Coronavirus COVID-19

[SeattleGriz]

That is part of the process. His edits were even titled Dr L's edits as the article states.

Do you notice how the article won't specifically list what as "taken out" and even refers to it as "stuff".

Their just pissed because he showed they were rigging the report. That's like when StOnge says "the author never said that", but it's plain as day in the data. Of course they didn't say that, they had a drug to promote.

If we want to get nitpicky, you can damn well bet chemistries were not run before and after to measure heart inflammation. That's on the original authors. Shit study in which the obfuscated heart damage data

If it was a shit study then proper response was to not publish it, not to unilaterally change it without data from that study to backup the changes.

You're covering for this clown just like JSO covers for the lockdown clowns.

I'm not covering for shit. Lapado took data from the study and stratified it to a greater extent giving better granularity. Here's an example of what I'm saying.

This is the same data, but it is increasingly more stratified. See how the myocarditis signal starts to appear as you start stratifying the numbers? That's what Lapado did. Showed who really was at risk.

[UNI88]

If it was a shit study then proper response was to not publish it, not to unilaterally change it without data from that study to backup the changes.

You're covering for this clown just like JSO covers for the lockdown clowns.

I'm not covering for shit. Lapado took data from the study and stratified it to a greater extent giving better granularity. Here's an example of what I'm saying.

This is the same data, but it is increasingly more stratified. See how the myocarditis signal starts to appear as you start stratifying the numbers? That's what Lapado did. Showed who really was at risk.

2 Questions:

1) This is the same data as in it's data from the that particular study?

2) If we could "damn well bet chemistries were not run before and after to measure heart inflammation" then how can Lapado be certain of the accuracy of the changes he made?

[SeattleGriz]

I'm not covering for shit. Lapado took data from the study and stratified it to a greater extent giving better granularity. Here's an example of what I'm saying.

This is the same data, but it is increasingly more stratified. See how the myocarditis signal starts to appear as you start stratifying the numbers? That's what Lapado did. Showed who really was at risk.

2 Questions:

1) This is the same data as in it's data from the that particular study?

2) If we could "damn well bet chemistries were not run before and after to measure heart inflammation" then how can Lapado be certain of the accuracy of the changes he made?

1) No, this is not the same data as the study.

2) He can be certain because those diagnosed with myocarditis were actually diagnosed. He didn't change the data, just sorted it to a greater extent.

The benefit of running Troponin tests before and after you get vaccines, is that it would have shown exactly how many had subclinical myocarditis and heart inflammation in addition to myocarditis. It took the Thai government to actually do that study.

https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p ... yocarditis

I will get right to the point. The authors ran a bunch of tests on kids (202 boys, 99 girls) aged 13-18 who got the 2nd dose of Pfizer, after getting the first dose without adverse events. The EKG changes in the pre-print are not the story. The story are rates of cardiac biomarkers and how often they are elevated. 3 patients had chest pain and biomarker elevation; 4 patients had no chest pain but elevated cardiac biomarkers. These were all in boys.

7/202 boys had overt or subclinical myocarditis (3.5%) or roughly 2 orders of magnitude more common than prior reports from passive adverse event reporting of myocarditis

The study Yahoo references was from passive adverse reporting. Missed 2 orders of magnitude in subclinical myocarditis.

They were trying to hide the signal.

[UNI88]

2 Questions:

1) This is the same data as in it's data from the that particular study?

2) If we could "damn well bet chemistries were not run before and after to measure heart inflammation" then how can Lapado be certain of the accuracy of the changes he made?

1) No, this is not the same data as the study.

2) He can be certain because those diagnosed with myocarditis were actually diagnosed. He didn't change the data, just sorted it to a greater extent.

