• Welcome to Jetboaters.net!

    We are delighted you have found your way to the best Jet Boaters Forum on the internet! Please consider Signing Up so that you can enjoy all the features and offers on the forum. We have members with boats from all the major manufacturers including Yamaha, Seadoo, Scarab and Chaparral. We don't email you SPAM, and the site is totally non-commercial. So what's to lose? IT IS FREE!

    Membership allows you to ask questions (no matter how mundane), meet up with other jet boaters, see full images (not just thumbnails), browse the member map and qualifies you for members only discounts offered by vendors who run specials for our members only! (It also gets rid of this banner!)

    free hit counter

CoVID-19 / SARS-CoV-2 Information and Questions

Status
Not open for further replies.
I love the term "mis-information".... this seems to be the term for people challenging what they were told, which is something we should all do. Most of it can't even be proven to be wrong, it can only be argued there isn't concrete evidence. Athletes dropping like flies.... saying COVID vaccines may have a factor is NOT mis-information. There is no concrete evidence of this, but there is a correlation with dates and trends....yet this theory is "wrong" and "spreading mis-information".

Quite a bit of "mis-information" turned out to be true.... and I am sure more of it will.

I know what is for a fact mis-information... the government and big pharma doing whats best for citizens. I would be happy to post concrete evidence to back that up.
 
adrianp89 said:
I love the term "mis-information".... this seems to be the term for people challenging what they were told, which is something we should all do. Most of it can't even be proven to be wrong, it can only be argued there isn't concrete evidence. Athletes dropping like flies.... saying COVID vaccines may have a factor is NOT mis-information. There is no concrete evidence of this, but there is a correlation with dates and trends....yet this theory is "wrong" and "spreading mis-information".

Quite a bit of "mis-information" turned out to be true.... and I am sure more of it will.

I know what is for a fact mis-information... the government and big pharma doing whats best for citizens. I would be happy to post concrete evidence to back that up.
Click to expand...
I'm very glad we have vaccine laws in place! It's so sad when we see measles outbreaks with kids dying because some idiotic parent hasn't gotten their child vaccinated because they read some BS on social media, or because they just don't take their kid to the doctor at all.
 
Julian said:
I'm very glad we have vaccine laws in place! It's so sad when we see measles outbreaks with kids dying because some idiotic parent hasn't gotten their child vaccinated because they read some BS on social media, or because they just don't take their kid to the doctor at all.
Click to expand...

There is certainly a fine line to be balanced. The measles vaccine has been around for 60 years, it also a much worse disease than COVID. Let's not pretend the vaccine doesn't have it's side effects either, although relatively mild.
 
Farny said:
Interesting peer reviewed study - 17% increase in cardio issues in young men after shots.
Click to expand...

How nice of you to misrepresent this study providing a perfect example of the intentional spread of misinformation discussed in the video.

Were you previously unaware that viruses and other infections increase the heart rate and cause other temporary changes in heart function? Did you not expect vaccines which emulate infections to do the same?

I am surprised you were interested in this study after the positive finding in the second paragraph “Conclusion: Cardiac symptoms are common after the second dose of BNT162b2 vaccine, but the incidences of significant arrhythmias and myocarditis are only 0.1%. The serial ECG screening method has high sensitivity and specificity for significant cardiac adverse effect but cost effect needs further discussed.”

Of the 4,928 subjects who participated in the study this was the worst adverse event which resolved within ten days of the second dose. “only one (0.02%) asymptomatic boy (patient No 1, Table 3) with new- onset premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) was found to have mildly elevated troponin T. He was followed at an out- patient clinic due to probable myocarditis (Supplementary Fig. 1A). The laboratory data normalized 10 days after vac- cine.”

Excellent results here “In the present study, no clinical myocarditis was diagnosed and only one case of subclinical mild myocarditis was found among 4928 students. This result corresponds with previous findings that the incidence of clinical and even subclinical myocarditis is very low in those receiving a BNT162b2 vaccine.”

