13 Dec 2021 15:43:20
Do we know which players and staff tested positive for C.V.?
Were they vaccinated I wonder?
This is going to play havoc with teams and fixtures all winter I think.

1.) 13 Dec 2021
13 Dec 2021 16:25:34
It certainly has'nt helped that so many of the genius footballers have decided they don't need a vax, i see Kimmich of Bayern is out until next year due to a lung problem brought on by C.V., now he's saying he's sorry he did'nt get vaccinated .

Millions of people in the poorest countries in the world who can't even get a vax and these multi millionaire clowns are turning them down.

2.) 13 Dec 2021
13 Dec 2021 17:22:01
Natural selection at work.

3.) 13 Dec 2021
13 Dec 2021 17:35:44
Initially it wasn't any of the players who played in the Norwich game. So it's likely the players who played against Young Boys. However, I don't know if anyone else has since had a positive test result.

4.) 13 Dec 2021
13 Dec 2021 17:46:00
What about the 100+ fifa registered players who have died this year from cardiac arrest? I think every year before this it has been in single digits.
Coincidence? I think not.

5.) 13 Dec 2021
13 Dec 2021 17:59:46
Natural? Economic? What do you mean Manc?

6.) 13 Dec 2021
13 Dec 2021 18:08:05
Vir4gil4, I think it's very dangerous to take two separate events and try and find causality.

Maybe there is a link, or maybe the increase is caused by "Long-C.V.", for which millions of pounds of research grant money is being made available to study its impacts. Or possibly it could be linked to the so called "caffeine" doping which is proven to put pressure on the heart if done for too long.

Or maybe it has another cause. I think to suggest it is linked to a vax with absolutely no evidence just a "hunch" is a frankly dangerous and stupid thing to do.

7.) 13 Dec 2021
13 Dec 2021 18:26:43
There is zero link at present between deaths due to heart attacks and vaxs. So, until there is a clear scientific link, it'll be wise not to scare monger anyone into not having a jab.
Considering how many billions have had the vax all over the world, we are not hearing a lot of people dying from its effects, but what we do know, is millions have died of C.V.

8.) 13 Dec 2021
13 Dec 2021 18:29:44
Or maybe there is a new performance enhancing drug that doesn't show up on the current tests that as a side effect puts your heart under excess strain.

There could literally be many many different things that could cause this apparent spike in cases of cardiac arrest.

Maybe there isn't even a spike, just more awareness as there has been a couple more high profile cases. I don't know as I haven't looked at the data.

Yet to draw a conclusion with literally no evidence is dangerous.

9.) 13 Dec 2021
13 Dec 2021 18:49:33
I’m vaccinated, but at the end of the day the players are human beings, it’s up to them whether they take it or not. By all accounts it wouldn’t have stopped positive tests.

10.) 13 Dec 2021
13 Dec 2021 19:03:41
I'm only replying to this because I don't think its right to vilify healthy young sports people who refuse to take a vax that in all honesty has been rushed no matter how many times the experts will tell us its safe
The chances of a sports person dying from C.V. is slim to none so they have every right not to take a vax that only offers some protection against death and severe sickness.

11.) 13 Dec 2021
13 Dec 2021 18:39:13
Good post shappy.

12.) 13 Dec 2021
13 Dec 2021 19:46:27
Japan openly state there are cardiovascular issues that can occur as a result of taking the vax. There’s one example. Either way, people have a CHOICE. To call people clowns and mock them for their own choice is wrong. They are young, fit and healthy.

13.) 13 Dec 2021
13 Dec 2021 20:15:43
Original poster, it doesn't matter whether they were vaxed or not, or even boosted, u can still catch it or spread it. Its peoples personal choice if they choose to be or not, the vax is to protect you and not stop from spreading it.

14.) 13 Dec 2021
13 Dec 2021 20:28:16
Yes Vir4gil4, everybody should be free to more easily spread the C.V. and unnecessarily take up medical resources. Even footballers.

