Study of 38 million vaccinated adults shows 1 out of 100 were admitted with cardiac arrhythmias

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

We estimated an extra two (95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 3), one (95% CI 0, 2) and six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1 million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively, in the 28 days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1 million vaccinated in the 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273.

This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1 million patients in the 28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test

So, getting Covid increases your risk of myocarditis much more than vaccination does.

So forcing people to take a vaccine that has a 1 in 100 chance of damaging your heart is totally cool with you? Keep in mind that not taking the vaccine has a 0 in 100 chance of adverse reactions to the shot.

The study in the OP doesn't say there is a 1 in 100 chance of the vaccine damaging your heart.

Correct. The probability of 1 in 100 is only for an adverse cardiac event, the chances of actual cardiac damage is more like 1 in 526.

The study doesn't say that either.

originally posted by: GenerationGap

That would be something if the vaccine was an actual vaccine.

There are several in current use, and yes, they are all vaccines.

originally posted by: GenerationGap

The fact you can still contact Covid sorta makes it a double heart whammy.

No vaccines offer 100% protection against contracting the disease they help to prevent. Never have, never will. What's so difficult about that concept?

Double heart whammy? Nope. The cited research indicates that the vaccines don't double, but reduce the risk of heart damage. As per so many of these threads, ATS members are misinterpreting some real science to support their claims/beliefs. Anyone who takes the time to read it can see it contradicts those notions.

a reply to: EvilAxis

Well said. After all these threads and posts it's just unbelievable that some folk think the vaxxes don't work cos they don't stop infection.

They provide increased immunity.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

We estimated an extra two (95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 3), one (95% CI 0, 2) and six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1 million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively, in the 28 days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1 million vaccinated in the 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273.

This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1 million patients in the 28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test

So, getting Covid increases your risk of myocarditis much more than vaccination does.

So forcing people to take a vaccine that has a 1 in 100 chance of damaging your heart is totally cool with you? Keep in mind that not taking the vaccine has a 0 in 100 chance of adverse reactions to the shot.

The study in the OP doesn't say there is a 1 in 100 chance of the vaccine damaging your heart.

Correct. The probability of 1 in 100 is only for an adverse cardiac event, the chances of actual cardiac damage is more like 1 in 526.

The study doesn't say that either.

Didn't say that it did.

From my own research: probability of adverse cardiac event from Vaxx: 0.73%
probability of adverse cardiac event from Covid-19: 0.57%

As far as Cardiac events go; the disease is SAFER than the vaxx!

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

We estimated an extra two (95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 3), one (95% CI 0, 2) and six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1 million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively, in the 28 days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1 million vaccinated in the 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273.

This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1 million patients in the 28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test

So, getting Covid increases your risk of myocarditis much more than vaccination does.

So forcing people to take a vaccine that has a 1 in 100 chance of damaging your heart is totally cool with you? Keep in mind that not taking the vaccine has a 0 in 100 chance of adverse reactions to the shot.

The study in the OP doesn't say there is a 1 in 100 chance of the vaccine damaging your heart.

Correct. The probability of 1 in 100 is only for an adverse cardiac event, the chances of actual cardiac damage is more like 1 in 526.

The study doesn't say that either.

Didn't say that it did.

From my own research: probability of adverse cardiac event from Vaxx: 0.73%
probability of adverse cardiac event from Covid-19: 0.57%

As far as Cardiac events go; the disease is SAFER than the vaxx!

The actual study in the OP says the opposite.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

We estimated an extra two (95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 3), one (95% CI 0, 2) and six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1 million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively, in the 28 days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1 million vaccinated in the 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273.

This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1 million patients in the 28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test

So, getting Covid increases your risk of myocarditis much more than vaccination does.

So forcing people to take a vaccine that has a 1 in 100 chance of damaging your heart is totally cool with you? Keep in mind that not taking the vaccine has a 0 in 100 chance of adverse reactions to the shot.

The study in the OP doesn't say there is a 1 in 100 chance of the vaccine damaging your heart.

Correct. The probability of 1 in 100 is only for an adverse cardiac event, the chances of actual cardiac damage is more like 1 in 526.

The study doesn't say that either.

Didn't say that it did.

From my own research: probability of adverse cardiac event from Vaxx: 0.73%
probability of adverse cardiac event from Covid-19: 0.57%

As far as Cardiac events go; the disease is SAFER than the vaxx!

The actual study in the OP says the opposite.