Regarding the change in ECG “In the present study, we also found the car- diovascular related symptoms were significantly higher after the 2nd dose of BNT162b2 vaccine compared to that of the 1st dose. Therefore, the increasing heart rate and shorten- ing of QRS duration and QT interval may relate to high sympathetic tone after the 2nd dose of BNT162b2 vaccine. Through this finding, we suggest that the BNT162b2 vaccine is unlikely to cause repolarization heterogeneity and sub- sequently life-threatening arrhythmia in the healthy young population.”

Overall these are excellent findings on safety. Appreciate you sharing but wish you would not misrepresent the findings.
 
Bruce said:
How nice of you to misrepresent this study providing a perfect example of the intentional spread of misinformation discussed in the video.

Were you previously unaware that viruses and other infections increase the heart rate and cause other temporary changes in heart function? Did you not expect vaccines which emulate infections to do the same?

I am surprised you were interested in this study after the positive finding in the second paragraph “Conclusion: Cardiac symptoms are common after the second dose of BNT162b2 vaccine, but the incidences of significant arrhythmias and myocarditis are only 0.1%. The serial ECG screening method has high sensitivity and specificity for significant cardiac adverse effect but cost effect needs further discussed.”

Of the 4,928 subjects who participated in the study this was the worst adverse event which resolved within ten days of the second dose. “only one (0.02%) asymptomatic boy (patient No 1, Table 3) with new- onset premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) was found to have mildly elevated troponin T. He was followed at an out- patient clinic due to probable myocarditis (Supplementary Fig. 1A). The laboratory data normalized 10 days after vac- cine.”

Excellent results here “In the present study, no clinical myocarditis was diagnosed and only one case of subclinical mild myocarditis was found among 4928 students. This result corresponds with previous findings that the incidence of clinical and even subclinical myocarditis is very low in those receiving a BNT162b2 vaccine.”

Regarding the change in ECG “In the present study, we also found the car- diovascular related symptoms were significantly higher after the 2nd dose of BNT162b2 vaccine compared to that of the 1st dose. Therefore, the increasing heart rate and shorten- ing of QRS duration and QT interval may relate to high sympathetic tone after the 2nd dose of BNT162b2 vaccine. Through this finding, we suggest that the BNT162b2 vaccine is unlikely to cause repolarization heterogeneity and sub- sequently life-threatening arrhythmia in the healthy young population.”

Overall these are excellent findings on safety. Appreciate you sharing but wish you would not misrepresent the findings.
Click to expand...
I mean yeah, pretty much right? But I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything and wanted him to provide some context to his statement. Pretty impressive how one can take a study like this and just send a simple sentence out and paint it as a bad thing, when in fact the study shows quite the opposite.
 
tabbibus said:
I mean yeah, pretty much right? But I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything and wanted him to provide some context to his statement. Pretty impressive how one can take a study like this and just send a simple sentence out and paint it as a bad thing, when in fact the study shows quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

Reading that publication makes me feel better about any future boosters that my teenage son may receive.
 
tabbibus said:
It's been a busy day and I'm just catching up on this thread, didn't know we are still debating all this stuff. Can you guide me towards you conclusion of 17% increase in cardiac issues?
Click to expand...
Table 1
 
That's you're takeaway from this article? Cardiac related symptoms is not the same as cardiac "issues". Although that is a pretty vague term. This study you provide, if anything, makes a compelling case for a very safe intervention (vaccine).
 
Also just FYI. It's not a 17% increase in risk or in events vs non vaccinated. It's 17% of participants have some kind of cardiac related symptom after second dose.
 
tabbibus said:
Also just FYI. It's not a 17% increase in risk or in events vs non vaccinated. It's 17% of participants have some kind of cardiac related symptom after second dose.
Click to expand...
So 17% are highly likely, almost guaranteed to have an “event” if they take the shot? Something they would not have been subjected to if they didn’t take it. Think I’ll take my chances with the 99.9XX% survival rate vs 83% chance of some cardiac “incident”.
Maybe I am biased since a coworker lost his 18yo healthy son to the shot (heart attack) and my friends track athelete daughter had a blood clot from her hip to ankle removed. So yea I stick with 1 death of a perfectly healthy kid due to the shot is too many.

your choice for your family. I do respect that. It’s just not somewhere I am willing to go with mine. We will fight any and all mandates or pressures for any of us to take the MRNA Covid shots.
 
