The untimely death of Rab Wardell
, just days after becoming Scottish Cross Country champion, raised fresh concerns about the risks of extreme endurance training. Sadly, it is not unheard of for young athletes in prime physical condition to suffer cardiac arrest or even sudden cardiac death
, where the heart suddenly stops. When this happens it's sure to catch the attention of the media and generate a lot of speculation.
The first thing to address is something several readers were questioning in the above article about Rab's death: does this have something to do with Covid vaccines? The short answer is no. Although vaccines have been linked to a slight increase in the risk of myocarditis or pericarditis (heart inflammation), the absolute risk is low - about 30 cases per million for the highest-risk age group, according to this study
published in the British Medical Journal. There is no evidence that people are at increased risk of cardiac arrest after taking the vaccine
. In fact, the study found that vaccination was linked with a lower risk of cardiac arrest or death. Unfortunately, contracting Covid-19 its self has been linked to a dramatic increase in the risk of various heart problems
, including a 72% rise in the risk of heart failure. For more information on this, check out this article
The other question readers were asking was whether repeatedly pushing the human body to the limit in pursuit of performance is dangerous. In other words...Could too much exercise be bad for you?
There is plenty of published research into the effects of exercise, and without question, for most people doing more exercise reduces the risk of death and cardiovascular problems dramatically. In fact, exercise has been described as the best medicine in the world, as it reduces the risk of various diseases while improving mood, sleep, mental health, sexual function, bone density, and brain health, (among other benefits
). If you only remember one thing from this article, it should be that exercise is good for you. However, it's not quite as simple as more exercise always equals a longer life.
This video by a consultant cardiologist discusses the findings of this study (and more) in detail.This 2015 study
published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) pooled data from a whopping 661,137 people and compared how much exercise they performed outside of work to their all-cause risk of dying during the follow-up period, which was on average 14 years. Even after adjusting for lifestyle factors (age, gender, race, education, smoking status, cancer history, heart disease, alcohol consumption, marital status, and BMI), they found that people who did more exercise were less likely to die in that time than people who did little to no exercise, but the benefits diminished with higher "exercise doses". So far, so intuitive.
From JAMA Internal Medicine, 2015. The horizontal axis represents how much exercise people performed per week. The units inside the arrow are approximately the number of times the minimum amount recommended by the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. The vertical axis represents the relative risk of dying due to any cause after adjusting for other known risk factors. (Lower is better).
However, the highest exercise group (people doing more than the equivalent of 750 minutes (12.5 hours) of vigorous exercise per week - that's ten times the minimum amount recommended by the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans - had a slightly higher risk of dying than those doing the optimum
amount of exercise (around 3-10 times the recommended minimum). Specifically, the lowest risk groups had a 39% lower risk of death than those doing no leisure time exercise, but people doing more than ten times the recommended minimum had only a 31% lower risk.
It's important to underline that this highest-exercise group (on the far right of the graph) still had a substantially lower mortality risk than those getting less than the recommended amount (the two groups towards the left of the graph), which includes most people
. And whether the reduction in risk of death is 31% or 39% compared to no exercise, if there was a pill that delivered that result everyone would be taking it.
But while this study adds even more weight to the message that exercise is good for you, it does suggest that those doing extremely
high levels of exercise could start to increase their risk of dying as they add even more training to their routine. And while only 0.6% of those involved in the study fit into that highest-exercise group, elite athletes like Rab Wardell might be in the top 0.01% of the population in terms of exercise dose. So, are the elite of the elite at higher risk?
What about the fittest cyclists in the world?This 2013 study from Paris Descartes University
looked into Tour de France cyclists. The researchers followed up on all French participants in the Tour de France who competed between 1947 and 2012. Of the 786 cyclists who participated at least once in that time, 208 (26%) had died by 1 September 2012. That works out to be a 41% lower risk of death than what would be expected in the general French male population.
Does this prove that competing in high-level sports is good for you? No.
To quote the authors' conclusion: "Our results do not allow us to assess in detail the balance between positive effects of high-level sports activity and selection of healthy elite athletes, vs. any potential deleterious effects of excessive physical exercise or alleged doping." In other words, it may be that cyclists talented enough to compete in the Tour were already naturally healthy, so it's unclear whether the combination of intense training, competing (and possible doping) shortened or lengthened their lives. However, this study does put to bed the idea that ultra-high-level athletes are at an increased risk of dying young than average.
So how do we reconcile this with the many news stories of endurance athletes dying during or shortly after a sporting event?