Well... given that the 'value' they quoted from VAERS is incorrect, I have to presume they used an incorrect query into the database. Given that, I almost have to presume that ALL their other database queries are also incorrect; thus there is no reason to accept anything the "study" says as anything close to reality.

This leads me to think that these researchers know little to nothing about relational databases, so any results they get are suspect. And, then there is the fact that One simply can't use VAERS like that; It is horribly underreported. But, then again; they prolly just using the crap tools provided by Government.

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

We estimated an extra two (95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 3), one (95% CI 0, 2) and six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1 million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively, in the 28 days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1 million vaccinated in the 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273.

This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1 million patients in the 28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test

So, getting Covid increases your risk of myocarditis much more than vaccination does.

So forcing people to take a vaccine that has a 1 in 100 chance of damaging your heart is totally cool with you? Keep in mind that not taking the vaccine has a 0 in 100 chance of adverse reactions to the shot.

The study in the OP doesn't say there is a 1 in 100 chance of the vaccine damaging your heart.

Correct. The probability of 1 in 100 is only for an adverse cardiac event, the chances of actual cardiac damage is more like 1 in 526.

The study doesn't say that either.

Didn't say that it did.

From my own research: probability of adverse cardiac event from Vaxx: 0.73%
probability of adverse cardiac event from Covid-19: 0.57%

As far as Cardiac events go; the disease is SAFER than the vaxx!

The actual study in the OP says the opposite.

Well... given that the 'value' they quoted from VAERS is incorrect, I have to presume they used an incorrect query into the database. Given that, I almost have to presume that ALL their other database queries are also incorrect; thus there is no reason to accept anything the "study" says as anything close to reality.

This leads me to think that these researchers know little to nothing about relational databases, so any results they get are suspect. And, then there is the fact that One simply can't use VAERS like that; It is horribly underreported. But, then again; they prolly just using the crap tools provided by Government.

You seem to presume a lot.

You are correct you can't use VAERs as its not a measure of adverse reactions caused by vaccines.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

We estimated an extra two (95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 3), one (95% CI 0, 2) and six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1 million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively, in the 28 days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1 million vaccinated in the 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273.

This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1 million patients in the 28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test

So, getting Covid increases your risk of myocarditis much more than vaccination does.

So forcing people to take a vaccine that has a 1 in 100 chance of damaging your heart is totally cool with you? Keep in mind that not taking the vaccine has a 0 in 100 chance of adverse reactions to the shot.

The study in the OP doesn't say there is a 1 in 100 chance of the vaccine damaging your heart.

Correct. The probability of 1 in 100 is only for an adverse cardiac event, the chances of actual cardiac damage is more like 1 in 526.

The study doesn't say that either.

Didn't say that it did.

From my own research: probability of adverse cardiac event from Vaxx: 0.73%
probability of adverse cardiac event from Covid-19: 0.57%

As far as Cardiac events go; the disease is SAFER than the vaxx!

The actual study in the OP says the opposite.

Well... given that the 'value' they quoted from VAERS is incorrect, I have to presume they used an incorrect query into the database. Given that, I almost have to presume that ALL their other database queries are also incorrect; thus there is no reason to accept anything the "study" says as anything close to reality.

This leads me to think that these researchers know little to nothing about relational databases, so any results they get are suspect. And, then there is the fact that One simply can't use VAERS like that; It is horribly underreported. But, then again; they prolly just using the crap tools provided by Government.

You seem to presume a lot.

You are correct you can't use VAERs as its not a measure of adverse reactions caused by vaccines.

Perhaps I do 'presume' much, but it is all based on over 30 years of professional work, knowledge, and experience.

Your response to VAERS shows your error in logic and thinking. These records are not adverse events "caused" by the vaxx, but rather adverse events associated with the vaccine. And it is that ASSOCIATION that is important here. None of the other databases showed any adverse events 'caused' by the vaxx, only events associated with. So how about you just drop the wee bit of pretense.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: AaarghZombies
OK, it was 7,795.
I got lazy and did some number rounding.
Pfizer does that all the time in their studies.

Maybe you should focus more on moderating, and less on commenting.

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

We estimated an extra two (95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 3), one (95% CI 0, 2) and six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1 million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively, in the 28 days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1 million vaccinated in the 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273.

This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1 million patients in the 28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test

So, getting Covid increases your risk of myocarditis much more than vaccination does.

So forcing people to take a vaccine that has a 1 in 100 chance of damaging your heart is totally cool with you? Keep in mind that not taking the vaccine has a 0 in 100 chance of adverse reactions to the shot.

