COVID data

[HALL85]

If you were talking about one or two studies, I’d get the skepticism. That’s not where we’re at though. A ton of studies from all over the world. Everyone involved from all over the world has nefarious intent?

Additionally, entirely outside of the studies, there would be signals that something is wrong. Excess deaths would be increasing, they’re not. Excess hospitalizations would be occurring, they’re not. A signal suggesting that the vaccine causes significant harm is just not there.

They showed risk similar to other vaccines. We just vaccinated a gigantic amount of people very quickly, so the small risk was amplified and the politicization made it worse.

This isn’t a conversation about “significant harm” or “nefarious intent”. The early data (yes, it’s still early) is showing some anomalies. We will learn more over time. Most every drug has a risk profile and it’s up to the patient (with advice from their physician) to make a choice for themselves.

The FDA is not infallible as evidenced by how they were complicit in OxyContin being abused. They knew it was a problem and failed to act on it. And that was a pain med. The pressure to fast track and release the vaccine was unprecedented. I don’t judge anyone for being cautious about taking the vaccine if they felt concerned about the unknown risks at the time and evaluating their own risk factors.

It’s a small percentage right now, but that can change. And for those that are suffering the side effects, that small percentage doesn’t mean anything to them.

 

[Merge]

This isn’t a conversation about “significant harm” or “nefarious intent”. The early data (yes, it’s still early) is showing some anomalies. We will learn more over time. Most every drug has a risk profile and it’s up to the patient (with advice from their physician) to make a choice for themselves.

The FDA is not infallible as evidenced by how they were complicit in OxyContin being abused. They knew it was a problem and failed to act on it. And that was a pain med. The pressure to fast track and release the vaccine was unprecedented. I don’t judge anyone for being cautious about taking the vaccine if they felt concerned about the unknown risks at the time and evaluating their own risk factors.

Right. I don’t disagree with you.
Everyone should have compared the risks for themselves.

Did some people get vaccinated without understanding the risk to reward? Absolutely.
Did some people skip getting vaccinated because they understood the risk to reward? Absolutely.
Did some people who were at risk of severe illness from Covid skip getting vaccinated because they did not understand the risk to reward? Absolutely.

You and I can have a rational discussion here, even though we won’t agree on everything.

Others here, not so much.

The FDA not being infallible does not mean that every study on this topic from all around the world is lying to us as gohall is suggesting.

It’s a small percentage right now, but that can change.

Nothing is certain, but at what point do you start to believe the data is relatively accurate? We’re 3 years out now from a gigantic vaccinated population with real world data. The typical safety review period for a vaccine does not last that long and would have hundreds of people as opposed to the billions that we have vaccinated. At some point, a reasonable person would look at a study from today compared to one three years ago having similar results as a sign that yes, there are risks, but the risk profile is likely fairly accurate and adverse events are very rare.

 

[Gohall129]

Right. I don’t disagree with you.
Everyone should have compared the risks for themselves.

Did some people get vaccinated without understanding the risk to reward? Absolutely.
Did some people skip getting vaccinated because they understood the risk to reward? Absolutely.
Did some people who were at risk of severe illness from Covid skip getting vaccinated because they did not understand the risk to reward? Absolutely.

You and I can have a rational discussion here, even though we won’t agree on everything.

Others here, not so much.

The FDA not being infallible does not mean that every study on this topic from all around the world is lying to us as gohall is suggesting.




Nothing is certain, but at what point do you start to believe the data is relatively accurate? We’re 3 years out now from a gigantic vaccinated population with real world data. The typical safety review period for a vaccine does not last that long and would have hundreds of people as opposed to the billions that we have vaccinated. At some point, a reasonable person would look at a study from today compared to one three years ago having similar results as a sign that yes, there are risks, but the risk profile is likely fairly accurate and adverse events are very rare.

2 points:

1. Don’t say that people should have weighed the risks… 80% of Americans who make under 100k per year had no choice but to get vaccinated or lose their source of income. There was no choice for weighing risk for teachers, cops, front line workers, etc.

2. All of the studies are incredibly preliminary and have data less than 2/3 years old. The data of mRNA vaccines (outside of Covid) do in fact cause structural and anatomical anomalies which take time to present. 10 years post vaccine if there’s no evidence that the mRNA vaccine caused any anatomical changes within heart structures, blood vessels, pattern clots, etc. then we can say it was safe and the risk balanced out. But to proclaim at this point that the vaccine was Universally safe is just not correct

 

[HALL85]

Right. I don’t disagree with you.
Everyone should have compared the risks for themselves.

Did some people get vaccinated without understanding the risk to reward? Absolutely.
Did some people skip getting vaccinated because they understood the risk to reward? Absolutely.
Did some people who were at risk of severe illness from Covid skip getting vaccinated because they did not understand the risk to reward? Absolutely.

You and I can have a rational discussion here, even though we won’t agree on everything.

Others here, not so much.

And this is where the government agencies and leaders should have weighed in with messaging that would have better educated the masses, rather being authoritarian and creating contention. I think we agree that mandates were wrong as it took the decision of risk/benefit out of the hands of the individual.

The FDA not being infallible does not mean that every study on this topic from all around the world is lying to us as gohall is suggesting.

Never said that. We have the best healthcare system in the world and best oversight, but there have been many examples where those agencies have failed (both in the U.S. and abroad).

Nothing is certain, but at what point do you start to believe the data is relatively accurate? We’re 3 years out now from a gigantic vaccinated population with real world data. The typical safety review period for a vaccine does not last that long and would have hundreds of people as opposed to the billions that we have vaccinated. At some point, a reasonable person would look at a study from today compared to one three years ago having similar results as a sign that yes, there are risks, but the risk profile is likely fairly accurate and adverse events are very rare.

2-3 years in surveillance date is a very short period of time in drug discovery. Clinical trials typically take 7-8 years before a drug is approved and even after, there are post-marketing studies that monitor that drug use over time. Once again, there are numerous examples of where the FDA has imposed a "Black Box" warning on a drug decades after launch. One that comes to mind were the COX-2 inhibitors (like Merck's Celebrex) which was found to have severe side effects many years after launch.

Although I have worked in healthcare for my entire career, I tend to avoid taking medications if possible and surgical intervention (don't get me started on cosmetic surgery). People that live in Blue Zone's are a good guidepost. In addition, unless I have no choice, I'm not going to take a medication until it's been launched for over five years.