It's well known that elite athletes are more likely to have heart arrhythmia
, an irregular heart rhythm which can occasionally lead to sudden cardiac arrest
, where the heart stops pumping due to problems with the heart's electrical system. This is not the same as a heart attack, a blockage of the blood vessels supplying the heart, which is far less common among athletes than sedentary individuals. The risk of cardiac arrest may also be raised in the short term during especially strenuous activity - such as racing. However, this seems to be outweighed in the longer term by the benefits exercise brings.
Short-term risk and long-term safety: insights from one of the largest and longest-running endurance races
One of the best sources of information on this comes from a huge and long-running cross-country skiing race in Sweden, called Vasaloppet
. The 90 km race has been running for over ninety years and draws in huge numbers of competitors from elite athletes to, well, anyone capable of skiing 90 km, making it a treasure trove of data. This 2015 study
from Uppsala Universitet dug into the numbers. Over ninety years of racing and over half a million competitors, thirteen people died during the race. That works out to about 1 in 50,000 skiers. For comparison, in the USA you have a seven times higher risk
of dying in a car accident over a given year.
Still, that's about 7.7 times the number of deaths you'd expect from the same number of people in the general population over the same amount of time just living normally. Twelve of those people died due to cardiac arrest - 22.1 times as many as would be expected in the general population. The increased risk of cardiac arrest per hour while ski-racing was similar to that during marathon running. All deaths occurred in men and most were among those between 51 and 70 years of age.
But that's not the end of the story. The study also compared the skiers' risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease to the general population in the years after
competing in the event. Here's how the authors summarise the findings: "The short excess mortality in endurance physical activity is by far outweighed by the long-term protective effect of exercise in cardiovascular diseases and cancer."
This is backed up by an earlier study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine
which followed up on people who raced the Vasaloppet between 1989 and 1998. Much like the Tour de France study mentioned earlier, they found that the ski racers had about half the overall risk of dying during the follow-up period than what would be expected in the general population after adjusting for age. This result was similar for all categories of skiers when ranked from fastest to slowest, but those who raced multiple times were at an even lower risk than those who competed once.
In other words, there is a short-term increased risk of dying due to cardiac arrest while competing in this endurance race, but in the longer term, people who compete are less likely to die prematurely than you'd expect from the general population. Like with the TDF study, this doesn't prove that racing the Vasaloppet extended their lives, as those who chose to compete were likely already healthier in general than the average person, but it does show once more that athletes are much less likely to die young than average, despite the increased risk during the event. So while there are real risks associated with high-level exercise, not exercising enough is a far bigger risk in the long run. Averages disguise a spread
Heart disease is sadly very common. It's the biggest killer in developed countries, killing one in six Americans
, and too little exercise is a major cause. So there's no contradiction in saying that athletes face a lower risk than average, but the risk of heart problems is still significant. The fact that athletes face less risk than sedentary individuals is perhaps like the fact that air travel is safer than driving
; it doesn't mean the risk is negligible or that it can't be reduced further. Also, the studies we've looked at so far can only tell us about the average
risk faced by athletes, and the risk is not evenly distributed.This study called Sudden Cardiac Death in Athletes
compares risk factors for SCD in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) athletes. The table below shows how sex, race and sport affect the odds dramatically. For comparison, the risk of SCD among older athletes aged 35-65 in another study
was slightly higher, at about 1 in 46,000 per athlete per year, and this article in the British Medical Journal
puts it at between 1 in 50,000 and 1 in 80,000 for athletes in general. To try and give those numbers some context, the average risk of dying in a traffic accident in the USA in 2004 was 1 in 6,197
From "Sudden Cardiac Death in Athletes", 2016. The table shows the risk of SCD for different groups.
The most important risk factor is called Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM)
. It's a genetic condition that affects about 1 in 500 people. It causes the heart muscle to become thick and rough which can impair heart function or predispose people to arrhythmia. Most people with HCM have a normal life, usually without any symptoms, and the absolute risk of sudden death is low, but it's the most common cause of sudden cardiac death in young people and athletes
. For this reason, people who are diagnosed with HCM are often advised to avoid competitive sports and high-intensity exercise, but screening is rare so many HCM cases go undiagnosed.
Should you consult your doctor? What about screening?
I spoke with an NHS GP to fact-check this article and to ask when people should approach their doctor:
“I would encourage people experiencing palpitations, chest pain, shortness of breath, or lightheadedness to come forward and discuss this with their doctor. Of course, there are lots of different causes of these symptoms and investigation/management will be decided on a case-by-case basis agreed between the patient and their clinician”.
“In particular, people experiencing exercise-induced syncope (fainting/loss of consciousness), exercise-induced seizures, or those with a family history of sudden death should discuss this with their Doctor since this would most likely require further investigation/management”.