The study in the OP doesn't say there is a 1 in 100 chance of the vaccine damaging your heart.

Correct. The probability of 1 in 100 is only for an adverse cardiac event, the chances of actual cardiac damage is more like 1 in 526.

The study doesn't say that either.

Didn't say that it did.

From my own research: probability of adverse cardiac event from Vaxx: 0.73%
probability of adverse cardiac event from Covid-19: 0.57%

As far as Cardiac events go; the disease is SAFER than the vaxx!

The actual study in the OP says the opposite.

Well... given that the 'value' they quoted from VAERS is incorrect, I have to presume they used an incorrect query into the database. Given that, I almost have to presume that ALL their other database queries are also incorrect; thus there is no reason to accept anything the "study" says as anything close to reality.

This leads me to think that these researchers know little to nothing about relational databases, so any results they get are suspect. And, then there is the fact that One simply can't use VAERS like that; It is horribly underreported. But, then again; they prolly just using the crap tools provided by Government.

You seem to presume a lot.

You are correct you can't use VAERs as its not a measure of adverse reactions caused by vaccines.

Perhaps I do 'presume' much, but it is all based on over 30 years of professional work, knowledge, and experience.

Your response to VAERS shows your error in logic and thinking. These records are not adverse events "caused" by the vaxx, but rather adverse events associated with the vaccine. And it is that ASSOCIATION that is important here. None of the other databases showed any adverse events 'caused' by the vaxx, only events associated with. So how about you just drop the wee bit of pretense.

One of the you seem to have presumed is that the study in the OP used VAERs data.

Perhaps you would like to share you better methodology and research based on 30 years experience that got % you claimed?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

We estimated an extra two (95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 3), one (95% CI 0, 2) and six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1 million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively, in the 28 days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1 million vaccinated in the 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273.

This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1 million patients in the 28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test

So, getting Covid increases your risk of myocarditis much more than vaccination does.

So forcing people to take a vaccine that has a 1 in 100 chance of damaging your heart is totally cool with you? Keep in mind that not taking the vaccine has a 0 in 100 chance of adverse reactions to the shot.

The study in the OP doesn't say there is a 1 in 100 chance of the vaccine damaging your heart.

Correct. The probability of 1 in 100 is only for an adverse cardiac event, the chances of actual cardiac damage is more like 1 in 526.

The study doesn't say that either.

Didn't say that it did.

From my own research: probability of adverse cardiac event from Vaxx: 0.73%
probability of adverse cardiac event from Covid-19: 0.57%

As far as Cardiac events go; the disease is SAFER than the vaxx!

The actual study in the OP says the opposite.

Well... given that the 'value' they quoted from VAERS is incorrect, I have to presume they used an incorrect query into the database. Given that, I almost have to presume that ALL their other database queries are also incorrect; thus there is no reason to accept anything the "study" says as anything close to reality.

This leads me to think that these researchers know little to nothing about relational databases, so any results they get are suspect. And, then there is the fact that One simply can't use VAERS like that; It is horribly underreported. But, then again; they prolly just using the crap tools provided by Government.

You seem to presume a lot.

You are correct you can't use VAERs as its not a measure of adverse reactions caused by vaccines.

Perhaps I do 'presume' much, but it is all based on over 30 years of professional work, knowledge, and experience.

Your response to VAERS shows your error in logic and thinking. These records are not adverse events "caused" by the vaxx, but rather adverse events associated with the vaccine. And it is that ASSOCIATION that is important here. None of the other databases showed any adverse events 'caused' by the vaxx, only events associated with. So how about you just drop the wee bit of pretense.

One of the you seem to have presumed is that the study in the OP used VAERs data.

As of 4 November 2021, there have been 1,783 reports to the United States Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) of cases of heart inflammation, namely myocarditis or pericarditis, among people aged 12–29 years who received COVID-19 vaccines, in particular following mRNA vaccination, that is, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines2.

Source

Perhaps you would like to share you better methodology and research based on 30 years experience that got % you claimed?

The methodology: just simple data mining. The White Paper: when it is ready.
Did I say my methods were better? I don't remember saying that, though, perhaps mine are more technically correct when it comes to database queries, these 'scientists' don't seem to have that aspect together at all. Maybe, that is because they are a different kind of scientist than I am...just a thought.

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

We estimated an extra two (95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 3), one (95% CI 0, 2) and six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1 million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively, in the 28 days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1 million vaccinated in the 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273.

This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1 million patients in the 28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test

So, getting Covid increases your risk of myocarditis much more than vaccination does.

