Coronavirus (COVID-19 Outbreak) (36 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bjerknes
- Start date
The video title isn't actually anything to do with the Zika virus, just topical as it broke in 2016. But to answer your question it is still around in mostly tropical developing countries. Still no vaccine for it, also birth defects in quite a low percentage of cases.
The general media and entertainment industry had been speaking about global pandemics years before even Zika, the original SARS outbreak at the turn of the century was the catalyst for many, but even back in the 90s there were movies about Ebola-type virus pandemics.
The general media and entertainment industry had been speaking about global pandemics years before even Zika, the original SARS outbreak at the turn of the century was the catalyst for many, but even back in the 90s there were movies about Ebola-type virus pandemics.
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19...ana-as-scientists-play-down-concerns-12478164
Would be a very possible scenario as this is being found in South Africa and Botswana. Kind of scary but also fascinating what it can mutate into.
Would be a very possible scenario as this is being found in South Africa and Botswana. Kind of scary but also fascinating what it can mutate into.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712
Chance of a heart attack in 5 years in people with an mRNA vaccine against Covid is increased by 11 to 25%
video explanation
- - - Updated - - -
Chance of a heart attack in 5 years in people with an mRNA vaccine against Covid is increased by 11 to 25%
video explanation
- - - Updated - - -
Last edited:
They don’t have 5 years of data. It has nothing to do with that. It’s a measurement of multiple protein biomarkers that gives an overall score which can be used to predict the likelihood of vascular events like heart attacks over the following 5 years. And up to 2.5 months post-vaccination they are saying the score is still elevated predicting a higher risk. i don’t know about the PULS test specifically, but predicting heart attack risk based on biomarkers is not bullshit.
The sample size isn’t big enough from the study to be conclusive, but if the study is actually legit it definitely warrants looking into. Given that Covid itself in symptomatic cases has not infrequently led to long term heart inflammation/ cardiovascular issues, it’s not really all that surprising that a vaccine for it could cause increased risk of heart issues too. Although it still seems actual Covid infection is much more likely to do so than the vaccines.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...ation-to-kids-is-from-covid-19not-the-vaccine
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hea...ases/coronavirus/heart-problems-after-covid19
https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covi...ore-common-after-covid-than-after-vaccination
- - - Updated - - -
@kao ray
So there’s an expression of concern from the publishers due to problems with that study.
And then I found this, that picks it apart pretty convincingly. I knew I recognized the study authors name. He’s that lectin pseudoscience quack doctor. And at the end of the abstract he has the gall to recommend people take one of the supplements he sells for heart “health” lol. I’m not saying this study is for sure garbage, but… definitely a bit dodgy. Read through the entire group of tweets linked below.
- - - Updated - - -
Here’s the expression of concern. Yikes.
Last edited:
They don’t have 5 years of data. It has nothing to do with that. It’s a measurement of multiple protein biomarkers that gives an overall score which can be used to predict the likelihood of vascular events like heart attacks over the following 5 years. And up to 2.5 months post-vaccination they are saying the score is still elevated predicting a higher risk. i don’t know about the PULS test specifically, but predicting heart attack risk based on biomarkers is not bullshit.
The sample size isn’t big enough from the study to be conclusive, but if the study is actually legit it definitely warrants looking into. Given that Covid itself in symptomatic cases has not infrequently led to long term heart inflammation/ cardiovascular issues, it’s not really all that surprising that a vaccine for it could cause increased risk of heart issues too. Although it still seems actual Covid infection is much more likely to do so than the vaccines.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...ation-to-kids-is-from-covid-19not-the-vaccine
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hea...ases/coronavirus/heart-problems-after-covid19
https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covi...ore-common-after-covid-than-after-vaccination
- - - Updated - - -
@kao ray
So there’s an expression of concern from the publishers due to problems with that study.
And then I found this, that picks it apart pretty convincingly. I knew I recognized the study authors name. He’s that lectin pseudoscience quack doctor. And at the end of the abstract he has the gall to recommend people take one of the supplements he sells for heart “health” lol. I’m not saying this study is for sure garbage, but… definitely a bit dodgy. Read through the entire group of tweets linked below.
- - - Updated - - -
Here’s the expression of concern. Yikes.
What do you say - 2,5 months after vaccination the score is high which usually means an increased risk of heart attack over the next 5 years? Guess what, you have new variables (vaccination, probably Covid survivours etc. ) in this score model and they make conclusions based on the old score model which was made without the new variables. So, this may be temporarily elevated risk levels and after these 2,5 months, the concentration and behavior of the biomarker may be completely different calculated by both models and these guys have nothing to compare it.
Do they compare the same group of people - vaccinated post-Covid vs old score model data set? If not, there is another point of failure in the model. If they compare 65+ years old vaccinated people from nursing homes vs old study of general population 65+ old it is wrong. They should compare the same risk segment.
Is the sample size significant - you say no, which is pretty obvious. They do not have enough data, period. I can go on and on, but for me, it is pretty obvious this study is premature and makes premature conclusions.
This is another case of "70% vaccination rate will lead to herd immunity" report. In some places, we already have 95+% vaccination+post infection rate and still the virus is spreading. The so-called researchers "forgot" to take into account that Covid is different, the vaccinations rates are uneven and the vaccine's efficacy against transmission fades pretty fast.
I confess that I have rarely looked into medical research data, but every time I did I find an appealingly bad data collection process that is not up to my standards. I work with data sets with very high quality collected in a very standardized and precise way.
Изпратено от моят XQ-AU52 с помощта на Tapatalk
Last edited:
