Without a placebo-controlled trial that lasts longer than 6 weeks, this is all conjecture. It's certainly not science, which is the process of testing hypotheses.
Whom to trust: the Journal of the American Medical Association or some bloke that got a C+ in high school biology?
The people who write for the AMA are sharing in the 10s of Billions of dollars the pharmaceutical got from the government to make the Covid vaccine.
The bloke with the C+ is betting his own life that the vax is a bunch of hogwash.
I’ll take the bloke any day.
Obviously untrue? The AMA is not receiving any $ from the vaccines
I saw letters from the AMA to physicians warning them that if the physician wrote any medical exemptions (to hospital employees or patients) to not get the vax the MD would lose their license. Yes there most definitely was $$$ exchanges.
Obviously untrue? The AMA is not receiving any $ from the vaccines
I saw letters from the AMA to physicians warning them that if the physician wrote any medical exemptions (to hospital employees or patients) to not get the vax the MD would lose their license. Yes there most definitely was $ exchanges.
The study at the start of this thread appears to prove that the Sudden Death controversy was overblown. That's a relief, but heart disease doesn't typically develop in a few days. What about deaths within a year or two after vaccination? When I tried to find data on excess heart related deaths by age group for 2023 and 2024, I learned that the most recent data from the AHA was as of December 2022.
I want to see if excess deaths related to heart disease (and cancer) increased in any age groups in 2023 and 2024. And if so, what is the reason?
Surely, such data exists. Can any of you medical/scientists here provide a link to such data for 2023 and 2024?
If not, can you explain why we can't have an up-to-date national count (or at least an estimate) of the age and cause of death within seconds after a death certificate is filed?
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
I worked in the hospital during the pandemic and didn't hear or see a single case as described in this forum. So either it is a lie or it only affected Americans. That seem a bit schizophrenic- like your neighbor's are aliens
The study at the start of this thread appears to prove that the Sudden Death controversy was overblown. That's a relief, but heart disease doesn't typically develop in a few days. What about deaths within a year or two after vaccination? When I tried to find data on excess heart related deaths by age group for 2023 and 2024, I learned that the most recent data from the AHA was as of December 2022.
I want to see if excess deaths related to heart disease (and cancer) increased in any age groups in 2023 and 2024. And if so, what is the reason?
Surely, such data exists. Can any of you medical/scientists here provide a link to such data for 2023 and 2024?
If not, can you explain why we can't have an up-to-date national count (or at least an estimate) of the age and cause of death within seconds after a death certificate is filed?
The study covers 3 years of the pandemic. There were no increases.
You can find up to date cancer and other disease trends from the CDC - don’t forget to account for population growth and aging populations.
The data in the paper conclusively refutes the idea the at the vaccine caused an increase in heart deaths among young people.
I worked in the hospital during the pandemic and didn't hear or see a single case as described in this forum. So either it is a lie or it only affected Americans. That seem a bit schizophrenic- like your neighbor's are aliens
Everyone in this forum claims to know 4 teenagers who had a heart attack 3 weeks after the vaccine. Thankfully we now have evidence they were lying.
I’ll preface this by saying that I have no dog in this fight. I’m not a Covid vaccine pusher nor am I anti-vax, so neither side can claim that I am in one group or another. I did receive the Moderna vaccine. I am in the sciences and in my capacity I do review journal submissions from time to time.
Now with that out of the way, I have to say that this is a poor study and neither “side” should claim “victory” - as if there is one in science.
There are notable flaws that compromise its conclusions. A key issue lies in the reliance on an external reporting system via the NCCSIR. As someone who actual has worked with dataset from here, this approach inherently risks underreporting, as it depends on third parties to report incidents of SCA/SCD. Cases that occur in less-monitored environments or when survivors or next-of-kin do not consent to data collection are likely to be excluded. This introduces selection bias and undermines the comprehensiveness of the dataset. A more robust reporting mechanism, perhaps one that involves mandatory submissions from medical institutions, would have reduced the risk of missing cases and improved data reliability. I assume that there is no such data available and that is why the authors used the NCCSIR data. It’s just not reliable though.
Although it’s relatively minor part of the study, the classification of race and ethnicity using media reports or photos is methodologically flawed. That’s just a terrible way to do it. They should have just left it out and said the data was not available. This gives me great pause about who reviewed the study.
The study’s comparison of pre-pandemic and pandemic periods also presents problems. While they note a decline in college athlete participation during the pandemic, this 2.5% figure may understate the broader impact of pandemic-related disruptions, especially in youth and high school sports where lockdowns and restrictions were more severe. The pandemic not only altered participation levels but also likely affected reporting practices, medical access, and training regimens, all of which could confound the analysis. A more detailed exploration of these confounding variables is necessary to contextualize the results accurately.
The lack of Individual level data on COVID-19 infection and vaccination is perhaps the most significant limitation of the study. Without such data, the study cannot directly evaluate the relationship between these factors and SCA/SCD risk, making its conclusions about the absence of increased risk speculative. The small number of myocarditis cases reported (3 pre-pandemic and 4 during the pandemic) is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions, especially without linking these cases to infection or vaccination status. Counter to their assertion, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; the dataset’s limitations preclude definitive conclusions about COVID-19 or vaccination risks.
They also overstate the study’s findings by dismissing concerns about COVID-19 and vaccination risks without sufficient supporting evidence. While the data suggests no significant increase in SCA/SCD cases, they really fail to account for alternative explanations such as changes in physical activity, deconditioning, or mental health stressors. The findings are more suggestive rather than conclusive.
I would give this study a C+/B-. There are so many limitations and issues with it. The study’s findings should be interpreted cautiously by both “sides.” Sorry boys, no win for either one of you.