"Screening athletes prior to competition for unrecognised heart conditions has been proposed. However, there is much disagreement regarding the benefits vs harms of such screening programmes amongst experts and international recommendations vary. (Harms resulting from false-positive screening results, leading to athletes’ disqualification from competitive sports, psychological and financial harm and the resulting medical follow-up with unknown benefit). With current evidence, [more information on that here
] there is no such screening programme in the UK."
Interview with Lennard Zinn, co-author of The Haywire Heart.
I also got in touch with Lennard Zinn, a former U.S. national cycling team rider and technical writer at VeloNews, who, after suffering a huge arrhythmia and tachycardia (a very high heart rate that won't come down) while training in 2013, co-authored the book The Haywire Heart
about the risks of extreme endurance training.
There is plenty of "anecdata" of athletes dying suddenly from cardiac arrest, plus good evidence of arrhythmia and fibrosis [scarring of the heart] in athletes, particularly veteran athletes. Why do you think that doesn't show up in all-cause mortality studies like the Tour de France study we mentioned or the ones on mortality among participants in Vasaloppet? Is it just outweighed by the benefits of exercise and the selection of healthy participants?
Yes, that’s exactly right—it’s outweighed by the overall benefits of exercise and the selection of healthy participants. Those studies look at mortality and don’t drill down into actual causes. And on the subject of overall mortality, I suspect that the chances of finding any significant numbers of smokers among them is vanishingly small, thus cutting mortality significantly right there. Same goes for obesity, another big risk factor for mortality. I also suspect that they are statistically less likely to drink and drive than the average population, although that is going further out on the limb of conjecture, and I suppose that is less of an issue in Scandinavia, and perhaps in France, than it is in the USA.
Do you think there should be more emphasis on the risk of reduced quality of life as a result of heart problems caused by overtraining, as opposed to the risk of premature death?
Yes. The caveat is that saying that requires a value judgment to say that being able to ride or run up a long hill faster than athletes 20 years one’s junior or to compete in dozens of races/year is a higher quality of life than walking for an hour a day. I personally had to give up a lot after developing an arrhythmia—namely hard training, racing, the camaraderie found in those things, the satisfaction of outriding other people, and the competitive reaction in general. On the other hand, I enjoy my life immensely, and, now that I have become accustomed to it and could care less if other people pass me on a bike or on foot, I would not want to go back to that lifestyle I had. I do miss the travel, the friendships, and the burn feeling; I don’t miss the compulsion.
What would the stereotypical patient/athlete most at risk of these heart problems look like? It seems to mostly affect male athletes, some studies suggest taller athletes are at greater risk, perhaps someone overtraining into their fifties. And what about caffeine - is that a problem?
I think the link to caffeine is under question. The rest of those, yes. I think taking into account work and family commitments in that list is overlooked, too. People in this category tend to be successful, which is why they have the time and resources to train and race so much, which means they probably also work a lot, and combining lots of work with lots of racing and training tends to also accompany being stretched thin when it comes to family, too.
I think the overtraining, and under-resting is particularly an issue for people who were already competing at endurance sports in their 20s and 30s—I know of very few in this group who recognize(d) how much less they could (safely) train and how much more they should rest once in their 50s. I think it is endemic in this group to want to do close to what they used to do in their prime. Certainly, that was the case with me.
What do you think can/should be done to reduce the risk?
Take a deep breath and remember why you started doing the sport in the first place—which in most cases would be for fun. Then notice whether what you are doing is bringing you joy or not. And realize nobody other than the people you race with care one iota about what your placings are in masters races.
Recognize that just taking a walk with your spouse or your dog can bring great satisfaction for yourself as well as for them and is not necessarily a downgrade from pushing yourself as hard as you can up a big climb or through an interval session.
• Excercise is good for you! Multiple studies show a variety of benefits to exercise, including a longer life.
• One study suggests there could be an optimum amount of exercise for longevity. On average. those training extremely
hard (more than 12.5 hours of vigorous exercise equivalent per week) had a slightly higher mortality risk than those training slightly less (4-12.5 hours of vigorous exercise per week), but still had a lower risk than those doing too little exercise.
• French Tour De France competitors were significantly less likely to die young than their counterparts in the general population.
• Large studies into endurance cross-country ski racers show a short-term increased risk of cardiac arrest and sudden cardiac death during the event, but this is far outweighed in the longer term when it comes to the overall risk of premature death.
• Athletes are more likely to develop an irregular heart rhythm (arrhythmia) and other heart abnormalities, but this too seems to be outweighed in terms of overall risk.
