[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by blueash

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.

Thanks---I read through the study and personally found it to be garbage.

They only had 740 participants, of which only 22 had a miniscule rise in Troponin. All markers of systemic inflammation fell outside of a P value of <0.05. Symptoms reported were basically all somatic and were actually less in the 22 patients with the small troponin rise. I have trouble agreeing with the terminology of "myocardial injury" to describe the pathophysiology they were studying. Maybe these 22 patients hiccupped more than the rest.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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?

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

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

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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.

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

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

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

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

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

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

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

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.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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.

Those most susceptible to dying from the virus died early. Then, the death rate decreased...

Viruses, by their nature, weaken as time goes by. If they don't, they kill all possible future hosts...

I had Covid waaay before there was a vaccine. Yet I still took the vaccine and one (or was it two?) booster/s.

Same for my wife. Yet, she caught it again, just a few months after her booster. I didn't... I was never "locked down", as I was deemed "essential"... I was exposed more than the "average bear"...

We're both done with boosters...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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

It wasn't... Emergency use was authorized in October 2021 (for children 5-11). They didn't do any testing on children until May of 2021...

If you want to call that adequate testing, have at it...

[Blueblaze]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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

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.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Blueblaze

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.

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

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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

That quick edit probably saved you a slap or worse!

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

That quick edit probably saved you a slap or worse!

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

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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

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

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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

Thanks, but he was irrelevant, not worth the effort. The funny part is that he thinks I would care that he blocked me