Posted on 11/11/2021 7:27:01 AM PST by BEJ
Thanks. I wonder if the cdc info on kids betting heart problems is more “1 in three —who get severe covid— develop heart problems”? It just seems to me that “1 in three kids who get covid develop heart problems” is a very high number. I woild think though the article would have differe tiated the two scenarios if they had meant just the kids with severe covid are getting heart issues 1/3 of the time.
I don’t know, so I can’t say yeah or nay, but I just find it a little suspicious that supposedly 1 in 3 kids are getting heart problems
Perhaps that is becoming true on the more filtered parts of the web. But certainly the concept of reverse transcription is not new. While it may or may not be happening today due to the vax, serious credentialed folks have asserted it is possible. For example, the MIT and Harvard scientists last fall, I think, were studying why a few folks who've had the bug still test positive long after. These scientists go on to describe how RNA could potentially end up in your DNA. They were not specifically talking about the vax, but the same mechanism would likely apply.
A quote from the MIT/Harvard folk:
"To experimentally corroborate the possibility of viral retro-integration, we describe evidence that SARS-CoV-2 RNAs can be reverse transcribed in human cells by reverse transcriptase (RT) from LINE-1 elements or by HIV-1 RT, and that these DNA sequences can be integrated into the cell genome and subsequently be transcribed. .... This novel feature of SARS-CoV-2 infection may explain why patients can continue to produce viral RNA after recovery and suggests a new aspect of RNA virus replication.”
Good catch! (Apparently you were the only one, I certainly missed that fact lol)
I wlild think that if those numbers had been consistent throughout the whole covid pandemic, that fauci and ilk woild have been screaming about the numbers constantly in order to fear monger folks into getting the vaccines for their kids.
“Is there any truth to this?”
Oh, there can definitely be truth.
The issue is how is it interpreted, and does it really matter?
Overall the increased risk is 16% (for COVID recently vs no COVID), but the risk of having myocarditis due to COVID is still....less than 1%.
Further, compare that to the risk with the vaxes.
But, most important, do not simply assume myocarditis is the only bad side effect that may emerge from a vax (which also may indicate what effects we can concern ourselves with for the disease itself!).
We don’t know what the disease or vaxes truly might instigate. There has not been enough time to actually know.
So, for me, less than 1% chance of a disease causing problems doesn’t make me want to take the vax more. Jury’s still out on what long-term effects will be. Not sure I want to find out, not for a disease with a MAYBE 2% death rate. (Beware the numbers, because we still don’t know where they come from.)
Yes it is from pre-vax days. They are trying to study how risky COVID itself is, vs. no COVID.
Mention is of vax numbers but didn’t see specifics to ascertain. They claim it’s less than the disease itself.
And, please note, HOW LONG do we have to wait to ascribe effects? They mentioned a month.
We’ve known about retroviruses and reverse transcriptase for a long time. That takes a whole, live virus. That’s what your MIT/Harvard quote is talking about. A small segment of mRNA is completely different, nowhere comparable.
That is somewhat more comforting to know. Thanks doc.
“Are Kids at a High Risk of Myocarditis from COVID-19? Nope.“
https://wholistic.substack.com/p/shameless-cdc-recommends-pfizer-for
“Thanks doc.”
Forgot it’s 11/11. Thanks again.
Perhaps you shot me up if you were in during the Reagan admin.
10th SFGA. De oppresso liber - to liberate the mandated!
“Thanks again.”
Obviously, I meant to send that last one to you.
Misdirected messages are another symptom.
” 37% chance of getting heart problems if one gets covid doesn’t seem to jive with anything we’ve heard about cases.”
The article doesn’t state or suggest anything like that.
then what does the following state
“Study: Myocarditis risk 37 times higher for children with COVID-19 than uninfected peers.”
It doesn’t state 37% chance. I don’t know what else to say about it.
So myocarditis risk is 37 times higher for infected children under 16 years but only about 0.01% of 36 million patients had myocarditis over the course of the Covid months. How then is this such a concern as to rick vaccination of children?
Risk = The hazard or chance of loss.
Chance =
a possibility of something happening
Myocarditis risk 37 times higher
To me that states that the kid’s chances of getting myocarditis is 37% higher with covid than than uninfected peers—
This is what you said originally. Totally different:
“37% chance of getting heart problems if one gets covid doesn’t seem to jive with anything we’ve heard about cases.”
The qualifier “higher” in your corrected version changes the meaning totally.
That still doesnt change much as far as I can see, except that it means that the kids who get covid had an even greater % chance than 37% considering that kids without covid who get heart problems have a % in their group that get it too, though lower than the covid group.
So, if the non covid kids have say a 5% or 10% chance of developing heart issues, that would mean the kids, accordingmto,according to, studies cited in article, have a 37% greater risk, so that would mean their risk,is now 47% greater (assuming the non covid kids develop heart issues @ 10%
I guess I’m failing to see your point, or,where my point is not,correct?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.