So, the presenters (none of which have any scientific background at all but one of which was involved in a real estate ponzi scheme) of a right wing "news channel" draw "their own" conclusions from a study that actually concludes:
"mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated myocardial injury was more common than previously thought, being mild and transient, and more frequent in women versus men. The possible protective role of IFN-λ1(IL-29) and GM-CSF warrant further studies."
What the poster did NOT forget was their confirmation bias.......
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
jdt73 (Short Spike)
Covid vaccines are cool and there is nothing you can say that will change my mind.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
I never made comments to that effect, my argument was and still is that covid vaccination is preferable to not vaccinating because the benefits outweigh the risks by quite a few orders of magnitude. Actually studies like this are carried out to find possibly dangerous oversights and previous unknowns.
What we can see from this study is that this still stands true and actually there is no "red flag" situation as side effect were "mild and transient", NOT "severe and long lasting (or permanent)" but still would "warrant further studies".
That is all, nothing more nothing less. No fear mongering by agenda driven right wing twats required.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
jdt73 (Short Spike)
You need to trust the science, informed consent only applies to micro biologists that agree with all directives from WHO CDC and FDA, other than that we just need to do what we are told to do.
Myocarditis isn't a thing man. Peroid!
Sheez, are we crying over a few broken eggs?
We're making pancakes dude!
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
you keep on being happy with people that tell you what you want to hear when they selectively read and deliberately misinterpret scientific studies. And you wonder why anyone with more than a quater of a brain laughs about you.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Dude (Old Spike)
Did you know you can get an inflamed heart from brushing your teeth to hard, you wouldn't even notice it most times, we are built to withstand mild inflammation, if anything it makes you stronger for inflammation in the future, and yes that is science.
Nothing to get bent out of shape from, it is only a very small percentage that gets the inflammation, a very small percentage of those might actually die of the inflammation.
Which comes down to a very small percentage of deaths.
If you look at how many suffocated from covid before the vaccine and how the numbers dropped when most ppl were vaccinated, i would say the vaccine was effective,
but the halt to deadly covid... was a mutated SARS strain that pushed away the other variants by being more transmittable so being a tradeoff in lethality to transmitability, so it became a common cold, with almost no effects.
To state it simple.
-If a virus is 80 percent deadly it is 20 percent transmittable
-a new strain with 1 percent deadly and 99 percent transmission took over
Since the new virus did not kill it's hosts it became the only one left, the others are dead, the old virus killed itself by killing it's hosts,
There is however a push away thing where the mild virus trained us to fight off the mild infection and doing so also fight more deadly comparable strains. which is better then a vaccine, but nobody knew when the mild strain would appear, so we still needed the vaccinations.
We can be lucky and stop it with the nutcase conspiracy theories :)
it's all oke now.
+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
jdt73 (Short Spike)
Did you know I swapped sides on the nutcase conspiracy theorys? I think it happened after I brushed my teeth.
I guess no matter what I do I will never allowed in to your special club.IO now think it is fantastic the billions of people were mandated to participate in a human trial of a new kind of medical treatment. Even better that the drug companies omitted to tell us the truth about the new treatment, if the had told the truth, silly people might have used that information in making an informed consent.
By hokey the whole planet nearly died!
We can thank the dark lord for saving us in this life to spare us from the next. Amen
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
JD. Please don't omit the bit where bodies were piling up in the hospitals and people with other complaints were being turned away from ERs. The medical system was in disarray and something needed to be done to slow down transmission. Mercury-laden original recipe vaccines were available for round 2 (booster 1) for those who consider themselves anti-mRNA purists. The only difference with how grandpa did it was that you got your own, single-use syringe this time (instead of the communal one used to do the whole village back in the day). See also my comment below, on over-ascribing causality, please.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
This had initially nothing to do with it and was a leftist marxist conspiracy to kill off pensioners so they don't further increase leftist marxist sponsored healthcare and state pension costs. As this was not efficient enough vaccines that deliberately kill people with their long term side effects were developed in a conspiracy between leftist marxists and big pharma so this can go on now albeit at a slower pace. There is also clear evidence that this vaccine has more decremental health effects depending on the patients political beliefs: the further right the more likely one dies of it. Other side effects may be sudden attacks of common sense as displayed by ex vice president pence in a recent interview about trump allegations.
Western leftist marxist governments now work in close partnership with china to develop brainwashing viruses specifically aimed at "right wingers", only very few, like jdt see through these conspiracies and keep on doing the right(lol)eous thing and keep us brainwashed leftist marxist peasants informed.
Praise them!
Also the only working prevention method for coroner is eating horseradish! "They" just don't want you to know!
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
jdt73 (Short Spike)
Sure I appreciate how scared people were, as we were being told about hospitals that wouldn't be able to cope. Innocent people were going to die because they wouldn't take their vaccines and they would in turn infect the vaccinated.
I am so sorry that I doubted the vaccine, to think of how many vaccinated people I must have killed gives me the shivers.
That is why now I am a proud member of the Jackboot Brigade where the interests of the State are interests of the people and the people who think different don't matter because they aren't really people anyway.
I am sure that history will prove all this right as sure as Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Dude (Old Spike)
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
'Innocent people were going to die because they wouldn't take their vaccines and they would in turn infect the vaccinated.'
Innocent vaccinated people also died because they got turned away from ERs that were over-crowded. I don't know if you saw a comment I'd made back at the height of the pandemic, but we lost someone here after he got turned away at Cité la Santé in Laval (north of Montreal), twice. He went home the second time, passed out from the pain, and when they brought him in via ambulance, that was it - his goose was cooked. Caught covid from someone 2 beds over and ultimately died of congestive heart failure around a week later. The only point I'm trying to make here is that people also died as a secondary effect of the pandemic; simply by not being able to access care for what would normally be an easy fix (a UTI in his case).
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
jdt73 (Short Spike)
Yes, and that is why informed consent is nice but not really all that important.
I think it was a brilliant idea to sack all the health workers who worked without a cure it vaccine for a whole year but when the silver bullet vaccine came along if they declined to take the shot. The lives the could have saved were not as important as the possibility that they would spread the virus.
The vaccine stops the spread of the virus. (Just believe and it becomes true)
Did someone not tell them it was both safe and effective?
Talk about from hero to zero.
Anyway must go I need to iron my brown shirt. Got to look my best for the rally.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Ok. Keep up the good work and just remember if you sell the most cookies this season your den mother will take you and 4 of your friends to see the new Barbie movie! ;-)
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Guys, can I get a link to the actual research paper please. The one I found on PubMed states right in the conclusion section: 'This small case series is not conclusive that COVID-19 vaccination was the cause of myocarditis, as we could not completely exclude spontaneous myocarditis from other causes in these patients.'
Remembering always that causal links are over-reported in clinical research (ie. 'could it even remotely possibly be related to med under study?' is reported as 'yes it's related'). Basically, everyone take a deep breath and relax their sphincter a little.
I think Campbells full video gives some perspective.
Myocarditis is usually benign and doesn't cause problems, IF you know you have it and don't go exercising during the infection. This study suggests it was quite common and people weren't generally screened for it or warned that they could get it. Myocarditis can have very little to no symptoms and only a blood test will tell you for sure, so it's quite a big risk to go jogging after a shot.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
they didn't check to see who had myocarditis before giving them the shot. they only looked to see who had it after
a study came out about excess deaths. it looks at the excess deaths before the vaccines compared to after the vaccines, it also compares republican counties to democractic counties. it found republicans counties, which have a lower vaccination rate than democrat counties, die from excess death more than democrats and since the vaccine rollout, the difference between the two has widened. not only are excess deaths seasonal, it's political
Conclusion:
"Our study found evidence of higher excess mortality for Republican voters compared with Democratic voters in Florida and Ohio after, but not before, COVID-19 vaccines were available to all adults in the US. These differences in excess death rates were larger in counties with lower vaccination rates. If differences in COVID-19 vaccination by political party affiliation persist, particularly in the absence of other pandemic mitigation strategies, the higher excess death rate observed among Republican voters may continue through subsequent stages of the pandemic."
What would be interesting to find out is whether there is a difference in acceptance of the flu vaccine or if the flu either just isn't as deadly as presumed or the vaccine isn't very effective.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
They had a control group. That's pretty standard. The group that got the boosters had higher troponin levels that indicate myocarditis.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
studies says they only checked on day 3 after vaccination. so why didn't they check to see who had myocarditis before administering the vaccine? how many of them had it before?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Is this again one study that passed peer review and you are the only one that can see the obvious flaw?
They had a control group that didn't get the booster, they compared it to that. Maybe some of them had it, but then again the same applies to the control group. So you get an average of the blood work and compare them.
At this point isn't it a fact that the vaccine can bring it on. This just says it's more common than previously thought.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
this is like many studies that passed peer review that didn't use the best of methods so it dies on the line while the anti-vax communities waves it around asking why no studies have been done about vaccine safety while ignoring all the studies that have been done before, during and after vaccine roll out because like i've said previously. this is only about justification for not doing something. you're something like 10 times more likely to develop myocarditis if your not vaccinated. like 6 times the chance of getting it than a vaccinated person. and this studies sets out to show that its actually 5.99999?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
I mean I wouldn't have a problem with it if people were told there's a good chance you can get myocarditis from the vaccine and also that you shouldn't exercise after that because you can die. You know, just a heads up.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
what constitutes a good chance? cause i'm thinking that million of people got vaccinated everyday. if its a good chance they can get it from the vaccine then its good chance we'd have bodies everywhere and they'll all be heart attacks because nobody was told not to exercise or work their manual labour job, or have sex or vigorously masturbate
you know what started this whole thing. a study that went up from canadian sources about 2 years ago and was quickly taken down because they were made aware that they accidentally mistook how many people got the vaccines. they did the study thinking 30k people got the shot and like 30 ended up with myocarditis. well, the number of people who got the shot was 800k
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"what constitutes a good chance?"