 

[Merge]

Don’t say that people should have weighed the risks… 80% of Americans who make under 100k per year had no choice but to get vaccinated or lose their source of income. There was no choice for weighing risk for teachers, cops, front line workers, etc.

It was the right call to mandate the vaccine for front line healthcare workers.
It was the wrong call for anyone else. While I appreciate your concern for those making less than 100k, those above 100k were vaccinated at a higher rate than those under. The more money you made, the more likely it was that you would be vaccinated.

The data of mRNA vaccines (outside of Covid) do in fact cause structural and anatomical anomalies which take time to present.

Citation?

But to proclaim at this point that the vaccine was Universally safe is just not correct

No one has proclaimed that.
What I said was that nothing is certain, but after three years and billions of people vaccinated, in all likelihood, the risks as we know them today which are very small will remain consistent.

 

[Merge]

And this is where the government agencies and leaders should have weighed in with messaging that would have better educated the masses, rather being authoritarian and creating contention. I think we agree that mandates were wrong as it took the decision of risk/benefit out of the hands of the individual.

Yep, said all along that mandates were wrong outside of healthcare workers.

I think where we disagree is where the line on erring on the side of caution is. Given how bad this was early on, I was fine with "overeating" rather than under. I'd agree that we did not adjust adequately as the threat lessened after that second wave.

Never said that. We have the best healthcare system in the world and best oversight, but there have been many examples where those agencies have failed (both in the U.S. and abroad).

Right. I wasn't arguing with you there. I was talking to gohall as I find the notion that the studies from all around the world are all lying to be a crazy stance to have.

2-3 years in surveillance date is a very short period of time in drug discovery. Clinical trials typically take 7-8 years before a drug is approved

Right. There is a period of time for discovery, then a period of time for efficacy, then there is a period of time for safety etc.

3 years of safety data with a gigantic sample size would be more than sufficient for any drug. I do not believe the available data on the safety of these vaccines today would have changed the decision to approve of these vaccines is all I am saying.

 

[HALL85]

Yep, said all along that mandates were wrong outside of healthcare workers.

I actually disagree on healthcare workers. These people are on the front line and shouldn’t have had to be forced in giving up their career.

I think where we disagree is where the line on erring on the side of caution is. Given how bad this was early on, I was fine with "overeating" rather than under. I'd agree that we did not adjust adequately as the threat lessened after that second wave.



Right. I wasn't arguing with you there. I was talking to gohall as I find the notion that the studies from all around the world are all lying to be a crazy stance to have.

I know you weren’t talking to me, I would say it’s not necessarily about lying, but more about studies can be wrong.

Right. There is a period of time for discovery, then a period of time for efficacy, then there is a period of time for safety etc.

3 years of safety data with a gigantic sample size would be more than sufficient for any drug. I do not believe the available data on the safety of these vaccines today would have changed the decision to approve of these vaccines is all I am saying.

That’s not how it works though. It was a large sample size, but side effects may not manifest themselves for many years, especially when it comes to safety. That’s why Pharma companies do post surveillance studies for many years. Like I said earlier, the side effects on Cox-2 inhibitors wasn’t identified until well after the drug was commercialized.

 

[Merge]

I actually disagree on healthcare workers. These people are on the front line and shouldn’t have had to be forced in giving up their career.

That's fine. Agreed to disagree there. They have been required to keep up with vaccinates prior to covid to protect those who are most vulnerable. If hundreds of thousands of people were not dying all across the country, I'd agree with you.

I know you weren’t talking to me, I would say it’s not necessarily about lying, but more about studies can be wrong.

Sure, but as more and more come out saying the same thing that seems less and less likely.

That’s not how it works though. It was a large sample size, but side effects may not manifest themselves for many years, especially when it comes to safety. That’s why Pharma companies to post surveillance studies for many years. Like I said earlier, the side effects on Cox-2 inhibitors wasn’t identified until well after the drug was commercialized.

In the ideal environment where a virus is not killing millions of people around the world, it would be fantastic to have more time to analyze the safety. That was just not a luxury we had though, and years later now the risk profile of the vaccines has really not changed. That's great news.

Vaccine risks vs a drug like Celebrex that someone takes daily are of course going to be very different. You're not reintroducing mRNA into your body every day. That's why side effects from all vaccines are generally seen within a short period of time and would likely show up 5 years later. 3 years in, and billions of people vaccinated - it just seems very unlikely we would not have signals showing up by now if there were unknown risks ahead of us.

 

[Proud NJ Sports Fan]

Again check your sources who is behind the funding of the publications and then think that institutions aren’t going to put their name at risk by going against the grain.

This is something that many of us will not get answers to in our lifetime. The actual origins, why it was intentionally designed, why it was released, how it was released. The timing of the vaccines, the efficacy, the list goes on and on. Every thing we know is a lie.

You’re talking to a common sense denier.

Crimes against humanity were made and they don’t want to find out why or who was behind it.

Those that took the jabs, especially the boosters, have a LOT to worry about

 

[HALL85]

That's fine. Agreed to disagree there. They have been required to keep up with vaccinates prior to covid to protect those who are most vulnerable. If hundreds of thousands of people were not dying all across the country, I'd agree with you.

Keeping up with and being mandated are two separate things, nobody ever faced the risk of losing their job for not being vaccinated before Covid. Quite frankly, I think it was a slap in the face to healthcare workers who put their lives at risk every single day during the pandemic. And then to lose their jobs when the vaccine became available? BS.

Sure, but as more and more come out saying the same thing that seems less and less likely.



In the ideal environment where a virus is not killing millions of people around the world, it would be fantastic to have more time to analyze the safety. That was just not a luxury we had though, and years later now the risk profile of the vaccines has really not changed. That's great news.

That’s a different point. I’ve said all along that fast tracking the vaccine was the right thing to do. We didn’t have the luxury of more time. But there is more and more risk introduced when you dramatically shorten the process. That’s a fact, and there are numerous examples that prove it.

Vaccine risks vs a drug like Celebrex that someone takes daily are of course going to be very different. You're not reintroducing mRNA into your body every day. That's why side effects from all vaccines are generally seen within a short period of time and would likely show up 5 years later. 3 years in, and billions of people vaccinated - it just seems very unlikely we would not have signals showing up by now if there were unknown risks ahead of us.

