www.altyfans.co.uk

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

PLEASE JOIN THE ALTRINCHAM FC PATRONS SCHEME TODAY
* HELP THE CLUB THROUGH THE COVID-19 SHUTDOWN
* HELP FUND THE CLUB TO BIGGER AND BRIGHTER THINGS
* HELP THE MANAGERS ATTRACT THE PLAYERS THEY NEED TO PUSH THE CLUB FORWARD

https://www.altrinchamfc.com/club/the-patrons-scheme

+ www.altyfans.co.uk » General Category » Non Altrincham FC Talk
 Oxford study - "increased myocarditis risk in males under 40 after 'vaccination'

Author Topic: Oxford study - "increased myocarditis risk in males under 40 after 'vaccination'  (Read 2522 times)

Hugh

  • Regular First Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1277
    • View Profile

See here:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1.full

According to their findings, the risk of myocarditis approximately  doubles for most of these "vaccines", though with the Moderna one it is apparently as much as 14 times higher. The increased risks indicated in the study would appear to be broadly in line with the increased amount of cardiac incidents reported among footballers and other athletes in 2021.

The evidence seems to be mounting up for a heart risk from these "vaccines" and any younger males at low risk who are considering having these products 3 or 4 times a year for a decade (as some are suggesting) would be well advised to research this matter carefully first. One might reasonably assume that if there is an issue as suggested by this study, the risk will increase the more times one takes this medication.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2022, 04:53:27 AM by Hugh »
Logged

Amsterdam Alty

  • Regular First Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1651
    • View Profile

Oh Hugh... Finally you bring an actual pieces of scientific evidence then proceed to butcher the information held within to twist your personal agenda... Read the article again... Or just read the final paragraph that states the following...

In summary, the risk of hospital admission or death from myocarditis is greater following COVID-19 infection than following vaccination and remains modest following sequential doses of mRNA vaccine including a third booster dose of BNT162b in the overall population. However, the risk of myocarditis following vaccination is consistently higher in younger males, particularly following a second dose of RNA mRNA-1273 vaccine.

In case that isn't enough, here is the dumdum's version

Covid increases risk of myocarditis, vaccine protects against covid. Risk of myocarditis remains very low even after vaccine. We did spot in a sample group of people that had been infected with covid and then also vaccinated that the risk of myocarditis went up. Which makes sense because covid raises the risk of myocarditis and is actually pretty dangerous all around.

Stop helping to kill people Hugh
Logged

Hugh

  • Regular First Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1277
    • View Profile

Deary me! Where to start?

If you want to throw around accusations of killing, maybe I should say something about collaborating with a lying corrupt pharmaceutical industry that we know has done some very dubious things in the past, including things that have been harmful to people's health, an industry that appears to have backed the government into imposing health apartheid on England (and the club into a 3.9k capacity limit for that matter meaning that some people inevitably missed out on the Wrexham game) and has previously made concerted attempts to influence NHS policy, and that is about business and profit rather than charity.

But leaving that aside, the article I link to states "hospital admission or death" and "the general population".

Saying hospital admission or death is not very useful on its own as it does not tell us how many of each. If the hospital admissions who don't die and only have mild myocarditis are greater for one group than the other, that is a vital factor too. And there is evidence that people who get myocarditis after these "vaccines" rather than after "covid" have a more severe case of myocarditis. According to 'eminent cardiologist' Dr. Peter McCullough, "the myocarditis experienced by those infected with covid is milder than that experienced by the 'vaccinated' and is 'inconsequential". So if he is right, even for the general population, they may not necessarily be less likely to die of myocarditis from these "vaccines" - it is not clear from this study. But whether or not he is right, the Oxford study goes straight on to say that "the risk of myocarditis in younger males following 'vaccination' is consistently higher" . I wrote "males under 40" in the title of the post, I also mentioned "younger males" in the final paragraph, I linked to the article where people can read it for themselves, and I encouraged people to do their own research - such as reading this article. I maybe could have mentioned what it says about other groups but then again I could have mentioned any number of other things not relating to the group to whom I was referring. It's fair enough of course if you want to point out what it says about other groups too, but I don't think I have been unreasonable in what I have written, and I suggest it is important to read very carefully what these studies say and don't say. If you are saying that young healthy males should have these controversial "vaccines" without doing any research - and we know from the government's own data that no healthy 15-17 year olds had died from "covid" (the last I heard), it could be that that would put their health at greater risk, depending on their circumstances. And that's all I am saying - research it, be aware of the risks and benefits. And as it happens, the law also says that people may only be given medication with free and informed consent. And that's all I am saying - inform yourself. I think it is important not to brush these risks under the carpet as you and too many others appear to advocate. It will only make people at low risk more suspicious of these "vaccines" if they think that people are down-playing the risks - and by implication more suspicious of future new medications too if they think they have not been told everything about this one. It is absolutely vital to discuss these things.

If we're going to quote  from the study, I may also add that it mentions the JCVI, which recommended against giving these "vaccines" to healthy 12-15 year olds and was overruled by the government, so  I make no apologies for questioning some of the things we are being told, I don't believe that it is acceptable to put children at risk for anything really and am very concerned about the JCVI being overruled like this. The article also mentions funding from Cancer Research UK, which is owned by pharmaceutical companies - one of many,  many conflicts of interest among some of the people who we hear from on the pharmaceutical industry's  mRNA coronavirus "vaccines".