• Although the average risk of cardiac death in athletes is low (between 1 in 50,000 and 1 in 80,000 per year), evidence suggests the risk is higher for those who are male, tall or black, and the most important risk factor is a genetic condition called Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM). HCM is the commonest underlying cause of sudden cardiac death.
• Anyone with a family history of cardiac arrest, or those experiencing palpitations, lightheadedness, faints, chest pain, shortness of breath, or passing out during exercise should consult their doctor. They might suggest checking for HCM and those diagnosed with the condition are often advised to avoid intense exercise.
Children are currently dying in excess numbers from influenza, RSV etc due to low exposure to bacteria and constant use of toxic hand sanitizers during the Covid insanity period.
Those are both viruses, FYI. You’re ready for your own podcast!
Then, when people said "no thanks", you were discriminated against, you were in danger of losing your career, and friends and family members would not allow you at thier holiday table.
If the product did what it was intended to do and the government and media didn't lie to you then maybe more people would have taken it. But, we knew something didn't add up and the pressure to get it was too much. Now more and more evidence is coming to light and those of us that resisted should be proud.
DH0: and yet here you are still spouting bullshit so I guess it didn’t work? Well done you?
DH1: remember guys - sAfE aNd EffEcTivE...
DH1: so true! I heard it on the Joe Rogan podcast. It’s a conspiracy! Now go to the hospital and start licking door knobs and see what happens!
Granted, upon re-reading there were some more effective counterpoints:
DH4: I only agreed because I could have lost my job. Instead I got to keep my job but ended up with blood clots in my leg and lungs, and blood thinners for 5 months to correct the problem.
DH5: Bummer that's bad luck. But still, odds are 2 in a million on blood clots with a jab. While risk with Covid of blood clots is 22 times higher.
So I agree with you that it didn't completely devolve to a pile of crap by the time I commented, the ratio of constructiveness and collaboration-to-namecalling is lacking imo. Also, my first point about it sidetracking from the primary premise of the article still stands.
I'm not saying it isn't but anyone who posts a link to ZH on Pinkbike deserves an up vote on principal alone
i didn't take that shit, and did end up getting covid - turned out to be a feverless sniffle that lasted 48 hours. people i know got covid after getting the shot, and all of them experienced worse symptoms than me.
a close friend of mine is an ER doctor, and she only took the shot because she was forced to. she blames the shot for all the complications she had right after it, and i think it's pretty reasonable to say a doctor knows what they're talking about.
my mom's coworker, a doctor (my mom is a nurse), admitted to her that she signed off on one death certificate with cause of death listed as vaccine complication - she had so many problems at work because of it so she knew never to do it again.
my father in law laughed at us crazy conspiracy theorists and ended up in hospital after getting his first booster - needless to say he never got boosted again.
now people will say all this is conscious bias, but based on numbers @mobillier posted above, statistically i shouldn't know that many people who experienced serious side effects - for those who are questioning my math, lets put it this way:
1. let's say i know 1000 people (people i know well enough to even find out if they had any serious side effects)
2. let's say 80% of them got jabbed, so 800 people
3. 1 person in 500k people experiences serious side effects
based on this the chance of experience serious side effects is 5 in 800, instead of 5 in 2.5 million - which makes it 3125 times more likely to happen than the source referenced above states.
so someone please explain to me the difference, or do i really know so many unlucky people...
even my father in law who laughed off everything i told him and called me a flat earther? i remember him joking about vaccines and saying he never got any signal from bill gates after first two doses, but he didn't laugh after his booster.
just fyi - only 1 out of 5 people who had serious side effects didn't want the shot but did it because of work... so much for confirmation bias
and no, not hysterical, only cautious and skeptical, and so far vaccine skeptics have been right. when are you going to admit what every health authority is admitting now - vaccines are, at best, useless
either way, you took the easy way out - you lined up for the jab to be left alone and now you're bitter that other people had spine to say no. my wife was offered $500 per dose at her work - and she told them she'd pay them that much just to f*ck off and leave her alone
Stop it. You're done. You tried to play the "I'm a clever cat" game and suck at it. Go away.
why are only soy boys like yourself into getting jabbed? actually, nm, no need to answer that... obedient bitch
Here's the non peer reviewed article. Has Robert Malone who is a mrna pioneer explaining how it works.
