I'd like to analyse how you people on this football website - being a sample of the typical Aussie - how you think things through.

As a test piece, this article from the "We Love Trump" website is among the very earliest articles indicating a link between the Covid vaccines and myocarditis. The article is dated 6 February 2021, just under 2 full years ago from January 2023.

How would the typical Aussie respond to this in 2021 and two years later now in 2023 ?

If you review these forum threads, there are a significant number of you - upon seeing the website "We Love Trump" - that was enough for send you into mouth-frothing convulsions, to the extent that you'd say there's a link between the mere mention of Donald Trump and getting a heart attack.

Thus, right at the start, the average Aussie showed how easily they can be fooled, because they attack the person/website rather than testing the source of the data. If you read the We Love Trump article carefully, it was citing data from Israel's Health Ministry.

Admittedly, the article cites a lot of other authorities saying this was nothing to worry about.

https://welovetrump.com/2021/06/02/israel-finds-probable-link-between-experimental-pfizer-covid-19-jab-and-myocarditis-mainly-in-young-men/

When faced with conflicting data from different doctors, what did you lot do?

As for me, I kept this information on the shelf and waited to see what happened down the track. Over the course of many months, and literally several hundreds articles and videos, I decided a course of action that I have never since regretted.

If you are the type that would instantly mock a "We Love Trump" article, even if that article was citing the Israeli government data, it's time to realise that that is how you proceeded with a life-and-death decision that affects your family and children.

Now in 2023, it is no longer controversial to say that the Covid vaccines are linked to myocarditis. The question in 2023 is, to what extent.

For your bedtime video, here's Dr Robert Clancy from our own University of Newcastle medical school. If you took the MRNA vaccines, you may be terrified by what Dr Clancy has to say, and you may wish to keep your head buried in the sand, or your head buried up somewhere else where the sun doesn't shine.

https://youtu.be/yMyERFBdB4E

About 4% to 6% of Aussies did not take the jab, depending on which State you live in. What percentage of society are crowd-followers, and what percentage are independent thinkers? To be a crowd-follower, there needs to be a majority of people to form a crowd, so that group-think starts to override any independent thought. And the traits of people who are groupies is that they get haughty and insulting towards those people who do not follow the crowd.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-faa-has-very-quietly-tacitly?

(Headline) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has very quietly tacitly admitted that the [electrocardiogram] EKGs of pilots are no longer normal. We should be concerned. Very concerned.

"On October 24, 2022, the FAA quietly, without any announcement at all, widened the EKG requirements necessary for pilots to be able to fly."

"The PR (a measure of heart function) used to be in the range of .12 to .2."

"It is now: .12 to .3 and potentially even higher."

"This is a very wide range; it accommodates people who have cardiac injury. Cardiologist Thomas Levy is appalled at this change:"



".... There are several clues that are consistent with “it was the vaccine and not COVID”:

"[The FAA] were quiet about it. If it was COVID, you can be public. But the vaccine is supposed to be safe."

"The timing. October 2022 is late for COVID. If it was due to COVID, it would have happened well before now. [The FAA] can make changes every month."

"The vaccine creates far more injury to the heart than COVID (which creates NO added risk per this large-scale Israeli study of 196,992 unvaccinated adults after Covid infection)."

"Anecdotally, cardiologists only started to notice the damage post-vaccine."

"All the sudden deaths started post-vaccine."

______

Here is a website on how to read an ECG. With regard to the P-R Interval, it states: "Duration: 0.12- 0.2s".

https://ptreviewer.com/electrocardiogram-ecg-2/reading-an-ecg/

Here's another article which states that the P-R interval "should be 0.12-0.20 seconds".

https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/nursing/practice/resources/cardiology/function/normal_duration.php

______


Now, you do for yourself a Google search for - EKG PR upper limit

You will find numerous articles stating that the PR upper limit is 0.2

______

Quote from a Harvard University study: "“We do not yet know why a subtle finding such as a prolonged PR interval is associated with such serious adverse outcomes, but it may be a marker for progressive problems with the heart’s electrical conduction system,” says Thomas Wang of the MGH Heart Center, the study’s senior author."