15.) 13 Dec 2021
13 Dec 2021 20:31:03
Myocarditis, inflammation of the heart is a side effect of the C.V. vax in low circumstances. That's about as official as it gets although I don't think any of the "experts" / "scientists" or the pharmaceutical companies are that bothered about the exact numbers.

16.) 13 Dec 2021
13 Dec 2021 22:04:10
I'm asking a simple question, were they vaccinated. I didn't judge anybody nor did I suggest they are not free to choose.

17.) 13 Dec 2021
13 Dec 2021 22:46:25
Ken, I don't think anyone knows if they were vaccinated. The data probably isn't collected as it's probably not important to the media, "scientists" and certainly not the pharmaceutical companies. And if anything happens to you within a 14 day period of having the vax including death, then that is not as a result of the vax as the person is considered unvaccinated.

18.) 13 Dec 2021
13 Dec 2021 22:57:42
There is plenty of evidence that people are experiencing myocarditis from the vaxs it is easy to find if you do a tiny bit of research.
As another poster said japan has now said that myocarditis has to be listed as a possible side effect.
I do not blame any professional athlete who doesn't take this vax and risk losing their career that they have worked their whole life for.

19.) 14 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 00:51:06
Vir4gil4,

Tiny bit of research shows that vax’s are stopping people from dying from the deadly disease and C.V. spreading across the world, the odd side effect of a vax is worth the pro’s of the vax. I’ll believe the top scientists over some random on a forum who’s never posted before thanks.

20.) 14 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 01:04:22
The New England Journal of Medicine conducted two studies on 5m and 2.5m and found mild effects in men, roughly speaking 4 in 100,000 develop mild symptoms of myocarditis. For women, it is 1 in 100,000. Of the 7.5m in the study, one person sadly died. So, the signs are good at present, but obviously, studies will continue to be carried out.

21.) 14 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 02:00:45
In the US studies have been done showing specifically young men under 30 at much much higher risk of myocarditis from vax than any other group. It’s not a nothing. And it’s in an extremely low risk group.

It’s from people who recommend vaxs, and they also say that if you have any comorbidities the risk of C.V. outweighs the risk of the vax even for young men. But if you’re under 30, male, and in healthy shape with no underlying sickness the benchmark for myocarditis is significantly higher than the risk of C.V. hospitalization.

Myocarditis can be mild and isn’t usually a big deal, but it’s silly to stick your head in the sand and say that a player couldn’t have an acute bout of myocarditis while stressing the heart in one of the most taxing sports on earth on heart and lungs and then have a heart attack. For your average person who never does much strenuous exercise they’d likely never notice. Myocarditis can be way more dangerous for people who do extremely strenuous exercise. At the very least given there are basically 0 C.V. deaths among fifa athletes and a lot of heart issues going on, shouldn’t the players get to choose?

22.) 14 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 02:04:11
Not trying to be a conspiracy theorist either. Norway’s government even acknowledged it and suggest men under 30 use a different vax as they found a much higher incidence with Moderna.

23.) 14 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 06:44:19
@shappy
My mate didn't want a vax but in the end got one because he wanted to go abroad somewhere an thought it an easier option.
Now it's private doctor have said .
Yes said.
That the vax used has cause him to have a missing heartbeat.
He is rightly furious. Fit lad ex rugby.
So evidence is there. But as always its selected information that the media use.
They have many doctors and journalists who are soley on TV as a government spokesman. or puppet .

24.) 14 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 09:20:13
All the above is without the mention of blood clots too. Which have occurred. These are facts. C.V. has a 99.9 percent recovery rate. Same as flu. It's easy to just select things from the media to suit an argument. If the vax works then why is a booster needed which doesn't give you 100% coverage to something that has a 99.9% survival rate. Why do you have to isolate if you've been vaccinated and test positive?

25.) 14 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 09:58:42
Supasub,

What are you doing if not selecting things from media / social media to suit your argument?

26.) 14 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 10:04:49
Less hospitalisations and deaths. I wonder why?

