/sci/ - Science & Math

I recently caught Kung flu and it was just a mild cough and croaky voice for 3 days. I'm unvaxxed but take fluvoxamine and the A1 blocker brexpiprazole. Both reduce covid cytokine storm and ER stress

>>15112105
How is it high IQ to contract COVID in the first place just so that the second time around it won't be so bad (or you'll be less likely to contract it)? Wouldn't it be better to be vaxxxed so that the severity of it if you did contract it would be lower and then have the combined immunity of both? Isn't it kind of stupid to bet on catching the bug when you can put safety measures in place beforehand?

>>15112105
>>15112105
>Scientific proof that high IQ natural immunity is healthier than the low IQ jab
Scientists agree.

>>15112473
>Wouldn't it be better to be vaxxxed so that the severity of it if you did contract it would be lower and then have the combined immunity of both?
Your "theory" is not what happens in reality with the "covid" "vaccines".

>>15112473
>How is it high IQ to contract COVID in the first place just so that the second time around it won't be so bad
Many people had covid prior to the vaccine roll out and were still required to get vaccinated anyway despite there being no benefit in doing so. Europe did eventually pass some legislation that the recently infected could get a temporary exemption, but the USA still does not recognize previous infection as providing any immunity.

>Wouldn't it be better to be vaxxxed so that the severity of it if you did contract it would be lower
I've honestly seen no difference in illness severity in the people under 50 that I know who were infected by Omicron. The majority were fine within a week, vaccine or no vaccine.

>Isn't it kind of stupid to bet on catching the bug when you can put safety measures in place beforehand?
Isn't it kind of stupid to risk harm by the vaccine when the virus (at this point) poses almost no risk to the relatively young and healthy? Do you get the flu shot twice per season?

>>15112354
and you vape nicotine and weed

>>15112494
Plus the 2g acamprosate. Don't forget

>>15112483
>Many people had covid prior to the vaccine roll out and were still required to get vaccinated anyway despite there being no benefit in doing so.
While I agree it shouldn't be mandated for those who have already gotten it, it's nonetheless true that the combination of natural and vax immunity is higher than either alone.
>I've honestly seen no difference in illness severity in the people under 50 that I know who were infected by Omicron. The majority were fine within a week, vaccine or no vaccine.
Sure, but, especially for more vulnerable people (the elderly, those with autoimmune deficiencies, etc.) it's best to try and maximize your immunity, no? And the argument still holds for the other more dangerous variants and subvariants.
>Isn't it kind of stupid to risk harm by the vaccine when the virus (at this point) poses almost no risk to the relatively young and healthy? Do you get the flu shot twice per season?
I've yet to see any data showing that the risks associated with the vaccine outweigh the risks associated with contracting a case of COVID. Even among young men with no comorbidities, the risk of acute myocarditis in vaxxxed individuals is significantly lower than in those who've had COVID. Overall, the kvetching over unconfirmed vax side effects seems like much ado about nothing. Especially given the fact that billions of doses have been given, you'd think even minor side effects would be visible on a wide scale, but I haven't seen anything (other than mild cases of the aforementioned myocarditis and pericarditis) warranting much concern, especially compared to the risks associated with COVID.

>>15112481
>Confirmation biased Facebook post
Into the trash it goes.

>>15112524
>Even among young men with no comorbidities, the risk of acute myocarditis in vaxxxed individuals is significantly lower than in those who've had COVID.
The Israeli study found that myocarditis rates were not elevated in 2020, despite no one being protected by vaccination.

>Overall, the kvetching over unconfirmed vax side effects
How are they unconfirmed? Even the vaccine companies have admitted to many side effects. The question is the rates, which seem substantially higher in a certain subset of the population.

>other than mild cases of the aforementioned myocarditis and pericarditis
There's no "mild" inflammation of the heart.

>especially compared to the risks associated with COVID.
And what are the risks in, let's say, males between the ages of 15-40? The risks seem to be much ado about nothing, especially given hundreds of millions have been infected. But wait, deaths in that age group are substantially elevated! But they weren't elevated in 2020. How strange.