So forcing people to take a vaccine that has a 1 in 100 chance of damaging your heart is totally cool with you? Keep in mind that not taking the vaccine has a 0 in 100 chance of adverse reactions to the shot.

The study in the OP doesn't say there is a 1 in 100 chance of the vaccine damaging your heart.

Correct. The probability of 1 in 100 is only for an adverse cardiac event, the chances of actual cardiac damage is more like 1 in 526.

The study doesn't say that either.

Didn't say that it did.

From my own research: probability of adverse cardiac event from Vaxx: 0.73%
probability of adverse cardiac event from Covid-19: 0.57%

As far as Cardiac events go; the disease is SAFER than the vaxx!

The actual study in the OP says the opposite.

Well... given that the 'value' they quoted from VAERS is incorrect, I have to presume they used an incorrect query into the database. Given that, I almost have to presume that ALL their other database queries are also incorrect; thus there is no reason to accept anything the "study" says as anything close to reality.

This leads me to think that these researchers know little to nothing about relational databases, so any results they get are suspect. And, then there is the fact that One simply can't use VAERS like that; It is horribly underreported. But, then again; they prolly just using the crap tools provided by Government.

You seem to presume a lot.

You are correct you can't use VAERs as its not a measure of adverse reactions caused by vaccines.

Perhaps I do 'presume' much, but it is all based on over 30 years of professional work, knowledge, and experience.

Your response to VAERS shows your error in logic and thinking. These records are not adverse events "caused" by the vaxx, but rather adverse events associated with the vaccine. And it is that ASSOCIATION that is important here. None of the other databases showed any adverse events 'caused' by the vaxx, only events associated with. So how about you just drop the wee bit of pretense.

One of the you seem to have presumed is that the study in the OP used VAERs data.

As of 4 November 2021, there have been 1,783 reports to the United States Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) of cases of heart inflammation, namely myocarditis or pericarditis, among people aged 12–29 years who received COVID-19 vaccines, in particular following mRNA vaccination, that is, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines2.

Source

Perhaps you would like to share you better methodology and research based on 30 years experience that got % you claimed?

The methodology: just simple data mining. The White Paper: when it is ready.
Did I say my methods were better? I don't remember saying that, though, perhaps mine are more technically correct when it comes to database queries, these 'scientists' don't seem to have that aspect together at all. Maybe, that is because they are a different kind of scientist than I am...just a thought.

We undertook a self-controlled case series study of people aged 16 or older vaccinated for COVID-19 in England between 1 December 2020 and 24 August 2021 to investigate hospital admission or death from myocarditis, pericarditis and cardiac arrhythmias

The cases numbers where for context, not the data used.

And the source data you mined is?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

We estimated an extra two (95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 3), one (95% CI 0, 2) and six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1 million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively, in the 28 days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1 million vaccinated in the 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273.

This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1 million patients in the 28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test

So, getting Covid increases your risk of myocarditis much more than vaccination does.

So forcing people to take a vaccine that has a 1 in 100 chance of damaging your heart is totally cool with you? Keep in mind that not taking the vaccine has a 0 in 100 chance of adverse reactions to the shot.

The study in the OP doesn't say there is a 1 in 100 chance of the vaccine damaging your heart.

Correct. The probability of 1 in 100 is only for an adverse cardiac event, the chances of actual cardiac damage is more like 1 in 526.

The study doesn't say that either.

Didn't say that it did.

From my own research: probability of adverse cardiac event from Vaxx: 0.73%
probability of adverse cardiac event from Covid-19: 0.57%

As far as Cardiac events go; the disease is SAFER than the vaxx!

The actual study in the OP says the opposite.

Well... given that the 'value' they quoted from VAERS is incorrect, I have to presume they used an incorrect query into the database. Given that, I almost have to presume that ALL their other database queries are also incorrect; thus there is no reason to accept anything the "study" says as anything close to reality.

This leads me to think that these researchers know little to nothing about relational databases, so any results they get are suspect. And, then there is the fact that One simply can't use VAERS like that; It is horribly underreported. But, then again; they prolly just using the crap tools provided by Government.

You seem to presume a lot.

You are correct you can't use VAERs as its not a measure of adverse reactions caused by vaccines.

Perhaps I do 'presume' much, but it is all based on over 30 years of professional work, knowledge, and experience.

