mRNA Vaccines Injure the Heart of ALL Vaccine Recipients and Cause Myocarditis in Up to 1 in 27, Study Finds – The Daily Sceptic
New evidence has emerged from Switzerland showing that mRNA vaccines are routinely injuring the heart of vaccine recipients, with myocarditis occurring in as many as one in 27 cases.
It's the usual scare tactics folks. Instead of supplying any evidence that more people are dying from the vaccines than the virus, the article presents a mishmash of slanted interpretations, occasional detectable effects of the vaccine called "injuries", discredited academics attempting to keep their speaking fees, single cases here and there that "might" be related to the vaccines, and so forth.
Consider this quote from one of OP's article's linked studies: 29 August 2022 "Conclusion: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that the risk of myocarditis is more than seven fold higher in persons who were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 than in those who received the vaccine. These findings support the continued use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines among all eligible persons per CDC and WHO recommendations." https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2022.951314/full
LOL did you quote CDC science again. Haha Keep following your lying CDC government experts Covid Nazi!
Reminder that TwoChodes posted on Omega that it’s OK when the CDC Director LIES on National TV and promises everyone that the vaccinated wont carry a respiratory virus.
— - quotes from TWOCHODES, 2022
https://omegacanada.win/p/15K6qHfL0P/x/c/4Of12tDfB5e
Just quoting from one of OP's links. You wouldn't know that, of course. You don't read anything except the Internet Research Agency scripts your менеджер hands you.
Everything you wrote here is gibberish, especially this line:
Anybody that does any study has an inherent bias. We all do. Scientists and researchers do their work for pay and/or recognition. That’s the whole point of scientific studies being peer reviewed, to isolate out the biases.
Take, for example, your pharma-funded modeling study that you posted or your conservative-voting states have higher excess deaths study. These are so blatantly biased that nobody will even bother to peer-review.
Only if you didn't follow OP's links and actually read them. I particularly liked this part of one of them: 29 August 2022 "Conclusion: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that the risk of myocarditis is more than seven fold higher in persons who were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 than in those who received the vaccine. These findings support the continued use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines among all eligible persons per CDC and WHO recommendations." https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2022.951314/full
You left out "discredited". They can't work in their profession, but they can make money by pandering to the people who are insulated - either by their fear or their "friends" - from the reality of a global pandemic.
"What did he die of?"
"What was he registered as?"
Where's the bias?
This might be the stupidest thing i ever read. You a retard?
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30512/w30512.pdf
Correlation, dummy.
They "suggest" that it was the vaccine.
They did not isolate vaccines as the cause.
Guess what else happened right around the same time - Democratic states locked down harder than Republican states. Democratic voters wore masks. Democratic voters didn't visit friends or family. Democratic voters locked themselves in their basements because the news told them to.
Again, major political bias. Their intention was to find a way to show that conservative voters were more likely to die. When your intention is set out from the beginning, you can find stats to confirm your bias.
You're a retard, ya?
You know what else... People have less car accidents when they lock themselves in their basements. Lockdowns led to less people dying from car accidents.
You are skipping over the fact that the excess mortality rate was the same for both groups until the vaccines arrived.
I don't see you hollering "Correlation, dummy" when one of your fellow travelers posts again about someone dying some time after being vaccinated.
So you're saying lockdowns work. Interesting. V&C1 would make a post mocking you for that.
No i didn't. I understand that this is a correlation study, a biased one at that.
Because I don't care. They're doing the exact opposite of what media is doing, presenting the obviously biased pro-vaccine studies only or presenting correlation or coincidence as fact, so i'm fine with the retardedness being balanced out. Cost-benefit studies are what needs to be presented to people. Media has never done that, so I don't care if people do the opposite on the flipside. I do understand what limited amount can be taken away from correlation or coincidence. You do not.
Huh? Ya, they work at preventing people to not get covid, at a big cost. What a stupid, retarded question. Again, no cost-benefit, as if covid is the only thing that affects people.
And, just so we're clear - Your report is retarded. It's correlation in a very precise targeted area, without isolating other factors that could be the cause of the correlation. You wouldn't understand.