The benefit of running Troponin tests before and after you get vaccines, is that it would have shown exactly how many had subclinical myocarditis and heart inflammation in addition to myocarditis. It took the Thai government to actually do that study.

https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p ... yocarditis

I will get right to the point. The authors ran a bunch of tests on kids (202 boys, 99 girls) aged 13-18 who got the 2nd dose of Pfizer, after getting the first dose without adverse events. The EKG changes in the pre-print are not the story. The story are rates of cardiac biomarkers and how often they are elevated. 3 patients had chest pain and biomarker elevation; 4 patients had no chest pain but elevated cardiac biomarkers. These were all in boys.

7/202 boys had overt or subclinical myocarditis (3.5%) or roughly 2 orders of magnitude more common than prior reports from passive adverse event reporting of myocarditis

The study Yahoo references was from passive adverse reporting. Missed 2 orders of magnitude in subclinical myocarditis.

They were trying to hide the signal.

Other studies show what you're saying but you have yet to prove to me that the study in question did as well and that Lapado did what he did because he sorted that particular study's data to a greater extent. Is it ok to mix data from 2 studies to "prove" a conclusion?

[SeattleGriz]

1) No, this is not the same data as the study.

2) He can be certain because those diagnosed with myocarditis were actually diagnosed. He didn't change the data, just sorted it to a greater extent.

The benefit of running Troponin tests before and after you get vaccines, is that it would have shown exactly how many had subclinical myocarditis and heart inflammation in addition to myocarditis. It took the Thai government to actually do that study.

https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p ... yocarditis



The study Yahoo references was from passive adverse reporting. Missed 2 orders of magnitude in subclinical myocarditis.

They were trying to hide the signal.

Other studies show what you're saying but you have yet to prove to me that the study in question did as well and that Lapado did what he did because he sorted that particular study's data to a greater extent. Is it ok to mix data from 2 studies to "prove" a conclusion?

Those are fair questions, but unfortunately, Yahoo and they guy who said Lapado changed "stuff" don't give us a link or an explanation.

Wonder why? Pretty easy to spot a hit piece.

[UNI88]

Other studies show what you're saying but you have yet to prove to me that the study in question did as well and that Lapado did what he did because he sorted that particular study's data to a greater extent. Is it ok to mix data from 2 studies to "prove" a conclusion?

Those are fair questions, but unfortunately, Yahoo and they guy who said Lapado changed "stuff" don't give us a link or an explanation.

Wonder why? Pretty easy to spot a hit piece.

Yahoo? You mean Politico. Yahoo is more of an aggregator than an actual publisher.

What Lapado did and why he did it is worth questioning.

[SeattleGriz]

Those are fair questions, but unfortunately, Yahoo and they guy who said Lapado changed "stuff" don't give us a link or an explanation.

Wonder why? Pretty easy to spot a hit piece.

Yahoo? You mean Politico. Yahoo is more of an aggregator than an actual publisher.

What Lapado did and why he did it is worth questioning.

It is, and I'm wondering why a large news group like Politico didn't bother to reach out and get clarification from Lapado. It would have been super easy to reach out and ask, "Hey Lapado, why'd you change the thing on that study?"

[UNI88]

Yahoo? You mean Politico. Yahoo is more of an aggregator than an actual publisher.

What Lapado did and why he did it is worth questioning.

It is, and I'm wondering why a large news group like Politico didn't bother to reach out and get clarification from Lapado. It would have been super easy to reach out and ask, "Hey Lapado, why'd you change the thing on that study?"

How do you know they didn't? They asked him something and he responded ...

In a statement to POLITICO, Ladapo said revisions and refinements are a normal part of assessing surveillance data and that he has the appropriate expertise and training to make those decisions.

[SeattleGriz]

It is, and I'm wondering why a large news group like Politico didn't bother to reach out and get clarification from Lapado. It would have been super easy to reach out and ask, "Hey Lapado, why'd you change the thing on that study?"

How do you know they didn't? They asked him something and he responded ...

In a statement to POLITICO, Ladapo said revisions and refinements are a normal part of assessing surveillance data and that he has the appropriate expertise and training to make those decisions.

