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

[Paul158]

4 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

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

Do you think he might be related to Sheldon on The Big Bang Theory?

[Theo Brixton]

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.

[Plasmodium]

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.

[Theo Brixton]

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...

[Plasmodium]

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.

[DJT]

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 July 29, 2023 by DJT

[Theo Brixton]

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. 

[GreatWhiteNorth]

17 hours ago, Paul158 said:

So are you calling yourself a moron insect or are you calling bigbrog a moron insect?

Neither.

[GreatWhiteNorth]

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.

 

[Scouts Honor]

somewhere along the line.

with every post.