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

Dafuq is wrong with people, if the risk for a young boy is higher with the shot than without you don't get the shot.

The actual total numbers should not matter, a healthy 12-18 yr old at minimal risk should not be mandated, it flys in the face of every pandemic plan ever.

I am so getting a 1975 (I think with the last rushed vaccine) vibe here and that's not good.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: olaru12

My kid could be forced to take an experimental jab which creates heart problems that he would have to deal with for his entire lifetime, and still catch COVID and give it to grandma and kill her!

But that's his problem, right?

I know it's an inconvenient choice. My grandma was killed by a drunken driver that was fined $500 bucks and 30 days. That's fair huh?

we should punish all the unvaxxed for this. Kill em all, let God sort em out! AMIRITE!

a reply to: Irishhaf

People are afraid. That's what's wrong with them, and when you're afraid, nothing is beyond the pale apparently.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: dragonridr

It doesn't matter. The fact is that both risks are very, very small, but the one with the vaccine is still higher. So why bother to get the vaccine and increase that small risk? You are just as well off with a healthy, in shape boy to wait it out.

You're looking at this form the perspective of the individual rather than the society.

While covid might pose a low risk to children they can become carriers and incubators. An unvaxxed asymptomatic child has about a 1 in 4 chance of infecting people who are in close proximity to them. A vaxxed asymptomatic child has about a 1 in 26 chance.

By vaxxing children you reduce the risk of them infecting their family or friends.

Then there's the fact that coronavirus have the potential to mutate when they replicate. So by reducing the number of hosts you reduce the amount of viral replication in the community, which in turn reduce the risk that one of these mutations will lead to a more dangerous varient.

Overall, the chances that child will be harmed by the vax are statistically insignificant, but the chances that an unvaxxed child might inadvertently lead to somebody else being harmed are statistically higher.

One of the biggest takeaways that I have form this whole affair is that there are an awful lot of extremely selfish people out there who think about themselves more than they think about their communities.

originally posted by: olaru12
Your kid could get covid and not show any symptoms what so ever; But bring home the virus and kill grandma; but that's her problem, right!!

Cull the herd of those worthless seniors and strike a blow for freedom at the same time. Win, Win....

If Grandma is vaccinated, she won't catch it, or if she does, she won't be hospitalized, or if she is hospitalized, she won't die. So what is the problem?

From the beginning we should have focused on vaccinating the most vulnerable and those who feel they need it. We could have probably had all of them vaccinated far faster, with focused production and distribution.

If we would have only voluntarily locked down the most vulnerable. we would have sped up and passed the first wave, with the majority of the population having natural immunity.

And no grandmas would have had to die at all to do it.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Covid is in the animal population, reduction of potential hosts opportunity is dead and gone mutation of the virus is the new normal.

Sticking a healthy kid with a leaky vaccine is bad medicine.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

When I make the best choices I can for me as an individual, it is ultimately good for the society. Society benefits most when I am able to function at my best. When someone else overrides my judgment, *or my doctor's*, then the decision made may actually not be in my best interest, may negatively impact me, and may ultimately make me more of a burden than boon to society.

So let's look at this. If I get my son the shot and he gets a cardiac condition that impacts him negatively for the rest of his life because someone mandates that I have to against my better judgement, who is best served? Society may now have to carry my son because I was overriden.

On the other hand, if he does not get the shot and does get COVID, it's something he may already do *with* the shot. Either way, he's unlikely to suffer serious symptoms from it being in the young age group where COVID does not seriously impact them and is less likely to than the shot is to cause those aforementioned serious side effects. OK. He may get it. OK. He may spread it, but since he can do both those things with the shot. It seems to me to be half a dozen of one and six of the other there. No net gain or loss.

To me, I still think waiting it out is the better policy. In fact, getting him vaccinated may give a false sense of security. "He's vaccinated. Why would he have COVID?" I actually may have had it myself and not thought twice about COVID earlier this summer. Why? Because I was vaccinated, and it was before they started saying the delta presents as a bad head cold ... exactly what I had.

a reply to: ketsuko

When I make the best choices I can for me as an individual, it is ultimately good for the society.

I call it the airplane approach. In the event of an emergency, secure your oxygen mask before assisting others.