27.) 14 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 10:39:24
Bilko, I don't understand your point. The rest of the info that is available is out there. I've not got enough time to collate everything quoted by the media and scientists, who etc in 1 post. What I've stated are facts/ info which is mainstream. What's the problem? Let me know what part of my post is incorrect.

28.) 14 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 11:01:03
I'd never tell someone what they should or shouldn't put into their bodies. That has to be their choice.

My argument is with making dangerous connections between one thing and another with nothing but circumstantial evidence and guesses and hunches from people with absolutely no medical training.

I think trying to link the vax to footballers having cardiac arrest is dangerous as it creates doubt in the mind of the general public without ANY real evidence.

Footballers rightly or wrongly are role models. If someone makes the decision to not have the vax because of a fear that it's causing heart attacks in footballers, then they go on to catch the sickness and then die from it, then those who have perpetuated that narrative are partially responsible for that persons death due to impacting their decision making.

That's why it's dangerous.

I was on a jury over 10 years ago on a case of sexual abuse of a minor. The guy was guilty, but we had two young women on the jury who were indecisive. One juror took it upon himself to come up with wild and often outlandish possible excuses to argue that the guy was potentially innocent. The head juror kept telling him that he had to stop and could only discuss what we heard and saw in the court as that is what we had to do. Yet this man's comments effected the confidence of the two young women to a point where they didn't feel they could find him guilty. As such we were a hung jury and that man walked free for another 6 months while awaiting a retrial. Which no doubt caused a lot of distress to an abused 13 year old girl, while also cost the tax payer thousands in additional legal fees to retry him. He was found guilty on all charges in the retrial.

Making wild speculations with little to no evidence from a position of no authority on the matter is dangerous especially in terms of health.

It's consequences can cost lives.

29.) 14 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 11:14:34
Magicsy. Not sure why y your friend is furious. It was his choice to get the vax.
He felt it was worth the rush as his holiday was that important to him.
He had the choice not to travel. He decided to get the vax so he accepted the risk.

30.) 14 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 11:14:40
Supasub,

Answer me this, why do you think that scientists, WHO AND Governments etc have looked at C.V. and decided we need vaxs / boosters etc. ?

31.) 14 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 11:47:08
Bilko, the whole C.V.-Vax conspiracy theories make me laugh. They fall down at the very first cross examination.

All conspiracy theories rely on one simple thing, that someone somewhere is gaining something from it, be that money or power.

Yet no one can adequately say who is gaining anything from the vaxs, the lockdowns and all the other measures.

Most people are out of pocket, either through loss of earnings or due to large expenditure to comply with new regulations.

Governments have seen their support plummet, and their competency questioned.

Unprecedented open sourcing off C.V. data and legislation around it means that no one pharmaceutical company can hold a monopoly over the vax.

I mean if there is a conspiracy over C.V. then by who and for what purpose?

The reality is anyone with any real credibility backs the current medical measures. They all say there is of course a risk as with anything. There is a risk you eat a manufactured food item that happens to be contaminated with nuts and you die from an allergic reaction. Doesn't mean you shouldn't eat. We of course don't know the long term effects, but it is based on things that we know the long term effects of. We don't know how it might interact with certain medications or other conditions a person may have.

So of course there are risks, but the reality is we should be weighing up our choices and decisions based on actual evidence not hearsay or speculation.

While linking two coincidental things together and suggesting causality is frankly dangerous and moronic.

32.) 14 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 12:12:29
No one is gaining anything from this? Wow Shappy ??????.

33.) 14 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 12:42:28
Record profits for pharmaceutical companies who are completely exempt from any side effects, that's who gains. Why can't they back it up with compensation if they are getting forced on you by governments through new legislation? WHO is also part funded by big pharmaceutical companies. One of the main policy makers in the EU for vaxs is married to one of the chief execs at one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies and you ask who is to gain? . Do your research apart from BBC and sky news as there is a whole wealth of facts and information out there. To promote the vax without it being fully studied long term which if it worked, wouldn't need a booster with another booster to come, and so on and not be fully protected is dangerous. Is it even licensed yet? I know the answer.

