I think this bit, coming from the site you probably plucked that link from, is a fair representation of what people thought of the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis:

Een zeer zeldzame bijwerking op het vaccin is een ontsteking van de hartspier (myocarditis) of ontsteking van het hartzakje (pericarditis). Deze bijwerking komt bij minder dan 1 op de 10.000 mensen voor en is daarom zeer zeldzaam. Klachten zijn kortademigheid, pijn op de borst en hartkloppingen die soms onregelmatig zijn. De klachten gaan meestal vanzelf over of zijn met medicijnen goed te behandelen. Ervaar je deze klachten? Neem dan contact op met jouw (behandelend) arts of zorgverlener. — CBG

Does the discrepancy between 1:10,000 and 1:35 not seem alarming to you?

I think it's downright disingenuous to suggest that this risk was always known (or publicly known), and freely spread in the public. Politicians and medical professionals that asked questions about the risks were met with oneliners along the lines of 'safe and effective'.

The fact that these risks weren't fully acknowledged is reinforced by the fact that reports of myocarditis caused medical research centers to initiate research into this phenomenon - so clearly this wasn't common knowledge in the way you're suggesting it was.

You seem to be extremely agitated at the idea that a medical professoinal asks critical questions when such a discrepancy is brought to light. Why is that?

Myocarditis and myocardial injury aren't the same.

Myocarditis is an inflammatory disease of the myocardium diagnosed by established histological, immunological, immunohistochemical, and molecular criteria; endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is necessary to achieve a diagnosis of certainty and identify its cause.

Myocardial injury is defined by only one criterion: the elevation of cardiac troponin, with at least one value above the 99th percentile upper reference limit.

Only one of these is actually dangerous, the latter is a measure of myocardial damage but obviously if it's transient, there's no actual damage.

You seem to be extremely agitated at the idea that a medical professoinal asks critical questions when such a discrepancy is brought to light. Why is that? — Tzeentch

Because he's not a professional, just a former nurse whose bullshit I can even unravel as a total layman with the ability to read. He's a sack of shit.

Only one of these is actually dangerous, the latter is a measure of myocardial damage but obviously if it's transient, there's no actual damage. — Benkei

Whether something is dangerous or damaging has never been the sole criterium for why things ought to be listed on the label as potential adverse effects.

Your suggestion seems to be that myocardial injury is nothing to be worried about. It's so insignificant in fact that even running a great risk of it is not something that people ought to be informed of.

I don't find that very compelling. Furthermore, I suspect this was intentionally kept from the public, because 'bad for business'.

The people who carried out the research apparently thought it was worth specifically investigating.

The concept of relative risk is poorly appreciated by the lay public. As if there is a risk-free option.

I don't find that very compelling. — Tzeentch

No, you rather not figure things out for yourself and prefer to listen to some dipshit on youtube because it fits your preconceived notion of bad government.

By the way, you realise that heavy exercise will show the same levels of myocardial injury? Because that's what you're arguing about at the moment. John Campbell is an idiot or a lying sack of shit. The sooner you realise this, the better.

The question really is now why you're married to his false statements that you've been arguing in favour of it this entire day.

A lot of angry raving, but your suggestion that adverse effects don't have to be included on medical labels simply because they may not be dangerous or damaging remains phoney, and you know it.

Myocarditis is included. Transient myocardial injury is automatically included under myocarditis. Transient myocardial injury isn't an adverse effect. Otherwise the consequences of exercising would be too. Myocardial injury can be an adverse effect If it isn't transient.

Myocarditis is included. — Benkei

Yes, it is listed as being very rare, whereas myocardial injury is apparently very common. To list one and omit to other I find misleading. Period.

Transient myocardial injury isn't an adverse effect. Otherwise the consequences of exercising would be too. — Benkei

You equated it to heavy exercise. Heavy exercise can definitely be a health risk to certain people.

But ultimately it is not up to the pharmaceutical company or relevant institutions to determine for the patients what risks they deem acceptable. It's up to the patient. And the patient can only make an informed decision if they are aware of the adverse effects a certain medication has.

This has always included things which are mostly harmless. Headaches, nausea, dizziness, etc.

Again, it's not up to the makers of the product to decide whether those things are important enough to list.

Yes, it is listed as being very rare, whereas myocardial injury is apparently very common. To list one and omit to other I find misleading. Period. — Tzeentch

No it isn't. Campbell is the one misleading here and you're too stupid to realise it even after I spoonfeed you why. Headaches, nausea etc. aren't harmless as they could indicate much worse conditions and are actually effects people notice. The worse condition that myocardial injury could indicate is myocarditis or pecocarditis, which are included. Transient myocardial injury in itself (eg. an elevated level of substance) is harmless and therefore not an adverse effect.

come to think of it. You can also get a shot of stress of hold your breath really long and you'll get the same level of troponin too. Ooihhh, adverse effects! Fuck of man and get real.

Transient myocardial injury in itself (eg. an elevated level of substance) is harmless and therefore not an adverse effect. — Benkei

Nonsense. You yourself equated the damage to heavy exercise. There are plenty of people from whom heavy exercise would be potentially dangerous, so you're just contradicting yourself at this point.

Fuck of man and get real. — Benkei

You're welcome to leave the conversation whenever you like, angry little man. :lol:

Nonsense. You yourself equated the damage to heavy exercise. There are plenty of people from whom heavy exercise would be potentially dangerous, so you're just contradicting yourself at this point. — Tzeentch

You're equating it. I said heavy exercise causes myocardial injury. These are different things but as usual you're being an idiot.

