Posted on 12/07/2021 7:10:22 AM PST by Red Badger
Governments around the world are warning their citizens that COVID-19 vaccines present heart risks in some populations. But if Twitter users try to look up similar research, they may receive a warning that the information is "unsafe."
Japan's Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare "raised the alert level for 'side reactions'" to the Pfizer and Moderna two-shot mRNA vaccines on Dec. 3, according to an English translation of a report by the Japanese Kyodo News Service. Just the News couldn't find a native English version.
"Serious" symptoms of myocarditis and pericarditis are being reported among the vaccinated "more frequently in young men than usual," the wire report said. But the ministry still generally recommends vaccination because the benefits outweigh the side effects. Conservative website American Thinker flagged the news.
The heart problem figures are much higher for Moderna than for Pfizer recipients, Japanese broadcaster NHK reported. The Japanese ministry said that as of Nov. 14, for every million males who took the Moderna vaccine, 81.79 ages 10-19 and 48.76 in their 20s developed such symptoms. For Pfizer, those figures are 15.66 and 13.32.
The ministry is requiring hospitals "to report in detail incidents involving people who developed the symptoms within 28 days after being vaccinated," NHK said.
Tweet URL Japan's action followed that of several Nordic countries specifically against Moderna vaccines this fall, with differing age and gender restrictions, the Associated Press reported at the time.
Sweden and Norway stopped offering Moderna to all people under age 30, while Denmark only restricted those under 18. Finland followed with a more narrowly tailored restriction for males under 18.
The European Medicines Agency acknowledged as early as June that it was reviewing myocarditis cases in Israel following vaccination with Pfizer's Cominarty, the sole vaccine fully approved in the U.S. Heart problems generally started within several days of the second dose for males under 30. Similar problems were reported in Europe for "all" COVID vaccines.
The FDA added the heart-inflammation warnings to fact sheets for the mRNA vaccines around the same time.
Moderna disclosed in late October that the FDA was delaying emergency approval of its COVID vaccine for teenagers until early next year to study the heart problems reported in this age group. It won't even seek emergency use authorization to vaccinate children 6-11 until the review for older children is finished.
It's not clear that COVID vaccination provides a meaningful benefit for children without preexisting health conditions.
A German study of children's hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death due to COVID-19 and pediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome, published Nov. 30 as a preprint awaiting peer review, said it couldn't calculate a case fatality rate for "primarily healthy children ages 5-11."
The pediatric researchers couldn't find any such deaths in Germany, while the ICU admission rate for that age group was 0.2 per 10,000.
Deadline passed to offer correction
Just a day before Japan's announcement, Twitter started warning users not to read a research abstract on heart problems following mRNA vaccination that was published in the American Heart Association journal Circulation.
The abstract, submitted by California doctor and former cardiac surgeon Steven Gundry, found "dramatic changes" for most of his COVID-vaccinated patients in a blood test that measures early signs of heart problems. The patients' so-called PULS score jumped from an 11% risk of "acute coronary syndrome" within 5 years to 25%.
Gundry presented his findings to an AHA conference last month, according to the trade publication Cardiology Advisor. The jump was notable because Gundry's patients — more than 500 men and women ages 28 to 97 — had been taking PULS cardiac tests every three to six months for eight years.
The AHA was apparently spooked after former New York Times journalist Alex Berenson flagged the abstract Nov. 22, a week after the conference ended. (Days earlier, Berenson highlighted nearly 4,000 deaths among 4 million Swedes within two weeks of their second vaccination dose, which he claimed would translate into an annual mortality rate nearly three times the Swedish average.)
Tweet URL Circulation added an "expression of concern" to the abstract, the first step toward possible retraction, Nov. 24.
Beyond a typo misspelling "PULS" as "PLUS," the abstract has no data on "myocardial T-cell infiltration, there are no statistical analyses for significance provided, and the author is not clear that only anecdotal data was used," the editorial note says. The journal is working on a "suitable correction."
