Myocarditis or Pericarditis Study In Post COVID-19 Unvaccinated Patients

originally posted by: Antisocialist

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Antisocialist
a reply to: LordAhriman

Isn't this discussion fairly irrelevant, considering where the virus originated and for what purpose it was originated? So one gets myocarditis or pericarditis from the virus or from the vaccine is irrelevant considering that the original intent of both is to reduce global populations.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If the intention was to depopulate, why did they use such a futile method?

Surely they could have faked a world war and deployed nukes, and/or have used really deadly pathogens or poisons?

The end result of the effects of the vaccine are yet to be realized.

Exactly what are these long-term residual effects, specifically? How likely are they to manifest? What sort of time frame until we could expect these things to happen?

The vaccine may have residual effects even into succeeding generations. One residual may be sterility in the offspring of the vaccinated. Who knows what these vaccines may manifest in future generations.

Stealth is the optimum term here. Blatantly killing off millions of people would be far too obvious to be overlooked by the masses.

I don't know about that, we went through centuries of some pretty stupid wars, for no good reason, and to no ultimate advantage.

I imagine that "they attacked us" is sufficient justification for an inappropriate and broad response that targets more innocent victims, among the general public (wild and crazed flag waving escalates).

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Kenzo

I just put this here also :


compilation: peer reviewed medical papers of covid vaccine injuries

And they demonstrate clearly that side effects are rare and mostly mild. Requiring only bed for most people.

This is in line with the measles and flu shots.

You are going from thread to thread trying to propagate your flawed arguments which have been refuted several times over many threads.

I am still waiting for you to prove that herd immunity could be achieved through vaccination or that it has been achieved in your country.

You are also misrepresenting deliberately what others say and you are making up numbers that only exist in your mind and nowhere else.

You said earlier:

'And I was right, that number wasn't anywhere in the original document. Someone on this forum rounded it up from another number. They however forgot to factor in that 1 in 4 of those people were actually in the placebo group, and that some of them turned out to simply have covid'

Ok then. Shoe where in the study it says 1 in 4 people where from the placebo group. I have asked you at least 3 times and you can't give an answer.

And let the audience know where is that herd immunity has been achieved. Name of the country please.

As for your comment here, did you really read thousands of peer-reviewed publications and came up with your flaws conclusion?? I mean you cannot even read one and yit had issues dividing numbers the other time, let alone read a publication.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Antisocialist
a reply to: LordAhriman

Isn't this discussion fairly irrelevant, considering where the virus originated and for what purpose it was originated? So one gets myocarditis or pericarditis from the virus or from the vaccine is irrelevant considering that the original intent of both is to reduce global populations.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If the intention was to depopulate, why did they use such a futile method?

Surely they could have faked a world war and deployed nukes, and/or have used really deadly pathogens or poisons?

I've asked this more times than I can remember.

If covid were a bio-weapons designed to reduce the world population why make one that kills pretty much nobody.

The same with the vax. It's got a mortality rate on par with the existing flu shot. Why make a weapon that's so ineffective.

If the aim really was to reduce the population it would be much simpler to just give people free abortions on demand. Cheaper too. You could just run an abortion bus around all of the poor neighborhoods offering people free crispy cream with each abortion, and you'd knock hundreds of thousand off of the US population in no time.

Or ... and this might sound crazy ... just encourage people to use condoms more. People will reduce their own population, and it's all totally above board. No need to destroy the country to do it.

And I have asked you all the questions in the above reply together with others who have asked you repeatedly and you cannot give an answer other than engaging in vaccine apologetics.

Stop engaging in vaccine apologetics, denialism of reality, and stop defending the pharmaceuticals and the official narratives. You have made a range of claims that have been refuted repeatedly and you are going from one thread to another where you are spouting nonsense.

You are talking about bioweapons, depopulation, and abortion in poor areas, altogether. It seems that your arguments are in a turmoil.

a reply to: Kenzo

.
This is the conclusion from a new peer reviewed study on myocarditis post vaccination. The link in my thread

Free spike protein plays a major role in the development of myocarditis post vaccination

In vaccinated patients, infection with the virus was not likely to be a cause or contributing factor for myocarditis since anti-Nucleoprotein IgG was not found in these patients.

In contrast to controls, the finding of high levels of unbound full-length spike protein in myocarditis patients may point to the mechanism by which this condition arises. Similarly, MIS-C patients had circulating SARS-CoV-2 antigens.

