Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Circulating spike protein after vaccination, Boston research" video.

@brockreynolds870 "If you have to be persuaded, reminded pressured, lied to, incentivized, coerced, bullied, socially shamed, guilt-tripped, threatened, punished and criminalized... if all of this is considered necessary to gain your compliance, you can be absolutely certain that what is being promoted is not in your best interest." - Ian Watson
4
@ryanthomas4069 The stated purpose of that study was to determine the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis following mRNA vaccination against COVID. Here is the conclusion: "In this cohort study of 23.1 million Nordic residents aged 12 years or older, the risk of myocarditis was higher within 28 days of vaccination with both BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 compared with being unvaccinated, and higher after the second dose of vaccine than the first dose. The risk was more pronounced after the second dose of mRNA-1273 than after the second dose of BNT162b2, and the risk was highest among males aged 16 to 24 years." WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO SNOW?
2
@miles6910 This quote, which you provide, strikes me as either speculative, or unnecessarily opaque. This appears to imply that it is the spike protein (introduced into the body by the mRNA vaccine) that causes myocarditis, at the same time as it has stimulated the body to generate the antibodies the vaccine is designed to generate. WHY would anyone assume that the spike protein is evading antibody recognition? Perhaps it is the presence of the spike protein circulating within organs of the body where it does not belong that is causing the (perfectly competent) antibodies to attack those very areas of the body. But that, again, is speculative. Campbell says that the study did not demonstrate that it is the spike protein that causes the myocarditis. In any event, the import of the sentence is not clear, and should be absolutely clear.
2
@ryanthomas4069 Table 1: This table follows the clinical outcome of 530 patients with myocarditis following vaccination and 109 patients with myocarditis following COVID, hence nearly five times as many following vaccination. Why is that?
2
@ryanthomas4069 You are just writing slogans and insults at this point. If something is extremely rare, then the clinical outcome is less important than for something that is significantly more common. It will literally affect fewer people. Insults don't change the math, or the risk assessment. And we haven't even addressed the ethical issue of iatrogenic illness. We can leave that aside for the purpose of the point made. Blocked as a time waster.
2
@ryanthomas4069 What vastly different conclusion? If you are not more likely to come down with myocarditis following infection than you are following vaccination, but far less likely, then the (supposedly) more severe myocarditis from infection is NOT "more likely to harm you" than is the myocarditis from vaccination. (N.B. Infection with what variant?) This is why pancreatic cancer is not more likely to cause a person's death than is cardiovascular disease, despite the very large difference in clinical outcomes. Bayesian probability. Look it up. Why are you persisting? This is sad.
2
Follow the money?
1
@brockreynolds870 Did anyone force the lady to take Advil? Did politicians and doctors actively lie about the risks associated with Advil? Was the lady threatened with loss of livelihood if she were to decline to take Advil? Did Advil first come on the market in 2021, as a Emergency Use Authorization drug? Did anyone tell her that her failure to take Advil could kill grandmas everywhere? No, huh?
1
@brockreynolds870 "Might as well be mandated, because everyone takes it." Ha ha ha . . . if everyone does it, it's the same as being forced. You really are intellectually bankrupt. Who hires you to do anything? BTW, I have never once taken an Advil. There are safer ways to deal with pain.
1
What is truly a shame is that there are a handful of traditional vaccines that we know, based on generations of use, are beneficial for the vast majority of young people -- but any intervention has got to be individualized. In any case, kids are now getting this JUNK, and skipping the beneficial vaccines. Unbelievable. Of course people have lost faith. The establishment has broken faith with us.
1
Isn't a nanoparticle 1/100 to 1/1000 the size of a red blood cell (comparing diameter to diameter)? Who would have that injected into them as a vaccine -- rather than, for example, as a cancer treatment?
1
@trinitytwo14992 You made a mistake there. Let's not use bad arguments against the vaccines. There are plenty of good ones.
1
@ryanthomas4069 I see. And this is literally meaningless without knowing exactly what the RATE of myocarditis among unvaccinated youth who have contracted COVID infection is, compared with the RATE of myocarditis caused by the vaccination itself -- and in particular, the rate of COVID-induced myocarditis in unvaccinated people who have contracted an Omicron variant, since the more deadly variants of COVID are all long gone.
1
@ryanthomas4069 False. You don't understand Bayesian probability. If your risk of X is very, very tiny, then clinical outcome is less important in making a cost-benefit analysis regarding preventative strategies and their risks than when the risk of X is higher. Do young people contract severe COVID with myocarditis at all? If they don't, or very, very rarely, then the fact that it presents a danger to them is not a reason to take a vaccine known to cause an apparently milder case of myocarditis more often than COVID itself does, especially where, as this study acknowledges, there were a handful of myocarditis deaths associated with vaccination. The study also listed the 90-day time frame as a possible limitation on the value of the data. This simply acknowledges the fact that we don't know long-term outcomes for either COVID or the vaccines. I'm an attorney who specialized in the federal rules of expert witness testimony under Daubert. This is the common sense interpretation of risk analysis, and it is also the law. You're the one who has projected feelings (and dumb slogans) into the discussion, for some reason. Some obscure reason.
1
Isn't a nanoparticle 1/100 to 1/1000 the size of a red blood cell (comparing diameter to diameter)? Who would have that injected into them as a vaccine -- rather than, for example, as a cancer treatment?
1