In 78 Years Funeral Home Never Saw A 15 Year Old With Heart Attack Now 1 A Week

One thing no one is mentioning is the amount of energy drinks younger people consume today. And they often mix them with alcohol. Manufacturers of these products say this is dangerous and their drinks were never intended to be used as mixers.

I am not saying this is a primary cause but there have been cases pre covid where young athletes have had heart problems from drinking too much of this stuff.

Now you combine these with the vaxx, sedentary lifestyle, junk food, too much screen time, and other negative factors and you just might have a perfect storm for heart issues in the young.

originally posted by: JohnTitorSocietyou
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

1) Men age 40+ having heart attacks has always been common, for decades.

2) Teenagers having a heart attack is practically unheard of, for decades.

You can run a variety of studies & surveys and know statement #2 above is definitely true with practically no error.

I worked in public health 20 years again, including with Medicaid and CHIPs, worked with hospitals, have known hundreds of thousands of people in my life. Teenagers having heart attacks pre-2021 is so extraordinarily rare that you’ll have a harder time finding someone who knows a teenage heart attack victim over 40 years from 1980-2020 than you will finding actual teenage heart attack victims 2021-2023.

I think there may be other causes in addition to lockdowns, increased stress, increased drug use and the mRNA shot, so reserving judgment on totality of causes. But it would be blind to not attribute some to the mRNA shots as the mRNA companies/government agencies have admitted the shots do cause myocarditis (their position is simply “SARS2 is worse than myocarditis.”

a reply to: twicewidowed

True, I admit I'm a sucker for Monster drinks, but I don't consume them everyday and only 1 when I do buy them.
But they are a hazard. Caffein causes high BP. Alcohol dillutes blood.

Energy drinks consumption (!)
Climate change
Alcohol & drugs
The alignment of planets
Neutrinos coming from the sun
Cosmic rays
Some nasty republicans in Tennessee

Come on now!

You shouldn't be on the wrong side of history

It's more than obvious why there is an excess amount of deaths pretty much in all countries that have had lengthy lockdowns and mass vaccinations.

And as always the vaccine apologetics, the denialism of reality and the defending of the pharmaceuticals.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Energy drinks consumption (!)
Climate change
Alcohol & drugs
The alignment of planets
Neutrinos coming from the sun
Cosmic rays
Some nasty republicans in Tennessee

Come on now!

You shouldn't be on the wrong side of history

It's more than obvious why there is an excess amount of deaths pretty much in all countries that have had lengthy lockdowns and mass vaccinations.

And as always

the vaccine apologetics, the denialism of reality and the defending of the pharmaceuticals.

As I've said a few times, it's radioactive space ferrets and also stress from watching action movies.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

OK. It is OK to challenge the veracity of a source that you claim to be infallible, etc.

With that in mind:

www.technologyreview.com...

"In September, Kirsch emailed Morris asking him to estimate the maximum number of deaths caused by vaccines. “Who knows,” Morris replied. “But not 150K. And not zero.”

Kirsch immediately forwarded the exchange to me and, I suspect, other journalists. “BOMBSHELL: Top biostats professor admits we have NO CLUE # of people KILLED by COVID vaccines,” he wrote. “He thinks # killed by vax could be anywhere between 0 and 150K people dead.”

Those who know Kirsch say this is a typical tactic. He’s adept at debate, rapidly shifting the premise of a conversation to put the other person on the back foot."

His MO seems similar to some on here.

Just like your MO is always the same. Attack anyone that questions or explores alternatives to official narratives. Something must be wrong with them, amirite?

originally posted by: Roedeer

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

OK. It is OK to challenge the veracity of a source that you claim to be infallible, etc.

With that in mind:

www.technologyreview.com...

"In September, Kirsch emailed Morris asking him to estimate the maximum number of deaths caused by vaccines. “Who knows,” Morris replied. “But not 150K. And not zero.”

Kirsch immediately forwarded the exchange to me and, I suspect, other journalists. “BOMBSHELL: Top biostats professor admits we have NO CLUE # of people KILLED by COVID vaccines,” he wrote. “He thinks # killed by vax could be anywhere between 0 and 150K people dead.”

Those who know Kirsch say this is a typical tactic. He’s adept at debate, rapidly shifting the premise of a conversation to put the other person on the back foot."

His MO seems similar to some on here.

Just like your MO is always the same. Attack anyone that questions or explores alternatives to official narratives. Something must be wrong with them, amirite?

It's the usual tactic by the member above to provide no much evidence for his assertions and then trying to derail the conversation with irrelevant discussions or to make attempt at character assassination of the authors of the links provided before start engaging again in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality.

That's what happens when one has been invested in official narratives and the pursuing of the greater good through the politicalisation of science and medicine. Usually people who are over 50 or even 60 and have been leftwing idealists a few decades ago. In a few words, nonsense!

Anonymous sources. Yeah, OK.

Worthless conjecture and propaganda as usual.

a reply to: Roedeer

And you refuse to actually address anything in my link because it questions your narrative.

Instead of attacking me, may I ask you to actually address the points raised in the link?

Like, on topic?

originally posted by: Thrumbo
The only thing about that guys website I noticed is when it's time to cite the source of data, he says this:

Legal counsel has advised me not to release the data.

If you want to see the data, you should publicly call for the owners of the data to release it. There is no legal reason they can’t release it.