Lets just say theres a risk and someone getting a vaccine should know about the risks and how to mitigate them.
Would you agree?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
you'd have to quantify "good chance" before i answer it. phone chargers don't come with a warning that if you wrap it around you're neck you can suffocate. most foods don't come with allergy warnings. so many of the things you do on a daily basis is done without knowing the risks. so what percentage of something happening warrants a warning?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"you'd have to quantify "good chance" before i answer it"
5.1% elevated high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T concentrations
2.8% vaccine-associated myocardial injury
Maybe I'm reaching here but heart inflammation and "safe and effective" don't really go together.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
5.1% doesn't mean anything because they only found 2.8% had it. studies have come out before this where millions of people were the study group and its lower, but 2.8% is fine for argument sake
before the vaccines, a lot of time was dedicated to the effects of the virus(especially dr john). when vaccines came out, the talks became comparing the effects of covid on vaccinated and unvaccinated. we've been at a point where the conversations are the effects of the vaccines while completely ignoring the effects of the virus it was intended to mitigate.
your something like 12 times more likely to catch covid if you're not vaccinated
the chances of developing myocarditis from covid while being unvaccinated is 11% and almost 6% for the vaccinated.
the chances of dying form myocarditis before 2020 was 2.2%. during the pandemic and before vaccines. the chances of dying from myocarditis and not having covid was 2.9%. during that time. the chances of dying from myocarditis and having covid was 13%. the hospitalization for myocarditis at the time went up 40% and 40% of them had a history of covid.
by the things you've said. you not getting vaccinated, you getting covid along with mentioning your kids and other family members getting it. you've knowingly or unknowingly(almost purposefully) rolled the dice to game where your death is more certain of an outcome than getting the vaccine
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
You didn't answer the question.
Lets just say theres a risk and someone getting a vaccine should know about the risks and how to mitigate them.
Would you agree?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
i did answer the question. your "good chance" of getting myocarditis is even better without the vaccine. if you don't care enough to know the chances and you want to compare them against less of that chance with vaccines, you don't care about the chances at all. if thats not simple enough then no, i don't agree
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
So your logic basically is that as long as the chances of getting myocarditis from the vaccine are lower than from the virus, then being informed that you can get myocarditis from the vaccine is irrelevant?
Let's say to an athlete that trains hard on a daily basis, This is not really pertinent info to him or her?
Don't really understand why they bother naming any side effects then.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
that's basically my logic but its based on knowing studies were done before, during and after vaccines roll out, those studies were always available and that people in general don't read the terms & conditions on anything. that it's never been about being informed, its always been about choosing not to be informed while complaining about not being informed. the vid you posted above is about a study that says the rate is higher than what was previously stated in a bunch of other studies. some of those studies probably mention older studies and so on. at some point, people just started pretending that none of that existed
you tell an athlete that trains hard on a daily basis that they've got an 11% chance over several weeks with covid and the thought of 2.8% chance over 28 days goes out the window.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"that's basically my logic"
So if we follow that logic even further, basically anything goes as long as the virus is worse than the vaccine?
"that it's never been about being informed, its always been about choosing not to be informed while complaining about not being informed"
Campbell in the above video says had he known the myocarditis risk, he wouldn't have taken it.
And this is from a guy that has a medical background and scours the internet for medical papers and he didn't know about it, so how should the average Joe have any chance of coming across that info. And even if they did, the numbers have changed since.
"you tell an athlete that trains hard on a daily basis that they've got an 11% chance over several weeks with covid and the thought of 2.8% chance over 28 days goes out the window."
Well, did they tell them that? That's what my argument really is about.
Warn them that they could get myocarditis from the shot and exercising can be dangerous with that condition.
You're coming at this from 20/20 hindsight. Did they even know about the 2.8% risk at the time?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Dude (Old Spike)
Even if they knew they would not have told you, vaccination was too important, no need to freak ppl out and turn them away from a vaccine that saves their lives, you can't trust most ppl to make their own decisions.
Remember the toilet paper and food fad?, does that seem normal?, no need to walk in the chicken coop dressed in a where-wolf suit.
I can still remember anti-vaxers here saying you will turn in to zombies, you will die, you will die of hunger if you don't stock up now, not realizing that ppl like them are the problem, that they need to be managed and manipulated.
O yeah Campbell is a nurse not a doctor, i believe he made his Bachelor then gave up on nursing, who did he help during the pandemic? he just popped up on the internet far away from the sick ppl and started making his money there.
Now he is speaking to the rights ear because the pandemic is over, the right are the only ones with something to prove.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"Campbell in the above video says had he known the myocarditis risk, he wouldn't have taken it. "
Still taking him seriously? You know why he has to say it, right?
No? Let me help you out: so people like you, jdt, bsman, skeptoid etc etc keep on watching his channel.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Still taking him seriously? You know why he has to say it, right?
No? Let me help you out: so people like you, jdt, bsman, skeptoid etc etc keep on watching his channel."
If he is misrepresenting the paper, point it out.
Ridiculing won't help, you need to point what's factually wrong in the video. There very well might be mistakes in this video.
Neither one of us knows if he would have taken it or not and thats not really important. What he is pointing to with that is important -> What we thought the risk of myocarditis was from the vaccine and what it really is (at least according to this paper)
Quick search gave me an estimate of 2.4 in 100 000 getting myocarditis
And this study is saying 1 in 35
I don't know what is an acceptable level, but it's a big jump.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
My comment was not regarding the study, I am not really qualified to have an educated opinion on that, I was rather commenting on the lack of credibility of campbell.
The symptoms were "mild and temporary", So I am guessing that none of the 35 had serious health issues or died. I am also guessing if corona gives you this condition the effects will be more like "long lasting and severe, maybe fatal".
Considering that only far right "press" and types like campbell get their panties in a bunch over it and no real scientist I remain quite happy with the risk of taking the vaccine.
I look at it this way: I take blood pressure medication, of course it has possible side effects (maybe even some unknown ones), not taking the medication has more risks attached to it than taking it. Same goes for vaccinations. Simple as that
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"My comment was not regarding the study, I am not really qualified to have an educated opinion on that, I was rather commenting on the lack of credibility of campbell."
I know it wasn't, but that's what I'm asking because that's what we're discussing. Is everything you see about Campbell tainted by the debunk the funk cartoon scientists? Maybe in the future, I should just post the studies and leave him out of the loop, Might possibly free you from the knee-jerk reaction you have about him but I don't think anyone would read them. Though, science papers are generally not an easy read and are too dry for most people to take an interest.
I've said this before, I'm fully open that he might misrepresent papers. He can and has done mistakes. Of course, to any skeptic of his, these are not mistakes but blatant attempts to lie and spread anti-vax propaganda to get as many followers as possible.
He is suspicious about the vaccines, that is clear. Where does this suspicion arise? From his own fantasies and the need for subscribers or do the papers he keeps looking at have anything to do with it? Is he so biased that everything he sees is "bad vaccine", or is there some truth in the studies? Is every talk he gives over-sensationalized and blown out of proportion filled with his own opinions and disregarding what the papers say? Is he selectively choosing only the "bad vaccine" studies? Could be, but if they are peer-reviewed and published, then I don't see the problem.
"The symptoms were "mild and temporary", So I am guessing that none of the 35 had serious health issues or died. I am also guessing if corona gives you this condition the effects will be more like "long lasting and severe, maybe fatal"."
Well yes, as far as I know nobody got anything serious from it. It's not a problem IF YOU KNOW you have it. Knowing how common it is, is really part of the risk mitigation.
My friend got it (vaccinated). Got something like 7 weeks sick leave because it's dangerous to do physical work if you have it. It's not like the flu, it can be mild and a non-issue but you can't stress the heart during or you can have an heart attack or permanent damage.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Your ad hominem in the second paragraph would actually disqualify you from deserving an answer but as you put so much effort into it:
"Is everything you see about Campbell tainted....."
YES! He has the same credibility to me as do crowder, beanyhat or any fox news achor.
In the beginning of covid he was what I would call an "educator", but he developed rather quickly into a "content producer for clicks", an "influencer", and that with a track record of deliberately misinterpreting and selectively quoting what is written in studies so it fits into his agenda, so nothing he says can be trusted because you have to go back to the study and read it fully anyway. These are NOT "mistakes", otherwise he would have retracted them or at least entered in conversation with his critics and "cartoon scientist" is only one in a long list of COMPETENT "critics" of his.
To me he is nothing more or nothing less than the equivalent of a climate change denier. "comic scientist" and others would be the equivalent of potholer54 in this field, so I understand why you are not interested in what he has to say.
The 4th paragraph makes you sound like skeptoid or bsman. If campbell had a point he could write a peer review or issue his own study on the subject. But that doesn't give you clicks now, does it, asking the "right questions" does because people looking for confirmation bias watch it (it also would make him a laughing stock with his peers). So here's his motivation.
Real skeptics would watch "comic scientists" debunking video and then call out his lies and (deliberate) mistakes btw........
Lastly did your friend "get it" because he was vaccinated? If so you may want to imagine if he wouldn't be vaccinated that there is a very good chance contracting covid may have triggered the same condition but caused more severe symptoms and damage or even killed him?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Your ad hominem in the second paragraph would actually disqualify you from deserving an answer"
Theres no ad hominems there. Just what I've observed.
You see Cambpells face, you get a certain reaction no matter what he says.
"YES! He has the same credibility to me as do crowder, beanyhat or any fox news achor.
In the beginning of covid he was what I would call an "educator", but he developed rather quickly into a "content producer for clicks", an "influencer", and that with a track record of deliberately misinterpreting and selectively quoting"
And he does this in every single video?? All of the videos where he talks about a study, he is misrepresenting and selectively quoting?