The spike protein appears to evade immune antibodies found at normal levels in these patients, with adequate functional and neutralization capacity. The spike may damage the cardiac pericytes or endothelium, perhaps by reducing the expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), reducing nitric oxide production in the endothelium, or activating inflammation via integrins, causing the endothelium to become abnormally permeable

In a few words those who develop myocarditis after have been vaccinated are unlikely to have developed the condition due to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

It's the spike protein that it is very likely responsible for this condition as well as many other conditions we are seeing. Or at least a major contributing factor.

So in plain English, if you see myocarditis post vaccination then it almost certainly the free spike protein from the wonderful vaccines.

This can be extended to all other conditions.

originally posted by: Kenzo

I just put this here also :


compilation: peer reviewed medical papers of covid vaccine injuries

226 peer reviewed articles that show covid vaccines myocarditis. But myocarditis from vaccines is a conspiracy theory.


DERP!

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Kenzo

Agree, they do anything to try hide the truth .

People will loose trust to whole medical science , because the jabs but also all other cover up`s etc..at least part of the population, Covidians will take 10th booster if they are still here then..

I don't think they are hiding anything as you were able to post real observations. They just do not see it as a true risk and so seem to accept it. Maybe a big part of this is to defend the mandates as there wasn't any measurable risk from the virus to force the vaccine outside of ensuring the high-risk groups were protected. Even all under 40 and healthy there just isn't the data to support it and under 25 for males and females it should be NOT recommended unless the person is high-risk.

We are now 2 years from the release, and it seems they are unwilling to budge off their initial directions even after two years of data now, and worst feel it is needed to expand to children under 10.

There is definitely no data or ethical arguments to support lockdowns or mass and mandatory vaccinations.

It doesn't matter whether you are 15, 25, or 40. If you are young with no comorbidities then you don't have an issue with pretty much everything and especially with a virus that has a very low infection fatality rate in these groups and a very low IFR general speaking.

Recommending these untested, experimental, and potentially hazardous products to young and healthy people should be considered Medical or even Criminal negligence especially when many of those people have been infected and immunised the best possible way: Natural Immunity which is superior to the products by Pfizer and Moderna.

The mRNA products should follow the path of the AstraZeneca and J&J vaccines i.e to be withdrawn from the markets.

Criminal investigations must follow

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

There is definitely no data or ethical arguments to support lockdowns or mass and mandatory vaccinations.

It doesn't matter whether you are 15, 25, or 40. If you are young with no comorbidities then you don't have an issue with pretty much everything and especially with a virus that has a very low infection fatality rate in these groups and a very low IFR general speaking.

Agree

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Kenzo

I just put this here also :


compilation: peer reviewed medical papers of covid vaccine injuries

And they demonstrate clearly that side effects are rare and mostly mild. Requiring only bed for most people.

This is in line with the measles and flu shots.

You need to look through the list then and see that mild is not the case. There is death and suffering in that list. I had to stop reading it's horrible.

Mild my arse.

Hi everyone, this is also my first post. Been a lurker for years.

originally posted by: GandalftheLegless

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Kenzo

I just put this here also :


compilation: peer reviewed medical papers of covid vaccine injuries

And they demonstrate clearly that side effects are rare and mostly mild. Requiring only bed for most people.

This is in line with the measles and flu shots.

You need to look through the list then and see that mild is not the case. There is death and suffering in that list. I had to stop reading it's horrible.

Mild my arse.

Hi everyone, this is also my first post. Been a lurker for years.

Good first post! Welcome!

Agreed! Hardly mild when you start saying things like "death" and "suffering"!

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I get what you're trying to do, but at this point I would like to make an example.

You take a picture of the sky and hold that picture up to the actual sky. Your premise is, during the day the sky is blue. These people will argue that you didn't take enough pictures to prove your point or the sky is actually light blue.

"The sky isn't blue in China right now", "Due to the sun, the sky is red, debunked!", "you aren't a professional photographer", ect ect.

I'm done with it. I've moved on a while ago.

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Here's another study that shows the exact opposite.

The #1 cause of myocarditis is, always has been, and always will be viral infection. This has been known for decades.

From your own paper.

"In men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after a second dose of mRNA-1273 than after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test"

a reply to: GandalftheLegless

That quote isn't even that far down the article. Good catch.

Welcome previous lurker!

a reply to: chr0naut

I don't care to debate my posts. You accept or reject it. Either way, I don't care.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I am still waiting for you to prove that herd immunity could be achieved through vaccination or that it has been achieved in your country.