No, you rather not figure things out for yourself and prefer to listen to some dipshit on youtube because it fits your preconceived notion of bad government. — Benkei

Bingo. :up:

Everything ultimately comes back to this stupid, simplistic, perception-warping belief.

Everything ultimately comes back to this stupid, simplistic, perception-warping belief. — Mikie

There's nothing so simplistic as believing reality begets only one interpretation.

your preconceived notion of bad government. — Benkei

And then there are preconceptions of good government. Is it possible to remain impartial and open minded, and observe which descrpition fits best? Or, regardless of our best efforts, do preconceptions always warp into biased conclusions? I wonder?

There's nothing so simplistic as believing reality begets only one interpretation. — Tzeentch

I can see why you'd think that, with the exceptions being...everything I've ever written.

I'm quite aware it's an interpretation. Not every interpretation is a serious one. Some are just stupid and simplistic.

There are some interesting takes about the virus and the vaccines. Some have changed my mind. When people point to ignoramuses and frauds -- like RFK JR -- regarding this issue, I think it's safe to conclude they're not serious.

, well, in democracy, government is part of voters (or in voters' employ if you like). For that matter, voters could run for government, make a good enough case to "do the right thing" to get enough votes, or otherwise vote for someone who has done so.

FYI, Haugaard was in the Danish government 1994-1998:

Among his pointedly absurd campaign promises were: 8 hours of free time, 8 hours of rest and 8 hours of sleep; more tailwind on bicycle paths; promises of better weather; right to impotency; Nutella in field rations (which was actually implemented); and shorter queues in supermarkets — Jacob Haugaard (Wikipedia)

(Incidentally, brought up Sortition, which seems a neat idea, sort of.)

There's nothing so simplistic as believing reality begets only one interpretation.

Not only that but there is nothing worse than official truth. The institutions that most wish to police misinformation have historically produced misinformation on an industrial scale.

For those who seek to shape public opinion, the veracity of the information appears to be of a secondary or even tertiary concern. The censorship of the Covid lab-leak hypothesis, for example—a valid theory—reveals that the charge is often used simply against information that they do not like. The shape of public opinion is paramount to whether the information is actually true or false. It’s the only reason one would get upset about dissenting opinions, really.

Incidentally, ↪Mikie brought up Sortition, which seems a neat idea, sort of. — jorndoe

well, in democracy, government is part of voters (or in voters' employ if you like). — jorndoe

My preconception is that government always stands against the people, even a democratic one. And although a government might arise from time to time that genuinely serves the people, this is the rare exception. All government in all cases inevitably defaults to tyranny (attributable to human nature in relation to power, in addition to advents in thought and technology).
The big questions are: how do those benevolent governments arise, and how are they preserved?

I think the constitutional republic has demonstrated great potential that warrants further exploration before we abandon it for sortism. I am very cautious about direct democracy, which sortismm appeals to on face value. How many weak souls would bow to public pressure before standing on personal principle? Not many? Maybe?

official truth — NOS4A2

You mean to say: "official narrative": the bastion of conspiracy theorists.

—a valid theory—reveals that the charge is often used simply against information that they do not like. — NOS4A2

You fucking idiot, with your skeptical conspiracies. You can go to hell for not going along!

When governments can no longer be seen as honest brokers of information it puts a bomb underneath the narratives concerning a wide variety of social and political issues. That's why people are getting so cramped about it.

People get “cramped” about having to hear nonsense being repeated over and over again.

You and your two buddies are just ignorant and irritating. But by all means make up an elaborate story about it — because it can’t be as simple as that.

Yet here you are. :chin:

When governments can no longer be seen as honest brokers of information it puts a bomb underneath the narratives concerning a wide variety of social and political issues. That's why people are getting so cramped about it. — Tzeentch

Exactly. My entire political orientation has been completely revolutionized in the past 3 years because of exactly this. It is interesting to see how the left and right are constantly worked into irreconcilable conflict over these "official narratives", while the "brokers" sit back and consolidate more power and wealth into their own hands.

Exactly. My entire political orientation has been completely revolutionized in the past 3 years because of exactly this. It is interesting to see how the left and right are constantly worked into irreconcilable conflict over these "official narratives", while the "brokers" sit back and consolidate more power and wealth into their own hands. — Merkwurdichliebe

A large number of people actually did die from COVID-19. Is that the part you didn't believe? Or what?

A large number of people actually did die from COVID-19. Is that the part you didn't believe? Or what? — frank

That is believable. Imagine how many more would have died if it weren't for the masking, vaxing and distancing. :chin:

The thing that I don't buy is the policy that was enforced worldwide was the best option we had. I'm also suspicious of how hard it was pushed into a frenzy amongst the multitudes, the unreasonable suspension of constitutional rights, and the hyper-censorship involved in propagating the official covid narrative, not to mention those who benefited greatly (politically and economically) from that very covid policy. It reminded me a lot of the anti muslim extremist fervor that predominated US following 9-11, which allowed it to be dragged into a prolonged war based on a lie. Or did that not occur?

I also believe there's ginormous room for improvement in the way things were handled. My list reflects my time working in the hospital.

You remember public frenzy, I remember the dying old man who doesn't believe it when people tell him he has covid. I think his words were: "You just hear so many different things", or something like that. He's dead.

You remember public frenzy, I remember the dying old man who doesn't believe it when people tell he has covid. I think his words were: "You just hear so many different things", or something like that. He's dead. — frank

I suppose the covid policy that we were all forced to comply with did him no good.