Replies

I'm curious about your take on it.

I've seen that article posted before.

Here's the basis of their headline claim of an increase in heart attacks in 2021: List of association footballers who died while playing.

It's a Wikipedia page where random people can add someone to the list, usually based on some news report they read.

Now the most obvious problem with this is we have no idea what percentage of events were recorded in each year. Was the community updating this Wiki as active in 2020 as in 2021 or did this vaccine controversy cause a much higher percentage of reported deaths to be put on this Wikipedia list?

We have a good clue from FIFA. After all, these are all supposedly deaths from FIFA association clubs.

“FIFA is not aware of a rise in episodes of cardiac arrests as indicated in your email and no cases have been flagged in relation to individuals receiving a COVID vaccine.
“Generally speaking, FIFA is in regular contact with leading research centres and experts to do research on a variety of medical topics.”

So we have an entire article based on absolutely unreliable data - in fact, the Wikipedia page in question explicitly states that it's an incomplete list of deaths - while the organization where all of these deaths occurred says there's nothing unusual happening.

My take is it's exceptionally shoddy work but par for the course for the Daily Expose.

What's your take on it?

My take, and I didn't research it as deeply as you did (which is why I asked you), is that it seems indicative of an all-cause mortality rate.

I didn't suggest that it was vaccine-related, although the article goes on to discuss COVID-19. I am aware of the concerns that the vaccine+boosters boosts the immune system against a virus that is outdated, and that it might cause the immune system to relax against other threats while it hyper-focuses on something it's not going to find. I think this is the basis for the look into all-cause deaths.

The problem that I have with stories like this is that, firstly, it takes an observation of an abnormal condition (the sudden spike in all-cause deaths) to signal the need to investigate further. Secondly, there has to be the investigation to confirm the observation. And thirdly, there has to be controlled experiments to identify the root causes. The pattern that I've observed is the willful ignorance of the "experts" to refuse to look into areas where they don't want to find any conclusions.

This lack of urgency, to me, was defined by the refusal to conduct autopsies on people who died within a few weeks of being vaccinated. I remember seeing a video of a doctor parent chastising a school board over vaccine mandates for children, offering his services to the board to help them understand the medical literature. His quote to them was something like "They will never find what they refuse to look for."

I think that the current environment of conflicting evidence, evidence-free (or evidence-questionable) articles, or lack of evidence at all, going on two years now, is a result of the lack of desire by invested interests to investigate anything that had a risk of controverting the established narrative.

The continued fight over whether to vaccinate or not to vaccinate, over the dangers of COVID-19 to various age groupings, over natural immunities, over mask and social-distancing effectiveness, etc., proliferates because the base data that all sides use to defend their positions is not evolving commensurately with the anecdotal observations that usually are the triggers to look deeper. So we have these independent agencies looking at whatever data they can find, while the "trusted" sources (CDC, NIH, WHO, FDA, etc.) remain silent on providing fresh studies based on recent global changes, or only seem to release a study when unfavorable news requires a counter-narrative.

-PJ