Well there you have it. Lapado has the expertise to make such decisions as you would hope from a Surgeon General. You're almost as bad as Kalm in your hate of black distinguished physicians.

Are you saying his analysis is incorrect? You do know the infection fatality ratio for the 12- 18 group is 3 out of 1,000,000 infected will die. The 30-39 group is 1.1 out of 10,000 infected will die.

Sure seemed like myocarditis was a much bigger problem than those ratios. Checkmate Lapado.

[kalm]

How do you know they didn't? They asked him something and he responded ...

Well there you have it. Lapado has the expertise to make such decisions as you would hope from a Surgeon General. You're almost as bad as Kalm in your hate of black distinguished physicians.

Are you saying his analysis is incorrect? You do know the infection fatality ratio for the 12- 18 group is 3 out of 1,000,000 infected will die. The 30-39 group is 1.1 out of 10,000 infected will die.

Sure seemed like myocarditis was a much bigger problem than those ratios. Checkmate Lapado.

I disliked Carson for his political views. You’re projecting if you think it’s because of his skin color.

EG: I’m quite fond of Dr Julius Hibbert.

[UNI88]

How do you know they didn't? They asked him something and he responded ...

Well there you have it. Lapado has the expertise to make such decisions as you would hope from a Surgeon General. You're almost as bad as Kalm in your hate of black distinguished physicians.

Are you saying his analysis is incorrect? You do know the infection fatality ratio for the 12- 18 group is 3 out of 1,000,000 infected will die. The 30-39 group is 1.1 out of 10,000 infected will die.

Sure seemed like myocarditis was a much bigger problem than those ratios. Checkmate Lapado.

I don't know if his analysis is incorrect. I'm questioning whether he should have unilaterally made those changes. I'm also asking if he's shown where the data from the study backs up his analysis and changes.

I could care less what color Lapado's skin is. I'm skeptical of science/medical administrators like Lapado and Fauxi who back up their recommendations and decisions with "trust me, I'm an expert."

Are you defending Lapado because he did everything the right way or simply because you agree with him?

[SeattleGriz]

Well there you have it. Lapado has the expertise to make such decisions as you would hope from a Surgeon General. You're almost as bad as Kalm in your hate of black distinguished physicians.

Are you saying his analysis is incorrect? You do know the infection fatality ratio for the 12- 18 group is 3 out of 1,000,000 infected will die. The 30-39 group is 1.1 out of 10,000 infected will die.

Sure seemed like myocarditis was a much bigger problem than those ratios. Checkmate Lapado.

I don't know if his analysis is incorrect. I'm questioning whether he should have unilaterally made those changes. I'm also asking if he's shown where the data from the study backs up his analysis and changes.

I could care less what color Lapado's skin is. I'm skeptical of science/medical administrators like Lapado and Fauxi who back up their recommendations and decisions with "trust me, I'm an expert."

Are you defending Lapado because he did everything the right way or simply because you agree with him?

You ask valid questions but I haven't dug too hard on this topic to know exactly what Lapado altered.

I'm defending Lapado on both counts. I still believe in the art of medicine and feel Lapado was justified in making his decision, just as a different Surgeon General would have a different stance. We did not allow dissent from the narrative, even when the narrative was damaging to health. I'm not a fan of checklist medicine.

Lapado has been proven correct in his choice. More risk than reward for the age group.

[UNI88]

I don't know if his analysis is incorrect. I'm questioning whether he should have unilaterally made those changes. I'm also asking if he's shown where the data from the study backs up his analysis and changes.

I could care less what color Lapado's skin is. I'm skeptical of science/medical administrators like Lapado and Fauxi who back up their recommendations and decisions with "trust me, I'm an expert."

Are you defending Lapado because he did everything the right way or simply because you agree with him?

You ask valid questions but I haven't dug too hard on this topic to know exactly what Lapado altered.

