On a recorded Twitter space just now, I claimed 20% (or more) of people have objectively measurable cardiac injury after getting the COVID vaccine. Jonathan was willing to bet $50K I am wrong.
I think blame-shifting to "long COVID" isn't going to last very long. It's a hail Mary pass into the stands. Between autopsy and biopsy, the forensics for spike presence at the site of injury, and the ready evidence of source (vaccine vs. virus) is both simple at the qualitative level and very easy to quantify. The latter point is important, as most of the jabbed have also been multiply reinfected with the virus now. Site damage will be easy to assign both ways.
If we are following the real science- that would put Steve as the hands-down winner. If we are following the B.S. - that would be Jonathon the ands-down winner.
You need to go in with more than 2 studies, and I'm sure you will, because what really matters is the totality of evidence. Even if you can't prove the claim surrounding 20%, you can prove that the totality of evidence suggests that there is absolutely a SAFETY SIGNAL threshold that has been reached. This being true demands that every highly vaccinated country immediately begin investigations via funding and research (third party research) into the heart damage that is occurring and has occurred. How to halt, treat, diagnose, etc.
You need to go into the Ed Dowd data on all cause mortality being up. Non-covid related deaths peaking in younger working people after mandates began. All cause mortality is still up.
There were signals early on, the AHA paper is just one, why wasn't this funded further? Investigated? Repeated on larger populations? Repeated with those who had received the injections and those who hadn't (hello control group!!) This American Heart Association paper STILL comes up with a warning if you try to share it on Twitter, claiming that the link to an AHA journal article is not safe: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712
1) Your vulnerability in the debate based on the Chiu, S.N., 2023 paper that you cited, iS that the authors of the study claim that the incidence of significant cardiac injury is low. and resolved spontaneously. While 17.1% had a cardiac symptom, only 1% had an abnormal ECG.s "In total, 763 students (17.1%) had at least one cardiac symptom after the second vaccine dose, mostly chest pain and palpitations. The depolarization and repolarization parameters (QRS duration and QT interval) decreased significantly after the vaccine with increasing heart rate. Abnormal ECGs were obtained in 51 (1.0%) of the students, of which 1 was diagnosed with mild myocarditis and another 4 were judged to have significant arrhythmia. - (from abstract). The authors also frequently minimize the significance of their finding as can be seen in this statement from the paper, "In the present study, we also found the cardiovascular related symptoms were significantly higher after the 2nd dose of BNT162b2 vaccine compared to that of the 1st dose. Therefore, the increasing heart rate and shortening of QRS duration and QT interval may relate to high sympathetic tone (what does this term mean? sounds bogus) after the 2nd dose of BNT162b2 vaccine. Through this finding, we suggest that the BNT162b2 vaccine is unlikely to cause repolarization heterogeneity and subsequently life-threatening arrhythmia in the healthy young population." So overall, they say significant injuries are only 0.1% after the second BNT162b2 jab. That's 1 in 1000 which to me is totally unacceptable. In addition, about 37.8% of the initial trial participants did no complete the study. Why? Adverse reactions after the 1st dose?
2) You did not mention the Swiss study which found evidence of cardiac injury in 100% of the vaccinated or Dr. Vinay Prasad's coverage of the study.
The judges will obfuscate. As soon as their identities are known the pressures on them will be immense to avoid what amounts to a guilty verdict for the most heinous and widespread crime against humanity perpetrated to date. On the other hand, morality and ethics--neither getting much love in the last few years.
Pray that Jonathan doesn't experience a cardiac episode preventing him from participating in this historic discussion. He deserves to be commended for being virtually the only credentialed Mrna proponent on the planet to engage in honest scientific debate the way science used to work when teal science was actually practiced.
I'd be OK with it if he had an episode. Shills for the clot shots are committing crimes against humanity--especially the young and economically vulnerable.
These wagers and debates haven't and probably won't move anything policy-wise, legally, or scientifically. The corruption is too deeply rooted and self-supporting. Neither the debate nor it's results will be reported by MSM or acknowledged by government. The bill boards outside CDC seem to have had an effect bc they're out in the public view and dissemination of information via this stack and other media serve the high moral and ethical goal of providing truth to those willing to consider it. That last, alone, is laudable.
Did I miss the results of this bet?
Steve, I may have missed it, but did you or your family develop any cardiac issues post vax?
So whatcha gonna do with the $50k? 😛
Pay 20% income tax on it.
You’ll win but they’ll throw “long COVID” in there.
“Well these people had COVID and never knew they had it and that’s the injuries.”