That’s not true. Has nothing to do with how frequently you take a drug. The mRNA technology was novel in vaccine delivery. It’s never been used in the delivery of vaccines. I had the fortune to speak to scientists that had raised those same concerns at the time.

 

[Merge]

Keeping up with and being mandated are two separate things, nobody ever faced the risk of losing their job for not being vaccinated before Covid.

That's not true. One of the hospitals I worked at required anyone working there including consultants to have a flu vaccine to work on site. There are states which require flu vaccines for healthcare workers, probably not that far off from the states which mandated the Covid vaccine without exemptions.

But there is more and more risk introduced when you dramatically shorten the process. That’s a fact, and there are numerous examples that prove it.

No one is arguing that. Faster = more risk without question... but at some point, the time since we started the initial trials starts to exceed the normal amount of time for a drug trial. 3 years is well beyond a normal phase 1 and phase 2 testing for a drug trial.

That’s not true. Has nothing to do with how frequently you take a drug.

Of course it does! You brought up Celebrex. Do you think the risks from Celebrex are the same if you take 1 pill every 6 months vs taking it daily? There heighted risks associated with long term use of that drug.

The mRNA technology was novel in vaccine delivery. It’s never been used in the delivery of vaccines.

Correct, and here we are over three and a half years since the initial trials.
The question is have we learned anything that would suggest we should not use mRNA technology in the next viral outbreak?

 

[HALL85]

That's not true. One of the hospitals I worked at required anyone working there including consultants to have a flu vaccine to work on site. There are states which require flu vaccines for healthcare workers, probably not that far off from the states which mandated the Covid vaccine without exemptions.

They would be an outlier and I have never seen a hospital that would threaten termination if you did not have a flu vaccine. Regardless, these people were on the front lines when they were no vaccines, and they were forced to work with PPE covering their entire bodies. And then they get fired???

No one is arguing that. Faster = more risk without question... but at some point, the time since we started the initial trials starts to exceed the normal amount of time for a drug trial. 3 years is well beyond a normal phase 1 and phase 2 testing for a drug trial.

Sorry but you’re wrong. Clinical trials take 7-8 years and adverse events happen well after launch. The vaccines never went through the traditional trial process.

Of course it does! You brought up Celebrex. Do you think the risks from Celebrex are the same if you take 1 pill every 6 months vs taking it daily? There heighted risks associated with long term use of that drug.

You’re wrong on this as well. Frequency of dosing is only one factor. Delivery system, how it’s dosed, etc. also factor in.

Correct, and here we are over three and a half years since the initial trials.
The question is have we learned anything that would suggest we should not use mRNA technology in the next viral outbreak?

3 1/2 years is half of what a normal trial would take. Sure, we should still use it based on what we know now, but that can change based on how more data becomes available. You’re shifting the conversation to make a different point. mRNA is still a newer technology in the delivery of vaccines. The data thus far shows that the adverse risk is still low, but it still should be up to the individual to determine if they want to assume that risk. We may find the adverse risk is greater 5-10 years from now when we look back.

Various types of chemo are very toxic and have severe contraindications but they are available as a choice.

 

[Merge]

3 1/2 years is half of what a normal trial would take.

I'm not arguing the Covid vaccine trial periods were the normal amount of time. I am saying that 3.5 years of data from billions of people is a tremendous amount of data.

The phase III trial for the RSV vaccine that was approved last year was about that length of time, with 3,000 participants and it was approved by the FDA shortly after. Their follow up period after vaccination was about a year and a half for each child.

You’re shifting the conversation to make a different point.

Not shifting - I was arguing with the conspiracy from gohall who is suggesting that the true risks from the vaccine are being nefariously hidden from us. I just explained why I believe that the risk profile from the Covid vaccines is unlikely to change from the very low risk that it currently has.

We may find the adverse risk is greater 5-10 years from now when we look back.

Like I said, nothing is certain but the reason I believe that is unlikely is that would be extremely unusual for a vaccine, and I think we would have seen some type of signal after 3 years.

 

[HALL85]

I'm not arguing the Covid vaccine trial periods were the normal amount of time. I am saying that 3.5 years of data from billions of people is a tremendous amount of data.

But it’s only 3 1/2 years…time matters no matter how many doses were administered. And mRNA had never been used as a delivery mechanism for vaccines.

The phase III trial for the RSV vaccine that was approved last year was about that length of time, with 3,000 participants and it was approved by the FDA shortly after. Their follow up period after vaccination was about a year and a half for each child.

Why are you ignoring Phase 1 & 2?

Not shifting - I was arguing with the conspiracy from gohall who is suggesting that the true risks from the vaccine are being nefariously hidden from us. I just explained why I believe that the risk profile from the Covid vaccines is unlikely to change from the very low risk that it currently has.

You don’t know that. It’s your opinion on a delivery mechanism that has never been assessed over time.

Like I said, nothing is certain but the reason I believe that is unlikely is that would be extremely unusual for a vaccine, and I think we would have seen some type of signal after 3 years.

Vaccine yes; mRNA no.

 

[Merge]

Why are you ignoring Phase 1 & 2?

Because the phases for the Covid vaccines were run congruently to speed up the process.
They got to phase III early because phase II was happening at the same time.

Phase III was also sped up. My point being though, if phase III ran through today, would the FDA approve the vaccine? That's not a point to argue with you, but to push back against the conspiracy peddling by gohall and I think the answer to that is obvious.

You don’t know that. It’s your opinion on a delivery mechanism that has never been assessed over time.

Right. That's why I said "I just explained why I believe" - As in, here is my opinion, and here is why.

Vaccine yes; mRNA no.

Right, If you want to believe that it's new and anything new carries unknown risk for 10 years, that's fine.

I am not saying that it is impossible that the risk over time will increase. My opinion, based on what I have read so far is that it seems unlikely at this point. My opinion would change if there was data suggesting it should.

 

[HALL85]

Because the phases for the Covid vaccines were run congruently to speed up the process.
They got to phase III early because phase II was happening at the same time.

Phase III was also sped up. My point being though, if phase III ran through today, would the FDA approve the vaccine? That's not a point to argue with you, but to push back against the conspiracy peddling by gohall and I think the answer to that is obvious.

Running them together doesn’t impact the downstream risks though.

Right. That's why I said "I just explained why I believe" - As in, here is my opinion, and here is why.



Right, If you want to believe that it's new and anything new carries unknown risk for 10 years, that's fine.