I'm defending Lapado on both counts. I still believe in the art of medicine and feel Lapado was justified in making his decision, just as a different Surgeon General would have a different stance. We did not allow dissent from the narrative, even when the narrative was damaging to health. I'm not a fan of checklist medicine.

Lapado has been proven correct in his choice. More risk than reward for the age group.

We agree on the risk and reward for that age group (and below). I just don't like how Lapado handled it and think it was very Faucian. The two of them could be different sides of the same coin.

[JohnStOnge]

Lapado is not credible. Good grief I can't believe I come here and see his nonsense being cited.

One story on the situation: https://www.businessinsider.com/florida ... udy-2023-4

This is the same kind of thing we've talked about before. We have an overwhelming consensus among professionals qualified to opine on a matter and some people want desperately to believe something else. So they find these whack job outliers who have some credentials and latch onto that even thought the overwhelming majority of others in the field are saying the outlier is a whack job.

[JohnStOnge]

https://www.fda.gov/media/166159/download

Dear Dr. Ladapo,

Thank you for your letter regarding COVID-19 vaccine safety. We appreciate this opportunity to
address your questions and we would like to correct the associated misinterpretations and
misinformation about the data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), in
the spirit of transparency and supporting and serving the health of our nation.

And so it goes. The guy is a whack job.

[JohnStOnge]

I don't know if his analysis is incorrect. I'm questioning whether he should have unilaterally made those changes. I'm also asking if he's shown where the data from the study backs up his analysis and changes.

I could care less what color Lapado's skin is. I'm skeptical of science/medical administrators like Lapado and Fauxi who back up their recommendations and decisions with "trust me, I'm an expert."

Are you defending Lapado because he did everything the right way or simply because you agree with him?

You ask valid questions but I haven't dug too hard on this topic to know exactly what Lapado altered.

I'm defending Lapado on both counts. I still believe in the art of medicine and feel Lapado was justified in making his decision, just as a different Surgeon General would have a different stance. We did not allow dissent from the narrative, even when the narrative was damaging to health. I'm not a fan of checklist medicine.

Lapado has been proven correct in his choice. More risk than reward for the age group.

Lapado has not been proven correct.

Multiple well conducted, peer-reviewed, published studies here and here demonstrate that the risk of death, serious illness and hospitalization is higher for unvaccinated individuals for every age group

https://www.fda.gov/media/166159/download

if you go the the linked letter there are links to the referenced multiple studies.

[JohnStOnge]

Now for why I came tonight. It's to document the fact that people qualified to know never thought that you can not be infected, cannot develop COVID-19, and cannot die if you are vaccinated. Instead, the idea is that the risk is reduced.

First there are the clinical trials. Here is the Moderna clinical trial: https://www.fda.gov/media/166159/download

Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0).

Here is the Pfizer clinical trial: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577

There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo

Some people who received the vaccines during the clinical trials got COVID-19. Do any of you think the experts in the field didn't realize that? Do you think there was a consensus among experts in the field that you can't get COVID-19 if you are vaccinated? Of course not.

Here is a link to a 2021 study I like because they looked at defined populations that were tested weekly for COVID-19 to see if they were infected: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/ ... ne%20doses.

A table showing the bottom line results is at https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/105235 .

Vaccinated people got infected. It's just that they got infected at a lower rate (17.6% to 35.5% overall) as compared to people who were not vaccinated. Same with getting symptomatic COVID-19 (6.6% to 32.3% overall) and being a COVID-19 death (0.7% to 3.2% overall) overall.

Again: It was never the case that the data indicated that a vaccinated person had 0 risk of being infected, developing symptomatic COVID-19, or being a COVID-19 death.

[SeattleGriz]

Now for why I came tonight. It's to document the fact that people qualified to know never thought that you can not be infected, cannot develop COVID-19, and cannot die if you are vaccinated. Instead, the idea is that the risk is reduced.

First there are the clinical trials. Here is the Moderna clinical trial: https://www.fda.gov/media/166159/download

Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0).