Your response to VAERS shows your error in logic and thinking. These records are not adverse events "caused" by the vaxx, but rather adverse events associated with the vaccine. And it is that ASSOCIATION that is important here. None of the other databases showed any adverse events 'caused' by the vaxx, only events associated with. So how about you just drop the wee bit of pretense.

One of the you seem to have presumed is that the study in the OP used VAERs data.

As of 4 November 2021, there have been 1,783 reports to the United States Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) of cases of heart inflammation, namely myocarditis or pericarditis, among people aged 12–29 years who received COVID-19 vaccines, in particular following mRNA vaccination, that is, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines2.

Source

Perhaps you would like to share you better methodology and research based on 30 years experience that got % you claimed?

The methodology: just simple data mining. The White Paper: when it is ready.
Did I say my methods were better? I don't remember saying that, though, perhaps mine are more technically correct when it comes to database queries, these 'scientists' don't seem to have that aspect together at all. Maybe, that is because they are a different kind of scientist than I am...just a thought.

We undertook a self-controlled case series study of people aged 16 or older vaccinated for COVID-19 in England between 1 December 2020 and 24 August 2021 to investigate hospital admission or death from myocarditis, pericarditis and cardiac arrhythmias

The cases numbers where for context, not the data used.

And the source data you mined is?

I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious, my bad...

Source data: VAERS Data, valid as of 11/26/2021
I have downloaded the entire VAERS database and imported it into MS-SQL Server. Which gives me better access to that data than those scientists had.

You truly need to learn how to use the 'quote' functions available, they're quite simple.

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

We estimated an extra two (95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 3), one (95% CI 0, 2) and six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1 million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively, in the 28 days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1 million vaccinated in the 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273.

This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1 million patients in the 28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test

So, getting Covid increases your risk of myocarditis much more than vaccination does.

So forcing people to take a vaccine that has a 1 in 100 chance of damaging your heart is totally cool with you? Keep in mind that not taking the vaccine has a 0 in 100 chance of adverse reactions to the shot.

The study in the OP doesn't say there is a 1 in 100 chance of the vaccine damaging your heart.

Correct. The probability of 1 in 100 is only for an adverse cardiac event, the chances of actual cardiac damage is more like 1 in 526.

The study doesn't say that either.

Didn't say that it did.

From my own research: probability of adverse cardiac event from Vaxx: 0.73%
probability of adverse cardiac event from Covid-19: 0.57%

As far as Cardiac events go; the disease is SAFER than the vaxx!

The actual study in the OP says the opposite.

Well... given that the 'value' they quoted from VAERS is incorrect, I have to presume they used an incorrect query into the database. Given that, I almost have to presume that ALL their other database queries are also incorrect; thus there is no reason to accept anything the "study" says as anything close to reality.

This leads me to think that these researchers know little to nothing about relational databases, so any results they get are suspect. And, then there is the fact that One simply can't use VAERS like that; It is horribly underreported. But, then again; they prolly just using the crap tools provided by Government.

You seem to presume a lot.

You are correct you can't use VAERs as its not a measure of adverse reactions caused by vaccines.

Perhaps I do 'presume' much, but it is all based on over 30 years of professional work, knowledge, and experience.

Your response to VAERS shows your error in logic and thinking. These records are not adverse events "caused" by the vaxx, but rather adverse events associated with the vaccine. And it is that ASSOCIATION that is important here. None of the other databases showed any adverse events 'caused' by the vaxx, only events associated with. So how about you just drop the wee bit of pretense.

One of the you seem to have presumed is that the study in the OP used VAERs data.

As of 4 November 2021, there have been 1,783 reports to the United States Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) of cases of heart inflammation, namely myocarditis or pericarditis, among people aged 12–29 years who received COVID-19 vaccines, in particular following mRNA vaccination, that is, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines2.

Source

Perhaps you would like to share you better methodology and research based on 30 years experience that got % you claimed?

The methodology: just simple data mining. The White Paper: when it is ready.
Did I say my methods were better? I don't remember saying that, though, perhaps mine are more technically correct when it comes to database queries, these 'scientists' don't seem to have that aspect together at all. Maybe, that is because they are a different kind of scientist than I am...just a thought.

We undertook a self-controlled case series study of people aged 16 or older vaccinated for COVID-19 in England between 1 December 2020 and 24 August 2021 to investigate hospital admission or death from myocarditis, pericarditis and cardiac arrhythmias

The cases numbers where for context, not the data used.

And the source data you mined is?

I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious, my bad...

Source data: VAERS Data, valid as of 11/26/2021
I have downloaded the entire VAERS database and imported it into MS-SQL Server. Which gives me better access to that data than those scientists had.