I am not saying that it is impossible that the risk over time will increase. My opinion, based on what I have read so far is that it seems unlikely at this point. My opinion would change if there was data suggesting it should.

That’s fine and I’m not saying the risk will get worse but it’s certainly possible especially given this new data. The original discussion was all about individuals making a choice based on talking to their doctor, their personal health and their concerns about the safety with the vaccine.

No one is rooting for the vaccine to have more and serious side affects as time goes on. I can though, respect someone’s choice to be vaccinated or not at the start of the pandemic and then each year based on all those factors.

 

[Proud NJ Sports Fan]

Will the full Disclosure be Controlled or catastrophic?

 

[Gohall129]

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

 

[Merge]

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

Are you suggesting there is a link to the vaccine here?

 

[HALL85]

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

Paywall

 

[Merge]

Paywall

Almost three weeks before Covid-19 was reported to be spreading in the US, Patricia Cabello Dowd dropped dead in the kitchen of her San Jose, California, home. A previously healthy 57-year-old, Dowd had complained of body aches and flu-like symptoms days earlier, but nothing could explain why she died so suddenly.
Lab results 10 weeks later revealed Dowd, a manager at a Silicon Valley semiconductor firm, was one of the first US Covid fatalities. Inflammation of the heart muscle led to a finger-sized rupture which caused lethal hemorrhage, an autopsy report showed.
BloombergPrognosisNorwegian Cruise Ship Halted at Mauritius Due to OutbreakThese Alabama Clinics Are Still Doing IVF. Others Have Stopped.GSK Says HIV Shot Is Better than Daily Pills for Some PatientsSingapore to Offer Nurses Bumper Payouts to Keep Them Working
Her death portended an alarming pattern: Not only did the pandemic result in the most deaths in a century, but it also triggered a wave of deadly cardiovascular and metabolic illness. While cases like Dowd’s were known from the start, mortality data of the last four years are now revealing the scale of the impact.

Want to know more about this research? Bloomberg’s health editors answered readers’ questions in a Q&A blog.


Health care workers attend to a 45-year-old patient at the cardiovascular intensive care unit at Providence Cedars-Sinai Tarzana Medical Center in Tarzana, California, in Sept. 2021.Photographer: Apu Gomes/AFP/Getty Images
From 2020 to 2022, a quarter of a million more Americans over 35 years old succumbed to cardiovascular disease than predicted based on historical trends, according to Bloomberg analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2023, age-adjusted stroke mortality was almost 5% above pre-pandemic levels, according to preliminary data, while rates from deaths related to hypertensive heart disease, rhythm abnormalities, blood clots, diabetes and kidney failure were 15-28% higher. Covid had a muted impact on other common causes of death such as cancer and Alzheimer’s disease, the data show.
“The cardiometabolic aftereffects of SARS-CoV-2 have been profound, persistent, and peculiar — really peculiar,” said cardiologist Susan Cheng, director of public health research at Cedars-Sinai’s Smidt Heart Institute in Los Angeles.
Scientists are still trying to figure out why. It’s unclear how many people died from Covid’s cardiovascular complications and how many died because of its indirect consequences, such as disrupted medical care and worsening rates of obesity and high blood pressure.
“Based on our data, we can’t really draw a line to any one of those things,” said Robert Anderson, chief of the statistical analysis and surveillance branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics.

Cardiac Crisis​

Heart disease deaths in the US jumped 5.8% in 2020, the most in more than 30 years
Source: CDC WONDER Online Database
Heart disease as underlying cause of death. Data for 2022 are provisional.
Understanding the correlation will help officials mitigate the damage — whether by making health systems more resilient to avoid future outbreak-induced disruptions or by beefing up health screenings to find affected patients and identifying more heart-protective Covid treatments.

It could also give policymakers a more accurate grasp of the pandemic’s consequences, including medical costs. Cardiovascular disease was projected to cost the US $1.1 trillion by 2035, according to a 2017 forecast for the American Heart Association — a number likely to be raised due to the recent surge. Almost 700,000 Americans died from heart disease in 2020 alone — more than in any year since 2001. Deaths topped 703,000 two years later.
“There’s no doubt that this is costing us a lot extra because events are far more expensive than prevention,” said former Association president Donald Lloyd-Jones, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at Chicago’s Northwestern University.
Why Covid’s Aftermath Will Be Felt for a Long Time: QuickTake
The toll halted a decade of progress in tackling the world’s top cause of death. Treating high blood pressure and cholesterol and urging people to quit smoking and to eat less salt and trans fats helped to cut age-adjusted death rates from cardiovascular disease by 60% from 1950 through 1999.
US obesity rates, on the other hand, have been on the rise. Worsening metabolic health likely made Americans more susceptible to Covid’s effects, said Lloyd-Jones.
“It was the perfect virus at the perfect time to catch us when we were at our most vulnerable,” he said. “We would not have come anywhere near as close to breaking our health-care system as we did if we had had a healthier population.”


An anti-smoking billboard in Los Angeles warns people of the dangers of cigarettes in 1997.Photographer: Gilles Mingasson/Archive Photos/Getty Images

Easily Overlooked​

But obesity doesn’t explain everything. Even countries like Japan, with the lowest prevalence of overweight and obesity in the developed world, registered an uptick in cardiovascular deaths linked to Covid.

In the US, infections led to an increase in heart and metabolic-related ailments — from hypertension and diabetes to palpitations caused by postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome — in both patients with and without cardiovascular risk factors, said Cedar-Sinai’s Cheng.
Greater immunity and the emergence of less severe variants have since lowered the incidence of deadly complications, but the problem hasn’t gone away. Each coronavirus infection a person experiences, no matter how mild, might be acting like its own cardiovascular risk factor, she said. The longer-term effects are even more mysterious.
“We need more studies to try to help us understand what to do with what’s a rapidly growing proportion of the population for which this is an issue,” Cheng said.

​

 

[Merge]

Deaths From Serious Heart and Metabolic-Related Conditions Remain Above Pre-Covid Levels​

Age-adjusted mortality rate per 100,000 people

Source: CDC WONDER Online Database

Note: Hypertensive heart disease, pulmonary embolism, atrial fibrillation, & diabetes reported among multiple causes of death. Heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, cancer, & Alzheimer's reported as underlying cause of death. Data for 2022-2023 are provisional; 2023 is incomplete.