One things clear, more people in this thread (and in the general public) should've taken more science and statistics classes before becoming the experts they think they are.
you hate us because we have common sense, we have spine and we have principles. you hate that we had the courage to say no, even when it was much more convenient to say no. you hate that we were rational enough to weigh risk vs benefit, and not act like you - scared shit who would still take a booster even if you had complications with the previous dose.
you hate trucks because you can't have one. you envy us that we can have vehicles that fit our families comfortably and all the stuff and take us anywhere, on or off road. you, on the other hand, probably don't even own a car, and you most likely bike to work. your problem is that you're too stupid to realize that the united states are not f*cking london (thank god).
your lifestyle doesn't work for us. it never will. we like freedom. we don't like to be treated like children. we don't like being mocked and ridiculed for having common sense. and we don't like losers like yourself telling us how to live our lives
1) muslim (yes, a white american male can be a muslim), so don't you ever dare to use that talking point when talking to me
2) i lived in europe most of my life, and i'm a EU citizen - no way in hell i would ever go back there, in any of those utopias of socialism
3) college educated, software engineer, making more than you ever will in your miserable life
4) 0 credit card debt (yes, 0)
5) no pickup truck, though my wife does have a bigger suv
6) no guns, but i don't mind law abiding citizens have them and carry them
7) all benefits for the entire family - medical, dental, vision. company i work for pays over $30k a year just for our medical and pays for a portion of our medical bills
generous retirement plan from said company
9) individual monthly contributions to my retirement plan are more than what most people in UK net
10) over 30 work days off a year, sick time, personal time, sabbatical, you name it
11) flexible schedule, every year spend a month traveling across europe
12) my wife took years off work because we have small kids, and we don't need her to work. and if she did work, she'd still be making more than you do
13) very conservative financially, hate bad debt
14) enough cash to pay for our new house and new car in entirety, and still have more than enough cash for emergency, but rather waiting for the housing crash to buy some rental properties
15) lived and worked in a big city, and never want to go back anywhere near that shithole. living in suburbs
with all that out of the way, let me try and do the same for you:
1) don't own car
2) bike to work
3) maybe college educated, but most likely some social studies, environment or something just as useless
4) wearing your jacket in your sub-60 m2 flat because you can't afford heating
as i said, my covid was two days of sniffle with no fever - but then again, i'm not vaxxed and i'm no mangina like you are.
you never said if i got anything right about you, so i'd say i was on 4/4 on you.
What I hate from the anti-vax crowd is the sanctimonious, self-righteous, "I know better than you" attitude. They're worse than vegans and crossfitters.
I hate that they stood around hospitals, yelling and protesting while doctors and nurses were getting overwhelmed. I hate that they march around our cities, blocking traffic, telling everyone that they're sheep and somehow their decision to get the vaccine wasn't as informed, rational or thought out as their decision not to. Someone's choice to get vaccinated does not invalidate their decision making process because it doesn't line up with yours. Just because it was mandated and people chose to get it, doesn't mean that decision was made lightly or blindly.
I hate that the anti-vax crowd complains and protests how much harder their life has become, then proceeds to protest, block traffic, borders, neighbourhoods, hospitals, etc, carrying misspelled signs, yelling at people who disagree, calling them names, as if Joe Blow driving around downtown Calgary is the one making his life harder. "Freedom protests" aren't influencing the folks that disagree with you. Just pissing them off.
I don't love how our government responded to Covid, but I'm also not sure what I would have done if I was in their place. I DO know that all of my friends and family in healthcare were getting crushed during each wave. I don't love mandates, but understand the response. My ex is an ICU nurse and the overwhelming majority of Covid cases she has dealt with are unvaxxed. I'm not claiming it's science or stats, but her direct experience from one of the largest trauma centers in western Canada.
I don't hate people who've chosen not to get the vaccine. I have lots of friends who chose not to and guess what? We're still friends. The choice to get vaccinated or not hasn't impacted our relationship and nor should it.
I also know nurses who worked during the pandemic. They have all said that regardless of vaccination status the people who died were either morbidly obese with hypertension or at or beyond the average age of death. This is reflected in the data, the average age of death in the UK is 80, people who died from (not with) Covid 19 were 82. You actually live longer if you died from C19! Also it’s estimated that in BC alone, 8000 nurses quit or took early retirement rather than take these “vaccines”. If you want to complain about hospitals being overwhelmed, you might want to blame the mandates rather than the pandemic numbers, because they were no higher than a normal influenza season.
but you can't say that people 'chose' to get vaccinated when they were threatened to lose their job, not to be able to travel, get medical treatments or live their lives as usual if they didn't get vaccinated. huge difference.
people started getting out in the streets because their rights were getting completely taken away. the freedom convoy was way overdue. there were many more 'protesters' for blm over last couple of years, that killed dozens of people, but somehow those protests were encouraged... it makes you think what kind of protest it really is when it's promoted by the govt... hmmm
and people skeptical about the vaccine are sanctimonious, really? vax pushers told us we're killing people by not taking the jab, that we should do it for others, that we're uneducated flat earth morons and hicks. every f*cking celebrity was giving medical advice, but somehow when somebody says - hey, i was fine with covid, nothing happened - that's dangerous and should be censored. nothing sanctimonious about saying do wtf you want, just don't push it on me
Also, this whole "everything is either black or white" kind of argument is a bunch of juvenile garbage. The fact of the matter is, people can disagree on things and still be friends. The government's decision to mandate something or not has absolutely zero bearing on my relationship with friends or family.