You truly need to learn how to use the 'quote' functions available, they're quite simple.

Only as already covered you can't use VAERs data that way. But thanks for confirming that I can discount the numbers you quoted.

You comment about quote function is funny as you had to edit your post to quote correctly.

a reply to: Jimy718

For the millionth time. There are many many false reports on vaers which if as you say have better data than scientists you would have seen. Anyone can make a report and in a brief foray around vaers one afternoon, I found there were many glaring errors, incomplete and inaccurate information in reports, etc.

originally posted by: ScepticScot


Only as already covered you can't use VAERs data that way. But thanks for confirming that I can discount the numbers you quoted.

Says who? Some paid-off self-appointed Data Czar? The manner I am using that data is exactly the same as the 'scientists' in the OP. So, I guess that BS is done!

You comment about quote function is funny as you had to edit your post to quote correctly.

Yeah, I had to make an edit...so that anything at all would show up. Your error was THAT severe!

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot


Only as already covered you can't use VAERs data that way. But thanks for confirming that I can discount the numbers you quoted.

Says who? Some paid-off self-appointed Data Czar? The manner I am using that data is exactly the same as the 'scientists' in the OP. So, I guess that BS is done!

You comment about quote function is funny as you had to edit your post to quote correctly.

Yeah, I had to make an edit...so that anything at all would show up. Your error was THAT severe!

The CDC.

Disclaimer
VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to the system. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

The strengths of VAERS are that it is national in scope and can quickly provide an early warning of a safety problem with a vaccine. As part of CDC and FDA’s multi-system approach to post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring, VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also known as “safety signals.” If a safety signal is found in VAERS, further studies can be done in safety systems such as the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) or the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) project. These systems do not have the same scientific limitations as VAERS, and can better assess health risks and possible connections between adverse events and a vaccine.

Key considerations and limitations of VAERS data:

Vaccine providers are encouraged to report any clinically significant health problem following vaccination to VAERS, whether or not they believe the vaccine was the cause.
Reports may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified information.
The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted or used to reach conclusions about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines.
VAERS data is limited to vaccine adverse event reports received between 1990 and the most recent date for which data are available.
VAERS data do not represent all known safety information for a vaccine and should be interpreted in the context of other scientific information.

And no you are not.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot


Only as already covered you can't use VAERs data that way. But thanks for confirming that I can discount the numbers you quoted.

Says who? Some paid-off self-appointed Data Czar? The manner I am using that data is exactly the same as the 'scientists' in the OP. So, I guess that BS is done!

You comment about quote function is funny as you had to edit your post to quote correctly.

Yeah, I had to make an edit...so that anything at all would show up. Your error was THAT severe!

The CDC.

You mean the Corrupt Data Czar?

And no you are not.

From the CDC disclaimer: " VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also known as “safety signals.”"

Just how do you think One can get that kind of data? I mean, without queries into the data; like I have been doing, and those scientists in the OP did (that's how they got their number of 1700 and change).

The difference is their query vs mine. I wrote the query correctly, and got a lower number than they did, with newer data.

No, I'm sorry, but I'm using VAERS just as it was intended; combining the mining of VAERS data with other research in order to form my hypothesis.

Not sure if anyone posted this already but it's the first time I heard it.

Pfizer has public service radio commercials warning people about the signs of blood clots.

Here is a link www.ispot.tv...

How nice of them.

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot


Only as already covered you can't use VAERs data that way. But thanks for confirming that I can discount the numbers you quoted.

Says who? Some paid-off self-appointed Data Czar? The manner I am using that data is exactly the same as the 'scientists' in the OP. So, I guess that BS is done!

You comment about quote function is funny as you had to edit your post to quote correctly.

Yeah, I had to make an edit...so that anything at all would show up. Your error was THAT severe!

The CDC.

You mean the Corrupt Data Czar?

And no you are not.

From the CDC disclaimer: " VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also known as “safety signals.”"

Just how do you think One can get that kind of data? I mean, without queries into the data; like I have been doing, and those scientists in the OP did (that's how they got their number of 1700 and change).

The difference is their query vs mine. I wrote the query correctly, and got a lower number than they did, with newer data.

No, I'm sorry, but I'm using VAERS just as it was intended; combining the mining of VAERS data with other research in order to form my hypothesis.

If you think the CDC corrupt then why are you using their data ?

You aren't using VAERs as intended, in fact you are using it in a completely inappropriate was as covered in the disclaimer.