Some of the uncertainty stems from how easy it’s been to overlook the virus in patients without existing significant lung and respiratory symptoms. In the first Covid wave, heart attacks, large-vessel strokes, and other serious cardiovascular problems were sometimes the first clinical manifestations of Covid, including in young patients.

Almost 1.175 million Americans have died from Covid since early 2020, according to the CDC. Multiple studies have shown that the real tally was much higher, and a study earlier this month found 163,000 deaths previously attributed to natural causes were actually due to Covid.

“Early in the pandemic, there were people who were dying suddenly whose deaths were being attributed to cardiovascular events like a heart attack, when in fact their death was probably Covid-related,” the CDC’s Anderson said. “Physicians probably didn’t know really what they were looking at, in many instances, and struggling to figure out what killed these people.”

That could easily have been the case for Dowd’s death on Feb. 6, 2020. When medical examiner Susan Parson began investigating the cause, Covid hadn’t yet been named and the World Health Organization was more than a month away from declaring it a pandemic.


Parson saw that Dowd’s heart bore signs of damage usually seen in severe coronary artery disease, although her vessels weren’t diseased. Under a microscope, she saw immune and wound-healing cells around dead heart muscle cells — early signs of repair from myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, that can occur after a viral infection.

That reminded her of a report from China in which doctors described a similar condition among hospitalized patients, some of whom had acute cardiac injury. Parson sent tissue specimens to the CDC in Atlanta for testing. It took around two months for her to learn the results: traces of the SARS-CoV-2 virus were found in Dowd’s airways, lungs, intestines and heart.

“I was stunned,” Parson said. Dowd’s death predated the nation’s earliest confirmed Covid death at the time.

Since then, scientists have found even earlier, fatal cases. They’ve also learned that the virus can directly infect certain heart tissues, including coronary vessels, to cause inflammation of the fatty plaque inside arteries. Covid may also trigger new-onset hypertension and drive pernicious changes in cholesterol, especially among hospitalized patients. All of these increase the risk of heart attack and stroke, although it’s hard to demonstrate that Covid was the triggering event.

“There’s no medical test that can distinguish between a heart attack caused by Covid some months later, versus one that would have happened anyway,” said Karen Cutter, who heads a working group studying Covid’s effects on mortality at the Actuaries Institute in Sydney. There are many plausible reasons why heart deaths have increased in Covid’s wake in Australia and elsewhere, “but it’s very difficult to prove any of them definitively,” she said.



Transmission electron microscopic image of a virus isolate from the first reported US case of Covid-19 in March 2020.Photographer: Smith Collection/Gado/Archive Photos/Getty Images

Care Delays
The correlation has also changed over time. First responders in New York City, dealing with record call-outs due to Covid, attended three times as many cardiac arrests in the pandemic’s first eight weeks as a year earlier.


Hospitalizations for stroke and heart problems slid in March 2020. By April, heart attack cases were down 28% and remained lower across the US for months. Some doctors speculated it was the happy result of a slower pace and cleaner air brought on by lockdowns.

Cardiologists expected a rapid rebound in the summer driven by pent-up demand and Covid’s propensity to cause heart attack and stroke-inducing inflammation and blood clots. Instead, patients put off hospital visits, suffering and even dying at home.


“I remember handling calls where I said, ‘You have to come in,’” said cardiologist Rishi Wadhera, who was working nights at Boston’s Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Later, he saw the effects of delayed care. Patients were coming to the hospital with complications resulting from medical events they’d suffered several months earlier at home and pushed through. They were lucky to have survived, but now many have heart failure, he said.

Many people avoided hospital care during Covid for fear of exposure to the virus. Even in 2022, many patients were avoiding regular checkups and large numbers were skipping preventative health screenings, according to a study led by Wadhera and published this month. The trend varied across racial and ethnic groups, with the biggest declines among Asian patients.

Patients often lost touch with their providers and a health system that’s become increasingly crowded and challenging to navigate, according to Gregory Roth, a Seattle-based cardiologist who leads cardiovascular disease modeling for the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.

In some cases, the reason has been financial. About half of US adults found paying for health care difficult, and a quarter said they or a household family member had problems paying in the past 12 months, according to a survey in late 2023 by KFF, a San Francisco-based nonprofit.


“We stressed-tested the health system with the pandemic,” Roth said. “In many places, it failed, and it has only very slightly improved in terms of providing access. And when there’s limited access, who gets squeezed out first? The people who had the hardest time getting it in the first place.”

Health-care avoidance occurred in other countries too, resulting in delayed treatment and more premature deaths, including a jump in those occurring at home.

“We’re not fully back to business as usual,” said Dhruv Kazi, a cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center studying Covid’s long-term effects. The health impact of such behavioral changes may ultimately dwarf that of the coronavirus itself, he said.

Elevated Cardiovascular Risk
The risk of a heart attack doubles and the chance of myocarditis is about 5 times higher in the year after Covid infection

Source: DeVries et al, JAMA Health Forum 2023; Wang et al, EClinicalMedicine 2022; Xie et al, Nature Medicine 2022

Such concerns highlight Covid’s broad and enduring consequences that doctors, researchers, and demographers are struggling to fathom. Difficulty teasing out the multiple drivers of the excess deaths in the pandemic era makes it challenging to anticipate if and when mortality might resume a more normal pattern. This is frustrating efforts to calculate how many people are likely to die each year.

The grim statistic is crucial in projecting population growth and making appropriate plans for everything from road-building to pensions. It also sets a baseline for measuring excess mortality needed to quantify the impact of flu and other diseases and to identify priority areas for preventative public health programs.

“It’s a challenge because we’re not sure what the new normal is,” the CDC’s Anderson said. “I’m not sure that we can really get a good handle on this for another year or two.”

 

[Proud NJ Sports Fan]

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

It’s going to kill more people than the disease, in time. But will be swept under the rug and intentionally not connected

 

[Merge]

It’s going to kill more people than the disease, in time. But will be swept under the rug and intentionally not connected

Obviously that is nonsense which is easily debunked to those willing/able to understand the data.

 

[HALL85]

Are you suggesting there is a link to the vaccine here?

Thanks for posting the articles, and too soon to draw any conclusions. This is why I have stated that it will take years to determine what caused some of these increases in heart disease and others that increased post COVID. Was it environmental, isolation, diet, vaccine related, etc.? Its just too soon and will take years of study.

It’s interesting that the article points out several of the mistakes we made that were common sense.

