Active Now

Stu Spelling Bee
Discussion » Questions » Current Events and News » Covid shot proves to be 133x myocarditis. Why are we still trying to mandate this to children?

Covid shot proves to be 133x myocarditis. Why are we still trying to mandate this to children?

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/321238




https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346



Posted - February 12

Responses


  • 19949
    You either didn't read the entire article or you didn't understand the results of the study.

    "To ensure that the results would reflect only COVID-19, and not a vaccine, the study excluded anyone who had received a COVID-19 vaccine.

    "The results suggested that COVID-19 was associated with increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in both analyses," the authors wrote."

    Anyone with a modicum of comprehension would come to the conclusion that the vaccine was NOT the cause of the increase in heart ailments, but that it was COVID-19 itself.

    So stop trying to skew the results to bolster your opinion, Dr. my2cents.

    This post was edited by SpunkySenior at February 12, 2022 11:56 AM MST
      February 12, 2022 9:17 AM MST
    1

  • 29779
    Talk to Israel Nation News.....they came to the same conclusion.   

    They did not exclude people who took the clot shot. 


    Someone needs to re-read the study and the article. And it is not me. 
      February 12, 2022 11:06 AM MST
    0

  • 19949
    You clearly didn't read the entire article.  The portion I posted was after the part you highlighted.  
      February 12, 2022 1:35 PM MST
    0

  • 29779
    Why are you quoting from a entirely different study?  
    You are confusing two different studies. The one I quoted in my question is about the shots themselves harming people especially younger males. 

    The study you are quoting is about the after effects of the disease itself not limited by age.

    https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/3



    22123
      February 12, 2022 12:45 PM MST
    0

  • 19949
    The quote I took was from the link you provided.  Perhaps you didn't read the entire article.  If some initial study says one thing and a subsequent study shows different information, should we just continue to believe the initial report - NO, WE SHOULDN'T.  Science doesn't stand still.  It evolves and we should  embrace the information that becomes apparent after the initial study.  If we didn't, we'd still be blood-letting as a medical procedure to cure a headache.  Why do you insist on only believing what is initially reported - even when subsequent information becomes available that changes how we treat a disease?  I'll tell you why - because you don't want to believe that the subsequent information doesn't jibe with what YOU want to believe.
      February 12, 2022 1:34 PM MST
    0

  • 29779
    No it is not.  The link I supplied it there. It still goes to the same article.  The quote you posted is not there.   
    You should realize the studies are not studying the same things. One that I linked to is studying effects from the shot. The study you quoted is studying effects from the disease and, yes of course, they excluded people who had the shot.  That way the researchers know the effects observed are from the disease and not a vaccine side-effect.   
    Why can't you just admit you read and quoted the wrong article? I also linked and screenshoted the article you quoted from. 



    They have known about the damage the clot shots do to people's heart from the BEGINNING. (And other issues)  That is not "science that changed,"  that is science they have just quite trying to deny it. 
    This is from OCT 2020. 


    The only thing that changed is they now it affect younger males hearts more than females and older males.  But they have known about the damage since the beginning.   

      February 13, 2022 4:01 AM MST
    0

  • 19949
    This is the link at the bottom of the article you posted:

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346

    That is the link I opened.
      February 13, 2022 10:14 AM MST
    0

  • 29779
    Yet, what you quoted is NO where in the study.... This post was edited by my2cents at February 13, 2022 4:02 PM MST
      February 13, 2022 3:52 PM MST
    0

  • 19949
    What I quoted was taken from the link you posted at the bottom of your post.  That is not what comes up when you look at it now and I don't know why that happened.  I didn't just pull my quote out of thin air.  
      February 13, 2022 4:48 PM MST
    0

  • 29779
    No it was not.  You somehow moved to a different study or article.    

    Show me a screenshot or at least where it is at on the page.   I showed you a screenshot of the article says talking about the different manufacturers  side effects.  Now they  could not have side effects from those jabs if they excluded  anyone who received a jab.  


    This post was edited by my2cents at February 13, 2022 5:19 PM MST
      February 13, 2022 5:07 PM MST
    0

  • 29779
    https://www.israelnationalnews.com/new

    T
    his is the article you are quoting it is talking about  a different study published in a different site NATURE MEDICINE about effects from the disease NOT the jabs.

    Here is the screen of what you are quoting from another article on IsraelNationalNews:


      February 13, 2022 5:27 PM MST
    0