[RnmEvo9]

Originally Posted by tranquility

Why are they still pushing shots when it's supposedly ineffective against the prevalent C19 rn (Omicron)?

The majority of people are sheep.

[RnmEvo9]

Firm data of myocarditis after vaccination by Dr. John Campbell:

He goes over the data within the first 5 minutes if you don't want to watch the full 30 minutes.

[tranquility]

Originally Posted by RnmEvo9

Firm data of myocarditis after vaccination by Dr. John Campbell:

He goes over the data within the first 5 minutes if you don't want to watch the full 30 minutes.

The funny thing is 'they' were blaming C19(!) for causing myocarditis - what does a flu-like virus have to do w the heart? OP, is this possible?

[Kick 6]

Originally Posted by tranquility

The funny thing is 'they' were blaming C19(!) for causing myocarditis - what does a flu-like virus have to do w the heart? OP, is this possible?

Yes, COVID can cause myocarditis. Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart and our immune system will try to kill any virus it finds, even in heart tissue. It depends on how invasive the virus is. Bacteria can do it also, that is why some people have to take pre-meds before dental procedures.

Delta was very invasive and penetrated many more tissues than Omicron. Omicron mainly infiltrates the nasopharynx, it rarely penetrates heart tissues.

IMO, we should not vaccinate just to try to stop Omicron.

[tranquility]

Originally Posted by Kick 6

Yes, COVID can cause myocarditis. Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart and our immune system will try to kill any virus it finds, even in heart tissue. It depends on how invasive the virus is. Bacteria can do it also, that is why some people have to take pre-meds before dental procedures.

Delta was very invasive and penetrated many more tissues than Omicron. Omicron mainly infiltrates the nasopharynx, it rarely penetrates heat tissues.

IMO, we should not vaccinate just to try to stop Omicron.

Tx for the clarification. I now wonder which is the more likely cause of myocarditis: the various strains of C19 or the vaccines themselves?

Is there any valid reason to continue having vaccine passports, since supposedly ppl can get it and spread it regardless if vaxxed or not...but surely one group is more susceptible than the other?

The main argument for these vaccines is that srs onsets are significantly reduced, but is this unequivocal and how valid is this for the avg person? Much appreciated.

[tranquility]

Originally Posted by Kick 6

Have you had COVID? People who have had COVID and get vaccinated have something like a 40% increase in adverse effects from the vaccination. My brother didn't have his problems until immediately after his second vaccine.

The way Omicron went through the community including vaccinated people, I wouldn't think getting a booster would be necessary.

This is another question since they are finally recognizing natural immunity, which may even be greater than the protection afforded by the vaccines, so what is going on exactly? (Kinda rhetorical, but if there's more insight, that's appreciated.)

[wdb]

So many people, so little understanding of numbers. Sigh. Will Rogers was right.

[dreamingat30fps]

What I find telling is practically everything you read is some relative number. Booster lowers chance of death/hospitalization/symptoms whatever by 50%. However they don’t tell you the absolute number. Probably because saying it lowers your chance of X from say 1% to 0.5% doesn’t sound as sexy, however those are numbers that let you understand the actual risk. And it goes both ways… "People who have had COVID and get vaccinated have something like a 40% increase in adverse effects from the vaccination.” 40% increase from what? What is the baseline number here? Again it’s probably a tiny number.

[Kick 6]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

What I find telling is practically everything you read is some relative number. Booster lowers chance of death/hospitalization/symptoms whatever by 50%. However they don’t tell you the absolute number. Probably because saying it lowers your chance of X from say 1% to 0.5% doesn’t sound as sexy, however those are numbers that let you understand the actual risk. And it goes both ways… "People who have had COVID and get vaccinated have something like a 40% increase in adverse effects from the vaccination.” 40% increase from what? What is the baseline number here? Again it’s probably a tiny number.