 

[Merge]

Thanks for posting the articles, and too soon to draw any conclusions. This is why I have stated that it will take years to determine what caused some of these increases in heart disease and others that increased post COVID. Was it environmental, isolation, diet, vaccine related, etc.? Its just too soon and will take years of study.

I'm all for continuing to understand the data as we go and indications of issues should be investigated thoroughly. So far it suggests that Covid, the virus itself, causes heart damage.

If someone (not you) is trying to attribute heart damage to the vaccine, then we would have seen a spike in heart issues among vaccinated patients more than unvaccinated. That's not what has occurred though.

 

[HALL85]

I'm all for continuing to understand the data as we go and indications of issues should be investigated thoroughly. So far it suggests that Covid, the virus itself, causes heart damage.

It doesn’t suggest it at all from what I read.

If someone (not you) is trying to attribute heart damage to the vaccine, then we would have seen a spike in heart issues among vaccinated patients more than unvaccinated. That's not what has occurred though.

Not necessarily true. It’s still too soon to know long term effects of the vaccine. And you’re assuming the health profiles of vaccinated and unvaccinated are the same.

 

[Merge]

It doesn’t suggest it at all from what I read.

Come on.. There are so many studies on this topic showing that it does.

SARS-CoV-2 infection triggers pro-atherogenic inflammatory responses in human coronary vessels - Nature Cardiovascular Research

Eberhardt et al. show that SARS-CoV-2 infects human coronary lesions where it preferentially targets plaque macrophages, triggering plaque inflammation and potentially leading to acute cardiovascular complications and long-term cardiovascular risks in patients with COVID-19.

www.nature.com

Myocarditis seven times more likely with COVID-19 than vaccines

COVID-19 infections carry a higher risk of myocarditis — or inflammation of the heart muscle — than the COVID-19 vaccine, according to a recent study by Penn State College of Medicine scientists.

pennstatehealthnews.org

What's a reliable source that you would trust here? Johns Hopkins?

Heart Problems after COVID-19

Chest pain, shortness of breath and palpitations can persist after COVID-19. Are they heart related? A cardiologist provides perspective.

www.hopkinsmedicine.org

It’s still too soon to know long term effects of the vaccine.

Again, I am not saying everything is definitive here... but I personally find the "wait and see" approach to be lazy. At some point along whatever timeline you want to extend this to, you would see signals.

And you’re assuming the health profiles of vaccinated and unvaccinated are the same.

No, I'm not. Any decent study will adjust for that.

 

[HALL85]

Come on.. There are so many studies on this topic showing that it does.

SARS-CoV-2 infection triggers pro-atherogenic inflammatory responses in human coronary vessels - Nature Cardiovascular Research

Eberhardt et al. show that SARS-CoV-2 infects human coronary lesions where it preferentially targets plaque macrophages, triggering plaque inflammation and potentially leading to acute cardiovascular complications and long-term cardiovascular risks in patients with COVID-19.

www.nature.com

Myocarditis seven times more likely with COVID-19 than vaccines

COVID-19 infections carry a higher risk of myocarditis — or inflammation of the heart muscle — than the COVID-19 vaccine, according to a recent study by Penn State College of Medicine scientists.

pennstatehealthnews.org

What's a reliable source that you would trust here? Johns Hopkins?

Heart Problems after COVID-19

Chest pain, shortness of breath and palpitations can persist after COVID-19. Are they heart related? A cardiologist provides perspective.

www.hopkinsmedicine.org

Again, I am not saying everything is definitive here... but I personally find the "wait and see" approach to be lazy. At some point along whatever timeline you want to extend this to, you would see signals.



No, I'm not. Any decent study will adjust for that.

I don’t know what to tell you if you’re not going to pay attention to adverse events over time. That’s a reality in disease and drug monitoring. That’s why clinical trials take so long, and why the FDA requires the information.

There is still a lot to be learned and reported when it comes to COVID and the vaccine.

 

[Merge]

I don’t know what to tell you if you’re not going to pay attention to adverse events over time.

I've never suggested that I'm not going to pay attention over time. I've said the exact opposite.
Being open to changing your view based on new data doesn't mean you ignore the data as you get it.

We may disagree about the likelihood that our understanding of today will change, but as of today - Covid causes heart complications. We know that is true based on the studies and data to date.

Studies suggest that the vaccines can also cause heart complications, though they also suggest that they do at a much lower rate than an infection.

 

[HALL85]

I've never suggested that I'm not going to pay attention over time. I've said the exact opposite.
Being open to changing your view based on new data doesn't mean you ignore the data as you get it.

Not ignoring it, but it doesn’t tell me much either. They ran a study with a large group but I haven’t read yet where they adjusted for all of the other variables.

We may disagree about the likelihood that our understanding of today will change, but as of today - Covid causes heart complications. We know that is true based on the studies and data to date.

Studies suggest that the vaccines can also cause heart complications, though they also suggest that they do at a much lower rate than an infection.

Right now yes, but we are in the second inning.

 

[Merge]

Not ignoring it, but it doesn’t tell me much either. They ran a study with a large group but I haven’t read yet where they adjusted for all of the other variables.

Not "A study" there are many studies on this topic. I just posted a couple and they absolutely adjusted for variables within their study groups.

For example:

Data synthesis and analysis​

Statistical analyses were performed with R software version 3.6.2 (R Project for Statistical Computing). The Meta and Metafor R packages were used to conduct formal meta-analyses and create forest plots. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize study-level demographics.

The primary outcome was the myocarditis risk due to the vaccines and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Effect sizes were log-transformed to normalize the distributions. Standard errors (SEs) were calculated via the following equations (11): Lower = log (lower 95% CI) and upper = log (upper 95% CI), and SE = (upper-lower)/3.92. To determine the effect of sex and age on the rates of myocarditis, we conducted a univariate meta-regression analysis with the mean (or median) age of each study and the proportion of men in the study as regressors.

The pooled RR estimates for myocarditis risk from each study were weighted by the inverse of their variances (inter-study plus intra-study variances). The DerSimonian and Laird's (DL) random-effects method was used to estimate the pooled inter-study variance (heterogeneity) (12). Heterogeneity between studies was evaluated with the I2 indicator expressed as percent low (25%), moderate (50%), and high (75%) (13).