Here is the Pfizer clinical trial: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577

There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo

Some people who received the vaccines during the clinical trials got COVID-19. Do any of you think the experts in the field didn't realize that? Do you think there was a consensus among experts in the field that you can't get COVID-19 if you are vaccinated? Of course not.

Here is a link to a 2021 study I like because they looked at defined populations that were tested weekly for COVID-19 to see if they were infected: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/ ... ne%20doses.

A table showing the bottom line results is at https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/105235 .

Vaccinated people got infected. It's just that they got infected at a lower rate (17.6% to 35.5% overall) as compared to people who were not vaccinated. Same with getting symptomatic COVID-19 (6.6% to 32.3% overall) and being a COVID-19 death (0.7% to 3.2% overall) overall.

Again: It was never the case that the data indicated that a vaccinated person had 0 risk of being infected, developing symptomatic COVID-19, or being a COVID-19 death.

Dude. We all understand that. The issue was that our elected officials used lies, which made a mockery of the facts that we all understood, to impose some really heavy handed restrictions/requirements.

It was the constant moving of the goalpost, just like you're trying to do now. You were for the most extreme of measures and now you're acting like you weren't. "It's all you misinformed individuals that are the problem. You don't understand".

[SeattleGriz]

You ask valid questions but I haven't dug too hard on this topic to know exactly what Lapado altered.

I'm defending Lapado on both counts. I still believe in the art of medicine and feel Lapado was justified in making his decision, just as a different Surgeon General would have a different stance. We did not allow dissent from the narrative, even when the narrative was damaging to health. I'm not a fan of checklist medicine.

Lapado has been proven correct in his choice. More risk than reward for the age group.

Lapado has not been proven correct.

Multiple well conducted, peer-reviewed, published studies here and here demonstrate that the risk of death, serious illness and hospitalization is higher for unvaccinated individuals for every age group

https://www.fda.gov/media/166159/download

if you go the the linked letter there are links to the referenced multiple studies.

In regards to our topic, myocarditis, he has.

I love how no matter what, you'll insist our government and You were 100% correct.

The vaccine could still be considered a benefit, even if it was problematic for a subset of the population. I do believe the vaccine was beneficial for a subset of the population.

I don't hate the vaccine. I just wished our government hadn't wasted good will twisting arms over a respiratory illness. This was not the pandemic to lose your shit.

Interesting study. 17 out of 54. Essentially 1 in every 3 development myocarditis.

https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/ryct.220247

Fifty-four participants were evaluated a median of 72 days (IQR, 42–91 days) after COVID-19 vaccination: 17 symptomatic with myocarditis (mean age, 36 years ± 15 [SD]; 13 men), 17 symptomatic without myocarditis (mean age, 42 years ± 12; seven men), and 20 asymptomatic (mean age, 45 years ± 14; nine men).

[BDKJMU]

[GannonFan]

Vaccination requirement into the US ends on May 11th. They're not continuing it after that date. Novak Djokovic can play in the US Open this year.

[BDKJMU]

Vaccination requirement into the US ends on May 11th. They're not continuing it after that date. Novak Djokovic can play in the US Open this year.

He should have just walked across the US border last year, and the year before.

[BDKJMU]

F*ck all these Covid fanactics and their wrongheaded hatred. Includes a few conks among the bunch. Arnold at least apologized. Not sure if any others have.

[SeattleGriz]

F*ck all these Covid fanactics and their wrongheaded hatred. Includes a few conks among the bunch. Arnold at least apologized. Not sure if any others have.

Some pretty nasty uninformed shit right there. We even saw it on this board. Absolutely despicable behavior.

[kalm]

F*ck all these Covid fanactics and their wrongheaded hatred. Includes a few conks among the bunch. Arnold at least apologized. Not sure if any others have.

Some pretty nasty uninformed shit right there. We even saw it on this board. Absolutely despicable behavior.