(Quote) "participants whose interval was longer than 200 milliseconds had twice the overall risk of developing atrial fibrillation, three times the risk of needing a pacemaker, and almost one and a half times the risk of early death.participants whose interval was longer than 200 milliseconds had twice the overall risk of developing atrial fibrillation, three times the risk of needing a pacemaker, and almost one and a half times the risk of early death."

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/06/common-ecg-finding-may-indicate-serious-cardiac-problems/


_____

(Quote): "The upper normal limit is 220 msec (0.22 sec). If the PR interval is greater than 220 msec, first degree AV block is manifest and it is considered a pathological finding.

https://ecgwaves.com/topic/the-pr-interval-pr-segment/

_____

Now, here is the FAA website where it stipulates the 300 ms, or 0.3 ms upper limit.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/app_process/exam_tech/item36/amd/arrhythmias/


i.e. the standards for checking heart health for airplane pilots is being downgraded.

_____

In this video, 2nd half discusses the decision of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to broaden the allowable upper limit of P-R Interval from 0.2 to 0.3

In the video @40:21, for the past hundreds years, the threshold PR interval upper limit has been 0.2 - now FAA is increasing it to 0.3

https://rumble.com/v25wb0w-interview-with-cardiologist-thomas-levy.html

(Headline) ATAGI is considering a fifth COVID-19 vaccine dose

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-19/atagi-considers-fifth-covid-vaccine/101866590
article dated 19 January 2023

A 5th is just one away from 6th. And remember, these jabs wane after around 3-4 months.


Update: @sydneyfc1987, you will want to see this Federal data again. You falsely said that "Most Australians had one booster shot. Here is latest data 2 November 2022. Looks like most got 3 shots.



https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-01/covid-19-vaccine-rollout-update-06-january-2023.pdf

Well. 
Didn't we all know this 2+ years ago??

This is why mandates were a sham. 
Why did govt/businesses make it mandatory for  healthy people under 50 ?? Or even 60!!
And government still tried to mandate people to get jabbed even after having COVID???

It never made sense. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/natural-immunity-protective-covid-vaccine-severe-illness-rcna71027?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

Immunity acquired from a Covid infection is as protective as vaccination against severe illness and death, study finds

a cooker timeline, it all started with:

Covid = Fake 

Changed to 

Vaccine is going to be used to control the population and kill

Changed to 

Vaccine is giving everyone (especially sportspeople) heart attacks 

Changed to now being 

'I have a vaccine injury' 

LMFAO 

Dear tsf

I guess it's inevitable, in any society, that there must be a majority of people like yourself to make up the compliant masses who are easily appeased by "bread and circuses" (not sure if you know enough history to know where that phrase originates).

I feel sorry for you because you find your centre of gravity by being part of the masses, and that any information not fed to the masses for them - and people like you - does not exist.



https://youtu.be/naopp_KF678?si=0uYxHGGdDBEdzGTn

This video by Dr. John Campbell dares to explore the rates of excess deaths in high-vax countries, versus low excess deaths in low-vax countries.

Now, someone like yourself - if brain-washed by the Pravda media - would say things like, "ho, ho, ho, the excess deaths are due to depression, lack of access to health care", But, if you stop to think about it -- which, I'm guessing you never, not once did stop in the last 2 years -- you'd realise all those excuses you could give are also the same in the low-vax countries that are not experiencing excess deaths.

There's nothing I can say, or no evidence I give you, that can convince people like you. The only thing that will convince you is if the Mainstream media tell you what to think.

Just this week, a friend who is vaccinated, and is pro-vax, shared that she knows 6 family-members and friends who suffered vax side effects, including myocarditis. (Are you the type of person who believes the Media saying that some cases of myocarditis are mild - or do you believe the cardiologists who explain that there is no such thing as mild myocarditis?) I've kept notes on the number of friends who know people damaged by the vax. I have about a dozen who each know at least 6. In the past, you've said you don't know any people who have been damaged by the vax. But you will know people who've had heart problems. Notice in the above video of excess deaths, the high incidence of heart problems.

