It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Study Finds Teenage Boys 6 Times More Likely to Have Heart Problem with Jab Than COVID

page: 1
23
share:
+2 more
posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 08:05 AM
Study Finds Teenage Boys Six Times More Likely To Suffer Heart Problems From Vaccine Than Be Hospitalized by COVID

Research conducted by the University of California has found that teenage boys are six times more likely to suffer from heart problems caused by the COVID-19 vaccine than to be hospitalized as a result of COVID-19 itself.

www.zerohedge.com...

The people who advocated for, supported, and recommended kids get these experimental medical treatments are in deep trouble. They’re going to have to live with this. Crimes against humanity.

Edit: can a Mod kindly put this in the correct forum. Went in GM by mistake. Thanks
edit on 11-9-2021 by SeventhChapter because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 08:08 AM
That's not good news at all.

+3 more
posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 08:10 AM
Understand that in both cases, we're talking fractions of a decimal point.

So it's not likely to happen to them in either case, but the numbers are still true. They are more likely to suffer serious complications from the vaccine than COVID. So it would seem that a natural approach to immunity would actually be less risky to them.

posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 08:15 AM
Six times more likely means what?

What is the base? 1 in a million, 1 in 5?

posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 08:17 AM

originally posted by: ketsuko
Understand that in both cases, we're talking fractions of a decimal point.

So it's not likely to happen to them in either case, but the numbers are still true. They are more likely to suffer serious complications from the vaccine than COVID. So it would seem that a natural approach to immunity would actually be less risky to them.

Tell that to the father who called into the local radio station in tears because his teenage son was in the hospital with myocarditis.

The third piece of my plan is keeping — and maybe the most important — is keeping our children safe and our schools open. For any parent, it doesn’t matter how low the risk of any illness or accident is when it comes to your child or grandchild. Trust me, I know. So, let me speak to you directly. Let me speak to you directly to help ease some of your worries.

It comes down to two separate categories: children ages 12 and older who are eligible for a vaccine now, and children ages 11 and under who are not are yet eligible. The safest thing for your child 12 and older is to get them vaccinated. They get vaccinated for a lot of things. That’s it. Get them vaccinated. As with adults, almost all the serious COVID-19 cases we’re seeing among adolescents are in unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds — an age group that lags behind in vaccination rates.

So, parents, please get your teenager vaccinated. What about children under the age of 12 who can’t get vaccinated yet? Well, the best way for a parent to protect their child under the age of 12 starts at home. Every parent, every teen sibling, every caregiver around them should be vaccinated.

Children have four times higher chance of getting hospitalized if they live in a state with low vaccination rates rather than the states with high vaccination rates. Now, if you’re a parent of a young child, you’re wondering when will it be — when will it be — the vaccine available for them. I strongly support an independent scientific review for vaccine uses for children under 12.

We can’t take shortcuts with that scientific work. But I’ve made it clear I will do everything within my power to support the FDA with any resource it needs to continue to do this as safely and as quickly as possible, and our nation’s top doctors are committed to keeping the public at large updated on the process so parents can plan. Now to the schools.

We know that if schools follow the science and implement the safety measures — like testing, masking, adequate ventilation systems that we provided the money for, social distancing, and vaccinations — then children can be safe from COVID-19 in schools.

~Joe Biden

+3 more
posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 08:20 AM
What happened to following the science?

The people pushing this experimental crap on our children are criminals.

posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 08:21 AM
No, it's not good news, and it's not surprising. Knowledgeable doctors have been warning about this sort of development for months now.

It is, after all, a bioweapon.

posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 08:22 AM

Only 0 would be an acceptable number.

The government is trying to force this on millions, so even if it's one out of a million healthy young men, there will be needless victims.

Some people are just accepting the inevitable sacrifice of others for their own (perceived) safety.
edit on 11-9-2021 by zosimov because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 08:25 AM

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
Six times more likely means what?

What is the base? 1 in a million, 1 in 5?

lots. But then, those who aren't boot licking suck holes, understand that risk management is what this is truly about and not making sure the weak assholes who were able to be frightened into believing the unvaxxed are an evil horde hell bent on their destruction feel safe and coddled.

I would feel bad to realize I was so weak minded that I could be duped into believing the garbage the MSM and US leaders spew. Good thing most of us aren't douche waffles, amirite!
edit on 11-9-2021 by network dude because: Beto, what a stupid name.

posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 08:27 AM

originally posted by: loam
What happened to following the science?

The people pushing this experimental crap on our children are criminals.

science is just a word that starts with S. Nothing more.

posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 08:43 AM

Making emotional appeals like that makes you no better than the average leftist who gets offended when someone points out that COVID isn't that dangerous to most people and they respond by throwing the local sob story about this or that unfortunate person who actually did end up dying from it.

I spoke no less than the truth.

In both cases, neither outcomes is at all likely - cardiac affects from the vaccine or serious illness from COVID. However, I did go on to say that the serious affects from the vaccine do still end up being more likely, enough that natural immunity would seem the better course by far.

