Originally Posted by blueash (Post 2241592)

None of the patients were diagnosed with myocarditis. All had a very transient rise in troponin. This is not my field, you may be better equipment to analyze their data. The pre-print article is HERE https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...1002/ejhf.2978

The authors tested using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin which has a lower range of normal in females because of their lower cardiac mass. There were 777 persons, 40 of whom showed an increase above "the upper limit of normal" adjusted by sex. "sex-specific 99th-perentile of healthy individuals and upper-limit of normal (ULN) 8.9 ng/L in women and 15.5 ng/L in men,"

In 18 of the 40 they felt other reasons explained the increase [the authors do not say what the other reasons were]. Of the remaining 22 persons, 20 were female and only 2 were male. The median value of those with elevations on day 3 was 13.5 and on day 4 when the test was repeated the median value of those 22 patients was 6.0

All 22 had repeat troponin testing, EKG, and the authors clearly wrote that none were diagnosed with myocarditis, they instead use the term vaccine associated myocardial injury.

Re your comment about exercise, see Just a moment...
where healthy bicycle racers had high sensitivity troponin measurement before, 3 hours after and 24 hours after a race. The median before the race was 1.9 and three hours after was 60, a level none of the vaccine patients reached. 24 hours after the race the troponin level was still over the 99th percentile in about 1/3 of the racers.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2241391)

Emotional arguments? Is that what you tell the parent of the dead child, that they are only being emotional?

What is the incidence of children being harmed by a vaccine that would reduce that number below 1800? 1800 might be acceptable as long as you are not one of the 1800 families but why not make it 800 or 300 if you can?

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2241392)

Prevent as in 100% will not happen? No.

Prevent as in far less chance? Yes.

I'll take a partial solution over no solution any day.

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2241677)

You're doubling down on your emotional argument...

No basis in science, pure emotion... The worst way to practice medicine...

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2241679)

Far less chance? Sorry, but no... They never tested that...

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2241687)

Yep, I made an assumption there. Since the death rate decreased after the vaccinations became widespread I assumed there was less transmission. Perhaps that was wrong. Perhaps there was the same (or more) transmission and it was only the effectiveness of the vaccine at preventing serious illness or death that caused the numbers to down. Either way, I’ll take it.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2241685)

Your position is the vaccine does not prevent deaths in children? It seems to me that was tested.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2241573)

Shot or post, I'm pretty sure I know which one is "stupid"

Originally Posted by Blueblaze (Post 2241903)

There is no more stupid argument than a personal attack. If you don't like a post but can't refute it, you should just "keep your mouth shut and let us wonder if you're an idiot, rather than open it and remove all doubt".

I enjoy a friendly discussion, but detest antagonistic conflict. So in the future, if you read something I say that you don't like, feel free to expose your ignorance and hatefulness to your neighbors, in response - I will never see it, and apparently the moderators don't care. You're blocked.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2241918)

Whatever. I have no desire to play Einstein explaining relativity to an amateur

Originally Posted by Two Bills (Post 2241925)

:coolsmiley:
That quick edit probably saved you a slap or worse!:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2241928)

Yep. Just an initial reaction to being called ignorant by someone who was clueless about virology and epidemiology

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2241930)

My initial reaction to posts that attack the poster, and not the idea, is to report them. But you do you, Einstein.

Love always,
the chimpanzee