Below is Dr Jonn Campbell's report of a Swiss peer-reviewed medical study which found that 1 in 35 vaccinated people have myocardial damage to the heart, according to peer reviewed Swiss study. Dr John Campbell said in the video, if regulators ignore this data from Switzerland, they are negligent.

https://youtu.be/cd_RTf_ForA?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978

All the best. I hope one day you'll start to seek truth.

This guy got a doctorate for making videos on youtube. You might as well be quoting Dr Dre or Dr Pepper

Lesson time for tsf. What you just did was an ad hominem attack - you attack the person, rather than addressing what he is saying.

Well it comes down to credibility peanut.

No one's taking someone with PHD in fine arts seriously if they're commenting on astrophysics are they?

This article is illustrative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Campbell_(YouTuber)

I know this won't change your mind, Muz, but I write it in case there are some truth-seekers out there.

https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-bias-socialism-pages-whitewashed

https://www.allsides.com/news/2021-02-23-0912/inside-wikipedias-leftist-bias-socialism-pages-whitewashed-communist-atrocities

https://heartland.org/opinion/uncovered-wikipedias-leftist-ties-and-its-censorship-of-the-facts/

https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/04/27/wikipedias-left-wing-bias/

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/

If you try to write anything on wikipedia from a conservative viewpoint, some moderator will come and delete it.

I reply to tsf (in lower case) and Muz

Both of you rejected the data presented by Dr John Campbell by attacking his credentials.

This is the sign of a truth-seeker: that even if you think Dr Campbell is an idiot -- the fact remains, the data he uses is readily available in public forums where the data itself is not questioned.

A village-idiot will insult the messenger, and not bother to examine the data for themselves.

Whereas, a truth-seeker, even if he lamblasts Dr Campbell, will realise that seeking truth is the most important - and that if the data is there from a source that is not questioned, then the data needs to be examined.

In history, most people do what tsf and Muz did. They make up the masses that just do what the masses do.

According to the concept of "Diffusion of innovations" - search for it - any society is made up of innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, laggards. There are very few people who will step outside the crowd-think and examine data for themselves.

Here is the video for anyone willing to look at the data. The weblinks are given in the description of his video:

https://youtu.be/naopp_KF678?

No he didn't.  He received the Ph.D. for his work on developing methods of teaching via digital media such as online videos.^[8]

Given that barely a fifth of students show up to classes in person these days so I'd say he's made a massive contribution in how universities educate their students today.

Not that any of that is actually relevant to whatever point you are trying top make.  What matters are the facts. 

What credibility did a Swiss patent clerk have for challenging the foundations of reality?  None. Yet he was right.

Credibility is just one factor.

Are people who have skin in the game, despite claiming expert status, credible?  Maybe , maybe not.  Depends on what they are claiming.

So yeah. He got his doctorate in making youtube videos 😂

I can attack both but I will stick to him because he is a complete fucking idiot and I would never bother listening to a complete fucking idiot. 

This is a video of Dr. Peter McCullough testifying before the European Parliament on 13 September 2023. This video summarises the dangers of the Covid vaccines.

https://rumble.com/v3ho9hg-peter-a.-mccullough-md-mph-testifies-in-the-european-parliament-to-end-all-.html

tsf (lower case), you, like the rest of the Mainstream, engage in personal attacks. But who is brave to act according to science, by scrutinising the scientific evidence he refers to?

Ooof this'd get you right in the feels eh JS?

https://gizmodo.com.au/2023/10/scientists-win-nobel-prize-for-mrna-breakthrough-used-to-create-covid-19-vaccine/

This bloke?  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough

Peter Andrew McCullough (/məˈkʌlə/;^[1] born December 29, 1962) is an American cardiologist.^[2] He was vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center and a professor at Texas A&M University.^[3] During the COVID-19 pandemic, McCullough has promoted misinformation about COVID-19, its treatments, and mRNA vaccines.^[4][5][6]


Also this.  

https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2023/10/fact-check-peter-mccullough-cites-discredited-papers-recirculates-covid-19-falsehoods-in-september-13-2023-speech.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/07/21/false-claim-nattokinase-dissolves-covid-19-spike-protein-fact-check/70443445007/
https://www.examiner-enterprise.com/story/news/2021/10/06/doctor-fired-baylor-spreading-covid-19-misinformation-finds-supportive-crowd-bartlesville/5995698001/
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/101529 

Hey Muz, do a search - using duckduckgo to avoid the bias of Google - for: left wing bias wikipedia

When navigating the minefield of information and misinformation about Covid and vaccines, there are two approaches you can take:

1) Totally trust the Mainstream Media and government-employed doctors, and hence label literally everything that goes against the official stance as being "misinformation".