But hysterical emotional appeals like this only damage your case.

posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 08:44 AM

Actually, given the fraction of a percent involved, not that much, but enough that I wouldn't want my son vaccinated until they do a lot of work on the vaccine or he gets years older than he is.

posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 09:01 AM

originally posted by: ketsuko

Actually, given the fraction of a percent involved, not that much, but enough that I wouldn't want my son vaccinated until they do a lot of work on the vaccine or he gets years older than he is.

it's simple science. What are the chances of risk for each? More risky to get the shot than the sickness? Answer it easy.

But the issue comes in when that choice is removed. Then it's criminal. I see that as directly trying to kill my kid and I will react accordingly.

posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 09:07 AM

Did you even read the study? 19 hospitalizations per 1 million people. Your odds of winning the lottery is better than that. So I don't think this is even a minor threat to children's health. What zero hedge is doing is playing off emotions instead of detailing the facts.

There is so many things wrong with this study first its comparing apples and oranges. They choose to compare vaccine-related CAE with COVID hospitalizations? Why not compare Vaccine related CAE with COVID CAE? because if they did they would find covid is higher of course.

Next the study does not remove people that actually had covid their only concern seems to be if they were vaccinated but have no way of knowing if they had already tested positive for covid?

The other problem is they restrict the risk of Covid to 120 days we will be dealing with it far longer than 120 days If they used the same logic for the vaccine should have restricted it to 14 days to determine risk factors. Since after 14 days there would be zero risks from the vaccine.

And finally, the vears data they are using to make this claim is incomplete and no one in the study has bothered to verify its accuracy. They had 256 cases from vears did they even bother to contact them? The study is a joke you can't have a study where you don't even know who the patients are!

www.medrxiv.org...
edit on 9/11/21 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 09:10 AM

But then, those who aren't boot licking suck holes, understand that risk management is what this is truly about and not making sure the weak assholes who were able to be frightened into believing the unvaxxed are an evil horde hell bent on their destruction feel safe and coddled.

Well, it's purely political for many, and that's a broad spectrum, I'm not singling out any one group with that statement.

Then if course there is the risk management. This is a bit trickier to navigate, especially with a lot of people with hyperbias cherry picking data to push their agenda.

The Vax is salvation people misrepresented it from the beginning, validating the skeptics. I don't think it's fair to call it a vaccine, it's more like the flu shot requiring upkeep. But they also embellish what covid can/will do to most healthy people.

Then you have the inverse. They'd like us to believe everyone who gets the Vax is in some way screwed. Some here even implying it's a death sentence. They use a few cases of complications to paint the picture of normal results. Any shot administered to most of the population is going to have some amount of adverse reactions, this is no different.

I'm somewhere in the middle on this, but recently got rubbed the wrong way from overreaching mandates. I'm jabbed more for others than my own fear, but likely won't do boosters (at least to the extent being discussed). I took a chance living my day to day as normal when not much was known about covid. I took a chance with the shot. I take a chance every day getting into my car. Life is navigating risk, but clearly there is more to it when people are exaggerating the risk.

posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 09:12 AM

originally posted by: zosimov

Only 0 would be an acceptable number.

The government is trying to force this on millions, so even if it's one out of a million healthy young men, there will be needless victims.

Some people are just accepting the inevitable sacrifice of others for their own (perceived) safety.

If you drink a glass of ice water there is a chance that your throat will go into spasm and you will choke to death. It's millions to one, but it's still greater than zero.

Do you suggest that we outlaw ice in drinks?

posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 09:15 AM

Look at the scale on that Axis, each increment represents 25 million instances.

If this were the US, you'd be looking at fewer than 10 cases per year.

posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 09:17 AM

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: zosimov

Only 0 would be an acceptable number.

The government is trying to force this on millions, so even if it's one out of a million healthy young men, there will be needless victims.

Some people are just accepting the inevitable sacrifice of others for their own (perceived) safety.

If you drink a glass of ice water there is a chance that your throat will go into spasm and you will choke to death. It's millions to one, but it's still greater than zero.

Do you suggest that we outlaw ice in drinks?

Your analogy is rubbish. I propose an experiment:

You go without water for 1 week.

I will forgo the COVID gene therapies for 1 week.

Let's circle back next Saturday and report on our findings.

posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 09:20 AM

There are no mandates requiring anyone to drink ice water.
If the shots are mandatory and the dangerous effects are known then the government and stoolies become criminal.

posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 09:27 AM

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: zosimov

Only 0 would be an acceptable number.

The government is trying to force this on millions, so even if it's one out of a million healthy young men, there will be needless victims.

Some people are just accepting the inevitable sacrifice of others for their own (perceived) safety.

If you drink a glass of ice water there is a chance that your throat will go into spasm and you will choke to death. It's millions to one, but it's still greater than zero.

Do you suggest that we outlaw ice in drinks?

Your analogy is rubbish. I propose an experiment:

You go without water for 1 week.

I will forgo the COVID gene therapies for 1 week.

Let's circle back next Saturday and report on our findings.

I think you misunderstood the point completely. Do you want to change it how about caffiene? Do you know more people die from it than they do from the covid vaccine? This is why they had energy drinks restricted for children. And yet they still happen usually do to bad parenting. Your risk of falling in the shower and dying is higher than being hospitalized for covid vaccine.

People want to play off fear however dont even bother to look at the statistics.
edit on 9/11/21 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

23