>>15112528
>Facebook... le bad
Isn't Facebook pocket deep with your handlers to censor information?

>>15112524
>Sure, but, especially for more vulnerable people (the elderly, those with autoimmune deficiencies, etc.) it's best to try and maximize your immunity
Arbitrary preference for one minority to the other, though there are more unvaxxed people

>>15112524
>Even among young men with no comorbidities, the risk of acute myocarditis in vaxxxed individuals is significantly lower than in those who've had COVID.
Why do you lie

>>15112535
>The Israeli study found that myocarditis rates were not elevated in 2020, despite no one being protected by vaccination.
Not sure what that has to do with my claim, but here are two sources to support it:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8328065/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2791253

>How are they unconfirmed? Even the vaccine companies have admitted to many side effects. The question is the rates, which seem substantially higher in a certain subset of the population.
When I talk about side effects, I mean the sort of sensationalized "sudden death" and "vax blood" shit you see here. Obviously there are local adverse reactions like soreness and more serious ones like myocarditis.

>>15112535
>There's no "mild" inflammation of the heart.
Let's not be disingenuous; there is obviously a spectrum of severity along which cases of myocarditis can fall. On one end, you might not need to be hospitalized at all, while at the other, your heart might fail. Generally cases of myocarditis reported as adverse events are milder:

>And what are the risks in, let's say, males between the ages of 15-40? The risks seem to be much ado about nothing, especially given hundreds of millions have been infected. But wait, deaths in that age group are substantially elevated! But they weren't elevated in 2020. How strange.
Still significantly higher than if they hadn't received the vaccine, which I should add is only very mildly inconvenient.

Had to split up my response because the filter thought it was spam.

>>15112535
It's not letting me post links, fucking hate this website.
First study's title is "Myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination: clinical observations and potential mechanisms" from Nature.
Second is https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970

>>15112813
See >>15113878

>>15112772
I'm looking at this from the standpoint of public health and maximizing outcomes rather than placating the self-deluded.

>>15112766
>>Facebook... le bad
Yes, lmao. Do you know where you are?
>your handlers
Least delusional antivaxer.

>>15113921
I'm looking at this from the standpoint you need to have your head caved in with a hatchet

>>15114030
Kys tripnigger

>>15113883
Oh look another one

>>15113883
There is no such thing as mild myocarditis desu

>>15113878
>Not sure what that has to do with my claim,
You claimed covid causes substantially higher rates of myocarditis than the vaccine. A study evaluated reported cases of myocarditis prior to vaccine roll out found no elevation, indicating that covid was not causing a steep rise in myocarditis. All studies that I've seen after the vaccine roll out (included what you provided) found very different rates somehow, and are also using fabricated numbers for the risk from the vaccines.

Take one study you provided:
>For the 12-17-year-old male cohort, 6/6,846 (0.09%) patients developed myocarditis overall, with an adjusted rate per million of 450 cases (Wilson score interval 206 - 982). For the 12-15 and 16-19 male age groups, the adjusted rates per million were 601 (257 - 1,406) and 561 (240 - 1,313).
So what do we take from this? It's generating a rate for someone who actually bothered to go to a doctor for it. How many teens had covid and never went to a doctor? Should we assume that all teens who didn't go to a doctor for covid had similar rates of myocarditis?

And then:
>Myocarditis (or pericarditis or myopericarditis) from primary COVID19 infection occurred at a rate as high as 450 per million in young males. Young males infected with the virus are up 6 times more likely to develop myocarditis as those who have received the vaccine.
So the ostensible point of the study was to evaluate myocarditis risk in teens infected by SARS-CoV-2. But then in the summary, they throw in how risk is higher for infection than from vaccine, without mentioning how they came to the risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis.

>Rates of COVID-19 cases and myocarditis not identified in the system were estimated and the results adjusted accordingly.
So now we're estimating for information we don't have? That's not good. You go with the data you have, you don't make it up.