OR

2) You can look at the scientific journals, look at the data, see how the experts on both sides are talking about the same data, and then come to a conclusion on an issue that affects your health.

I ask you, in your circle of friends and people who influence you, tell me, how many of them did the second approach of (2)?

I also ask you: in your circle of friends, if they were given information that is in the form of scientific research papers - but it contradicts the Mainstream - and the Mainstream are labelling it as misinformation - what percentage of your friends would just follow the Mainstream by branding it as misinformation, and not bother doing their own research?

I sympathise with those who do not have sufficient background or experience to read scientific research journals, and are therefore have no choice but to trust someone, and they usually trust the Mainstream.

But you can see how the Mainstream gangs up on anyone who speaks against the Mainstream line, e.g. see how they attacked Dr. Robert Clancy who is an immunologist and emeritus professor at the University of Newcastle’s School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy.
 

I am using duckduckgo you flog.

In fact you halfwit why don't you do what I just did and type the name into both search engines and see for yourself the results thrown up with duckduckgo putting their 'he's a crank' links up higher than google.

6 references to 'he's a crank' on duckduckgo's first page vs 3 references to him being a crank on Google.

Any other rubbish you want to disseminate?

Clown. 

As for 'doing your own research'.

If I'm handed a bunch of scientific papers I would defer to those more experienced in the actual field. Much the same way I don't go to my mechanic to ask him advice on what radiotherapy treatment is best for my tumour. It's why I don't comment on matters pertaining to vaccine development and MRNA techniques. It's also why I don't get involved in Middle Eastern politics.

Because I'm not qualified to comment.

Not you though. Apparently you're a virologist, epidemiologist, geneticist, GP and all manner of other scientific qualifications including multiple PHDs all rolled into one.

Are you a doctor, are you a scientist, are you any of the professions listed above? Of course you're not but apparently a shit-for-brains like you have 'sufficient background or experience to read scientific research journals'. What a load of shit.

Just out of interest are you a young earth creationist?

And/or a flat earther? 

I bet you're one, if not both.

That's what we all tend to do. But what when those experienced in the field disagree?

For example, if a GP close to your house tells you one thing, but a different GP in a different suburb gives different advice -- which do you follow? Is it logical just to follow the GP that you happen to go?

This is why most people just follow the crowd, and you cannot blame them because they don't have the tools to think through the issues for themselves.

For example, when Dr. John Campbell, points to government data coming out of UK, Australia, Canada, U.S., European Union on excess deaths - and there comes data from a German university that those excess deaths are mostly among the vaccinated. But you have heard the night-time news tell you that is nonsense. I guess it is easier for you to insult Dr. John Campbell and say he is an idiot.

But people like you, Muz, are not blameless. If I personally encounter a field where I cannot make a personal decision, because of lack of facts or lack of experience, then I stand back and pause my opinion, waiting to see how the experts battle it out.

But I don't think I do what you do, which is to attack and insult the experts from the other side. There's an agro in you that I do not engage in, because I'm focused on facts and evidence. If you've ever been in a family fight where you think the other side does not listen to facts and evidence, just realise that you do it yourself. The proof is in what you've written on this forum for the whole world to see how you think things through.

I tell you what I don't do. I don't flip a coin.

If 98 doctors tell me one thing and 2 tell me another I'll believe the 98 thanks very much. (Maybe I should DYOR to get the answer I want to believe?)

I noticed you answered none of my questions about your relative expertise and personal beliefs. I suspect because it would weaken your credibility despite you fervently believing them.