But they won’t ever do that because it would reveal the truth and embarrass too many people in government who called for these shots to be given but never wanted to see the data.

In Ohio, for example, the death records were public. Then COVID hit. Now you can’t get the death records.

Every honest member of the medical community should be calling for data transparency.

This was in reference to the charts showing by how much percent your risk of death goes up after each shot and for how many days.

It's a repeating theme in a lot of his articles. It's always that he can't reveal where anything comes from, which I find a little too convenient. I don't mean to have you write about how and why, defending him because you agree with him but it would be a nice mental and finger exercise I guess if you choose to do so.

Exactly. Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. These second hand hearsay opinions are only valid when it supports their narrative. Useless thread of opinions with no basis in fact as usual.

originally posted by: Roedeer

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

OK. It is OK to challenge the veracity of a source that you claim to be infallible, etc.

With that in mind:

www.technologyreview.com...

"In September, Kirsch emailed Morris asking him to estimate the maximum number of deaths caused by vaccines. “Who knows,” Morris replied. “But not 150K. And not zero.”

Kirsch immediately forwarded the exchange to me and, I suspect, other journalists. “BOMBSHELL: Top biostats professor admits we have NO CLUE # of people KILLED by COVID vaccines,” he wrote. “He thinks # killed by vax could be anywhere between 0 and 150K people dead.”

Those who know Kirsch say this is a typical tactic. He’s adept at debate, rapidly shifting the premise of a conversation to put the other person on the back foot."

His MO seems similar to some on here.

Just like your MO is always the same. Attack anyone that questions or explores alternatives to official narratives. Something must be wrong with them, amirite?

He's challenging anonymous sources. As should we all. Unless you're taken in by what the media tell you. This guy constantly parrots worthless conjecture and propaganda, allowed by very biased mods. I'm convinced he's a paid actor. The evidence is blatant.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I posted an actual link containing actual evidence and facts.

Instead of posting nonsense about me, perhaps you might care to address the points contained in the link which addresses claims made in a source posted by the other poster and which is therefore on topic, unlike your post?

Please leave my age out of this and please note that I am not nor ever have been a "leftwing" idealist, apart from in your head.

My wife is an ICU RN. She is seeing a lot of very young people having heart trouble. They areTextvaccinated.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Character assassination? You mean like what you just posted?

Any chance of addressing the points made in my link?

Which are on topic?

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: Roedeer

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

OK. It is OK to challenge the veracity of a source that you claim to be infallible, etc.

With that in mind:

www.technologyreview.com...

"In September, Kirsch emailed Morris asking him to estimate the maximum number of deaths caused by vaccines. “Who knows,” Morris replied. “But not 150K. And not zero.”

Kirsch immediately forwarded the exchange to me and, I suspect, other journalists. “BOMBSHELL: Top biostats professor admits we have NO CLUE # of people KILLED by COVID vaccines,” he wrote. “He thinks # killed by vax could be anywhere between 0 and 150K people dead.”

Those who know Kirsch say this is a typical tactic. He’s adept at debate, rapidly shifting the premise of a conversation to put the other person on the back foot."

His MO seems similar to some on here.

Just like your MO is always the same. Attack anyone that questions or explores alternatives to official narratives. Something must be wrong with them, amirite?

He's challenging anonymous sources. As should we all. Unless you're taken in by what the media tell you. This guy constantly parrots worthless conjecture and propaganda, allowed by very biased mods. I'm convinced he's a paid actor. The evidence is blatant.

The member above challenges pretty much everything that doesn't fit the narratives he believes in and his ideology.

Anonymous sources can be easily challenged and attacked.

When the sources are not anonymous then the character assassination starts of the authors of the papers or articles provided, the bar is raised considerably high for only one side of the argument, accusations are made against everyone and everything that doesn't fit the narratives, and the usual vaccines apologetics and denialism of reality.

It's like being on the wrong side of history and trying desperately to argue that you are not.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Character assassination? You mean like what you just posted?

Any chance of addressing the points made in my link?

Which are on topic?

Vaccine apologetics
Denialism of reality
Defending of the pharmaceuticals

And yes, character assassination of those authors who argued against the narratives.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

No chance of addressing any of the points made in my link, then?

Just repetitive comments against anyone who questions YOUR narrative?

Please explain where I might have (1) apologised for vaccines (2) denied reality or (3) defended the "pharmaceuticals".

No chance of addressing the points made in my link?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

"It's like being on the wrong side of history and trying desperately to argue that you are not."

Only if you are right and anyone who dares to question you narrative is wrong?

That is not reasoned debate.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

No chance of addressing any of the points made in my link, then?

Just repetitive comments against anyone who questions YOUR narrative?

Please explain where I might have (1) apologised for vaccines (2) denied reality or (3) defended the "pharmaceuticals".

No chance of addressing the points made in my link?

Your posting history says otherwise.
Vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality.as well as defending the pharmaceuticals.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

"It's like being on the wrong side of history and trying desperately to argue that you are not."

Only if you are right and anyone who dares to question you narrative is wrong?

That is not reasoned debate.

The side you have chosen is wrong as they are invested in their beliefs and have mixed up politics and science. As I said above, that's what happens when one has been invested in official narratives and the pursuing of the greater good through the politicalisation of science and medicine. Usually people who are over 50 or even 60 and have been leftwing idealists a few decades ago.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Then it will be easy for you to post some evidence of any of that.

I challenge you to do so.

As in, evidencing your claims.