>>15113878
And from your second study:
>The risk of myocarditis in this large cohort study was highest in young males after the second SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose, and this risk should be balanced against the benefits of protecting against severe COVID-19 disease.
So they're making the case that the risk is highest for young males, and may not be a net benefit over actual infection.

>Among males 16 to 24 years of age, the excess number of myocarditis events per 100000 vaccinees in the 28-day risk periods after the first dose of BNT162b2 was 1.55 (95% CI, 0.70-2.39) events and after the second dose was 5.55 (95% CI, 3.70-7.39) events, and it was 1.75 (95% CI, −0.20 to 3.71) events after the first dose of mRNA-1273 and 18.39 (95% CI, 9.05-27.72) events after the second dose (Table 2).
18.39 events per 100k after the second dose of Moderna, and 5.55 per 100k after the second dose of BioNTech.

>During the 28-day risk period after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, there were 73 myocarditis cases. Excess events of myocarditis were 3.26 (95% CI, 1.90-4.61) events per 100000 individuals with a positive test result among all males, and 1.37 (95% CI, −0.14 to 2.87) events per 100000 individuals with a positive test result among males aged 16 to 24 years (eTable 7 in the Supplement).
1.37 events per 100k infections in males 16 to 24. Look at the vaccine rates above. This is a study you provided and it shows a substantially higher risk of myocarditis from the vaccines than from infection for males between 16-24.

>>15113883
>Still significantly higher than if they hadn't received the vaccine, which I should add is only very mildly inconvenient.
So already covered this, your own study argued against this, here >>15114788, and they mildly argued, without directly saying, that males between 16-24 should not get vaccinated as the risk does not exceed the benefits when it comes to myocarditis risk.

>>15112105
>healthy natural immunity
created by god
>the deadly vaxxxx
created by science

>>15114834
>you're in a cult too!
as cringe as reddit atheists are this comic is stupid

>>15115210
lmao triggered atheist
picrel is what u look like rn

>>15115210
faggot

>>15115210
Isn't it time for you to stop coping?

>>15112524

>>15112105
of COURSE natural immunity is better
BUT it can cause tons of deaths getting to there
like with the black death. of course the way the black death turned out is better for people in the long run because of higher immunity, but it caused so many deaths. people don't want to die, and people don't want to suffer.

>>15114788
>1.37 events per 100k infections in males 16 to 24. Look at the vaccine rates above. This is a study you provided and it shows a substantially higher risk of myocarditis from the vaccines than from infection for males between 16-24.
you can only come to this conclusion if you can't do math

here's a quote from the first study study
>Myocarditis (or pericarditis or myopericarditis) from primary COVID19 infection occurred at a rate as high as 450 per million in young males. Young males infected with the virus are up 6 times more likely to develop myocarditis as those who have received the vaccine.

>>15116660
the nordic data is by far the more robust study and it shows young men have way more incidents from the vax

>>15116685
>nordic data is le 'robust'
only when it fits your narrative
there isn't any major increase in mortality for young people in denmark in 2022
there is for old people, likely because the lockdowns disrupted the healthcare system and covid. there is currently a flue epidemic too
light blue line is the expected mortality, dark blue is the measured, yellow is correction for delay

i can't wait for the bureau of statistics to release the full report for 2022

>>15116736
>only when it fits your narrative
no, look at the number of people and the methodology you moron
>there isn't any major increase in mortality for young people in denmark in 2022
how about lifelong heart issues?
>there is for old people, likely because the lockdowns disrupted the healthcare system
yes
>and covid.
shame those safe and effective vaccines don't work so good
>i can't wait for the bureau of statistics to release the full report for 2022
im sure they will do their best to sanitize it

>>15112105
Make a bad decision, spend the next 2 years desperately trying to justify your bad decision with poorly understood science.

Anti vaxxers folks.

>>15116748
>>i can't wait for the bureau of statistics to release the full report for 2022
>im sure they will do their best to sanitize it
yes, we're supposed to trust chuds on the internet instead

>>15116770
>at least it doesn't k-kill me
this is the level of cope from safe and effective vax takers

>>15116770
>>15116736
bump

>>15117569
Safer than the virus. Which is entirely the point of vaccines.