Did we go the moon John? Was 9/11 an inside job? Is there a paedophilic network based out of a pizza shop in Washington?

What you said, Muz, is precisely what 95% of the Australian population did. They basically followed the crowd.

I know many GPs. Most of them just followed the TGA. One GP's spouse told me that most GPs are so busy, they do not have time to do their own research - they just follow what the TGA told them to do. And even those who were uncomfortable with what TGA was ordering them to do, they said: "What can we do?"

There are some GPs and nurses, who were aware of the dangers of these Covid vaccines, and were willing to lose their careers over it.

For me, it's not just a numbers game of follow the biggest crowd. I want to know the reasons why people say things - and I need to know the evidence behind what they're saying. I have collected around 2,800 pieces of information - articles, scientific journal articles, videos by experts. These 2,800 articles does not include fringe conspiracy theories. For those more wacko-stuff I put them in a separate folder.

You said: "If 98 doctors tell me one thing and 2 tell me another I'll believe the 98 thanks very much." - that means you're a crowd follower. Whichever group the 98 are following, that's where you will be.

Arn't religious types known as followers? You are not denouncing the big fella are you?

In the New Testament gospel, there is no such thing as "blind faith". Blind faith is an urban myth. The message of Jesus Christ rests on proof based on evidence.

Acts 1:3 - [After his resurrection, Jesus] "presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God."

It would be absolutely silly to base your life on something that you have no idea whether it is true or not. But many people, even Christians, buy into this notion of "blind faith". For example, I sometimes ask young people in church how they know for certain whether the Resurrection of Jesus Christ literally happened, and they have no idea.

Ins't there?

When ol Jeshua appeared before his buddy Thomas who wanted to poke his finger in the spear wound to believe he is real, Mr Christ told him that while he can have is physical proof "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." JOHN 20:29 for your academic reference johnsmith (lower case) .. certainly sounds like "a request for blind faith" if you ask me. 

No, that means that  scientifically and empirically Muz has made use of the prevailing knowledge of an overwhelming majority of specialists in that particular field.... like any rational human being would.... If you keep looking for the truth (as you want it to be) you will eventually find another moron to share the views nobody else seems to.... That has ALWAYS been the case through the ages, only difference now is the internet means you can all find each other alot easier :P

If you post that assertion/question on a separate thread, I can answer it. This present thread is on the Coronavirus, and it might distract from the theme of the thread.

In normal times that would be the most reasonable thing to do. 

COVID is not "normal times". 

Unfortunately the experts we rely on, are also the ones that have "skin in the game".  There is too much information that has been withheld, too many examples of mis-direction, too many rapid and ill-considered "expert" conclusions made without sufficient evidence from the same experts who stand to gain or lose.   The Chinese communist party, the WHO, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Dasziak's Eco Health Alliance, Fouci's NIH funding of the research, vaccine manufacturers, and other researchers in the same sphere whose livelihoods and careers depend on their laboratories continuing with the same dangerous research.

In general it comes to disseminating expert information, the information is based on primary research,  for which there are typically a small number of experts with direct links to the research.  These experts then present their data and opinions down the chain of command.  There are checks and balances in the form of peer review along the way, but at this point its worth remembering the replication crisis: he replication crisis.

As it happens I do have an MSc in the life sciences from Australia's highest ranked university so I at least know the basics.  What struck me is the way the scientific community acted as if  this thing was new life form from another galaxy. Its a fucking viral respiratory infection, its gonna do what other viral respiratory infections do, so keep people apart, avoid crowds, open the doors and windows,  try betadine, give those with pneumonia steroids..what do you have to lose, but NO we HAVE to wait for the double blind multicentre prospective trials whilst people are dying and being locked up like animal as the professional "misinformation" cancel culture silenced any dissenters and played politics with the facts.  Unforgivable from people who not only should know better, they DO know better.

[EDIT} 18 months later and a few millions deaths:https://www.england.nhs.uk/2021/03/covid-treatment-developed-in-the-nhs-saves-a-million-lives/


[EDIT]  THREE YEAR LATER:  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-24683-8

My heroes.....