AHA told Retraction Watch that it had asked Gundry to submit a correction by 6 p.m. Friday. These "brief summary documents" are just the starting point for "a scientific conversation on the findings, which may then, ultimately, result in a full manuscript published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal," and AHA "makes no representation or guarantee as to their accuracy or reliability," an AHA spokesperson wrote.
Dana Lewis, a representative for Gundry, told Just the News Friday afternoon, hours before his deadline, that he would not comment on the controversy.
Reuters purported to fact-check the abstract Nov. 26, claiming it lacked "reliable evidence of a link between mRNA vaccines and heart disease."
By Dec. 2, Twitter was imposing an "unsafe" interstitial that warns readers the link is "potentially spammy or unsafe" for reasons including "misleading content that could lead to real-world harm."
Only the link to the study's main page, shared by verified newspaper columnists, a talk show host and "X Games medalist," triggers the warning. An alternate link directly to the abstract, widely shared on Twitter by non-verified accounts, does not draw the warning.
Beyond DD's wrong rate number above, the Polio comparisons are silly when you consider:
That actual disease itself never killed near as many Americans annually as today's Covid jab kills.
By Polio-era standards, we are in dire need of a cure for the Covid vaccine.
As the Pundit asks, "what were they trying to hide?" Could it have been the results of the tests from the Japanese study on biodistribution which was required for approval by the Japanese regulatory agency which is the counterpart to our own FDA?
The Japanese require more data than we do for the approval of new drugs. Keep in mind as you check out the following that these were Pfizer's own studies which they wanted kept confidential.
Judging from the analysis/comments following it looks to to be flawed.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.23.21260998v1
GIGO.
Pelham wrote: “Polio mortalit⁶y rate wasn’t remotely 99%. 98% of polio cases were mild. Only 2% resulted in paralysis or death.”
My apologies, you are correct. The polio survival rate was 99%. Yet, some claim that a survival rate of 99% justifies their opposition to the covid vaccines while ignoring the fact that polio survival rate was essentially the same. Did they get the polio vaccine?
Worldtraveler once upon a time wrote: “But this remains a phase three clinical trial and that trial is 1) not completed and the final results announced, and 2) mandates to participate in said clinical trials are NOT consent.”
Worldtraveler once upon a time wrote: “That the manufacturers are not legally liable for damages informs many, and many still do not given their consent. Ergo informed consent remains an issue, if not to you. Why begrudge others for a differing conclusion?”
I don’t begrudge others for having differing conclusions.
I do begrudge other for spreading false information like this. Fully approved vaccines are readily available.
Polynikes wrote: “Judging from the analysis/comments following it looks to to be flawed.”
The analysis/comments do not justify calling this study flawed since there is no way to judge the expertise of those anonymous commentators.
Worldtraveler once upon a time wrote: “That the manufacturers are not legally liable for damages ...”
Actually, that’s another misconception. The manufacturers are not civilly liable but they remain criminally liable if it could be proven that they are knowingly selling a dangerous product.
I share your view.
One glaring example is the time period involved which points to the Alpha strain which is no longer in circulation.
It still doesn't rationalize giving healthy adolescents and children a substance with a known deadly risk profile vs letting them acquire immunity naturally.
When proof is discovered in the legal sense that a “known” was known and suppressed, there will be legal hell to pay,
“That actual disease itself never killed near as many Americans annually as today’s Covid jab kills.”
Which of the kook sites is your favorite?
Polynikes wrote: “It still doesn’t rationalize giving healthy adolescents and children a substance with a known deadly risk profile vs letting them acquire immunity naturally.”
The risk profile of the vaccines is less deadly than acquiring natural immunity, ie, becoming infected.