"These are NOT "mistakes", otherwise he would have retracted them or at least entered in conversation with his critics and "cartoon scientist" is only one in a long list of COMPETENT "critics" of his. "
Do we have evidence that he has in fact read the criticism?
He posts videos actively. Maybe 4-5 videos a week. Do we know he reads all the comments on every video?
Has he ever posted any corrections if he got things wrong? And if he has done so, why would he do such a thing?
"If campbell had a point he could write a peer review or issue his own study on the subject."
So it's not enough for you that he reads others peer-reviewed papers. He has to have his own to have any validity in your book. Do you know of any other YouTubers who use other people's studies to support their claims or maybe even debunk false information?
"Lastly did your friend "get it" because he was vaccinated?"
He was vaccinated and got covid too. Don't know which one gave it to him.
Point I'm trying to make here is that myocarditis can be dangerous. Thats why he got a long sick leave because it's dangerous to do physical work with an inflamed heart muscle.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"And he does this in every single video??"
Don't know, don't care. It's like crowder getting something right, it happens, I guess.
"Do we have evidence that he has in fact read the criticism?
He posts videos actively. Maybe 4-5 videos a week. Do we know he reads all the comments on every video?
Has he ever posted any corrections if he got things wrong? And if he has done so, why would he do such a thing?"
He has been invited by several people to discuss this, he ignored it.
"So it's not enough for you that he reads others peer-reviewed papers. He has to have his own to have any validity in your book. Do you know of any other YouTubers who use other people's studies to support their claims or maybe even debunk false information? "
If he has an issue youtube is not the platform to discuss it, peer review is. He didn't debunk shit anyway. OTOH He and his claims and deliberate misinterpretations are being debunked by others constantly.
If you are a decent youtuber you do what potholer did in his last video, issue a corrected version and explain what and why you changed it.
"He was vaccinated and got covid too. Don't know which one gave it to him."
Still thinking that "vaccination should prevent one from getting covid? That was never the case and nobody who's voice counts claimed it.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Don't know, don't care."
Hmm...I would think thats quite important if you have such strong opinions about him.
Is it something like 90% of the time that he lies? 50%? or is it really low like 1-5%?
I'd like to know because to me this makes all the difference.
"He has been invited by several people to discuss this, he ignored it."
Well, did he specifically decline the request, or are we just assuming that he saw it and ignored it?
I've never seen him comment anything on YT. Doesn't seem to be very active in the comment section. Don't know about social media since I don't use it.
"If he has an issue youtube is not the platform to discuss it, peer review is."
I don't see the problem. He shouldn't talk about papers on YT because of..... reasons?
The "issues" he has come from the findings that medical professionals and researchers have done.
"Still thinking that "vaccination should prevent one from getting covid? That was never the case and nobody who's voice counts claimed it."
Yeah, now your strawmanning my comment. Did I say anything to that effect? Again, the point was myocarditis can be dangerous.
But since you brought it up, and might have forgotten that one of the "selling points" of the vaccines at the beginning of the pandemic was to stop the spread. Maybe Pfizer should have retracted this comment and made a correction sooner.
The ability to vaccinate at speed to gain herd immunity and stop transmission is our highest priority. There is a lot of work ahead, and our focus is on supporting points of vaccination💉, as that’s key to increasing the volume of people getting vaccinated every day.#JPM2021
the thing about herd immunity is that we weren't expecting people like this
"Haven't been vaccinated and I doubt I will. Non of my close family have and we never even really talked about. Everyone just decided not to. I guess non of us take it that seriously"
alright, so. for starters. getting myocarditis is rare, getting it from a vaccine is rarer. that being said everything has a risk of causing myocarditis. the most common causes are infections from virus', bacteria, fungi and parasites, but also include medicine. like, medication for your heart. medication for mental issues, same goes for some antibiotics. if you like to drink/do drugs thats comes with a risk. the carbon monoxide coming from fuel burning engine. taking tylenol comes with a risk of myocarditis. i know this even though i'm average joe, sitting on the couch getting high, campbell with his medical background that spent years looking up peoples medical history before applying treatment, who scours the internet from medical studies doesn't. one of us lying
now i want to make you aware of how the vaccination process works. see, i'm guessing you think you just walk in and someone who doesn't know very much other than the pointy end goes in the arm. has you roll up your sleeve, injects you then you leave. that's not how it works. they get your name, your health card(medical background) and then they ask you a series of health questions, like, you sick, on medication, chest pains, fatigue, breathing problems... basically asking you if you have any symptoms of myocarditis
i'm coming into this with hindsight that goes well beyond 2020. everything is built on the backs of something else. the covid mrna vaccine was based of the mrna influenza vaccine they had been working on for a while. they more than likely know the risks associated with mrna vaccines in general and more specifically the risks associated with covid mrna vaccines. since the medical field works on a risk-benifit assessments, you're whole argument is 2.8% is bad and should be what every conversation is about but reducing the risk of 97.2% isn't worth mentioning
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"the thing about herd immunity is that we weren't expecting people like this"
So it all failed because of people like me? Do you remember any countries that had very high vaccination levels and still got waves of covid cases?
Even Pfizer representatives from a few days back seem to have trouble saying that it was effective at stopping transmission. Kind of odd that when they're under oath it becomes increasingly difficult to give straightforward answers.
step 1)the vaccines don't stop transmission, sure the unvaccinated accounted for the majority of deaths and hospitalization, reduced the risk of getting it not only the first time but the 2nd, 3rd... it doesn't stop it so i'm not going to take it
step 2)the vaccines leaks, sure, that might not stand up to vaccine history and we don't happen to have this multitude of variants after vaccine releases but i mean to say that the virus can become immune to the vaccine which isn't something that actually happens because the vaccines instigate an immune response and that response is what attacks the virus and any immunity it garners would actually be an example of our immune system not working properly or that it can't keep up and but also how vaccines instigate multiple responses and so that even in the unlikely hood of it gaining an immunity of sorts, 12 other things are going to take it out but also factoring in that for any of this to be plausible, that the specific strain of virus thats gained an immunity now has to become to most dominant inside someone and then infect another body where it might not have any immunity at all... so i'm not taking it
step 3)it causes side effects. sure the risks of getting something from the vaccines is lower than the odds of getting the same thing from the virus and all the research papers that say different are based on google reviews, bad math or don't say anything at all and are just straight up getting misrepresent by what the actual study says.... i'm not taking it
step 4)repeat from step 1 and forget all the things people told you leading up to this point, remember, you're not anti-vax, you're just asking questions
how very telling of you to post a rumble link. rumble. rrrrrruuuummmmmbbbblllleee........ the far right social media platform, its like one rung above bitchute
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
lol, when arguments fail you start grasping at straws, this is getting ridiculous.
"Hmm...I would think thats quite important if you have such strong opinions about him.
Is it something like 90% of the time that he lies? 50%? or is it really low like 1-5%?
I'd like to know because to me this makes all the difference."
What makes the difference is deliberately misreading and omitting information so it fits one's agenda, once someone repeatedly does that they lose their credibility. With everyone actually except those that have a similar agenda (that is what makes the difference with you). The only reason why people actually make debunking videos for the likes of him is that he is popular with the conspiracy crowd.
"Well, did he specifically decline the request, or are we just assuming that he saw it and ignored it?
I've never seen him comment anything on YT. Doesn't seem to be very active in the comment section. Don't know about social media since I don't use it."
AFAIK he was contacted and declined. It douesn't matter, though, see next.
"I don't see the problem. He shouldn't talk about papers on YT because of..... reasons?
The "issues" he has come from the findings that medical professionals and researchers have done."
I am not saying he shouldn't make yt videos, he should address the issues with peers as part of the review process, this is where his peers will LOOK FOR critique. They would very quickly say "what is he on about, we did not write or find that"! The same is true for all the climate change deniers.
In any case, the "issues" he has DO NOT come from the findings that medical professionals and researchers have done but from deliberately misreading and omitting (part) of their results. Just look at the debunking videos made because of him, they always mention what he says and then what he has omitted or "misinterpreted". The same is true for the climate change denier debunking efforts.
Lastly, for the the purpouse of this discussion, a covid vaccine does "the same" as a flu vaccine, this has been very clear (and ignored by the conspiracy theorists) from roll out.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"What makes the difference is deliberately misreading and omitting information so it fits one's agenda"
Lets say he is spreading anti-vax propaganda. I'd like some evidence to back this up that he does this intentionally and consistently. Your reply "Don't know, don't care" is quite telling in this regard.
"AFAIK he was contacted and declined. It douesn't matter, though, see next."
It does matter, thats the whole point here.
"in any case, the "issues" he has DO NOT come from the findings that medical professionals and researchers have done but from deliberately misreading and omitting (part) of their results."
Yes you keep saying that. Lets go with the above video. What is he misrepresenting there? Or are you going to say "I'm not qualified to assess the paper" but at the same time totally sure that he is misrepresenting it?
You seem to get all emotional when I'm not dismissing Campbell's every video based on the cartoon scientists single video. You can do it that way if you want, I tend to look at it on a case-by-case basis or till there is evidence that he is bullshitting on a consistent basis and really has gone off the deep end.
His latest video is pretty interesting. You can watch it too since you don't have to listen to a word Campbell says, skip it and listen to what the Pfizer guy has to say, or rather what he doesn't say.
@ 6:14 cracks me up. How the bald guy stares at him like "WTF are you saying??"
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
have you listened to anyone else talk about the paper?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
No, but if you know of any others, please share.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
you know the level of troponin of 14 or higher is an indication of possible myocarditis and this study for some reason decided to lower that down to 8.9 for women instead and because of that, the studies says women are more at risk
if you wanted to know the truth, you would go further than the front door
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Seems to be different for me and women.
COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-associated myocardial injury was defined as acute dynamic hs-cTnT- elevation above the sex-specific 99th-perentileULN ( 8.9 ng/L in women and 15.5 ng/L in men)
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Dude (Old Spike)
Notice the red shirt the bald guy is wearing..., 1 step short of a maga hat, before he used to wear blue, just look back at his old video's, he is in it for the money, he will end up reclusive as alex jones, trying to keep his channel alive.
The guy was dodgy i give you that but nobody ever claimed it would stop transmission.
Farmacy is a store like any other, ask Coca Cola if cola is healthy and you will get answers like ppl like the unique taste, proves nothing but gets views
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"Yes you keep saying that. Lets go with the above video. What is he misrepresenting there? Or are you going to say "I'm not qualified to assess the paper" but at the same time totally sure that he is misrepresenting it?"
Don't know and don't care. He, like crowdes, beanyhat and the two muppets of this original post are NOT trustworthy sources of information, everything they say needs to be fact checked. So I am not interested.
Remember campbell also was a huge fan of ivermectin (this he may have honestly gotten wrong but I don't think he ever said he did).
"cartoon scientist" has quite a few campbell debunks, so do others. Why don't you tell us where "cartoon scientist" (and others) gets it all wrong? Oh, I forgot, you are not interested in real scientists' views, you want your bias confirmed.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Don't know and don't care."
I know that by now. That's why it's not a very productive conversation because that is the whole point here.
"He, like crowdes, beanyhat and the two muppets of this original post are NOT trustworthy sources of information, everything they say needs to be fact checked. So I am not interested."
Kind of a stretch comparing them to some political commentators who act like children. Politics is and always will be in a league of its own when it comes to BS. But that's just my opinion. You can make make your own judgment calls and pigeonhole people into their respective camps as you see fit. I'm already in the one pigeonhole with skeptoid and the whats-his-name.
"Why don't you tell us where "cartoon scientist" (and others) gets it all wrong? Oh, I forgot, you are not interested in real scientists' views, you want your bias confirmed."
Never said anything about him not having a point. See how you assume things. It seems you're not really arguing with me, but with the idea of me that you have in your head. Might be good to take a step back and see if you have some biases of your own? How emotional you become about a particular subject is usually a good tell.
Anyway, As I've repeated many times, Campbell quite possibly has gotten a lot of things wrong with the amount of video he puts out. Thats why I welcome criticism towards Campbell if it's valid, because that's how science works. If you fuck up, there should be someone to correct you (If youre really professional you can even do this without gloating)
This isn't about your guy against my guy. I'd just like to know the truth. From the above Pfizer video, you can see how the truth is sometimes stretched.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Dude (Old Spike)
Yeah truth is stretched all the time, but if it was true that it can cause myocarditis it is best to keep it quiet, for instance yesterday or the day before i was watching India today or something,- there is a rise in covid hospitalizations though there was no rise in cases even though testing went up, but the title said covid on the rise in India, which is bullshit, just to get ad money, its a scam, you never heard plz like and subscribe, they want that ad money all of em, and they will stretch truth to get it.
Money is a weird thing.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"Kind of a stretch comparing them to some political commentators..." Nope, the content or "message" of all of them needs to be treated the same, I could have mentioned weinstein too, same sort of guy (with a degree).
"This isn't about your guy against my guy. I'd just like to know the truth." Correct, campbell isn't one siding with the truth on this topic. Quite the opposite. Otherwise he would have corrected his "mistakes".
A good tell that I am very close to being 100% correct is who actually posts his content on here, only those with a far right agenda and conspiracy theorists....
And lastly, again, about this study and the supposed findings: Nobody whose opinion on the matter actually would count has their panties in a bunch over this study and the risk of contracting myocarditis, only the far right press and of course conspiracy theorists' favourite "horse med campbell"
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Ok, I don't think we need to go on anymore. Were going in circles, repeating the same things. Your arguing like this is a political witch hunt and not really giving anything other your opinion.
Take some notes from Bobbob below on how to make some arguments that are more than just hot air.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
lol, all are "arguing" shit they don't fully comprehend on here, this is why I don't partake. But you go on bud.
My contribution here is about credibility and bias, the former of which you (or campbell) have none, the latter a lot.
You still did not answer the question where "cartoon scientist" (or others) debunks campbell incorrectly, I assume you either haven't watched any the videos or you can't.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"lol, all are "arguing" shit they don't fully comprehend on here, this is why I don't partake."
You don't partake huh? You don't see the glaring problem in your logic . You post, you are takin part.
You can't post stuff about science because we don't fully understand it, but at the same time you want to tell me who I can or cannot listen to in said field of science? And when I ask "What is he misrepresenting here" I get nothing.
"You still did not answer the question where "cartoon scientist" (or others) debunks campbell incorrectly"
Read my previous post again. I think this is why we keep going in circles.
Why does he get away with his truth bending? because the fanboys are too scared to look elsewhere....
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
this is just a brief comment. i've been working on one since yesterday, that's coming later. i just wanted to let you know that the study you posted and john talked about says out of all the participants
"No definitive case of myocarditis was found"
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
@Sal is correct here. There's the small matter of increased instances of myocarditis with infection. And increased infection with poor outcomes without vaccination; which this paper 'controlled' for... nice.
@Backdraft, I'm going to address your point about this being a controlled study below. In short, it is not. A true control study would have had another 800 staff who went about their lives and didn't get the vaccine or booster (ie. a true control) comparing them to the treatment group (received vaccine) and test for the incidence of myocarditis in both populations for say (arbitrarily) a 30d period after infusion. To simulate this, the control group would receive saline placebo vs covid vaccine (mRNA preferably since that's what we're looking at). What they used in this paper instead is what's known as 'matching' i.e. not a true control. The problem with matching is that by trying to match for other factors i.e. finding the test subject an equivalent 'buddy' in the untreated group, you're forcing 2 distributions together literally restricting the analysis to the portion of overlap - which in turn exaggerates the effect of variable x (in this case treatment) on y (the incidence of myocarditis). Hoping this makes sense..
In short you've selected for a bias (including multiple spurious correlations) that will exaggerate the effect of treatment (x) on outcome (y). [If you're curious; here's a couple of direct links on the problem with matching you might want to check out for yourself: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9188848/ and https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00470587. The take home point is that (sorry to get super-technical here) to match correctly you have to incorporate substantive info about the subject matter into your model and be able to demonstrate to those doing peer review that you eliminated all biases due to confounding by any covariates; i.e .other variables which are also possibly exerting effect).
Anyway, back to Dr. C's review and outrage. It's a shit paper to begin with. He drank the KoolAide, and barfed it up all over YouTube. We're now weeks on and amazingly there hasn't been more of a splash around it, which should also tell us something. Anyway, busy life. Moving on.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Dude (Old Spike)
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Thanks, this is actually addressing the study.
"The take home point is that (sorry to get super-technical here) to match correctly you have to incorporate substantive info about the subject matter into your model and be able to demonstrate to those doing peer review that you eliminated all biases due to confounding by any covariates; i.e .other variables which are also possibly exerting effect). "
I'd like more info about this too. The paper didn't actually go into detail how this was done. Not that I'd have the expertise to asses it one way or the other. The paper says "Matching was conducted using a nearest neighbor propensity score matching method"
What I can find about this is that it's a common method used in the medical industry and is actually used to deal with confounding bias if done properly. I can't say if this method was used correctly or if it was half-assed, but it is used in studies that are published in high-ranking medical journals so I don't think this is a reason to dismiss the study, not unless we have some evidence that the matching wasn't done properly.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
'What I can find about this is that it's a common method used in the medical industry and is actually used to deal with confounding bias if done properly.'
Thanks Backdraft, but as you go on to point out, this is a pretty big 'if', and their not being published in one of the better known journals, which the authors would certainly have preferred, tells you this was met with challenges that weren't addressed. I'd like to say let's agree to disagree on this one, but given every life follows its own distinct path, talking about education/training/experience combo for this particular situation, 'agree to disagree ' won't quite cut it this time. So, let's say, I'd agree with you,..but then we'd both be wrong. ;-)
Appreciate the interesting discussion thread. Kudos!
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Thanks Backdraft for the article! I don't think I'll be watching any more of Dr. Campbell's schlock. If you want to share a timestamp where he addresses that this article is only about the distribution between the sexes (what..only 2?) of the incidence of elevated cardiac enzymes in 800 people who were vaccinated and that this in no way compares numbers to a control (non-vaccinated) group so no meaningful conclusions can be drawn about vaccines causing myocarditis then please be my guest. Otherwise it's sensationalistic BS. Hell, even the authors of the article (or publishers) are careful when giving a title to their paper to avoid this implication. Thanks.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
jdt73 (Short Spike)
Nice,
You're better at this, Im gonna stand back and watch fo a while.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Well, here's hoping the anticipation doesn't exceed the event. See above; with figures and everything.
A little bit of fascism is like chicken soup for the soul.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Well you don't have to watch him, you've got the paper.
It says they had a control group. Obviously, they need one for the study to have any merit. What I couldn't find if the control group was vaccinated (one shot) or not. They are comparing it to the group that got boosters (second shots?)
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
jdt73 (Short Spike)
Hey mate!
You can't fool an Idiot. Fool me again... wont no fool me no more.
Comments
(Old Spike)
So, the presenters (none of which have any scientific background at all but one of which was involved in a real estate ponzi scheme) of a right wing "news channel" draw "their own" conclusions from a study that actually concludes:
"mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated myocardial injury was more common than previously thought, being mild and transient, and more frequent in women versus men. The possible protective role of IFN-λ1(IL-29) and GM-CSF warrant further studies."
What the poster did NOT forget was their confirmation bias.......