It was clear in mid to late 2020 to anyone with half a brain that the virus wasn’t nowhere near as deadly as we were led to believe. The emergency extra buildings and tents various governments built were completely empty. To then require people to take a vaccine that required an EUA was nowhere near worth the risk and I have little tolerance for any fear-driven idiot who went along with it all.
Was the term used to discredit people and there info. Did come from the Kennedy assasination. Has it been confirmed with the recent release of the JFK documents that the coroner reported more than one type of bullet wound with more than one entry and exit. Keep watching sports bro you're so informed. Actually you are the ideal sheep for the fourth Industrial revolution. They love you keep defending the people who want to keep you sick poor and stupid. Good job. You're part of the group. Milgram experiment. Would have failed that on for sure
“1) don't own car
2) bike to work
3) maybe college educated, but most likely some social studies, environment or something just as useless
4) wearing your jacket in your sub-60 m2 flat because you can't afford heating”
I’m fascinated by your though train but here you go:
1) yes a big one and a little one
2) definitely would if I could
3) been back a couple of times to up skill as they call it so a qualified yes I guess?
4) oh dear no
either way, i'll believe everything you said, even though it's hard after seeing your bike hanging off your kitchen wall
to think that what you just said could be funny, or witty or insulting to anybody... that's just sad, don't even wanna embarrass you more than you embarrassed yourself so far.
i actually upvoted this just because no one else will, not even your mom.
we see you're trying really hard, but you're not smart or funny. you'll never get anything but pity from me
On a hopeful note.. www.bitchute.com/video/bXAF5bOdilph
If I were in your position I would get some sodium chlorite aka MMS and do the 21 day "protocol 1000", as well as supplement with NAC and/or glutathione.
I will say it nice and blunt,
I will say it with some sass,
I will say it like an ass,
you sir are an imbecile,
that will do it, yes it will.
all jokes aside, i hate that you brought me down to the level where i made fun of you for not being as well off financially, but i'll forgive and forget.
hopefully you realized not everybody skeptical of the jab vax ticks off all the negative stereotypes you have of americans
but it's fine, i've learned that people usually say it just to be friendly, and don't bother correcting them. i'm white and people are shocked when they learn about my background. he doesn't believe a single thing i've said, so there's that too.
anyway, i've found i have more in common with common sense people, whether they're religious christians or any other religion, or not religious at all, than with unhinged left wing lunatics that keep putting us in their mouths and 'championing' for us. it's disgusting.
Swiss and Thai studies showed elevated troponin levels in 1/30 for young males. Remember, heart muscle damage is occurring in a demographic (almost everyone) that is at statistically zero risk from the virus.
are you implying i don't know there's no such thing as EU citizenship? ok, i'm a citizen of an EU member state. happy now?
dude, you have way more problems in life than my semantics. you'd be better off cleaning shit off your kitchen walls you brought on your tires
You’re so close. It’s as if a single neuron is flashing, a lonely green light, far out across a darkened bay, an orgiastic future that year by year recedes before you. It eluded you today, but that’s no matter. Tomorrow you will run faster, stretch out your arms farther, and one fine morning—
i could name a few actual cases you missed:
1) killing the economy over a f*cking cold
2) importing millions of migrants from the worst shit holes
3) chasing co2 emissions goals that destroy the standard of living
either way, we'll never agree on anything. you live your life, i'll live mine. as long as you're happy with your life, that's all that matters. i won't try to make you open your eyes, because if you're not skeptical of anything by now, you'll never be. i expect the same from you - don't tell me how to live my life. or millions of other americans, or canadians, or anyone else.
nothing worse than a bunch of people who can't even sort their own lives want to change the world
1) killing the economy over a f*cking cold
2) importing millions of migrants from the worst shit holes
3) chasing co2 emissions goals that destroy the standard of living
100% correct. I would add, chasing unattainable Co2 goals due to alarmist junk models that have zero basis in observable data.
