Jump to content
  • Playwire Ad Area

Bo Golfed with Trump, LT and Ottis Anderson in Bedminster last week.


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Plasmodium said:

None of what I said is BS.

Bronny James doesn't even have myocarditis.  That is probably a layman's explanation written by a layman, certainly not a peer reviewed article.

You obviously didn't read the link because the author of the blog is the senior author of the peer-reviewed paper in question. But you do you. And other reputable people have recognized the sleight of hand employed to claim the virus causes more myocarditis than the vaccine with relevance to young men--which is the only meaningful cohort when talking about vaccine-induced myocarditis. 

And again, credentialed people are questioning claims related to differences in mortality between the vaccinated and unvaccinated: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2306683. It can be highly misleading to attribute causality to highly confounded data (any data used to claim differences between vaccinated/unvaccinated outside of a clinical trial potentially fall into this category) which is why randomized, double-blind clinical trials are the gold standard. And while the mRNA vaccine clinical trials were not powered to look at survival benefits, pooled analysis of the Pfizer and Moderna trials show no evidence of such a benefit: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4072489. Any benefit observed in reducing Covid mortality were offset, coincidentally, by an increase in cardiovascular deaths in the vaccine group.

As far as I am aware, we do not know whether Bronny James did or did not have myocarditis. We know he suffered from cardiac arrest. Myocarditis can increase the risk of cardiac arrest, regardless of whether it's fulminant. In the absence of information, people will speculate. Maybe the USC team is on the Len Bias diet? I really could not care less because it has no bearing whatsoever on the fact young people (or anyone for that matter) should not have been forced to take this particular vaccine. Sad, but not surprising, that MAGAs have a better grasp on the ethics and logic of this than the people that like to look down upon them.

  • Fire 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Theo Brixton said:

You obviously didn't read the link because the author of the blog is the senior author of the peer-reviewed paper in question. But you do you. And other reputable people have recognized the sleight of hand employed to claim the virus causes more myocarditis than the vaccine with relevance to young men--which is the only meaningful cohort when talking about vaccine-induced myocarditis. 

And again, credentialed people are questioning claims related to differences in mortality between the vaccinated and unvaccinated: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2306683. It can be highly misleading to attribute causality to highly confounded data (any data used to claim differences between vaccinated/unvaccinated outside of a clinical trial potentially fall into this category) which is why randomized, double-blind clinical trials are the gold standard. And while the mRNA vaccine clinical trials were not powered to look at survival benefits, pooled analysis of the Pfizer and Moderna trials show no evidence of such a benefit: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4072489. Any benefit observed in reducing Covid mortality were offset, coincidentally, by an increase in cardiovascular deaths in the vaccine group.

As far as I am aware, we do not know whether Bronny James did or did not have myocarditis. We know he suffered from cardiac arrest. Myocarditis can increase the risk of cardiac arrest, regardless of whether it's fulminant. In the absence of information, people will speculate. Maybe the USC team is on the Len Bias diet? I really could not care less because it has no bearing whatsoever on the fact young people (or anyone for that matter) should not have been forced to take this particular vaccine. Sad, but not surprising, that MAGAs have a better grasp on the ethics and logic of this than the people that like to look down upon them.

Interesting.  You don't know whether he has myocarditis but then it may be illicit drug use.  At least you don't care.   

Neither of the papers you posted support your argument.   Paper 2 you posted is explicitly not peer reviewed, so nothing to be gained from that.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2023 at 11:02 AM, Theo Brixton said:

Funny to see people looking down their nose at MAGAs for being gullible peckerwoods manipulated by Trump. That those same folks credulously parrot MSM talking points about the existential threat that is Trump is the ultimate irony.

Apparently this can be amended and extended...

  • Fire 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Theo Brixton said:

Apparently this can be amended and extended...

Bro,

Sensiblemed is a blog site.  The first article you posted is NOT about unvaccinated and vaccinated.  It is about vaccinated and boosted.  This is not what you wrote in your post, which means you didn't read it or didn't understand it in a meaningful way.

The second article explicitly shouts right below the title that it is not peer reviewed. 

And I do think the Len Bias comment was a cheap shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

Bro,

Sensiblemed is a blog site.  The first article you posted is NOT about unvaccinated and vaccinated.  It is about vaccinated and boosted.  This is not what you wrote in your post, which means you didn't read it or didn't understand it in a meaningful way.

The second article explicitly shouts right below the title that it is not peer reviewed. 

And I do think the Len Bias comment was a cheap shot.

The author of the blog is the co-author of the peer-reviewed study that he has linked in the substack. The blog just described the study for those who won’t read the piece in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation. 
 

It also wasn’t so much about the boosters as it was the danger of the second shot of the series to become “fully-vaccinated” and the Moderna shot in its entirety.

Anyhow, the real takeaway from it is there have been less than honest statistics used to “prove” the risk to the most at risk group (15-35 year old men) of developing cardiomyopathy were minimal while using equally less than honest statistics to “prove” the benefits were maximal for the least at risk group (15-35 year old men) of dying from Covid.

Edited by DJT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

Bro,

Sensiblemed is a blog site.  The first article you posted is NOT about unvaccinated and vaccinated.  It is about vaccinated and boosted.  This is not what you wrote in your post, which means you didn't read it or didn't understand it in a meaningful way.

The second article explicitly shouts right below the title that it is not peer reviewed. 

The same confounding concepts in vaccinated vs. boosted are found in the unvaccinated vs. vaccinated and are very likely to be more dramatic in the latter comparison-the healthy vaccinee bias. The authors' response to the NEJM critique clearly explains one of many possibilities for why this may be. This concept is pervasive in vaccine research and is an important reason why the 8x claim should be met with immediate skepticism. 

The second article is simply adding up all of the deaths from a handful of clinical trials, not sure what you expect peer-review to change. In general, the idea that peer-review is what stands between legitimacy and fraud is quaint, especially for politically-charged science. 

  • Fire 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

LOL...great question!  And once again I see he can't respond to the actual topic when given facts.

Bibrog - I get it. You seem to have been offended by me somewhere along the line. Now you take every opportunity you have to try to get back at me. OK, Cool. Keep at it. Just be careful of what people you align with in your effort. Some of them aren't nearly as smart as you are - or nearly as sincere. Not even close.

OH -And, also, I don't read/post during the day. That's when I am focused on working. I read/post mainly at night, when my daytime responsibilities are complete. I also don't necessarily read/post every day. I am sometimes otherwise engaged.

So - if I don't respond. Don't be too quick to get on a high horse about "he can't respond" ... it's more likely I'm not here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Playwire Ad Area



  • Playwire Ad Area
  • Latest Rankings

  • College Commitments

    Adam Mattin

    Delta, Ohio
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Stanford
    Projected Weight: 125, 133

    Grant Stromberg

    Mukwonago, Wisconsin
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Northern Iowa
    Projected Weight: 285

    Hudson Ward

    Canton, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 165

    Alex Reed

    Shikellamy, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 125

    Darren Florance

    Harpursville, New York
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 125
  • Playwire Ad Area
×
×
  • Create New...