(Short Spike)
Covid vaccines are cool and there is nothing you can say that will change my mind.
(Old Spike)
I never made comments to that effect, my argument was and still is that covid vaccination is preferable to not vaccinating because the benefits outweigh the risks by quite a few orders of magnitude. Actually studies like this are carried out to find possibly dangerous oversights and previous unknowns.
What we can see from this study is that this still stands true and actually there is no "red flag" situation as side effect were "mild and transient", NOT "severe and long lasting (or permanent)" but still would "warrant further studies".
That is all, nothing more nothing less. No fear mongering by agenda driven right wing twats required.
(Short Spike)
You need to trust the science, informed consent only applies to micro biologists that agree with all directives from WHO CDC and FDA, other than that we just need to do what we are told to do.
Myocarditis isn't a thing man. Peroid!
Sheez, are we crying over a few broken eggs?
We're making pancakes dude!
(Old Spike)
you keep on being happy with people that tell you what you want to hear when they selectively read and deliberately misinterpret scientific studies. And you wonder why anyone with more than a quater of a brain laughs about you.
(Old Spike)
Did you know you can get an inflamed heart from brushing your teeth to hard, you wouldn't even notice it most times, we are built to withstand mild inflammation, if anything it makes you stronger for inflammation in the future, and yes that is science.
Nothing to get bent out of shape from, it is only a very small percentage that gets the inflammation, a very small percentage of those might actually die of the inflammation.
Which comes down to a very small percentage of deaths.
If you look at how many suffocated from covid before the vaccine and how the numbers dropped when most ppl were vaccinated, i would say the vaccine was effective,
but the halt to deadly covid... was a mutated SARS strain that pushed away the other variants by being more transmittable so being a tradeoff in lethality to transmitability, so it became a common cold, with almost no effects.
To state it simple.
-If a virus is 80 percent deadly it is 20 percent transmittable
-a new strain with 1 percent deadly and 99 percent transmission took over
Since the new virus did not kill it's hosts it became the only one left, the others are dead, the old virus killed itself by killing it's hosts,
There is however a push away thing where the mild virus trained us to fight off the mild infection and doing so also fight more deadly comparable strains. which is better then a vaccine, but nobody knew when the mild strain would appear, so we still needed the vaccinations.
We can be lucky and stop it with the nutcase conspiracy theories :)
it's all oke now.
(Short Spike)
Did you know I swapped sides on the nutcase conspiracy theorys? I think it happened after I brushed my teeth.
I guess no matter what I do I will never allowed in to your special club.IO now think it is fantastic the billions of people were mandated to participate in a human trial of a new kind of medical treatment. Even better that the drug companies omitted to tell us the truth about the new treatment, if the had told the truth, silly people might have used that information in making an informed consent.
By hokey the whole planet nearly died!
We can thank the dark lord for saving us in this life to spare us from the next. Amen
(Site Administrator)
JD. Please don't omit the bit where bodies were piling up in the hospitals and people with other complaints were being turned away from ERs. The medical system was in disarray and something needed to be done to slow down transmission. Mercury-laden original recipe vaccines were available for round 2 (booster 1) for those who consider themselves anti-mRNA purists. The only difference with how grandpa did it was that you got your own, single-use syringe this time (instead of the communal one used to do the whole village back in the day). See also my comment below, on over-ascribing causality, please.
(Old Spike)
This had initially nothing to do with it and was a leftist marxist conspiracy to kill off pensioners so they don't further increase leftist marxist sponsored healthcare and state pension costs. As this was not efficient enough vaccines that deliberately kill people with their long term side effects were developed in a conspiracy between leftist marxists and big pharma so this can go on now albeit at a slower pace. There is also clear evidence that this vaccine has more decremental health effects depending on the patients political beliefs: the further right the more likely one dies of it. Other side effects may be sudden attacks of common sense as displayed by ex vice president pence in a recent interview about trump allegations.
Western leftist marxist governments now work in close partnership with china to develop brainwashing viruses specifically aimed at "right wingers", only very few, like jdt see through these conspiracies and keep on doing the right(lol)eous thing and keep us brainwashed leftist marxist peasants informed.
Praise them!
Also the only working prevention method for coroner is eating horseradish! "They" just don't want you to know!
(Short Spike)
Sure I appreciate how scared people were, as we were being told about hospitals that wouldn't be able to cope. Innocent people were going to die because they wouldn't take their vaccines and they would in turn infect the vaccinated.
I am so sorry that I doubted the vaccine, to think of how many vaccinated people I must have killed gives me the shivers.
That is why now I am a proud member of the Jackboot Brigade where the interests of the State are interests of the people and the people who think different don't matter because they aren't really people anyway.
I am sure that history will prove all this right as sure as Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.
(Old Spike)
(Site Administrator)
'Innocent people were going to die because they wouldn't take their vaccines and they would in turn infect the vaccinated.'
Innocent vaccinated people also died because they got turned away from ERs that were over-crowded. I don't know if you saw a comment I'd made back at the height of the pandemic, but we lost someone here after he got turned away at Cité la Santé in Laval (north of Montreal), twice. He went home the second time, passed out from the pain, and when they brought him in via ambulance, that was it - his goose was cooked. Caught covid from someone 2 beds over and ultimately died of congestive heart failure around a week later. The only point I'm trying to make here is that people also died as a secondary effect of the pandemic; simply by not being able to access care for what would normally be an easy fix (a UTI in his case).
(Short Spike)
Yes, and that is why informed consent is nice but not really all that important.
I think it was a brilliant idea to sack all the health workers who worked without a cure it vaccine for a whole year but when the silver bullet vaccine came along if they declined to take the shot. The lives the could have saved were not as important as the possibility that they would spread the virus.
The vaccine stops the spread of the virus. (Just believe and it becomes true)
Did someone not tell them it was both safe and effective?
Talk about from hero to zero.
Anyway must go I need to iron my brown shirt. Got to look my best for the rally.
(Site Administrator)
Ok. Keep up the good work and just remember if you sell the most cookies this season your den mother will take you and 4 of your friends to see the new Barbie movie! ;-)
(Site Administrator)
Guys, can I get a link to the actual research paper please. The one I found on PubMed states right in the conclusion section: 'This small case series is not conclusive that COVID-19 vaccination was the cause of myocarditis, as we could not completely exclude spontaneous myocarditis from other causes in these patients.'
Remembering always that causal links are over-reported in clinical research (ie. 'could it even remotely possibly be related to med under study?' is reported as 'yes it's related'). Basically, everyone take a deep breath and relax their sphincter a little.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978
I think Campbells full video gives some perspective.
Myocarditis is usually benign and doesn't cause problems, IF you know you have it and don't go exercising during the infection. This study suggests it was quite common and people weren't generally screened for it or warned that they could get it. Myocarditis can have very little to no symptoms and only a blood test will tell you for sure, so it's quite a big risk to go jogging after a shot.
(Long Spike)
they didn't check to see who had myocarditis before giving them the shot. they only looked to see who had it after
a study came out about excess deaths. it looks at the excess deaths before the vaccines compared to after the vaccines, it also compares republican counties to democractic counties. it found republicans counties, which have a lower vaccination rate than democrat counties, die from excess death more than democrats and since the vaccine rollout, the difference between the two has widened. not only are excess deaths seasonal, it's political
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807617
(Old Spike)
Conclusion:
"Our study found evidence of higher excess mortality for Republican voters compared with Democratic voters in Florida and Ohio after, but not before, COVID-19 vaccines were available to all adults in the US. These differences in excess death rates were larger in counties with lower vaccination rates. If differences in COVID-19 vaccination by political party affiliation persist, particularly in the absence of other pandemic mitigation strategies, the higher excess death rate observed among Republican voters may continue through subsequent stages of the pandemic."
What would be interesting to find out is whether there is a difference in acceptance of the flu vaccine or if the flu either just isn't as deadly as presumed or the vaccine isn't very effective.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
They had a control group. That's pretty standard. The group that got the boosters had higher troponin levels that indicate myocarditis.
(Long Spike)
studies says they only checked on day 3 after vaccination. so why didn't they check to see who had myocarditis before administering the vaccine? how many of them had it before?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Is this again one study that passed peer review and you are the only one that can see the obvious flaw?
They had a control group that didn't get the booster, they compared it to that. Maybe some of them had it, but then again the same applies to the control group. So you get an average of the blood work and compare them.
At this point isn't it a fact that the vaccine can bring it on. This just says it's more common than previously thought.
(Long Spike)
this is like many studies that passed peer review that didn't use the best of methods so it dies on the line while the anti-vax communities waves it around asking why no studies have been done about vaccine safety while ignoring all the studies that have been done before, during and after vaccine roll out because like i've said previously. this is only about justification for not doing something. you're something like 10 times more likely to develop myocarditis if your not vaccinated. like 6 times the chance of getting it than a vaccinated person. and this studies sets out to show that its actually 5.99999?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
I mean I wouldn't have a problem with it if people were told there's a good chance you can get myocarditis from the vaccine and also that you shouldn't exercise after that because you can die. You know, just a heads up.
(Long Spike)
what constitutes a good chance? cause i'm thinking that million of people got vaccinated everyday. if its a good chance they can get it from the vaccine then its good chance we'd have bodies everywhere and they'll all be heart attacks because nobody was told not to exercise or work their manual labour job, or have sex or vigorously masturbate
you know what started this whole thing. a study that went up from canadian sources about 2 years ago and was quickly taken down because they were made aware that they accidentally mistook how many people got the vaccines. they did the study thinking 30k people got the shot and like 30 ended up with myocarditis. well, the number of people who got the shot was 800k
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"what constitutes a good chance?"
Lets just say theres a risk and someone getting a vaccine should know about the risks and how to mitigate them.
Would you agree?