It's an issue because the Biden administration and the blue state governors and big city mayors are playing politics with their mandates and passports. They think this is a way to continue their so-far successful use of the Wuhan virus to consolidate power, so people are desperately grabbing at any "handle" that looks (or maybe feels) like resistance to that overreach.
absalom01 wrote: “It’s an issue because the Biden administration and the blue state governors and big city mayors are playing politics with their mandates and passports. They think this is a way to continue their so-far successful use of the Wuhan virus to consolidate power, so people are desperately grabbing at any “handle” that looks (or maybe feels) like resistance to that overreach.”
That doesn’t answer the question of why this vaccines is being held to a different standard of effectiveness than other vaccines. If you want to argue ‘the consolidation of power’ then do so but there is no reason to denigrate this vaccine.
I’m not denigrating the current crop of vaccines. I’m a self-confessed “vaccine optimist”.
But you asked why some people are holding this new crop of vax to a different standard than, say the MMR vax. By which I think you mean why does this particular objection seem to have so much traction?
One reason, though there are others, that the vaccine is being held to a different standard is because the vaccine is being used for different purposes. Let’s stick with the MMR vax. True, it’s required for children to attend public schools in most places, but people do have options: you could homeschool, choose a private religious school, etc, but the point is it doesn’t intrude on to one’s ability to live. The COVID jab is being required in my own home town just to have dinner in a restaurant, or in many cases simply go to work.
The Democrat pols and MSM cheerleaders have never really stated their priors, but one imagines that their reasoning goes something like this: “1) The COVID is an especially deadly disease, and extraordinary measures to protect public health are therefore warranted 2) The current crop of vaccines, while not perfect, offer a significant protection against infection and transmission of this especially deadly disease and thus 3) Mandating 2 is justified in order to protect society as a whole from this deadly threat”. Or more succinctly as Scott Adams put it: “Vaccinations greatly reduce your risk from infection and reduce the rate of spread but do not stop the spread.” Those three things are subjective value judgements, not medical facts, but discussion and disagreement is not permitted in the public square. So you get the objections that are permitted, partly because they are easy to strawman.
The contrary claim has been caricatured as “The jabs don’t work because vaxxed people still get infected” (again, thanks Scott A).
That could be steel-manned a bit by clarifying the claim. Something like “The jabs don’t work well enough to justify the interference with individual choice and liberty that the mandates and passports create, because they don’t protect enough people from getting infected to reduce the spread sufficiently to justify these intrusive measures. And besides, this bug isn’t that serious for most people anyway.” Or something like that.
The objection, in other words, is to the unstated priors. The short-hand gibe “The jabs don’t work” is leveled against the hypocrisy and lies that have been blasted non-stop since March of 2020 by our betters.
per the CDC website, the testing phase lasted about eight weeks...
absalom01 wrote: “But you asked why some people are holding this new crop of vax to a different standard than, say the MMR vax. By which I think you mean why does this particular objection seem to have so much traction?”
Not my intention. My points are these:
-many here insist that these vaccines are not effective because they do not provide 100% protection. All though the small pox comes close, even that one isn’t 100%. Most vaccines are comparable to the effectiveness of the COVID vaccines.
- many here the vaccines are unsafe but their safety profile is pretty similar to most other vaccines.
I’ve been doing some reading on the history of vaccine opposition. It’s interesting that the same arguments made today against these vaccines are no different than the arguments made throughout the history of vaccines. This tells me that there is something deeper going on than just the opposition to this vaccines. Some here hold up the small pox vaccine as some kind of gold standard. Yet, there were massive demonstrations against that vaccine. BTW, there was as much opposition to MMR vaccines as there is now to the COVID vaccines. Even the arguments were the same then as now.
The Democrat pols and MSM cheerleaders ‘priors’ are a reflection of the beliefs of their base.
Not to keep flogging a dead horse, but it shouldn’t be surprising that the critique of the current crop of covid jabs mirror the arguments long used by the leading lights of the old anti-vax movement, since those are the same people providing most of the original source material.
The only reason that I can see that it’s moved out of the fringe left and into the MAGA right is the political environment, and the flood of lies that came pouring out of Fauci’s, Birx’, and MSM’s mouths from the beginning.
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.