Here’s a simple study that would end all debate about the dangers of the mRNA jabs. Simply look at the the vaccination status of people who have died in the mid 2021 to date excess deaths group. I do wonder if there’s a reason this hasn’t been done. I have a feeling the results would explain the insane desire to Jab everyone, even when it was widely known they were useless.
What's interesting here is if a history of extreme training and/or long term constant exercise without rest has a statistically significant impact to heart health.
People who were capable of such personality, courage and critical ability are undoubtedly the best of humanity. They are everywhere, in all ages, levels of education, states and ideas. They are of a special kind; they are the soldiers that every army of light wants to have in its ranks. They are the parents that every child wants to have and the children that every parent dreams of having.
They are beings above the average of their societies, they are the essence of the people who have built all cultures and conquered horizons. They are there, next to you, they look normal, but they are superheroes.
They did what others could not, they were the tree that withstood the hurricane of insults, discrimination and social exclusion. And they did it because they thought they were alone, and believed they were the only one.
Banned from their families' tables at Christmas, they never saw anything so cruel. They lost their jobs, let their careers sink, had no more money ... but they didn't care. They suffered immeasurable discrimination, denunciation, betrayal and humiliation ... but they kept going.
Never before in humanity has there been such a "casting", now we know who are the best on planet Earth. Women, men, old, young, rich, poor, of all races or religions, the unvaccinated, the chosen of the invisible ark, the only ones who managed to resist when everything collapsed.
That's you, you passed an unimaginable test that many of the toughest Marines, Commandos, Green Berets, astronauts and geniuses could not withstand.
You are made of the stuff of the greatest who ever lived, those heroes born among ordinary men who glow in the dark." ~ Author unknown
NEVER FORGET PUREBLOODS
^gets into how ignoring and pushing thru is common - typically with bad results
It's worse than that for me though. You're not even allowed to question 'the science', no matter how illogical it is, unless you're one of the appointed experts. It's the argument from authority. Feynman would roll in his grave.
I've been around elite athletes for 40 years myself and I've never known one to drop dead nor have I known one to develop heart problems.
Now if you add in what you said - drug use (prescriptions including vaccines), poor sleep habits, crap diet (in America), stress in life and more - these are considerable variables that affect the data.
Consider a 25 year old elite athlete in 2015 had more vaccines by age 5 than I have in my entire 53 year life and we have a observable pattern that tracks the consistent increase in sudden cardiac death.
Data is data.
What else? It's Occam's Razor isn't it? The hospitals being closed during lockdowns and delayed screenings probably account for a small amount but that wouldn't explain the rise in under 40yo deaths that has been observed.
Vaccinate everyone, then do it again (and again)! Run out of people to vaccinate? Change the age range! Vaccinate five year olds at all the schools! Vaccinate your pets! No one shall die. NOT ON MY WATCH.
1. Sarcasm mate... Just a bit of snark, if you actually think I was implying that Pfizer is even aware of Pinkbike's existence then you read way to much into the comment.
2. I'm not anti-vax at all, in fact I've got a long record of mocking the "vaccines cause autism" crowd. I'm just against largely ineffective and generally unnecessary trial medications being touted as effective and safe while being forced upon the people without even a single long term case study proving their claims of safety and efficacy.
But, ultimately the choice should be up to the individual. I am still getting over COVID (that I contracted in September), and it sucks. YMMV
Fixed that for you
The link explaining this odd discrepancy Error 404's. I would very much like to read it if you have the unbroken link.
The funny part is there's still people denying there is any risk with this vaccine. It ultimately becomes a risk/ reward thing of course if the vaccine could have eradicated the virus the myocarditis risk would in my mind have been worth it. However, it clearly did effectively nothing to eradicate even though it was preached it would.. the virus was already mutating and it was widely accepted that the vaccine was not as effective on the mutations as it was still being pushed as a cure all.
Here are a couple of studies. Not sure either is the specific one they were referencing.
Scenario 1: Societal. Compare the total risk - short-term mortality, acute illness, change in lifespan, change in quality of life, etc. - for the whole population with or without the vaccine. In that analysis, vaccination is the clear winner.
Scenario 2: Individual. Ignore impacts beyond the individual and weigh the risks for each individual. The vaccine is still a clear winner for vulnerable individuals. The choice is less obvious for less vulnerable individuals. Obviously, the survival rate from COVID infections is high for those at less risk. Nonetheless, the likelihood of COVID infection is nearly 100% (usually more than 100%, counting multiple infections), and COVID itself carries all the risks of the vaccine with greater frequency and severity. The vaccine reduces these risks, even if it carries a lesser risk of its own. As such, the balance of risks is more favourable with the vaccine.