Publication bias was quantitatively evaluated with Egger's linear regression and Begg's rank test (14, 15) and qualitatively with funnel plots. Trim and fill analyses using Duval and Tweedie's non-parametric method were used to adjust for the publication bias (16). Two-sided p < 0.05 was deemed statistically significant.

Right now yes, but we are in the second inning.

Much farther along than that. Even if you want to give this 10 years, it's not like everything shows up in year 10. You would get signals along the way. Each passing year lowers the probably of an unknown event occurring significantly.

 

[HALL85]

Not "A study" there are many studies on this topic. I just posted a couple and they absolutely adjusted for variables within their study groups.

For example:

Data synthesis and analysis​

Statistical analyses were performed with R software version 3.6.2 (R Project for Statistical Computing). The Meta and Metafor R packages were used to conduct formal meta-analyses and create forest plots. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize study-level demographics.

The primary outcome was the myocarditis risk due to the vaccines and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Effect sizes were log-transformed to normalize the distributions. Standard errors (SEs) were calculated via the following equations (11): Lower = log (lower 95% CI) and upper = log (upper 95% CI), and SE = (upper-lower)/3.92. To determine the effect of sex and age on the rates of myocarditis, we conducted a univariate meta-regression analysis with the mean (or median) age of each study and the proportion of men in the study as regressors.

The pooled RR estimates for myocarditis risk from each study were weighted by the inverse of their variances (inter-study plus intra-study variances). The DerSimonian and Laird's (DL) random-effects method was used to estimate the pooled inter-study variance (heterogeneity) (12). Heterogeneity between studies was evaluated with the I2 indicator expressed as percent low (25%), moderate (50%), and high (75%) (13).

Publication bias was quantitatively evaluated with Egger's linear regression and Begg's rank test (14, 15) and qualitatively with funnel plots. Trim and fill analyses using Duval and Tweedie's non-parametric method were used to adjust for the publication bias (16). Two-sided p < 0.05 was deemed statistically significant.



Much farther along than that. Even if you want to give this 10 years, it's not like everything shows up in year 10. You would get signals along the way. Each passing year lowers the probably of an unknown event occurring significantly.

Love to have a beer and have you interpret what you cut and pasted. Have worked in healthcare for over 40 years and my wife has run clinical studies for close to that. It’s early and you’re wrong about probability automatically being lower each year. Some adverse reactions take years to surface and identify upward trends.

By your standards can we now admit that the government totally f-d up the messaging on isolation, ignoring comorbidities, proactively getting at risk patients treated, etc.? Because the data thus far is pretty damning.

 

[Merge]

Love to have a beer and have you interpret what you cut and pasted.

It means the risk of error within the studies they reviewed due to not adjusting for different risks within their population is low.

It’s early and you’re wrong about probability automatically being lower each year. Some adverse reactions take years to surface and identify upward trends.

The probability an an adverse reaction occurring absolutely decreases over time.

How many vaccines have gone through trials. What percentage had an adverse reaction after 10 days, 40 days, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years etc. The likelihood of an unknown event showing up in year 4 when there has been no indication of it occurring within the first three years is almost zero given our history with vaccines.

I know you're response is that mRNA is new, so we can't possibly know but the vaccine is out of your body within days, and it's process to stimulate the immune system is over within weeks. The side effects that have occurred were triggered in that window. The maximum amount of time the spike protein was detected after vaccination was about 6 months.

Like I said, nothing is certain, and we should keep learning as we go... but the vaccine having the same (very low) risk profile today as it did 3 years ago is great news not only for everyone who got it, but for the future should another pandemic hit us.

 

[HALL85]

It means the risk of error within the studies they reviewed due to not adjusting for different risks within their population is low.



The probability an an adverse reaction occurring absolutely decreases over time.

How many vaccines have gone through trials. What percentage had an adverse reaction after 10 days, 40 days, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years etc. The likelihood of an unknown event showing up in year 4 when there has been no indication of it occurring within the first three years is almost zero given our history with vaccines.

I know you're response is that mRNA is new, so we can't possibly know but the vaccine is out of your body within days, and it's process to stimulate the immune system is over within weeks. The side effects that have occurred were triggered in that window. The maximum amount of time the spike protein was detected after vaccination was about 6 months.

Like I said, nothing is certain, and we should keep learning as we go... but the vaccine having the same (very low) risk profile today as it did 3 years ago is great news not only for everyone who got it, but for the future should another pandemic hit us.

Like you said, it’s not as much about the vaccine, but the delivery method (mRNA), which was never used in the delivery of vaccines. It is unknown as to how that will manifest over time and it’s not accurate to say any risk will subside over time. I’m not an infectious disease expert nor would I claim to be anything close, but I did speak with a few at the beginning of the pandemic.

Agree that the vaccine is safe and the mRNA technology is one that can enable large doses of vaccines to be manufactured quickly. Every drug has a risk profile and that’s where it should be a personal choice to decide if you feel the benefit outweighs the risk. Once you get 10 years out I personally feel that there is enough data over time, thus my second inning comment.

 

[hallsoccer03]

It means the risk of error within the studies they reviewed due to not adjusting for different risks within their population is low.



The probability an an adverse reaction occurring absolutely decreases over time.

How many vaccines have gone through trials. What percentage had an adverse reaction after 10 days, 40 days, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years etc. The likelihood of an unknown event showing up in year 4 when there has been no indication of it occurring within the first three years is almost zero given our history with vaccines.

I know you're response is that mRNA is new, so we can't possibly know but the vaccine is out of your body within days, and it's process to stimulate the immune system is over within weeks. The side effects that have occurred were triggered in that window. The maximum amount of time the spike protein was detected after vaccination was about 6 months.

Like I said, nothing is certain, and we should keep learning as we go... but the vaccine having the same (very low) risk profile today as it did 3 years ago is great news not only for everyone who got it, but for the future should another pandemic hit us.

I remember way back when the vaccines came out I said that the vaccines weren’t nearly effective as they are saying, you laughed me off and spouted some numbers by the cdc and Pfizer and Moderna saying it was 98 or 99% effective which I said was complete bullshit. You kept on saying look at the data… that data is complete garbage, turns out the vaccine does very little. I’m sick and tired of you and other people saying the vaccine was necessary…. No it wasn’t at all… there are many safe and effective proven treatments that work for Covid that are not being used for one reason or another.. you are hiding behind bullshit data…

And wait for what’s really happening. They are saying now there’s slight issues with reactions from the vaccines, that’s what they are just telling you… wait for what they start saying about breast cancer…. You can tell me I’m wrong but I’ve been right about this every time. Efficacy is garbage, there are really issues with the safety of this vaccine, no one In the pharma industry is getting the boosters for a reason….

