 548 hearts of people who died of or with COVID.
➡️0% had COVID-induced extensive myocarditis.

Hulscher et al.
➡️Autopsies of 28 hearts of people who died after vaccination.
➡️100% died of vaccine-induced myocarditis.

I'm sure Lebron's son having a heart attack at 18 with the best access to health care on the planet is normal.

Still this kind of denial about the Covid vaccines. The more they deny it the more it backfires.

Excuses upon excuses upon excuses

The study isn't great
The publisher isn't great
The journal it was published isn't great
The sample of participants is small
The scientists are anti-vaxxers
The scientists don't have 100 PhDs and they don't have a novel prize yet




Truth: The vaccine isn't great.
Honestly, this is a public hazard and should have been withdrawn from the market long time ago.

Thanks. She was very fortunate to have medical attention in enough time to have the clot removed from her brain and made a good recovery physically but her emotional state has changed. Very sensitive and has required counseling. She’s just not the same person.

a reply to: AlienBorg

originally posted by: violet
Thanks. She was very fortunate to have medical attention in enough time to have the clot removed from her brain and made a good recovery physically but her emotional state has changed. Very sensitive and has required counseling. She’s just not the same person.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Glad to hear she made a good recovery.
Do you think the vaccine was responsible?

There are many cases of blood clots caused by these vaccines and many cases of deaths unfortunately. These are recorded and have been verified by coroners. But there are many more where there is absolute silence or there are simply no autopsies performed or if the person is still alive the conclusion is 'we don't know'. But they are very keen to record a death as a Covid death even in cases where it wasn't from Covid but with Covid and without Covid.

We don’t know the cause. When she said to the doctor do you think the vaccine did this, he said nothing.
a reply to: AlienBorg

In my completely unqualified opinion immune systems are as unique to each individual as their personalities.

Sure there are broad points of similarity and function, just as personalities all manifest with similar traits. But in detail those traits have differences; put any 2 people in the same situation and while many will have similar responses the details of those responses will reveal they are in fact different.

Likewise with immune systems.

Have so many people ever been given the same vaccination - the same drug (a genetic concoction at that) all at virtually the same time?

Tracking reactions to vaccines has never been so easy, so obvious as it has with the covid vax. It’s the first global experiment in what happens when you give everyone the same thing at the same time.

I’d suggest that perhaps there are similar adverse effects to all kinds of concoctions - vaccinations, drugs, therapies - but the fact that they are administered statistically at random and without correlations between effects on individuals so abundant and obvious as this it has not been noticed that so many probably have adverse effects.

Perhaps it’s as simple as some immune systems, for a multiple variations of reasons not playing well with this vaccine, while some do (in the short term at least).

Perhaps the disturbing outcomes for these covid vaccine adverse effects patients should be a signal to take more care and connect more dots with all vaccines and drugs.

Perhaps one size does not fit all

a reply to: McGinty

Are you sure they were all the same size?
Maybe only 4% of batches caused 71% of side effects?

a reply to: AndyMayhew

"One in 35 myocardial injury"

Watch the video from Dr John Campbell.

Redacted channel on yt have also done a video on the same study (13 hrs ago)...... just in case you don't like John Campbell.

This particular study is a prospective active surveillance study.........not a retrospective passive surveillance study.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Good point! can any experiment be absolutely perfect, with all possible variables foreseen and eliminated?

This covid vaccine experiment was unprecedented in scale and timeframe. It remains unique even with the possibility of variations in batches. These variations are equally possible for all other concoctions administered over much larger timeframes and to smaller numbers

But indeed, dosage and other variations are just as good an explanation for differing outcome as my immune system theory. And of course they are not mutually exclusive; both these things could’ve been happening simmultaniously.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
Excuses upon excuses upon excuses

The study isn't great
The publisher isn't great
The journal it was published isn't great
The sample of participants is small
The scientists are anti-vaxxers
The scientists don't have 100 PhDs and they don't have a novel prize yet




Truth: The vaccine isn't great.
Honestly, this is a public hazard and should have been withdrawn from the market long time ago.

I don't think any poster is guilty of those ad hominems.

Personally I'm trying to help people be aware of how predatory publishing works, provided links on how people can detect it - MDPI were added to the list of fraudulent science journals in 2014.

The authors point out that their results are a few thousand times higher than any other study in the area and give good reasons why their study protocol has caused this anomalous result.

The incidence rate of myocarditis/pericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was reported to be as low as 12.6 cases per million second dose mRNA vaccines among those aged 12–39 years [8,15].

In contrast, our study found one case of myopericarditis, four cases of subclinical myocarditis, and two cases of pericarditis among 301 participants, and each case had mild symptoms.

The incidence of myocarditis/pericarditis found in our study may be higher than the other studies due to the study protocol, which required determining baseline troponin-T, CK-MB, ECG, and echocardiography before vaccination.

Two retrospective studies from Israel [8,9] showed a slightly different incidence compared with CDC data, possibly resulting from different data collection methods and different criteria for diagnosing myocarditis. Montgomery and colleagues reported on 23 male military personnel diagnosed with myocarditis after presenting with acute sudden onset of chest pain within 4 days after mRNA COVID-19 vaccine [22]. Another prospective study reported six males who were hospitalized with suspected myocarditis, all shortly after a second dose of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine [23].

The authors also agree their sample size is too small

The authors aren't anti-vax and have no anti-vax bias in the paper - You don't need 100 PHDs and a nobel prize to conduct a proper scientific study.

The paper is an interesting read and raises some very good points and areas that require further study - I'm just pointing out there's far higher quality papers in actual scientific journals, health advice from various countries and royal colleges in the UK that prove under 18s should not the vaccine as unless they have co-morbidities the risk outweighs the reward.

Before anyone says I'm defending the pharmaceuticals or making excuses for the vax - I've never had an MRNA vax and never had a booster - I had the AZ jab as I have multiple co-morbidites so ad a 1 in 30 chance of dying from Covid.

I did a thorough analysis of the booster papers and they only benefited the elderly or those with severely comprimised immune systems so didn't have one -

I've been round 100s of people who've had Covid, shared joints and water bottles with a couple of mates who were later hospitalised with Covid and still never caught it myself - same with all other family members on m Dad's side so pretty certain I've got the weird gene type that makes you immune to it.
---

There's a great free guide here that's written for the general public empowering them to be able to detect ad dissect science papers which shoud always be done even if it's published in journals like Nature, Lancet, Science etc...

LSE guide for non scientists

Can't find a copy on the internet but Dr Ben Goldacre's 'Bad Science' book gives loads of tips and tricks to detect lies by big pharma; he details how Pfizer in paticular try abusing stats to create false resuts that make it appear as if their drugs are more effective than they are - i.e dropping participants from the trial because their results in the clinical trial don't match the result bad pharma companies are after.