Apparently you get to decide what counts as "actual" evidence and are dismissing out of hand various groups of doctors and medical scientists, the government's own yellow card data, an inventor of mRNA technology called Dr. Robert Mallone, a professor who said that there is "no reliable evidence that the 'vaccines' reduce all-cause mortality", LifeSiteNews (which rather looks like you're having a go at Catholics now) and I dare say you will dismiss "eminent cardiologist" Peter McCullough and former vice president of Pfizer Dr. Mike Yeadon (who is pro-vaccine but very concerned about this novel mRNA "vaccine"). But if you're going to insist on all that, then maybe I am entitled to insist on a second opinion about these "vaccines" when we hear a lot about them from people (including people who advise the government) who have a conflict of interest on them.

I should add that I have serious concerns that free and informed consent may not be taking place with people who get this medication in some instances and in the current circumstances. I am well aware from my years of pro-life involvement of how with other medical interventions where vested interests and politics are involved  there are cases where people do not give free and informed consent to medical interventions administered, and with so many powerful voices (some of who have interests in the pharmaceutical industry as I say) urging people to take these controversial gene therapy drugs that are being administered under emergency authorisation, I am certain that similar things will be happening with these "vaccines", and I think it is perfectly reasonable to provide some balance, tell people to do their own research and do what is best for their health which as we have seen (from the JCVI being overruled) may be something different from the sophisticated and incessant government propaganda

Only a small number of healthy males under 40 have died from "covid" and no healthy people at all aged 15-17 last I heard. And this new variant is more mild and will give them natural immunity once they have had it. Don't endanger those who are not at risk from "covid" by telling them to get a controversial "vaccine" without informing themselves about it, and which some scientists say may put them at increased risk (including the JCVI for 12-15 year olds apparently).

And just so you know, some people are suggesting that people should have three or four doses of these "vaccines" every year for a decade or more. Even if there is only relatively low risk from 2 doses, the risk may increase significantly by the time they get to thirty or forty doses - when I had ibuprofen for an extended period, I  found I had to give it up in the end. A similar principle will apply with some other medication. Furthermore, four times a year is rather more times than people would get symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 after acquiring natural immunity. Let people make their own choices.

I do think you need to learn to take on board that other people have different opinions from you on some things, and that they may have good and deeply felt reasons for doing so. It's not just on this, is it, that you have a bit of an attitude. People are having to miss match attendance because of all this nonsense so of course some of us will have strong views about this.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2022, 05:46:02 AM by Hugh »
Logged

Amsterdam Alty

  • Regular First Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1651
    • View Profile

Cheers for the verbal meltdown... Still doesn't explain why you misread the first piece of genuine research you have referenced so catastrophically bad.

I've got a deal for you. Let's stop posting about covid in any way unless it is an outbreak in the squad. You clearly feel extremely strongly about not being on the wrong side of history here.

If you stop starting the threads, I'll stop ending them.

X
Logged

Hugh

  • Regular First Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1277
    • View Profile

Quite honestly I did not want to be involved in any more controversy on her after the Graham Heathcote saga. I never discussed Brexit on here at length. Or politics, or religion or any other controversy. But at the current time, we have managers of some clubs saying they will not sign players based on their personal health choices on this medication; we have Wrexham fans banned from home games, with Alty fans too if restrictions remain at the Racecourse until April; we have the County match cancelled; we have the capacity restricted to 3.9 k, and some supporters who can't or won't  test or "vaccinate" for whatever reason presumably barred from attending matches at grounds like Notts County; we have the threat of further restrictions affecting football (although hopefully that won't happen).

Yes, I have posted on this more than some people, but I am not the only one. Someone only just recently posted on the first team forum "get the jab". I am also very strong on free speech and have been for years. Some people think it's alright for one person to say "get the jab" but not for someone else to give an alternative view such as "inform yourself if you want to get the jab. And don't get coerced into it". It has to work both ways. When this issue no longer affects the club in any way, then maybe we can forget about this nonsense. But that moment is clearly not now is it? And many people continue to suffer from these draconian restrictions.

Looking at my two most recent posts (written before I read your message), if "covid" is really now equivalent in severity to flu, that has possible implications for future and current restrictions relating to the club. And as for signing "vaccinated" players, it is something that our management has presumably made a decision on one way or another, with the decision potentially having a bearing on who we will sign. It seems to me that these are matters of current interest to Altrincham supporters and, if perhaps not suitable for the first team forum, they are certainly legitimate topics on here.

What you seem to be saying is, don't post about this because it is controversial (but it's alright if people on the first team forum mindlessly repeat "get the jab"). I mean, is that really your position?

I understand that many people have a positive perception of these "vaccines", and I have heard such positive views many times. But I have also heard some terrible things about these "vaccines" too, and it is a fact that they are being administered under emergency authorisation (and against JCVI advice in the case of 12-15 year olds), and on a scale not seen before with such medication, and I fear that some people will only hear one side. Surely both sides need to be heard, and people besides me will be asking questions after the high profile collapses that have occurred.
Logged

Amsterdam Alty

  • Regular First Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1651
    • View Profile

Still not answered my question Hugh... It's a very simple one, but I'm not too surprised you are struggling.
Logged

JD

  • Regular First Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1807
    • View Profile

I think the JCVI are worth listening to.
Logged
+ www.altyfans.co.uk » General Category » Non Altrincham FC Talk
 Oxford study - "increased myocarditis risk in males under 40 after 'vaccination'