Forty percent more than people that haven't had COVID. I understand what you are saying, but getting the actual numbers is something they don't want to do. You don't hear the CDC talking about the research showing that natural immunity is better than the vaccines either but that data is out there.

[Kick 6]

Originally Posted by tranquility

Tx for the clarification. I now wonder which is the more likely cause of myocarditis: the various strains of C19 or the vaccines themselves?

Is there any valid reason to continue having vaccine passports, since supposedly ppl can get it and spread it regardless if vaxxed or not...but surely one group is more susceptible than the other?

The main argument for these vaccines is that srs onsets are significantly reduced, but is this unequivocal and how valid is this for the avg person? Much appreciated.

Getting COVID would most likely cause more myocarditis IMO. I haven't seen any numbers, but having COVID means you already have the coronavirus and people that are vaccinated may not have the virus(es). The vaccine isn't making you have myocarditis, it's helping the immune system kill coronavirus that you may have and that is causing myocarditis.

[///MPhatic]

Originally Posted by Kick 6

IMO, we should not vaccinate just to try to stop Omicron.

If I'm reading this correct, you're saying that if Omicron was first, there wouldn't have been a need for vaccination at all, right? It's not the killer that SC2v1/v2 was, correct? If we could eradicate SC2v1/v2, vaccinations would not be needed, but since there is no way to eradicate it (it's just going to slowly make its way through 100% of the population until everyone gets it, or it mutates into something else), everyone should still be getting their vaccinations/boosters, correct?

[wdb]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

What I find telling is practically everything you read is some relative number. Booster lowers chance of death/hospitalization/symptoms whatever by 50%. However they don’t tell you the absolute number. Probably because saying it lowers your chance of X from say 1% to 0.5% doesn’t sound as sexy, however those are numbers that let you understand the actual risk. And it goes both ways… "People who have had COVID and get vaccinated have something like a 40% increase in adverse effects from the vaccination.” 40% increase from what? What is the baseline number here? Again it’s probably a tiny number.

I did some digging on this whole "vaccine increases risk of myocarditis" angle. That 100% number spooked me a little. Here's what I found. In 2017 there were 1.8 million cases of myocarditis reported worldwide. 1.8M / 7.7B is a pretty small fraction. Increase it by 100% or 200% and it is still a very very small number.

Moral: a big percentage increase in nearly zero is still nearly zero.

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by wdb

I did some digging on this whole "vaccine increases risk of myocarditis" angle. That 100% number spooked me a little. Here's what I found. In 2017 there were 1.8 million cases of myocarditis reported worldwide. 1.8M / 7.7B is a pretty small fraction. Increase it by 100% or 200% and it is still a very very small number.

Moral: a big percentage increase in nearly zero is still nearly zero.

That’s my point, however it also applies to bad covid outcomes and everything else. I mean the people who are supposedly most at risk for this myocarditis are young men, who also happen to be some of the people with the least risk of bad outcomes. So people are literally going crazy over these tiny numbers. What is the risk of an average young male having bad covid outcomes? I don’t know because they don’t advertise these numbers like they do 50% reduction in hospitalization or whatever. However I would guess it’s a fraction of a percent of those who are unvaccinated, now subtract the risk from those that have 1 does or 2 doses and that number becomes even tinier. So while the risk of myocarditis is tiny even if it’s 40% higher than baseline… the benefit is also tiny. So who cares at that point? Probably at higher risk of dying from driving to work.

[tranquility]

Originally Posted by Kick 6

Getting COVID would most likely cause more myocarditis IMO. I haven't seen any numbers, but having COVID means you already have the coronavirus and people that are vaccinated may not have the virus(es). The vaccine isn't making you have myocarditis, it's helping the immune system kill coronavirus that you may have and that is causing myocarditis.

That's quite eye-opening as it's one of the main arguments for ppl who are hesitant about this/these vaccine(s). I wonder what are the actual numbers?