(Long Spike)
you'd have to quantify "good chance" before i answer it. phone chargers don't come with a warning that if you wrap it around you're neck you can suffocate. most foods don't come with allergy warnings. so many of the things you do on a daily basis is done without knowing the risks. so what percentage of something happening warrants a warning?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"you'd have to quantify "good chance" before i answer it"
5.1% elevated high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T concentrations
2.8% vaccine-associated myocardial injury
Maybe I'm reaching here but heart inflammation and "safe and effective" don't really go together.
(Long Spike)
5.1% doesn't mean anything because they only found 2.8% had it. studies have come out before this where millions of people were the study group and its lower, but 2.8% is fine for argument sake
before the vaccines, a lot of time was dedicated to the effects of the virus(especially dr john). when vaccines came out, the talks became comparing the effects of covid on vaccinated and unvaccinated. we've been at a point where the conversations are the effects of the vaccines while completely ignoring the effects of the virus it was intended to mitigate.
your something like 12 times more likely to catch covid if you're not vaccinated
the chances of developing myocarditis from covid while being unvaccinated is 11% and almost 6% for the vaccinated.
the chances of dying form myocarditis before 2020 was 2.2%. during the pandemic and before vaccines. the chances of dying from myocarditis and not having covid was 2.9%. during that time. the chances of dying from myocarditis and having covid was 13%. the hospitalization for myocarditis at the time went up 40% and 40% of them had a history of covid.
by the things you've said. you not getting vaccinated, you getting covid along with mentioning your kids and other family members getting it. you've knowingly or unknowingly(almost purposefully) rolled the dice to game where your death is more certain of an outcome than getting the vaccine
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
You didn't answer the question.
Lets just say theres a risk and someone getting a vaccine should know about the risks and how to mitigate them.
Would you agree?
(Long Spike)
i did answer the question. your "good chance" of getting myocarditis is even better without the vaccine. if you don't care enough to know the chances and you want to compare them against less of that chance with vaccines, you don't care about the chances at all. if thats not simple enough then no, i don't agree
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
So your logic basically is that as long as the chances of getting myocarditis from the vaccine are lower than from the virus, then being informed that you can get myocarditis from the vaccine is irrelevant?
Let's say to an athlete that trains hard on a daily basis, This is not really pertinent info to him or her?
Don't really understand why they bother naming any side effects then.
(Long Spike)
that's basically my logic but its based on knowing studies were done before, during and after vaccines roll out, those studies were always available and that people in general don't read the terms & conditions on anything. that it's never been about being informed, its always been about choosing not to be informed while complaining about not being informed. the vid you posted above is about a study that says the rate is higher than what was previously stated in a bunch of other studies. some of those studies probably mention older studies and so on. at some point, people just started pretending that none of that existed
you tell an athlete that trains hard on a daily basis that they've got an 11% chance over several weeks with covid and the thought of 2.8% chance over 28 days goes out the window.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"that's basically my logic"
So if we follow that logic even further, basically anything goes as long as the virus is worse than the vaccine?
"that it's never been about being informed, its always been about choosing not to be informed while complaining about not being informed"
Campbell in the above video says had he known the myocarditis risk, he wouldn't have taken it.
And this is from a guy that has a medical background and scours the internet for medical papers and he didn't know about it, so how should the average Joe have any chance of coming across that info. And even if they did, the numbers have changed since.
"you tell an athlete that trains hard on a daily basis that they've got an 11% chance over several weeks with covid and the thought of 2.8% chance over 28 days goes out the window."
Well, did they tell them that? That's what my argument really is about.
Warn them that they could get myocarditis from the shot and exercising can be dangerous with that condition.
You're coming at this from 20/20 hindsight. Did they even know about the 2.8% risk at the time?
(Old Spike)
Even if they knew they would not have told you, vaccination was too important, no need to freak ppl out and turn them away from a vaccine that saves their lives, you can't trust most ppl to make their own decisions.
Remember the toilet paper and food fad?, does that seem normal?, no need to walk in the chicken coop dressed in a where-wolf suit.
I can still remember anti-vaxers here saying you will turn in to zombies, you will die, you will die of hunger if you don't stock up now, not realizing that ppl like them are the problem, that they need to be managed and manipulated.
https://jeff-jackson.medium.com/46-stories-about-people-who-regret-not-getting-the-vaccine-c7059080d1e6
O yeah Campbell is a nurse not a doctor, i believe he made his Bachelor then gave up on nursing, who did he help during the pandemic? he just popped up on the internet far away from the sick ppl and started making his money there.
Now he is speaking to the rights ear because the pandemic is over, the right are the only ones with something to prove.
(Old Spike)
"Campbell in the above video says had he known the myocarditis risk, he wouldn't have taken it. "
Still taking him seriously? You know why he has to say it, right?
No? Let me help you out: so people like you, jdt, bsman, skeptoid etc etc keep on watching his channel.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Still taking him seriously? You know why he has to say it, right?
No? Let me help you out: so people like you, jdt, bsman, skeptoid etc etc keep on watching his channel."
If he is misrepresenting the paper, point it out.
Ridiculing won't help, you need to point what's factually wrong in the video. There very well might be mistakes in this video.
Neither one of us knows if he would have taken it or not and thats not really important. What he is pointing to with that is important -> What we thought the risk of myocarditis was from the vaccine and what it really is (at least according to this paper)
Quick search gave me an estimate of 2.4 in 100 000 getting myocarditis
And this study is saying 1 in 35
I don't know what is an acceptable level, but it's a big jump.
(Old Spike)
My comment was not regarding the study, I am not really qualified to have an educated opinion on that, I was rather commenting on the lack of credibility of campbell.
The symptoms were "mild and temporary", So I am guessing that none of the 35 had serious health issues or died. I am also guessing if corona gives you this condition the effects will be more like "long lasting and severe, maybe fatal".
Considering that only far right "press" and types like campbell get their panties in a bunch over it and no real scientist I remain quite happy with the risk of taking the vaccine.
I look at it this way: I take blood pressure medication, of course it has possible side effects (maybe even some unknown ones), not taking the medication has more risks attached to it than taking it. Same goes for vaccinations. Simple as that
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"My comment was not regarding the study, I am not really qualified to have an educated opinion on that, I was rather commenting on the lack of credibility of campbell."
I know it wasn't, but that's what I'm asking because that's what we're discussing. Is everything you see about Campbell tainted by the debunk the funk cartoon scientists? Maybe in the future, I should just post the studies and leave him out of the loop, Might possibly free you from the knee-jerk reaction you have about him but I don't think anyone would read them. Though, science papers are generally not an easy read and are too dry for most people to take an interest.
I've said this before, I'm fully open that he might misrepresent papers. He can and has done mistakes. Of course, to any skeptic of his, these are not mistakes but blatant attempts to lie and spread anti-vax propaganda to get as many followers as possible.
He is suspicious about the vaccines, that is clear. Where does this suspicion arise? From his own fantasies and the need for subscribers or do the papers he keeps looking at have anything to do with it? Is he so biased that everything he sees is "bad vaccine", or is there some truth in the studies? Is every talk he gives over-sensationalized and blown out of proportion filled with his own opinions and disregarding what the papers say? Is he selectively choosing only the "bad vaccine" studies? Could be, but if they are peer-reviewed and published, then I don't see the problem.
"The symptoms were "mild and temporary", So I am guessing that none of the 35 had serious health issues or died. I am also guessing if corona gives you this condition the effects will be more like "long lasting and severe, maybe fatal"."
Well yes, as far as I know nobody got anything serious from it. It's not a problem IF YOU KNOW you have it. Knowing how common it is, is really part of the risk mitigation.
My friend got it (vaccinated). Got something like 7 weeks sick leave because it's dangerous to do physical work if you have it. It's not like the flu, it can be mild and a non-issue but you can't stress the heart during or you can have an heart attack or permanent damage.
(Old Spike)
Your ad hominem in the second paragraph would actually disqualify you from deserving an answer but as you put so much effort into it:
"Is everything you see about Campbell tainted....."
YES! He has the same credibility to me as do crowder, beanyhat or any fox news achor.
In the beginning of covid he was what I would call an "educator", but he developed rather quickly into a "content producer for clicks", an "influencer", and that with a track record of deliberately misinterpreting and selectively quoting what is written in studies so it fits into his agenda, so nothing he says can be trusted because you have to go back to the study and read it fully anyway. These are NOT "mistakes", otherwise he would have retracted them or at least entered in conversation with his critics and "cartoon scientist" is only one in a long list of COMPETENT "critics" of his.
To me he is nothing more or nothing less than the equivalent of a climate change denier. "comic scientist" and others would be the equivalent of potholer54 in this field, so I understand why you are not interested in what he has to say.
The 4th paragraph makes you sound like skeptoid or bsman. If campbell had a point he could write a peer review or issue his own study on the subject. But that doesn't give you clicks now, does it, asking the "right questions" does because people looking for confirmation bias watch it (it also would make him a laughing stock with his peers). So here's his motivation.
Real skeptics would watch "comic scientists" debunking video and then call out his lies and (deliberate) mistakes btw........
Lastly did your friend "get it" because he was vaccinated? If so you may want to imagine if he wouldn't be vaccinated that there is a very good chance contracting covid may have triggered the same condition but caused more severe symptoms and damage or even killed him?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Your ad hominem in the second paragraph would actually disqualify you from deserving an answer"
Theres no ad hominems there. Just what I've observed.
You see Cambpells face, you get a certain reaction no matter what he says.
"YES! He has the same credibility to me as do crowder, beanyhat or any fox news achor.
In the beginning of covid he was what I would call an "educator", but he developed rather quickly into a "content producer for clicks", an "influencer", and that with a track record of deliberately misinterpreting and selectively quoting"
And he does this in every single video?? All of the videos where he talks about a study, he is misrepresenting and selectively quoting?
