Fauci Lied, People Died

[MTTiger19]

These are great pics of Rob Sand!

Oh how soon those little goldfish brains forget the terror they subjugated normal people to. I for one always told them to “**** off” when they asked me where my mask was at the grocery store. Followed up by some sneezes and coughs.

 

[JohnHughsPartner]

Check out Dickpic loving the post of someone offering up a bet….when that pu$$y just backed out of one!!

I was just about to post this. That wiener is something else

 

[JohnHughsPartner]

You need to go, you've worn out your welcome here. Seriously.

Dpink is by far the biggest phag on the board

 

[MTTiger19]

Lolz, Im not reading that. I got to "the general populace being misheard" and laughed.


How were they misheard?

The midterms will go back to split government because that is what happens everytime one party holds all three.

Damn it now I read it...there is no way in hell you think dems need a larger tent.


"Humanitarian disaster" dude are you ******* menstruating?

Were normal healthy Americans “misheard” when they said they didn’t want an experimental vaccine with zero safety profile or even proof it works? Asking for a friend.

 

[MTTiger19]

Dpink is by far the biggest phag on the board

Him and his little butt buddy tigres88.

 

[MTTiger19]

night night

Were normal healthy Americans “misheard” when they said they didn’t want an experimental vaccine with zero safety profile or even proof it works? Asking for a friend.

 

[JohnHughsPartner]

Were normal healthy Americans “misheard” when they said they didn’t want an experimental vaccine with zero safety profile or even proof it works? Asking for a friend.

Lettuce never forget

 

[MTTiger19]

Lettuce never forget

Rules for thee, not for me. Classic liberal. Like the trust fund baby in his $1.5 million home his mommy bought telling everyone we need more free stuff. Insufferable.

 

[Scrubby]

Does a better summation of leftist discourse exist?

 

[dpic73]

I prefer the source info myself:

COVID-19 Vaccination and Cardiovascular Events: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Multivariate Meta-Analysis of Preventive Benefits and Risks - PMC

To provide a detailed understanding and apply a comprehensive strategy, this study examines the association between COVID-19 vaccination and cardiovascular events. We conducted a Bayesian multivariate meta-analysis using summary data across multiple ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Was this supposed to support the Nicolas Hulscher tweet, because if it was, it failed. I'm guessing based on the anti-vaxxers who liked the post, they also thought it supported that fake whack-a doodle's findings. lol

It was too long so I asked Claude to summarize it.

---

Here's a summary of the paper (Karimi et al., International Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2025 — "COVID-19 Vaccination and Cardiovascular Events: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Multivariate Meta-Analysis of Preventive Benefits and Risks"):

What it did
The researchers systematically reviewed fifteen studies on COVID-19 vaccination and cardiovascular events, with eleven of them comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups, and six studies used to specifically compare the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna). Rather than analyzing each cardiovascular outcome separately, they used a Bayesian multivariate meta-analysis — jointly modeling myocardial infarction, stroke, arrhythmia, and coronary artery disease (CAD) together to account for correlations between these outcomes, with Markov chain Monte Carlo methods and sensitivity testing across different statistical priors. OvidOvid

Key findings

• The analysis found a link between vaccination and increased CAD risk (odds ratio 1.70, 95% credible interval 1.11–2.57), which was particularly associated with the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine (odds ratio 1.64). ScienceOpen
• This elevated CAD signal was specifically tied to the second dose. Wordpress
• Importantly, the odds of myocardial infarction, stroke, and arrhythmia did not show a significant increase overall. Wordpress
• The study also found protective effects against stroke and myocardial infarction after the third (booster) dose. Scribd

Conclusion
The paper's overall takeaway is fairly balanced rather than alarmist: vaccination was not associated with increased risk across most cardiovascular outcomes, and boosters even appeared protective for some of them — CAD after the second dose was the one signal that stood out. The authors frame this as reason for continued vigilance and further study of cardiovascular safety in future vaccine development, rather than a reason to abandon vaccination — they emphasize the need for further examination of vaccine-related cardiovascular risks in future vaccine development efforts. Scribd

One note: this specific finding (the CAD/second-dose signal) has been circulating in anti-vaccine spaces as if it were the study's main conclusion, when the paper's broader message is more mixed — no significant risk increase for most outcomes, and some protective effects from boosters.

https://claude.ai/chat/b4457642-51ca-46c6-aaad-eccc50de9b68

 

[Scrubby]

Was this supposed to support the Nicolas Hulscher tweet, because if it was, it failed. I'm guessing based on the anti-vaxxers who liked the post, they also thought it supported that fake whack-a doodle's findings. lol

It was too long so I asked Claude to summarize it.

---

Here's a summary of the paper (Karimi et al., International Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2025 — "COVID-19 Vaccination and Cardiovascular Events: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Multivariate Meta-Analysis of Preventive Benefits and Risks"):

What it did
The researchers systematically reviewed fifteen studies on COVID-19 vaccination and cardiovascular events, with eleven of them comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups, and six studies used to specifically compare the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna). Rather than analyzing each cardiovascular outcome separately, they used a Bayesian multivariate meta-analysis — jointly modeling myocardial infarction, stroke, arrhythmia, and coronary artery disease (CAD) together to account for correlations between these outcomes, with Markov chain Monte Carlo methods and sensitivity testing across different statistical priors. OvidOvid

Key findings

• The analysis found a link between vaccination and increased CAD risk (odds ratio 1.70, 95% credible interval 1.11–2.57), which was particularly associated with the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine (odds ratio 1.64). ScienceOpen
• This elevated CAD signal was specifically tied to the second dose. Wordpress
• Importantly, the odds of myocardial infarction, stroke, and arrhythmia did not show a significant increase overall. Wordpress
• The study also found protective effects against stroke and myocardial infarction after the third (booster) dose. Scribd

Conclusion
The paper's overall takeaway is fairly balanced rather than alarmist: vaccination was not associated with increased risk across most cardiovascular outcomes, and boosters even appeared protective for some of them — CAD after the second dose was the one signal that stood out. The authors frame this as reason for continued vigilance and further study of cardiovascular safety in future vaccine development, rather than a reason to abandon vaccination — they emphasize the need for further examination of vaccine-related cardiovascular risks in future vaccine development efforts. Scribd

One note: this specific finding (the CAD/second-dose signal) has been circulating in anti-vaccine spaces as if it were the study's main conclusion, when the paper's broader message is more mixed — no significant risk increase for most outcomes, and some protective effects from boosters.

https://claude.ai/chat/b4457642-51ca-46c6-aaad-eccc50de9b68

You are an anti vaxxer!!! You are not up to date on monkey pox despite being in a high risk exposure group!!