It can't be achieved.
New England Joural of Medicine

Bivalent Covid-19 Vaccines — A Cautionary Tale
List of authors.
Paul A. Offit, M.D.
Article
Metrics

5 References
In November 2019, a bat coronavirus made its debut in humans in Wuhan, China. Two months later, the original strain of SARS-CoV-2, called the Wuhan-1 or ancestral strain, was isolated and sequenced. It was now possible to make a vaccine. All the vaccines, including the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer–BioNTech and Moderna, the viral vector vaccines made by Johnson & Johnson–Janssen and AstraZeneca, and the purified protein vaccine made by Novavax, were designed to prevent disease caused by the ancestral strain.

As the virus evolved, the ancestral strain was soon replaced by a series of variants. In the United States in 2020 and 2021, such variants included D614G, alpha, and delta, each of which was more contagious than the previous variant. In a U.S. study involving 8100 immunocompetent adults conducted between March and December 2021, two doses of mRNA vaccines — which were authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in December 2020 — continued to protect against hospitalization caused by these three virus variants.1 For vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, a mucosal infection with a short incubation period, protection from severe disease is the only reasonable and attainable goal.

In November 2021, a new variant, called omicron (subvariant BA.1), was detected in southern Africa. The omicron variant contained an alarming number of mutations (more than 30) in the spike protein, including at least 15 mutations in the receptor-binding domain, the primary target of neutralizing antibodies. Researchers found that serum samples obtained from people who were vaccinated against or previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 exhibited substantially lower neutralizing activity against BA.1 than against the ancestral strain and other strains. Furthermore, many commercially available monoclonal-antibody preparations were ineffective against this variant. Although it was reassuring that early data from southern Africa showed that previous infection or vaccination protected against severe disease caused by omicron,2 public health officials worried that the BA.1 strain posed a serious threat to the effectiveness of existing Covid-19 vaccines and therapies.

Given the ability to use mRNA technology to respond quickly to variant strains, bivalent vaccines were created to counter this new threat. In January and February 2022, Pfizer–BioNTech produced a bivalent vaccine containing 15 μg of mRNA directed against the ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2 and 15 μg directed against BA.1. Moderna used 25 μg of mRNA directed against each of the same two strains. The combined quantities mirrored the amount of mRNA in each company’s monovalent booster dose for adults (30 μg for Pfizer–BioNTech and 50 μg for Moderna).

On June 28, 2022, researchers from Pfizer–BioNTech and Moderna presented data on their bivalent vaccines to the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (of which I am a member). The results were underwhelming. Bivalent boosters resulted in levels of neutralizing antibodies against BA.1 that were only 1.5 to 1.75 times as high as those achieved with monovalent boosters. Previous experience with the companies’ vaccines suggested that this difference was unlikely to be clinically significant. Safety data were reassuring. At the time of the FDA presentation, BA.1 was no longer circulating in the United States, having been replaced by more immune-evasive and contagious omicron subvariants. But winter was around the corner. The FDA advisory committee, sensing the urgency of responding to these immune-evasive strains, voted to authorize bivalent vaccines with an understanding that they would target omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5, which at the time had accounted for more than 95% of circulating strains.

A series of rapid-fire policy decisions followed. On June 29, 2022, the day after the advisory committee meeting, the Biden administration agreed to purchase 105 million doses of Pfizer–BioNTech’s bivalent vaccine containing BA.4 and BA.5 mRNA. One month later, on July 29, 2022, the administration agreed to purchase 66 million doses of Moderna’s bivalent vaccine, intending to offer both vaccines in the fall and winter. On September 1, 2022, the FDA withdrew its emergency use authorization for monovalent vaccine boosters and the CDC recommended bivalent vaccine boosters for everyone 12 years of age or older. On October 12, 2022, the CDC extended this recommendation to include everyone 5 years of age or older. At that point, no data from humans, including immunogenicity data, were available for comparing the relative capacities of the monovalent and bivalent vaccines to protect against BA.4 and BA.5.

On October 24, 2022, David Ho and colleagues released the results of a study examining levels of neutralizing antibodies against BA.4 and BA.5 after receipt of a monovalent or bivalent booster dose. They found “no significant difference in neutralization of any SARS-CoV-2 variant,” including BA.4 and BA.5, between the two groups.3 One day later, Dan Barouch and colleagues released the results of a similar study, finding that “BA.5 [neutralizing-antibody] titers were comparable following monovalent and bivalent mRNA boosters.” Barouch and colleagues also noted no appreciable differences in CD4+ or CD8+ T-cell responses between participants in the monovalent-booster group and those in the bivalent-booster group.4 Neither research group found the bivalent boosters to elicit superior immune responses. The results are now published in the Journal.

