4 ms·

>why the rush to rule them out? They were just introduced on a broad scale, so rushing to rule them out is only natural, as they are something it would be reas

>why the rush to rule them out? They were just introduced on a broad scale, so rushing to rule them out is only natural, as they are something it would be reasonable to suspect of causing this. You after all rule out likely suspects first. The only thing thing besides the vaccines that come to mind having caused this is widespread lifestyle changes society wide as well as the most overwhelmingly obvious reason this trend might be happening which is that we just got hit by a major pandemic that causes heart attacks.

nyrulez 4y ago
I don't fully understand. Are you saying since vaccines were broadly introduced, they are less likely to be the culprit? How is that implied? 30% increase in heart attacks in young age group is pretty broad too. This study doesn't study vaccination cohorts to imply any association either way
- faeriechangling 4y ago
  No, I’m saying vaccines are so plausibly the culprit you would want to immediately subject them to analysis as to if they are the cause of the trend asap, but a natural consequence of any such analysis is you are very likely to do the opposite and rule them out as a cause.
  - kelipso 4y ago
    Okay...I think I sprained a couple of nerves from these gymnastics but has anyone actually explicitly ruled out vaccines as the culprit of this?
    - collyw 4y ago
      Not heart attacks, but Scotland is investigating a rise in neonatal deaths, which correlates with the vaccine rollout, yet has decided that it's definitely not the vaccine. Science at it's finest. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23259523.expert-review-mystery-spike-scots-baby-deaths-begins/ https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23259523.expert-review-m...
      - kelipso 4y ago
        Haha yeah, mother's vaccine status not checked, they don't know why it is happening, but definitely can't be the vaccine, wouldn't want to cause a scare you know.
        collyw 4y ago
        What a joke.
boc 4y ago
Or, you know, exposure to a novel coronavirus which has been proven to cause serious cardiovascular issues even in healthy individuals. I’d probably start there.
- linuxftw 4y ago
  The experimental products don't prevent infection or transmission, so whether or not coronavirus itself has impact on cardiovascular function is not relevant to whether or not the vaccines do as well. We know for a fact at this point the products cause cardiovascular injury. That's not really up for debate. So now we need to understand the extent. Some of us believe it's higher impact than others. One side was caught actively suppressing information, so there's no reason to trust them.
  - Timon3 4y ago
    > The experimental products don't prevent infection or transmission, so whether or not coronavirus itself has impact on cardiovascular function is not relevant to whether or not the vaccines do as well. You are presenting this as a binary option. Either the vaccines fully prevent infection & transmission, or they don't. But what if they reduce the severity of the infection, lowering the likelihood of cardiovascular injury by more than they increase it by? Suddenly your point is fully moot. And considering that there is a definitive difference in likelihood of injury/death between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated one seems much more likely to be true. > One side was caught actively suppressing information, so there's no reason to trust them. No matter which side people are on, they'll say this about the other side. If you're on the right you'll likely believe the left censors information on injuries. If you're on the left you'll likely believe that the right censored information on COVID mortality and dangers. What point do you think you're making with this kind of vague allegation?
    - landemva 4y ago
      > there is a definitive difference in likelihood of injury/death between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated I have looked at a lot of data for children and haven't seen that. It seems children's deaths are mostly unaffected from the virus. What studies have you read which show excess deaths in children?

nyrulez 4y ago

I don't fully understand. Are you saying since vaccines were broadly introduced, they are less likely to be the culprit? How is that implied? 30% increase in heart attacks in young age group is pretty broad too. This study doesn't study vaccination cohorts to imply any association either way

faeriechangling 4y ago
No, I’m saying vaccines are so plausibly the culprit you would want to immediately subject them to analysis as to if they are the cause of the trend asap, but a natural consequence of any such analysis is you are very likely to do the opposite and rule them out as a cause.
- kelipso 4y ago
  Okay...I think I sprained a couple of nerves from these gymnastics but has anyone actually explicitly ruled out vaccines as the culprit of this?
  - collyw 4y ago
    Not heart attacks, but Scotland is investigating a rise in neonatal deaths, which correlates with the vaccine rollout, yet has decided that it's definitely not the vaccine. Science at it's finest. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23259523.expert-review-mystery-spike-scots-baby-deaths-begins/ https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23259523.expert-review-m...
    - kelipso 4y ago
      Haha yeah, mother's vaccine status not checked, they don't know why it is happening, but definitely can't be the vaccine, wouldn't want to cause a scare you know.
      - collyw 4y ago
        What a joke.

boc 4y ago

Or, you know, exposure to a novel coronavirus which has been proven to cause serious cardiovascular issues even in healthy individuals. I’d probably start there.

linuxftw 4y ago
The experimental products don't prevent infection or transmission, so whether or not coronavirus itself has impact on cardiovascular function is not relevant to whether or not the vaccines do as well. We know for a fact at this point the products cause cardiovascular injury. That's not really up for debate. So now we need to understand the extent. Some of us believe it's higher impact than others. One side was caught actively suppressing information, so there's no reason to trust them.
- Timon3 4y ago
  > The experimental products don't prevent infection or transmission, so whether or not coronavirus itself has impact on cardiovascular function is not relevant to whether or not the vaccines do as well. You are presenting this as a binary option. Either the vaccines fully prevent infection & transmission, or they don't. But what if they reduce the severity of the infection, lowering the likelihood of cardiovascular injury by more than they increase it by? Suddenly your point is fully moot. And considering that there is a definitive difference in likelihood of injury/death between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated one seems much more likely to be true. > One side was caught actively suppressing information, so there's no reason to trust them. No matter which side people are on, they'll say this about the other side. If you're on the right you'll likely believe the left censors information on injuries. If you're on the left you'll likely believe that the right censored information on COVID mortality and dangers. What point do you think you're making with this kind of vague allegation?
  - landemva 4y ago
    > there is a definitive difference in likelihood of injury/death between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated I have looked at a lot of data for children and haven't seen that. It seems children's deaths are mostly unaffected from the virus. What studies have you read which show excess deaths in children?