>>15116660
>you can only come to this conclusion if you can't do math
What do you mean? Based on their data, that's the accurate rate. Remember, YOU provided the study.

>here's a quote from the first study study
Which used a much smaller data set and also estimated numbers when the data wasn't adequate. By the way, I discussed that quote directly in my first reply.

>>15116736
>only when it fits your narrative
So let's summarize. You provided two studies. The first didn't even explore viral myocarditis and instead threw in a number as part of their conclusion to make viral myocarditis seem less scary. The second study directly contradicted what you were trying to claim. Now you're accusing others of only accepting data that fits their narrative while arguing AGAINST the study you posted. Give me a break. By the way, the study you're arguing against is pooled from four different countries.

>>15119354
>The first didn't even explore viral myocarditis and instead threw in a number as part of their conclusion to make *vaccine-induced* myocarditis seem less scary.
Corrected.

>>15118800
But you still get the virus. In fact you get it more than naturally immune people do.

>>15119354
>you only posted two studies, i have 100 infographics i win
dumb chud

>>15119444
>i have 100 infographics i win
>dumb chud
I have your own study showing the opposite of your claims, remember? >>15114788 5-10 times the rate of myocarditis from vaccination compared to infection, and that's only for the first two shots. The third and fourth booster appear to have the same rate of adverse events as the second shot, meaning we could be talking 10-20 times the risk before it's all said and done. Enjoy your damaged heart.

>>15118800
>Safer than the virus.
LMAO! bots are still on this old programming repeating the 2021 lie?
Update your shit yo!

>>15119939
They're still programmed to believe that the vax confers sterilizing immunity.

>>15116770
>>15116736
bump

>>15119444

>>15119980
Wait I thought the whole point of vaccines is sterilizing immunity. What makes these ones fall short?

>>15120754
vaccine was 99% effective against the original virus which it was created for

>>15120762
no it wasn't

>>15120762
what is relative vs absolute risk reduction?

>>15120762
Even the original study by pfizer didn't claim it was 99% effective. It claimed about a 30-40% reduction in infections.

>>15122324
>>15122320
>>15121636
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36473651/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34268515/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33378609/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34800687/

why do antivaxxchuds instantly leave a thread when something gets posted that surprises them and their programming fails so they just start over and make 5 new shill threads :-/

>>15112354
i had covid and it was less than a cold, a slightly scratchy throat. though a bit of a cough lingered a couple weeks afterwards. i was already on supplements like D, zinc (and copper), magnesium, B complex etc

>>15113883
myocarditis in any form is sign of tissue death, in a vital organ that doesn't regenerate and only scars over.

>>15113883
>Generally cases of myocarditis reported as adverse events are milder
>"""milder"""
How is it possible not to have violent hatred against these "people"?

>>15115231
>>15114834
>>15115227
I don't get it
Is this supposed to make classic religions any less ridiculous?

>>15123377
>I don't get it
That's to be expected, golem.

>>15112105
remember when the (((media))) actually tried to gaslight the world claiming there was no such thing as "natural immunity?"

(((Clown World))) indeed

>>15123382
good goyim. keep (((remembering))) things. i'm sure dwelling on (((the past))) will get you far

>>15114050
>trip
kys you fucking newfag retard

>>15123388
I cant tell if you are a glownigger, trolling, or legitimately retarded so 9/10 my dude

>>15123391

>>15123395
There is no past, there is only now and right now I am remembering how a tirbe of rats and their golem tried to get me to inject myself with poison through lies and coercion for a non existent health threat.

>>15123400
>There is no past
>remembering how a tirbe of rats and their golem tried
So you mean they're only doing it right and only in your head? :^)

>>15123381
>no argument
not that I actually expected an answer but

>>15123403
I mean you are a fucking retard and need to drink some bleach so my eyes stop hurting reading your nigger tier posts

>>15123406
Anyone who "argues" with you is a worthless subhuman like you.