34.) 14 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 12:58:05
Hearsay, speculation, wild accusations. There is nothing in any of my posts which is incorrect. I have no authority and anyone else should have the choice to take the vax without restrictions in place. How many people died from C.V. in this country yesterday? Someone please give the correct answer. Not the news figures which is for people who died yesterday who have tested positive within 28 days as that includes death from anything.

35.) 14 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 12:58:53
Amz, rather than laugh try and enlighten me. Who is gaining? What evidence have you got for them gaining anything? Followed by what evidence you might have for them being able to influence things to where we are now.

36.) 14 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 13:32:38
Who's laughing shappy? I'm not. You've not backed up your arguments with anything. There are newspaper articles in this country relating to governments including ours receiving huge sums of money from pharmaceutical companies. Governments who can sway opinion. This news isn't on some sort of deep web conspiracy page it's out there. If the government and people who worked there were so worried then why the Christmas parties without restrictions? At least 7 apparently and as many as 60 odd people? Whilst the rest of us were on tight lockdown unable to attend funerals for some (who also didn't die of C.V.) whilst they are doing that. Don't find it funny at all. You are naive to think that governments don't get funding and influence from elsewhere and ministers don't hold directorships with companies so that companies can lobby policy. It's how the world works unfortunately.

37.) 14 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 14:26:46
Did the pharmaceutical companies not make record profits in the years before C.V.?

They've pretty much made record profits year on year. They develop new drugs all the time, they cut down costs and increase profit margins. That is capitalism at work, most sustainable industries are the same unless hit by a large influencing factor.

But to suggest they are orchestrating the whole scenario means you have to believe that all these competing companies are working together and have influence over every country, all universities, all laboratories, all health organisations in order to pull a global C.V. and the response to it off.

There is a huge difference between being a independent thinker and searching for "evidence" to support an already held theory.

Ultimately if you are predisposed to go looking for something to prove your theory you will often find something as there is a tendency to frame things in a certain way to make the evidence fit the narrative. To over inflate the importance of certain things while disregarding others.

I can assure you if you are basing a decision around vaxs based on the weight of ALL of the evidence then you will find that they work and they are beneficial in the vast majority of cases.

In order to come to the conclusion that they are dangerous and unsafe requires disregarding large swathes of evidence often because it's from "mainstream" or because there is a paranoia that the "establishment" is against you. While at the same time over inflating smaller less sound evidence from less trustworthy sources.

There are some simples rules, for discovering whether what you are reading is bull.

First, they come to definite conclusions with no drawbacks or caveats. All science has flaws and aspects that cannot be accounted for, therefore no paper can draw 100% conclusions. If they don't say what the drawbacks or potential flaws are in their work then they are attempting to lead you down the garden path.

Science works by attempting to disprove a theory not attempting to prove it.

Secondly, where has this paper been published and by who. Look at the citations for the lead authors, look at what other scientists are saying about their work. Is the journal that it is published in a reputable peer reviewed journal? If not then no one is cross checking their work and making sure it stands up to scientific rigour. Are their results "normalised" or not, what process was used to normalise them, have they done their statistical analysis correctly. If not then their findings are not statistically significant and should be discounted.

One of the biggest issues is good quality scientific journals are behind pay walls. However, it is having to pay for that research which is a large part of how that research was funded. Anything published initially on open source free at point of use needs to be questioned. It doesn't mean that it's not accurate, but you should ask who had funded it and why they are distributing expensively assembled knowledge for free. Normally it's because that information being out there generates them more money than selling it in the first place. A prime example is some of the psuedo science organisations set up by the tabacco industry to "prove" smoking was good for you. Or at least attempt to muddy the water or cause confusion over the generally proven view that it's damaging to your health. They spent billions on "research" then gave away the findings for free as it potentially made them more money.

This is why making sure the source that the paper was published in is peer reviewed and of strong scientific rigour.

