No, he isn't.

I asked him that once before and he said he "likes learning." I mean that didn't really answer the question because of all the shiit in the world to learn about and lust over, he chooses covid.

One day he'll realize this. That day will most likely be too late.

It's a frequentist analysis at an alpha of 0.05 in an NHST paradigm..

The test statistic is the difference in rates.

The alternate hypothesis of a difference was rejected.

Paid by whom?

Just lol at made up stories to get angry over.

Brah pls respawn btw

If you aren't getting paid then explain your covid addiction.Oh hai wincel!

Sorry, I did not see that, just responded

Lold at throwing all of that into your post just because you realize you’re wrong. Perhaps this one will be easier for you to understand.


https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1...AHA.122.321881




Myocarditis associated with SARS-COVID-19 vaccines occurs primarily with mRNA platform vaccines, which are also the most effective. In persons aged >16 or >12 years the myocarditis estimated crude incidences after the first 2 doses of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 are approximately 1.9 and 3.5 per 100 000 individuals, respectively.These rates equate to excess incidences above control populations of approximately 1.2 (BNT162b2) and 1.9 (mRNA-1273) per 100 000 persons, whichare lower than the myocarditis rate for smallpox but




But at least now we know that your lie was due to poor understanding in your part and not due to an intentional effort to mislead. We are used to it by now, as your understanding appears lacking in most threads.

I understand why you don't like the results of the meta analysis that was a direct comparative analysis.

I don't understand why you tried to misrepresent the results tho

Seems you don’t understand a lot of things these days….

...

dang, jabbies are still coping

brutal

LOL you think there's paid posters on a chithole like the misc? The misc is dead.

Your post history pretty much speaks for itself.

"This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021275477) and conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement (appendix p 3).15 The study protocol is available online.

We searched four databases (MEDLINE via Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus) for relevant studies, published in English, using the keywords “vaccines”, “myocarditis”, and “pericarditis”, from Jan 1, 1947, to Dec 31, 2021 (appendix p 6). Grey literature was searched by reviewing the reference lists of included studies and review articles. Observational studies reporting on people in the general population who had myopericarditis in temporal relation to receiving vaccines were included in our review. We excluded randomised controlled trials, case reports, studies that reported on a specific subpopulation of patients, non-human studies, and studies in which the number of doses was not reported."


"Data were collected using a prespecified data extraction form (appendix p 7). Where data were not explicit, we calculated the incidence using the reported number of patients with myopericarditis, the number of vaccine doses and types administered, and the incidence rate, as appropriate. Intra-study risk of bias was rated using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for prevalence studies.16 Overall certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. The screening of studies, data collection, and risk of bias assessment were done independently in duplicate by RRL, FLT, and KR; disagreements were resolved by consensus."


"The primary outcome was the incidence of myopericarditis after any vaccination; secondary outcomes included the incidence of myocarditis, pericarditis, and mortality after any vaccination"

"We analysed the difference in incidence of myopericarditis among prespecified subpopulations including the type of vaccine (COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 vaccines, and mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccine) and age (paediatric [<18 years] and adult [≥18 years]) using the random-effects Q test. We further investigated the differences between individual non-COVID-19 vaccines (smallpox, influenza, and mixed [defined by the individual studies and including varicella; yellow fever; oral polio vaccine; measles, mumps, and rubella; meningococcal; and diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus]) with COVID-19 vaccines."

"Given the amount of attention myopericarditis in COVID-19 vaccination among younger people (particularly males) has received, we did an inverse-variance weighted meta-regression between the age and the incidence of myopericarditis among four studies that provided age-stratified data for vaccinees."

"The overall incidence of myopericarditis was 33·3 cases (95% CI 15·3–72·6) per million vaccine doses (high certainty, Egger's test p=0·12; figure 2 ; appendix p 21). Sensitivity analyses excluding studies with high risks of bias and databases found that the pooled incidence of myopericarditis for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 vaccines did not change significantly (appendix p 22)."