Keep telling me we needed the vaccine, it’s safe it’s effective… that’s all BS and the FDA should have never approved it.

 

[shu09]

Those two or three years were the most disturbing of my lifetime. It revealed a ton about propaganda, groupthink, and how humans react to fear (whether real or imagined).

Never before had governments uniformly shut down the world. Nobody questioned it. Anyone who did was cast aside as a grandma killer.
Never before had vaccines been rushed, authorized, and in many cases mandated for the general adult population. Often with the threat of losing your job, or getting kicked out of college. It should always be your choice.
Never before were you forced to wear a mask in public. It should always be your choice.
They made people die alone in hospitals. They banned funerals. They made you register with the state if you dared to travel.

Remember when you had to show a vaccine card and wear a mask at Seton Hall games? What were we doing here? These people made you feel awkward for doing normal things.

It was so dystopian. Never forget those who did this. Many people have, but I haven't. They won't hesitate to do it again.

 

[Merge]

I remember way back when the vaccines came out I said that the vaccines weren’t nearly effective as they are saying, you laughed me off and spouted some numbers by the cdc and Pfizer and Moderna saying it was 98 or 99% effective which I said was complete bullshit. You kept on saying look at the data… that data is complete garbage, turns out the vaccine does very little.

You're having an argument today based on circumstances from three years ago though.
If the virus were killing as many people as it is today, no vaccine would have been needed.
The virus mutated and the circumstances are significantly different now and I said that may be the case back then. The ideal scenario was that it would mutate down and we'd treat it like the flu. That's what happened.

To state that the vaccine wasn't needed is just bonkers at this point. The vaccine prevented hundreds of thousands of deaths in the US alone.. Not to mention the additional waves that would have occurred with more hospitals fighting capacity issues.

I get that most people don’t think about what didn’t happen, but you really need to for an honest discussion here.

there are many safe and effective proven treatments that work for Covid that are not being used for one reason or another..

Nonsense. Treatments were used when they were proven to be effective.
The treatments which were not proven to be effective were not promoted for Covid... Not because of whatever conspiracy you're grasping for but because they were not effective.

And wait for what’s really happening. They are saying now there’s slight issues with reactions from the vaccines, that’s what they are just telling you… wait for what they start saying about breast cancer…. You can tell me I’m wrong but I’ve been right about this every time.

I'm willing to be change my views when the data suggests I should. So far, the available data does not suggest I should.

Keep telling me we needed the vaccine, it’s safe it’s effective… that’s all BS and the FDA should have never approved it.

Keep telling you? I didn't bring this nonsense up. I don't think about Covid or the vaccines at all outside of a new study that comes out or someone else bringing up a conspiracy on this board.

They should have approved it. The vaccine saved millions of lives all over the world.

 

[dehere23]

Those two or three years were the most disturbing of my lifetime. It revealed a ton about propaganda, groupthink, and how humans react to fear (whether real or imagined).

Never before had governments uniformly shut down the world. Nobody questioned it. Anyone who did was cast aside as a grandma killer.
Never before had vaccines been rushed, authorized, and in many cases mandated for the general adult population. Often with the threat of losing your job, or getting kicked out of college. It should always be your choice.
Never before were you forced to wear a mask in public. It should always be your choice.
They made people die alone in hospitals. They banned funerals. They made you register with the state if you dared to travel.

Remember when you had to show a vaccine card and wear a mask at Seton Hall games? What were we doing here? These people made you feel awkward for doing normal things.

It was so dystopian. Never forget those who did this. Many people have, but I haven't. They won't hesitate to do it again.

Amen.

 

[hallsoccer03]

You're having an argument today based on circumstances from three years ago though.
If the virus were killing as many people as it is today, no vaccine would have been needed.
The virus mutated and the circumstances are significantly different now and I said that may be the case back then. The ideal scenario was that it would mutate down and we'd treat it like the flu. That's what happened.

To state that the vaccine wasn't needed is just bonkers at this point. The vaccine prevented hundreds of thousands of deaths in the US alone.. Not to mention the additional waves that would have occurred with more hospitals fighting capacity issues.

I get that most people don’t think about what didn’t happen, but you really need to for an honest discussion here.



Nonsense. Treatments were used when they were proven to be effective.
The treatments which were not proven to be effective were not promoted for Covid... Not because of whatever conspiracy you're grasping for but because they were not effective.




I'm willing to be change my views when the data suggests I should. So far, the available data does not suggest I should.



Keep telling you? I didn't bring this nonsense up. I don't think about Covid or the vaccines at all outside of a new study that comes out or someone else bringing up a conspiracy on this board.

They should have approved it. The vaccine saved millions of lives all over the world.

You sir do not have a one damn clue what you are talking about… keep following the bullshit data that’s lying to you.

Yes there are many treatments proven to work, but the government always restricts them in favor of pushing the vaccines. You have zero clue what you are talking about on this.

The vaccine was pushed and rushed and by the FDA standards and should never have been authorized by them.

I bring up a 3 year old argument because you continue to spew garbage about Covid and the vaccine when you know nothing other than BS data you read that is out there that is false or misleading….

No the vaccine is not nearly as effective as they say it is.

No the vaccine is not 100% safe. You have to be careful not to blame every little thing on the vaccine, but it is not 100% safe like we were told.

The vaccine was pushed first before a treatment which was a mistake, treatments should have been the first thing pushed and the vaccine was… what was that?

You cannot prove how many lives the vaccine saved, if it saved any at all, that is a personal opinion. Other than the demographics that are the most at risk, the vaccine should have never been forced on the public like it was.

The virus was 100% started in the Wuhan lab, Fauci and the CDC 100% knew this virus was started in that lab and I am pretty sure they knew what the virus was exactly. You said that was foolish when I said that and that is 100% correct.

There’s an issue with breast cancer and the vaccine, you won’t read in any BS study, but there is a worry in the medical community on this.

I’m just sick and tired of you spewing garbage, and im frankly annoyed that you mocked me and I’ve been correct on everything I said. The data on the effectiveness of the vaccine was wrong and you hid behind that. Well the data was wrong because if you pay someone enough money and they manipulate a study to give you the numbers you want, no matter which side it is