I think blame-shifting to "long COVID" isn't going to last very long. It's a hail Mary pass into the stands. Between autopsy and biopsy, the forensics for spike presence at the site of injury, and the ready evidence of source (vaccine vs. virus) is both simple at the qualitative level and very easy to quantify. The latter point is important, as most of the jabbed have also been multiply reinfected with the virus now. Site damage will be easy to assign both ways.
https://doctors4covidethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/causality-article.pdf
If we are following the real science- that would put Steve as the hands-down winner. If we are following the B.S. - that would be Jonathon the ands-down winner.
You need to go in with more than 2 studies, and I'm sure you will, because what really matters is the totality of evidence. Even if you can't prove the claim surrounding 20%, you can prove that the totality of evidence suggests that there is absolutely a SAFETY SIGNAL threshold that has been reached. This being true demands that every highly vaccinated country immediately begin investigations via funding and research (third party research) into the heart damage that is occurring and has occurred. How to halt, treat, diagnose, etc.
How about the German study? Dr. J Campbell dissects it easily here: https://youtu.be/j_DdSMn55cA
You need to go into the Ed Dowd data on all cause mortality being up. Non-covid related deaths peaking in younger working people after mandates began. All cause mortality is still up.
The leading cause of death in Canada in 2021 being "cause unknown". https://www.westernstandard.news/alberta/alberta-doctors-lawyer-raise-questions-over-rise-in-deaths-of-unknown-cause/article_2ed5d924-fede-11ec-a65b-4ff15aff54b6.html
There were signals early on, the AHA paper is just one, why wasn't this funded further? Investigated? Repeated on larger populations? Repeated with those who had received the injections and those who hadn't (hello control group!!) This American Heart Association paper STILL comes up with a warning if you try to share it on Twitter, claiming that the link to an AHA journal article is not safe: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712
WHY?
And my big fat thumb late at night hit the line I wasn’t aiming at and I couldn’t undo it. You get one more Steve.
Will both parties adhere to the scientific method? If not, how is it proof?
Yep, I agree. You won't collect on this bet! IMHO
He won't pay off tho
You are the best Steve.
1) Your vulnerability in the debate based on the Chiu, S.N., 2023 paper that you cited, iS that the authors of the study claim that the incidence of significant cardiac injury is low. and resolved spontaneously. While 17.1% had a cardiac symptom, only 1% had an abnormal ECG.s "In total, 763 students (17.1%) had at least one cardiac symptom after the second vaccine dose, mostly chest pain and palpitations. The depolarization and repolarization parameters (QRS duration and QT interval) decreased significantly after the vaccine with increasing heart rate. Abnormal ECGs were obtained in 51 (1.0%) of the students, of which 1 was diagnosed with mild myocarditis and another 4 were judged to have significant arrhythmia. - (from abstract). The authors also frequently minimize the significance of their finding as can be seen in this statement from the paper, "In the present study, we also found the cardiovascular related symptoms were significantly higher after the 2nd dose of BNT162b2 vaccine compared to that of the 1st dose. Therefore, the increasing heart rate and shortening of QRS duration and QT interval may relate to high sympathetic tone (what does this term mean? sounds bogus) after the 2nd dose of BNT162b2 vaccine. Through this finding, we suggest that the BNT162b2 vaccine is unlikely to cause repolarization heterogeneity and subsequently life-threatening arrhythmia in the healthy young population." So overall, they say significant injuries are only 0.1% after the second BNT162b2 jab. That's 1 in 1000 which to me is totally unacceptable. In addition, about 37.8% of the initial trial participants did no complete the study. Why? Adverse reactions after the 1st dose?
2) You did not mention the Swiss study which found evidence of cardiac injury in 100% of the vaccinated or Dr. Vinay Prasad's coverage of the study.
The judges will obfuscate. As soon as their identities are known the pressures on them will be immense to avoid what amounts to a guilty verdict for the most heinous and widespread crime against humanity perpetrated to date. On the other hand, morality and ethics--neither getting much love in the last few years.
Pray that Jonathan doesn't experience a cardiac episode preventing him from participating in this historic discussion. He deserves to be commended for being virtually the only credentialed Mrna proponent on the planet to engage in honest scientific debate the way science used to work when teal science was actually practiced.
I'd be OK with it if he had an episode. Shills for the clot shots are committing crimes against humanity--especially the young and economically vulnerable.
These wagers and debates haven't and probably won't move anything policy-wise, legally, or scientifically. The corruption is too deeply rooted and self-supporting. Neither the debate nor it's results will be reported by MSM or acknowledged by government. The bill boards outside CDC seem to have had an effect bc they're out in the public view and dissemination of information via this stack and other media serve the high moral and ethical goal of providing truth to those willing to consider it. That last, alone, is laudable.
CRICKETS!
20 percent seems a stretch. The swiss study was like 2.8%