"The overall incidence of myopericarditis in the general population did not differ significantly after receipt of COVID-19 vaccines (18·2 cases [10·9–30·3] per million doses, high certainty) compared with non-COVID-19 vaccines (56·0 [10·7–293·7],moderate certainty, p=0·20; figure 2). Comparing COVID-19 vaccines with each type of non-COVID-19 vaccine found a significant difference between subpopulations (global p<0·0001). The incidence of myopericarditis was 132·1 (81·3–214·6) per million doses of smallpox vaccine (p<0·0001 vs COVID-19 vaccines), 1·3 (0·0–884·1) per million doses of influenza vaccine (p=0·43), and 57·0 (1·1–3036·6) per million doses for studies reporting on a variety of vaccines (p=0·58; appendix p 23). Between the adult subgroup (26·0 cases [11·8–57·4] per million doses; 298 508 729 doses, 14 studies) and paediatric subgroup (18·4 [4·7–72·9]; 12 145 663 doses, six studies), the incidence of myopericarditis did not differ significantly (p=0·67; appendix p 24)."

I understand why you don't like the results. But those are the results


The full text is available.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9000914/

That doesn't really provide any support for your accusation.

Just lol at making things up to get angry

He's an even bigger loser than we think then if he's wasting all this time defending the poison and not even getting paid for it. But then again, he is a liberal after all.

Just lol

Double lol at rustled neggers

he gets 7 bucks an hour for posting this pure trash here he would be better off working at mcdonalds.

Brain implants are good, if, and only if, Elon does it for profit

It actually does support my accusation...anyone can look through your post history to see for themselves.

No one is mad, but you do seem awfully bothered by someone pointing out the obvious.

Just as amazing as people like you still trying to convince yourself you didn't inject a ticking timebomb in yourself.

Imagine trying to play captain save a ho to a poster that's literally spent years trying to defend a rushed vax on a dying, gay Indian bodybuilding forum.

Got to be infuriating to people like you and JustLikesCocks that I'm unvaxxed and never once was in any situation that I had to get a rushed vax to keep my job. And I don't have to worry about any random heart attacks or blood clots.

Theoverall incidence of myopericarditisin the general population did not differ significantly after receipt ofCOVID-19 vaccines (18·2 cases [10·9–30·3] per million doses, high certainty) compared with non-COVID-19 vaccines (56·0 [10·7–293·7], moderate certainty, p=0·20; figure 2). Comparing COVID-19 vaccines with each type of non-COVID-19 vaccine found a significant difference between subpopulations (global p<0·0001).The incidence of myopericarditis was132·1 (81·3–214·6) per million doses of smallpox vaccine (p<0·0001 vs COVID-19 vaccines), 1·3 (0·0–884·1) per million doses of influenza vaccine(p=0·43), and 57·0 (1·1–3036·6) per million doses for studies reporting on a variety of vaccines (p=0·58; appendix p 23). Between the adult subgroup (26·0 cases [11·8–57·4] per million doses; 298 508 729 doses, 14 studies) and paediatric subgroup (18·4 [4·7–72·9]; 12 145 663 doses, six studies)







Let me guess, this is the part where you just say I don’t like the results.

fat ass is trying to convince himself more than anyone else here that's the point lol.

keep your head in the sand, meanwhile, many vaxxed countries are experiencing tons of excess deaths , and they aren’t covid deaths



For middle-aged adults (50–64) Deaths involving cardiovascular diseases were 33% higher than expected;

deaths involving ischaemic heart diseases were 44% higher

cerebrovascular diseases 40% higher

heart failure 39% higher

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...221-1/fulltext

June 2022 - June 2023

FDA approves new and updated indications for temozolomide under Project Renewal

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-...roject-renewal


Looks like all that talk of the jab linked to cancer is coming to fruition..

You're making up stories.

The attention of your imagination is flattering, but still very lulzy

I see JLC avoided this post but responded to every other one. Wonder why?

What stories..?
By pointing out your post history?

Just lol.

Kinda yeah

"did not differ significantly after receipt of COVID-19 vaccines (18·2 cases [10·9–30·3] per million doses, high certainty) compared with non-COVID-19 vaccines (56·0 [10·7–293·7]"

You have to compute the contrast to estimate the CI's around the difference (the research question) to draw valid inference.

I dunno why you ignore the CI's.

It might be different in analysis of data and risk with unsupervised approaches. But in this this case, it's necessary to examine the contrast.

Not including it in your bolding doesn't make it go away