Why did the strategy for significantly increasing BA.4 and BA.5 neutralizing antibodies using a bivalent vaccine fail? The most likely explanation is imprinting. The immune systems of people immunized with the bivalent vaccine, all of whom had previously been vaccinated, were primed to respond to the ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2. They therefore probably responded to epitopes shared by BA.4 and BA.5 and the ancestral strain, rather than to new epitopes on BA.4 and BA.5. This effect could possibly be moderated by immunizing people either with BA.4 and BA.5 mRNA alone or with a greater quantity of BA.4 and BA.5 mRNA. Evidence in support of these strategies can be found in Pfizer–BioNTech’s data regarding its BA.1-containing bivalent vaccine, which showed that BA.1-specific neutralizing-antibody responses were greater in persons who were injected with a monovalent vaccine containing 30 μg or 60 μg of BA.1 mRNA or a bivalent vaccine containing 30 μg of BA.1 mRNA and 30 μg of ancestral-strain mRNA than in those who received a bivalent vaccine containing 15 μg of each type of mRNA.

On November 22, 2022, the CDC published data on the effectiveness of the BA.4 and BA.5 mRNA vaccines for preventing symptomatic infection within 2 months after receipt of the booster dose. For people who had received a monovalent vaccine 2 to 3 months earlier, the extra protection associated with the bivalent booster dose ranged from 28 to 31%. For those who had received a monovalent vaccine more than 8 months earlier, the extra protection ranged from 43 to 56%.5 Given the results of previous studies, it’s likely that this moderate increase in protection against probably generally mild disease will be short lived. As of November 15, 2022, only about 10% of the population for whom the bivalent vaccine had been recommended had received it.5 By December 2022, the BA.4 strain was no longer circulating, and BA.5 accounted for less than 25% of circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains, having been partially replaced by more immune-evasive strains, such as BQ.1, BQ.1.1, BF.7, XBB, and XBB.1.

What lessons can be learned from our experience with bivalent vaccines?

Fortunately, SARS-CoV-2 variants haven’t evolved to resist the protection against severe disease offered by vaccination or previous infection. If that happens, we will need to create a variant-specific vaccine. Although boosting with a bivalent vaccine is likely to have a similar effect as boosting with a monovalent vaccine, booster dosing is probably best reserved for the people most likely to need protection against severe disease — specifically, older adults, people with multiple coexisting conditions that put them at high risk for serious illness, and those who are immunocompromised.In the meantime, I believe we should stop trying to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.

a reply to: Asmodeus3



Exactly The science is settled : Avoid free spike protein .

a reply to: v1rtu0s0


It`s just coincidence

a reply to: GandalftheLegless


Hi lurker! and welcome to party

a reply to: Antisocialist

Of course it cannot be achieved.
However some of the members here are still trying to argue this point so to justify vaccinations for all.

If you take a look at my posts in a range of threads including the thread the Myth of Herd Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 you will see the several links that show clearly herd immunity through vaccination cannot be achieved.

But one doesn't need links to shoe something as straight forward as this. Just apply the definition of herd immunity and ask yourself, do vaccines present transmission and infection? The answer is of course not. They don't even significantly reduce it.

New variants are emerging that have the ability to infect humans which implies directly herd immunity is impossible.

originally posted by: litterbaux
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I get what you're trying to do, but at this point I would like to make an example.

You take a picture of the sky and hold that picture up to the actual sky. Your premise is, during the day the sky is blue. These people will argue that you didn't take enough pictures to prove your point or the sky is actually light blue.

"The sky isn't blue in China right now", "Due to the sun, the sky is red, debunked!", "you aren't a professional photographer", ect ect.

I'm done with it. I've moved on a while ago.

Ok for the example.

Situation is rather different here.

There are some members who will argue points that have been repeatedly refuted. They are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality as well as defending the pharmaceuticals. They need to be called out for this. The points that are made need to be challenged and refuted against ana again. For example you shouldn't ignore the claims that herd immunity can be achieved through vaccination. This is one of the strongholds that has been debunked long time ago in a desperate attempt to argue in favour of mass vaccinations.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
There are some members who will argue points that have been repeatedly refuted. They are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality as well as defending the pharmaceuticals.

Repeating all of the big words you know like a broken record doesn't make you sound intelligent.

Sure. I defend pharmaceuticals. They have saved the lives of my loved ones, and I take 2 daily pills that allow me to live a normal life.