"These are NOT "mistakes", otherwise he would have retracted them or at least entered in conversation with his critics and "cartoon scientist" is only one in a long list of COMPETENT "critics" of his. "
Do we have evidence that he has in fact read the criticism?
He posts videos actively. Maybe 4-5 videos a week. Do we know he reads all the comments on every video?
Has he ever posted any corrections if he got things wrong? And if he has done so, why would he do such a thing?
"If campbell had a point he could write a peer review or issue his own study on the subject."
So it's not enough for you that he reads others peer-reviewed papers. He has to have his own to have any validity in your book. Do you know of any other YouTubers who use other people's studies to support their claims or maybe even debunk false information?
"Lastly did your friend "get it" because he was vaccinated?"
He was vaccinated and got covid too. Don't know which one gave it to him.
Point I'm trying to make here is that myocarditis can be dangerous. Thats why he got a long sick leave because it's dangerous to do physical work with an inflamed heart muscle.
(Old Spike)
"And he does this in every single video??"
Don't know, don't care. It's like crowder getting something right, it happens, I guess.
"Do we have evidence that he has in fact read the criticism?
He posts videos actively. Maybe 4-5 videos a week. Do we know he reads all the comments on every video?
Has he ever posted any corrections if he got things wrong? And if he has done so, why would he do such a thing?"
He has been invited by several people to discuss this, he ignored it.
"So it's not enough for you that he reads others peer-reviewed papers. He has to have his own to have any validity in your book. Do you know of any other YouTubers who use other people's studies to support their claims or maybe even debunk false information? "
If he has an issue youtube is not the platform to discuss it, peer review is. He didn't debunk shit anyway. OTOH He and his claims and deliberate misinterpretations are being debunked by others constantly.
If you are a decent youtuber you do what potholer did in his last video, issue a corrected version and explain what and why you changed it.
"He was vaccinated and got covid too. Don't know which one gave it to him."
Still thinking that "vaccination should prevent one from getting covid? That was never the case and nobody who's voice counts claimed it.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Don't know, don't care."
Hmm...I would think thats quite important if you have such strong opinions about him.
Is it something like 90% of the time that he lies? 50%? or is it really low like 1-5%?
I'd like to know because to me this makes all the difference.
"He has been invited by several people to discuss this, he ignored it."
Well, did he specifically decline the request, or are we just assuming that he saw it and ignored it?
I've never seen him comment anything on YT. Doesn't seem to be very active in the comment section. Don't know about social media since I don't use it.
"If he has an issue youtube is not the platform to discuss it, peer review is."
I don't see the problem. He shouldn't talk about papers on YT because of..... reasons?
The "issues" he has come from the findings that medical professionals and researchers have done.
"Still thinking that "vaccination should prevent one from getting covid? That was never the case and nobody who's voice counts claimed it."
Yeah, now your strawmanning my comment. Did I say anything to that effect? Again, the point was myocarditis can be dangerous.
But since you brought it up, and might have forgotten that one of the "selling points" of the vaccines at the beginning of the pandemic was to stop the spread. Maybe Pfizer should have retracted this comment and made a correction sooner.
(Long Spike)
the thing about herd immunity is that we weren't expecting people like this
"Haven't been vaccinated and I doubt I will. Non of my close family have and we never even really talked about. Everyone just decided not to. I guess non of us take it that seriously"
alright, so. for starters. getting myocarditis is rare, getting it from a vaccine is rarer. that being said everything has a risk of causing myocarditis. the most common causes are infections from virus', bacteria, fungi and parasites, but also include medicine. like, medication for your heart. medication for mental issues, same goes for some antibiotics. if you like to drink/do drugs thats comes with a risk. the carbon monoxide coming from fuel burning engine. taking tylenol comes with a risk of myocarditis. i know this even though i'm average joe, sitting on the couch getting high, campbell with his medical background that spent years looking up peoples medical history before applying treatment, who scours the internet from medical studies doesn't. one of us lying
now i want to make you aware of how the vaccination process works. see, i'm guessing you think you just walk in and someone who doesn't know very much other than the pointy end goes in the arm. has you roll up your sleeve, injects you then you leave. that's not how it works. they get your name, your health card(medical background) and then they ask you a series of health questions, like, you sick, on medication, chest pains, fatigue, breathing problems... basically asking you if you have any symptoms of myocarditis
i'm coming into this with hindsight that goes well beyond 2020. everything is built on the backs of something else. the covid mrna vaccine was based of the mrna influenza vaccine they had been working on for a while. they more than likely know the risks associated with mrna vaccines in general and more specifically the risks associated with covid mrna vaccines. since the medical field works on a risk-benifit assessments, you're whole argument is 2.8% is bad and should be what every conversation is about but reducing the risk of 97.2% isn't worth mentioning
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"the thing about herd immunity is that we weren't expecting people like this"
So it all failed because of people like me? Do you remember any countries that had very high vaccination levels and still got waves of covid cases?
Even Pfizer representatives from a few days back seem to have trouble saying that it was effective at stopping transmission. Kind of odd that when they're under oath it becomes increasingly difficult to give straightforward answers.
From 9:35 onward: https://rumble.com/v34ugwm-australian-senate-committee-grills-pfizer-moderna-and-gov-health-officials-.html
(Long Spike)
this is the anti-vax loop
step 1)the vaccines don't stop transmission, sure the unvaccinated accounted for the majority of deaths and hospitalization, reduced the risk of getting it not only the first time but the 2nd, 3rd... it doesn't stop it so i'm not going to take it
step 2)the vaccines leaks, sure, that might not stand up to vaccine history and we don't happen to have this multitude of variants after vaccine releases but i mean to say that the virus can become immune to the vaccine which isn't something that actually happens because the vaccines instigate an immune response and that response is what attacks the virus and any immunity it garners would actually be an example of our immune system not working properly or that it can't keep up and but also how vaccines instigate multiple responses and so that even in the unlikely hood of it gaining an immunity of sorts, 12 other things are going to take it out but also factoring in that for any of this to be plausible, that the specific strain of virus thats gained an immunity now has to become to most dominant inside someone and then infect another body where it might not have any immunity at all... so i'm not taking it
step 3)it causes side effects. sure the risks of getting something from the vaccines is lower than the odds of getting the same thing from the virus and all the research papers that say different are based on google reviews, bad math or don't say anything at all and are just straight up getting misrepresent by what the actual study says.... i'm not taking it
step 4)repeat from step 1 and forget all the things people told you leading up to this point, remember, you're not anti-vax, you're just asking questions
how very telling of you to post a rumble link. rumble. rrrrrruuuummmmmbbbblllleee........ the far right social media platform, its like one rung above bitchute
(Old Spike)
lol, when arguments fail you start grasping at straws, this is getting ridiculous.
"Hmm...I would think thats quite important if you have such strong opinions about him.
Is it something like 90% of the time that he lies? 50%? or is it really low like 1-5%?
I'd like to know because to me this makes all the difference."
What makes the difference is deliberately misreading and omitting information so it fits one's agenda, once someone repeatedly does that they lose their credibility. With everyone actually except those that have a similar agenda (that is what makes the difference with you). The only reason why people actually make debunking videos for the likes of him is that he is popular with the conspiracy crowd.
"Well, did he specifically decline the request, or are we just assuming that he saw it and ignored it?
I've never seen him comment anything on YT. Doesn't seem to be very active in the comment section. Don't know about social media since I don't use it."
AFAIK he was contacted and declined. It douesn't matter, though, see next.
"I don't see the problem. He shouldn't talk about papers on YT because of..... reasons?
The "issues" he has come from the findings that medical professionals and researchers have done."
I am not saying he shouldn't make yt videos, he should address the issues with peers as part of the review process, this is where his peers will LOOK FOR critique. They would very quickly say "what is he on about, we did not write or find that"! The same is true for all the climate change deniers.
In any case, the "issues" he has DO NOT come from the findings that medical professionals and researchers have done but from deliberately misreading and omitting (part) of their results. Just look at the debunking videos made because of him, they always mention what he says and then what he has omitted or "misinterpreted". The same is true for the climate change denier debunking efforts.
Lastly, for the the purpouse of this discussion, a covid vaccine does "the same" as a flu vaccine, this has been very clear (and ignored by the conspiracy theorists) from roll out.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"What makes the difference is deliberately misreading and omitting information so it fits one's agenda"
Lets say he is spreading anti-vax propaganda. I'd like some evidence to back this up that he does this intentionally and consistently. Your reply "Don't know, don't care" is quite telling in this regard.
"AFAIK he was contacted and declined. It douesn't matter, though, see next."
It does matter, thats the whole point here.
"in any case, the "issues" he has DO NOT come from the findings that medical professionals and researchers have done but from deliberately misreading and omitting (part) of their results."
Yes you keep saying that. Lets go with the above video. What is he misrepresenting there? Or are you going to say "I'm not qualified to assess the paper" but at the same time totally sure that he is misrepresenting it?
You seem to get all emotional when I'm not dismissing Campbell's every video based on the cartoon scientists single video. You can do it that way if you want, I tend to look at it on a case-by-case basis or till there is evidence that he is bullshitting on a consistent basis and really has gone off the deep end.
His latest video is pretty interesting. You can watch it too since you don't have to listen to a word Campbell says, skip it and listen to what the Pfizer guy has to say, or rather what he doesn't say.
@ 6:14 cracks me up. How the bald guy stares at him like "WTF are you saying??"
(Long Spike)
have you listened to anyone else talk about the paper?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
No, but if you know of any others, please share.
(Long Spike)
you know the level of troponin of 14 or higher is an indication of possible myocarditis and this study for some reason decided to lower that down to 8.9 for women instead and because of that, the studies says women are more at risk
if you wanted to know the truth, you would go further than the front door
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Seems to be different for me and women.
COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-associated myocardial injury was defined as acute dynamic hs-cTnT- elevation above the sex-specific 99th-perentileULN ( 8.9 ng/L in women and 15.5 ng/L in men)
(Old Spike)
Notice the red shirt the bald guy is wearing..., 1 step short of a maga hat, before he used to wear blue, just look back at his old video's, he is in it for the money, he will end up reclusive as alex jones, trying to keep his channel alive.
The guy was dodgy i give you that but nobody ever claimed it would stop transmission.
Farmacy is a store like any other, ask Coca Cola if cola is healthy and you will get answers like ppl like the unique taste, proves nothing but gets views
(Old Spike)
"Yes you keep saying that. Lets go with the above video. What is he misrepresenting there? Or are you going to say "I'm not qualified to assess the paper" but at the same time totally sure that he is misrepresenting it?"
Don't know and don't care. He, like crowdes, beanyhat and the two muppets of this original post are NOT trustworthy sources of information, everything they say needs to be fact checked. So I am not interested.
Remember campbell also was a huge fan of ivermectin (this he may have honestly gotten wrong but I don't think he ever said he did).
"cartoon scientist" has quite a few campbell debunks, so do others. Why don't you tell us where "cartoon scientist" (and others) gets it all wrong? Oh, I forgot, you are not interested in real scientists' views, you want your bias confirmed.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Don't know and don't care."
I know that by now. That's why it's not a very productive conversation because that is the whole point here.
"He, like crowdes, beanyhat and the two muppets of this original post are NOT trustworthy sources of information, everything they say needs to be fact checked. So I am not interested."
Kind of a stretch comparing them to some political commentators who act like children. Politics is and always will be in a league of its own when it comes to BS. But that's just my opinion. You can make make your own judgment calls and pigeonhole people into their respective camps as you see fit. I'm already in the one pigeonhole with skeptoid and the whats-his-name.
"Why don't you tell us where "cartoon scientist" (and others) gets it all wrong? Oh, I forgot, you are not interested in real scientists' views, you want your bias confirmed."
Never said anything about him not having a point. See how you assume things. It seems you're not really arguing with me, but with the idea of me that you have in your head. Might be good to take a step back and see if you have some biases of your own? How emotional you become about a particular subject is usually a good tell.
Anyway, As I've repeated many times, Campbell quite possibly has gotten a lot of things wrong with the amount of video he puts out. Thats why I welcome criticism towards Campbell if it's valid, because that's how science works. If you fuck up, there should be someone to correct you (If youre really professional you can even do this without gloating)
This isn't about your guy against my guy. I'd just like to know the truth. From the above Pfizer video, you can see how the truth is sometimes stretched.
(Old Spike)
Yeah truth is stretched all the time, but if it was true that it can cause myocarditis it is best to keep it quiet, for instance yesterday or the day before i was watching India today or something,- there is a rise in covid hospitalizations though there was no rise in cases even though testing went up, but the title said covid on the rise in India, which is bullshit, just to get ad money, its a scam, you never heard plz like and subscribe, they want that ad money all of em, and they will stretch truth to get it.
Money is a weird thing.
(Old Spike)
"Kind of a stretch comparing them to some political commentators..." Nope, the content or "message" of all of them needs to be treated the same, I could have mentioned weinstein too, same sort of guy (with a degree).
"This isn't about your guy against my guy. I'd just like to know the truth." Correct, campbell isn't one siding with the truth on this topic. Quite the opposite. Otherwise he would have corrected his "mistakes".
A good tell that I am very close to being 100% correct is who actually posts his content on here, only those with a far right agenda and conspiracy theorists....
And lastly, again, about this study and the supposed findings: Nobody whose opinion on the matter actually would count has their panties in a bunch over this study and the risk of contracting myocarditis, only the far right press and of course conspiracy theorists' favourite "horse med campbell"
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Ok, I don't think we need to go on anymore. Were going in circles, repeating the same things. Your arguing like this is a political witch hunt and not really giving anything other your opinion.
Take some notes from Bobbob below on how to make some arguments that are more than just hot air.
(Old Spike)
lol, all are "arguing" shit they don't fully comprehend on here, this is why I don't partake. But you go on bud.
My contribution here is about credibility and bias, the former of which you (or campbell) have none, the latter a lot.
You still did not answer the question where "cartoon scientist" (or others) debunks campbell incorrectly, I assume you either haven't watched any the videos or you can't.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"lol, all are "arguing" shit they don't fully comprehend on here, this is why I don't partake."
You don't partake huh? You don't see the glaring problem in your logic . You post, you are takin part.
You can't post stuff about science because we don't fully understand it, but at the same time you want to tell me who I can or cannot listen to in said field of science? And when I ask "What is he misrepresenting here" I get nothing.
"You still did not answer the question where "cartoon scientist" (or others) debunks campbell incorrectly"
Read my previous post again. I think this is why we keep going in circles.
(Old Spike)
campell debunked in 1 minute
Why does he get away with his truth bending? because the fanboys are too scared to look elsewhere....
(Long Spike)
this is just a brief comment. i've been working on one since yesterday, that's coming later. i just wanted to let you know that the study you posted and john talked about says out of all the participants
"No definitive case of myocarditis was found"
(Site Administrator)
@Sal is correct here. There's the small matter of increased instances of myocarditis with infection. And increased infection with poor outcomes without vaccination; which this paper 'controlled' for... nice.
@Backdraft, I'm going to address your point about this being a controlled study below. In short, it is not. A true control study would have had another 800 staff who went about their lives and didn't get the vaccine or booster (ie. a true control) comparing them to the treatment group (received vaccine) and test for the incidence of myocarditis in both populations for say (arbitrarily) a 30d period after infusion. To simulate this, the control group would receive saline placebo vs covid vaccine (mRNA preferably since that's what we're looking at). What they used in this paper instead is what's known as 'matching' i.e. not a true control. The problem with matching is that by trying to match for other factors i.e. finding the test subject an equivalent 'buddy' in the untreated group, you're forcing 2 distributions together literally restricting the analysis to the portion of overlap - which in turn exaggerates the effect of variable x (in this case treatment) on y (the incidence of myocarditis). Hoping this makes sense..
In short you've selected for a bias (including multiple spurious correlations) that will exaggerate the effect of treatment (x) on outcome (y). [If you're curious; here's a couple of direct links on the problem with matching you might want to check out for yourself: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9188848/ and https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00470587. The take home point is that (sorry to get super-technical here) to match correctly you have to incorporate substantive info about the subject matter into your model and be able to demonstrate to those doing peer review that you eliminated all biases due to confounding by any covariates; i.e .other variables which are also possibly exerting effect).
Anyway, back to Dr. C's review and outrage. It's a shit paper to begin with. He drank the KoolAide, and barfed it up all over YouTube. We're now weeks on and amazingly there hasn't been more of a splash around it, which should also tell us something. Anyway, busy life. Moving on.
(Old Spike)
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Thanks, this is actually addressing the study.
"The take home point is that (sorry to get super-technical here) to match correctly you have to incorporate substantive info about the subject matter into your model and be able to demonstrate to those doing peer review that you eliminated all biases due to confounding by any covariates; i.e .other variables which are also possibly exerting effect). "
I'd like more info about this too. The paper didn't actually go into detail how this was done. Not that I'd have the expertise to asses it one way or the other. The paper says "Matching was conducted using a nearest neighbor propensity score matching method"
What I can find about this is that it's a common method used in the medical industry and is actually used to deal with confounding bias if done properly. I can't say if this method was used correctly or if it was half-assed, but it is used in studies that are published in high-ranking medical journals so I don't think this is a reason to dismiss the study, not unless we have some evidence that the matching wasn't done properly.
(Site Administrator)
'What I can find about this is that it's a common method used in the medical industry and is actually used to deal with confounding bias if done properly.'
Thanks Backdraft, but as you go on to point out, this is a pretty big 'if', and their not being published in one of the better known journals, which the authors would certainly have preferred, tells you this was met with challenges that weren't addressed. I'd like to say let's agree to disagree on this one, but given every life follows its own distinct path, talking about education/training/experience combo for this particular situation, 'agree to disagree ' won't quite cut it this time. So, let's say, I'd agree with you,..but then we'd both be wrong. ;-)
Appreciate the interesting discussion thread. Kudos!
(Site Administrator)
Thanks Backdraft for the article! I don't think I'll be watching any more of Dr. Campbell's schlock. If you want to share a timestamp where he addresses that this article is only about the distribution between the sexes (what..only 2?) of the incidence of elevated cardiac enzymes in 800 people who were vaccinated and that this in no way compares numbers to a control (non-vaccinated) group so no meaningful conclusions can be drawn about vaccines causing myocarditis then please be my guest. Otherwise it's sensationalistic BS. Hell, even the authors of the article (or publishers) are careful when giving a title to their paper to avoid this implication. Thanks.
(Short Spike)
Nice,
You're better at this, Im gonna stand back and watch fo a while.
(Site Administrator)
Well, here's hoping the anticipation doesn't exceed the event. See above; with figures and everything.
Also, couldn't help but reply to your comment also. What the fun?
(Short Spike)
Yeah.
I enjoyed writing that one.
A little bit of fascism is like chicken soup for the soul.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Well you don't have to watch him, you've got the paper.
It says they had a control group. Obviously, they need one for the study to have any merit. What I couldn't find if the control group was vaccinated (one shot) or not. They are comparing it to the group that got boosters (second shots?)
(Short Spike)
Hey mate!
You can't fool an Idiot. Fool me again... wont no fool me no more.
G.W. Boosh
(Site Administrator)
Not a real control. nay nay. See my comment above, please. Problems with matching.