It's not selfishness, I just know I will make better decisions if I don't feel cornered. And I'll be in more of a position to help someone if I'm not engulfed in self preservation.

Plus, I feel like people have more situational awareness if they look within for answers or solutions. We've had a societal problem where people look to government or others for direction or help instead of within.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Yes, it's like when the naysayers say that you can't be Christian if you haven't given up everything you have.

How can I help people as I am enjoined if I have forsaken all means of helping myself? It's simply not possible. I have to take care of me to put myself into a position to help care for others.

a reply to: ketsuko

We're in the all or nothing age unfortunately. People think everything should be black or white with no in between.

As far as the Bible is concerned with wealth... I always saw it as being more against people caring about material objects over things that actually matter. And I've known plenty of poor people who put material objects above their loved ones. I've known a few rich people who could care less about things and are some of the best family people I've met.

Priorities, is what I think it ultimately boils down to. Did someone become wealthy by bringing people up with them on the rise up? Or did they get there by exploitation?

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

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

You are only supposed to follow the science presented to you on CNN, MSNBC etc.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: olaru12

My kid could be forced to take an experimental jab which creates heart problems that he would have to deal with for his entire lifetime, and still catch COVID and give it to grandma and kill her!

But that's his problem, right?

I know it's an inconvenient choice. My grandma was killed by a drunken driver that was fined $500 bucks and 30 days. That's fair huh?

we should punish all the unvaxxed for this. Kill em all, let God sort em out! AMIRITE!

Sorry, can't accept this Qanon type of logic!

originally posted by: themessengernevermatters

originally posted by: olaru12
Your kid could get covid and not show any symptoms what so ever; But bring home the virus and kill grandma; but that's her problem, right!!

Cull the herd of those worthless seniors and strike a blow for freedom at the same time. Win, Win....

If Grandma is vaccinated, she won't catch it, or if she does, she won't be hospitalized, or if she is hospitalized, she won't die. So what is the problem?

From the beginning we should have focused on vaccinating the most vulnerable and those who feel they need it. We could have probably had all of them vaccinated far faster, with focused production and distribution.

If we would have only voluntarily locked down the most vulnerable. we would have sped up and passed the first wave, with the majority of the population having natural immunity.

And no grandmas would have had to die at all to do it.

No , no one should ever vaccinated DURING a pandemic. It makes everything worse.

Vaccine side effect risks should not be more of a problem than getting the virus. They should stop giving it to teenage boys in that case.

originally posted by: everyone

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

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

You are only supposed to follow the science presented to you on CNN, MSNBC etc.

Yes, social programming by the media should be more important than science when related to health risk. Scientists are not professional twisters of the facts, they should never be allowed to interpret their research, that is the job of MSM outlets.

a reply to: dragonridr

Chance of winning a lottery is far less than 19:1000000
Not to mention that there may be thousand times more of those who have more or less the same condition but are not hospitalized. They will live their life with their heart muscle damaged and probably die earlier for no reason

a reply to: CriticalStinker

And I think you are spot on with that: what is more important to you: God and the things in life that matter or material wealth.

Several of the disciples were wealthy, but they were not asked to give up everything. They had already signaled a willingness to do so by following Jesus, and almost every single one ended paying with their life in the end. When the rich young man comes, Jesus asks him to give it all up and he can't/won't so he leaves. It isn't about everyone having to so much as about what you would be willing to do.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Dafuq is wrong with people, if the risk for a young boy is higher with the shot than without you don't get the shot.

That preprint is comparing apples to oranges though, some weird math going on there. Cases of myocarditis vs a selected group of hospitalizations? Why not hospitalizations vs hospitalizations? Why not myocarditis vs myocarditis? I'll wait for peer review.

In the meantime, here is another preprint. But at least it is apples to apples.

Myocarditis (or pericarditis or myopericarditis) from primary COVID19 infection occurred at a rate as high as 450 per million in young males. Young males infected with the virus are up 6 times more likely to develop myocarditis as those who have received the vaccine.

www.medrxiv.org...

My stepson was killed at 19 by a driver convicted of death by dangerous driving. She got a £1000 fine and a years driving ban.




a reply to: olaru12

Is there any possibility of mandatory vaccines for minors in the US?

Here in the UK that's something I'd put as a zero chance as things stand, even for adults it's not looking like a possibility.



a reply to: ketsuko