>>15123408
>these people did that heckin' thing in the past
>there is no past
What did the rabid follower of the Church of Zion mean by this?

>>15123412
so why are you posting unspecific claims and refusing to elaborate? do you want people to just blindly trust what you are writing?
sounds just like what you are criticizing as well

>>15123466
Why aren't you taking your meds?

>>15112483
>Many people had covid prior to the vaccine roll out and were still required to get vaccinated anyway despite there being no benefit in doing so.
This is false. You are less likely to contract the virus a second time after being vaccinated even if you were previously infected
>I've honestly seen no difference in illness severity in the people under 50 that I know who were infected by Omicron. The majority were fine within a week, vaccine or no vaccine.
Nobody cares about what you've seen. The science shows that the vaccine reduces illness severity across all ages
>Isn't it kind of stupid to risk harm by the vaccine when the virus (at this point) poses almost no risk to the relatively young and healthy?
Isn't it kind of stupid to risk harm by the virus when the vaccine poses virtually no risk whatsoever?

>>15123414
are you legitimately mentally ill? there is something off about your brand of retardation

>>15123667
Fuck off, past-shilling kike.

>>15123653
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2
>Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study.
>Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.

>>15124139
We've known this for ages. It's crazy to muse as to why they tried to force covid recovered people to get vaccines. There isn't a rational good faith explanation.

>>15124878
>It's crazy to muse as to why they tried to force covid recovered people to get vaccines. There isn't a rational good faith explanation.
There is something in those "vaccines" they want all goys to have.
Graphene? Look up how they are using graphene as a mind-altering device that is manipulated by 5G and new 6G technology.

Sounds crazy right? But notice the recent trend in the last few years, the kooky ideas keep turning out to be true.

>>15124891
>There is something in those "vaccines" they want all goys to have.
>Graphene? Look up how they are using graphene as a mind-altering device that is manipulated by 5G and new 6G technology.
>Sounds crazy right? But notice the recent trend in the last few years, the kooky ideas keep turning out to be true.
>Sounds crazy right?
yeah

>>15123653
>You are less likely to contract the virus a second time after being vaccinated even if you were previously infected
Multiple studies show little to no reduction in infection risk. Where are you seeing there's a major benefit?

>Nobody cares about what you've seen. The science shows that the vaccine reduces illness severity across all ages
The science shows your risk of myocarditis is 10-20x higher from the vaccine than from the virus.

>Isn't it kind of stupid to risk harm by the virus when the vaccine poses virtually no risk whatsoever?
We've already established there's almost no risk of harm by the virus if you're young and healthy. I'll ask again, are you getting a flu shot twice a year? If not, why not? Don't you know the flu can be dangerous?

>>15119363
Except 100% of natural immunity enjoyers have contracted covid.

>>15112473
>Wouldn't it be better to be vaxxxed so that the severity of it if you did contract it would be lower and then have the combined immunity of both?
The fall in mortality and hospitalization rates for men my age isn't significant enough to warrant me taking it, particularly with the current strains of omicron. The vaccine can go to someone else who needs it more.

>>15125073
>have contracted covid.
Everyone has by this point, unless they were entombed away from all society. About half of people who get it are asymptomatic and don't even realize it.

>>15125107
I unironically respect this. The vaccine was always meant to protect those most susceptible to the virus anyways.

>>15125113
Nice try dodging the fact that your immunity requires previous infection, whereas most vaxxxies didn't have prior infection, and the fact that a year and a half after vax rollout less than half the US population has had covid.

>>15125139
>less than half the US population has had covid.
Nobody is dumb enough to believe this. 99% of people have had it at least once.

>>15125139
>Nice try dodging the fact that your immunity requires previous infection
That's not accurate.

>whereas most vaxxxies didn't have prior infection
Probably not accurate.

>and the fact that a year and a half after vax rollout less than half the US population has had covid.
Not accurate. Keep in mind the less than 50% claim is for people showing antibodies. Not everyone develops detectable antibodies, nor do they stick around for three years. I had covid, confirmed through multiple antigen tests and a PCR, and I had no antibodies at the six week mark.