[Kick 6]

Originally Posted by ///MPhatic

If I'm reading this correct, you're saying that if Omicron was first, there wouldn't have been a need for vaccination at all, right? It's not the killer that SC2v1/v2 was, correct? If we could eradicate SC2v1/v2, vaccinations would not be needed, but since there is no way to eradicate it (it's just going to slowly make its way through 100% of the population until everyone gets it, or it mutates into something else), everyone should still be getting their vaccinations/boosters, correct?

Omicron presents like the common cold and I see no need to vaccinate against something that doesn't cause a high death rate. If the vaccine stopped the infection, the benefit of the vaccination would be higher than the risks. Omicron is going through the vaccine like it isn't even there. IMO, everyone will eventually get Omicron if they go out into public buildings.

How long are the vaccinations good for? If they aren't stopping Omicron, are they even good? I am not a proponent to getting boosters for Omicron. Will it mutate to something else, yes? What will it mutate too, ......something more or less virulent?

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by Kick 6

What will it mutate too, ......something more or less virulent?

Which is a reason to actually get the boosters? Because with said booster, the virus infects you for less time, giving it less time to mutate?

[Kick 6]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

Which is a reason to actually get the boosters? Because with said booster, the virus infects you for less time, giving it less time to mutate?

That statement is not entirely accurate. I understand your intent but it actually promotes mutation around the vaccine. Vaccinating during a pandemic is not ideal from a mutation standpoint, but it is what it is.

[tranquility]

Originally Posted by Kick 6

That statement is not entirely accurate. I understand your intent but it actually promotes mutation around the vaccine. Vaccinating during a pandemic is not ideal from a mutation standpoint, but it is what it is.

Does that mean the vaccines caused the mutations?

Were we lucky it mutated into something less lethal, and could it have mutated into something worse?

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by Kick 6

That statement is not entirely accurate. I understand your intent but it actually promotes mutation around the vaccine. Vaccinating during a pandemic is not ideal from a mutation standpoint, but it is what it is.

But generally, the longer a virus is in a host, the more opportunity to mutate. So if we can shorten the infection time, by whatever means, we shorten the window of opportunity.

Also, IN GENERAL, mutations that simply make the host ill, not dead, are better mutations from the virus standpoint.

[Kick 6]

Originally Posted by tranquility

Does that mean the vaccines caused the mutations?

Were we lucky it mutated into something less lethal, and could it have mutated into something worse?

No, viruses just want to keep going and live. They'll do whatever they can to live and that is why mutations tend to be less lethal. They don't survive if they kill their host.

[DocL]

Originally Posted by Kick 6

... Bacteria can do it also, that is why some people have to take pre-meds before dental procedures...

How many deaths have been contributed to sub-acute endocarditis related to dental procedures?

Also, most oral bacteremia is caused by brushing and flossing teeth compared to routine dental procedures. So that being identified, why are we not worried about the risk of endocarditis at home.

In 2008, dentists were advised that pre-medication wasn't needed like we thought. Dentists used to over prescribe antibiotics for even the slightest murmur. Now it's pre-med for valve repair/replacement, and joint replacement for three years post-op. I'd still like to see the data on deaths related to dental procedures and endocarditis.

[Kick 6]

Originally Posted by DocL

How many deaths have been contributed to sub-acute endocarditis related to dental procedures?

Also, most oral bacteremia is caused by brushing and flossing teeth compared to routine dental procedures. So that being identified, why are we not worried about the risk of endocarditis at home.

In 2008, dentists were advised that pre-medication wasn't needed like we thought. Dentists used to over prescribe antibiotics for even the slightest murmur. Now it's pre-med for valve repair/replacement, and joint replacement for three years post-op. I'd still like to see the data on deaths related to dental procedures and endocarditis.

Prescribing practices of a majority of the dentists on pre-meds has not changed. A search showed incidence rates of 4.6/100000y with a significant linear incidence increase in 2017. Death rate was 1.2/1000 and in an increasing trend. Those caused by dental procedure would be very low.