If you're "evidence" comes from a YouTube video, a blog or some comments section then it is not sound evidence. Unless it's peer reviewed and other scientists have said that it is reputable then it simply isn't.

38.) 14 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 15:51:33
271 million C.V. cases, 5.3 million deaths that's not 99.9 percent survival rate.

39.) 14 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 16:49:57
Slate,

That doesn’t fit the narrative though.

Let’s be honest you can’t be anti C.V. restrictions and anti vax, you’re either one or the other. The facts are there that you are more likely to die from C.V. than you are from the vax, so if you take the vax you’re talking on the smaller risk than not taking the vax. Some people will die after taking the vax, a lot will die from C.V., it’s as simple as that really.

40.) 14 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 17:41:02
Gds I just follow the maths, what percentage of people hospitalised or dead through c. v are vaccinated compared to unvaccinated .
The unvaccinated are a smaller percentage of people who are massively over represented in hospitalisations and deaths .
I don't personally have a problem with anyone not wishing to have a vax but if they want to check the maths out it duznt look a great decision.

41.) 14 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 19:46:51
I’m not saying it’s orchestrated Shappy. I’m laughing because you’ve openly stated no-one is gaining anything from this. How you can think that is laughable. You clearly keep up to date on this stuff so surely you would know who is benefitting? One example is our very own Matt Hancock handing out multi million £ contracts to his pals. Pharmaceutical companies are making billions from this. Just because they made billions before, you cannot turn around and say they are not gaining from this. Of course they are! You have a different view which is fine.

Under the freedom of information act, many people requested the confirmed numbers of people buried and cremated in major cities in the UK. The returned data clearly showed that actually there are just as many people dying prior to the C.V. if not less in some instances. This is widely available. Are we in a C.V. then? Have we not had issues with the our NHS through previous winters? Everyone will find articles and stats to match their own opinion. The problem here is there is enough information out there to question what is actually happening. That doesn’t make people clowns as one poster suggested. People are within their right to question what is going on because in many instances, things do not add up.

42.) 14 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 21:09:05
Amz,

The scientists and experts have all the information and if you go to your GP they will tell you the vax is the right thing to do. I’ll believe them rather than ‘question’ things. If you have an C.V. and the doctor gives you antibiotics do you go on YouTube and find a video that says you might die if you take them or do you just accept they are the correct drugs? Do you ask if you can check a plane before you fly or do you trust that the people who know how to make planes made it right?

Slate, if you’re following the maths you’ll realise the ratio of unvaccinated people in hospital to the ratio of people unvaccinated proves that you are much better off if you have the vax. If you don’t realise that you’re reading the maths incorrectly.

43.) 14 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 21:34:15
Your preaching to the choir gds, if you doubt the science then believe the maths.

44.) 15 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 23:12:16
The maths does not back up what the science says in many instances. Simple. Each to their own.

45.) 15 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 23:53:45
Pfizer doubled their revenue off CV. 41b gained last year. Don't be ridiculous by stating nobody is gaining off this. It is 10000% in Pfizers best interest to continue "studies" that they do themselves, that indicate endless boosters. That's easy.

Myocarditis is a proven side effect of the vax that disproportionately affects young men. You can go read about it. It's been acknowledged by governments world wide. Myocarditis - heart inflammation, players who put excess strain on their heart through playing, increased cardiac events, is an OBVIOUS connection that 100% needs to be looked into not swept under the rug because you don't like it.

46.) 15 Dec 2021
14 Dec 2021 23:58:45
I think I have an iffy sister, she's the matron on C.V. wards of the largest hospital in a large city, prior to omicron she told me figures of admissions reached as high as 97 percent for c. v among no vax or only one dose .
If she was being bunged by Hancock, Javid, Pfizer, moderna or anyone else she didn't give ne anything.

47.) 16 Dec 2021
16 Dec 2021 00:54:10
Slate,

Sorry pal, misunderstood your post :)

Your sister sounds dodgy, telling lies like that.