Last edited:
I feel like we are talking about different things tho.
1. A "cardiac event" is not exactly what they are saying here. They are reporting symptoms. Fast heart beat, palpitations, and other symptoms. Honestly, I think that is a low percentage. It's a vaccine. It is supposed to elicit a response from your body. Tachycardia and other mild cardiac symptoms are very much expected. It is not an "incident". You will get similar symptoms if you go up a flight of stairs!
2. Yea, maybe I'm biased as well, as I've seen countless people die from this. And it is most definitely not 99.9XX survival rate. Let's have a smart conversation, not regurgitate social media talking points.
3. Wait, how did we get to 83%? Those are actually the ones that DID NOT have any symptoms.
4. I'm not arguing that you should get the vaccine, or give it to your family. I'm simply discussing the better way to interpret the data. I'm way beyond telling people to get the vaccine. Our hospitals are no longer swamped with COVID, hence yeah, it is your call now. I respect trying to protect your family. 100%. But I would caution against doing it based on flawed interpretation of data.
5. I haven't even mentioned the word mandates. Again, do as you wish. As long as we are not swamped, and people are missing out on care otherwise, I care very little at this point. The level of burnout amongst healthcare providers in this topic is huge. We just shrug our shoulders most of the time now.
 
@Farny, condolences to your coworker and his or her family. Surely such an event would have been reported by the medical community and widely publicized? Please share the case reporting.

As for the 17% with the exception of a small number of events they were extremely minor events that would not have been noticed outside of the extreme monitoring of the study. If you read the sections of the publication that I included in a previous reply you will gain understanding of why the outcome of that study was so overwhelmingly positive.

Whether a virus or a vaccine that emulates a virus the heart will increase activity as part of the immune response. That is perfectly normal.
 
Farny said:
So 17% are highly likely, almost guaranteed to have an “event” if they take the shot? Something they would not have been subjected to if they didn’t take it. Think I’ll take my chances with the 99.9XX% survival rate vs 83% chance of some cardiac “incident”.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but this is just obnoxiously incorrect. It feels like it must be intentional misunderstanding at this point versus layperson ignorance.
 
seanmclean said:
I'm sorry, but this is just obnoxiously incorrect. It feels like it must be intentional misunderstanding at this point versus layperson ignorance.
Click to expand...
confirmation bias? dunno
 
seanmclean said:
I'm sorry, but this is just obnoxiously incorrect. It feels like it must be intentional misunderstanding at this point versus layperson ignorance.
Click to expand...
That’s how the table reads. 17% had an event. Not the obnoxious one here..
 
Bruce said:
@Farny, condolences to your coworker and his or her family. Surely such an event would have been reported by the medical community and widely publicized? Please share the case reporting.
Click to expand...
Yes the death was reported in VAERS, not everyone who had adverse events chose to run to the media and make their tragedy a spectacle. The young ladies recovery was on FB but I don’t care to dig it up at the moment and post it to satisfy your insulting and obvious challenge of my integrity.
 
Farny said:
That’s how the table reads. 17% had an event. Not the obnoxious one here..
Click to expand...
But, except that is not what it says though. 17% of participants after their second dose had some type of cardiac symptom. What is an "event" for you? Because, in this study, cardiac symptoms were not classified as events. If you go down into the body of the text, when they do talk about "events" they are referring to clinical myocarditis and arrhythmias, none of which happened in this study. @Farny I don't know you, nor do I know your background, but one of the issues with a non trained individual reading a study and interpreting data, is the high likelihood of arriving to incorrect conclusions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top