Scenario 3: Individual freedoms. Some people feel their freedoms are threatened by laws, so they will always resist safety measures; for them, neither of the scenarios above apply.
Considering Scenario 2, the individual case is much like wearing a helmet, with motorcycles providing a clearer example than bicycles. Slight discomfort and inconvenience are guaranteed and I'm sure some people have been in accidents while wearing helmets that may have been avoided without the helmet, due to the helmet reducing hearing and vision. When all outcomes are weighed, helmets are more likely to be helpful than harmful, even for those with a robust body and bike handling skills.
Scenario 2: I agree vulnerable individuals and at risk individuals should take the vaccine, again the risk reward thing. The benefit of possible lessened symptoms of COVID far outweighs the risk of myocarditis, especially in this population. There is a reason that QALY's and DALY's exist in health economics and biostatistics. The same is not as easy of a choice for the younger population. I am not going to take the time to completely dissect all the studies out there right now but I seem to remember there is an inverse relationship especially around males in their 20s and 30s where the vaccine has more prevalence of myocarditis while the risks of COVID itself is pretty low. The last part is actually a pretty poor analogy.. it would be more reasonable if there was occurrences, no matter how low, of the helmet causing head trauma itself.
It seems our views are mostly in alignment. I'll address things in point form:
• Sanctimoniousness / ridiculing: Civility and respect are important. My view is that taking steps to reduce the risk of disease spread is also a type of respect, so I understand where people are coming from in their frustration toward those who aren't "team players". Of course, personal freedom is also important, but there are already endless ways in which social responsibility is mandated, so it seems reasonable - to me, at any rate - to have some level of requirements in place or restrictions on those who opt out.
• Rolling back the clock on vaccine acceptance: True, that has happened, though I think much of it is due to hysteria and fear of the unknown. Just as people learned that heavier-than-air aircraft really can stay aloft, I hope we will eventually overcome these fears. There is a level of personal responsibility for people to understand the science, a responsibility to keep an open mind, and a responsibility to at least give a respectful ear to people who have spent years studying these things.
• Polio, etc.: True, there is usually mistrust and resistance around new technologies. It's interesting, though, that many people have accepted other vaccines, yet the COVID vaccine is perceived differently.
• Lied to by public officials: Public messaging is difficult. The information has to be condensed, or public officials would have to read every entire study and teach courses in statistics to discuss anything. Inevitably, nuance is lost. The message from the source was never that the COVID vaccine had zero risk. My perception is that people often compare the risks of the vaccine vs. no vaccine without factoring in infection. In that comparison, vaccines would always be the wrong choice, as they carry greater than zero risk. I believe a better comparison, in this case, is vaccine vs. no vaccine under the assumption we will all be exposed to COVID, in which case exposure + vaccine is safer than exposure + no vaccine. Essentially no one is going to get through life without multiple exposures to COVID, so we need to account for the total risk profile to fairly assess the net change due to the vaccine.
• Young males: My understanding is there is no group for which the risk of side-effects is greater from exposure + vaccine than exposure + no vaccine. It's not impossible for that to be the case, but I don't see how it could be universal that a dose of viral components could be worse than the actual virus. If this were to occur, the solution would probably be to tune the vaccine dosage for such groups to minimize the exposure + vaccine risk; if done correctly, it should always be possible to get that risk below exposure + no vaccine.
• Helmet analogy: It's not a perfect analogy, just something I came up with quickly. I still think it serves the purpose of showing how a preventative measure increases some risks, but lowers the total risk. Maybe we could look at seat belts or airbags, which do cause some direct injuries. Or maybe you could come up with something that resonates with you, but I think you see what I'm trying to get at.
Thanks again for the reasonable discourse!
I would however go on to point out that (to stretch this analogy well beyond sensible limits) that in this scenario, the rider also promptly grows their own natural helmet, if they survive their first crash unprotected, with largely the same benefits but fewer downsides as the government mandated helmet. Meaning that two years on, all those who refused the vaccine are now likely to have had covid at least once, and are now similarly protected to any vaccinated. And any vaccinated who are no longer strictly social distancing have likely also had covid at least once, and are at risk from the same negative side effects as any other non-immunocompromised covid survivor, vaccinated or not.
The real winners here are the at risk parties (essentially the old and the ill) who the vaccine protected from more serious effects or death the first time they were infected. We will probably never know solid numbers on these though.
The real losers are those who suffered more serious side effects from the vaccine than the virus would have provoked (largely young healthy people with promising futures). We will almost certainly never get hard numbers here either.
I'd hazard a guess that immune compromised people who the vaccine helped greatly outnumber the healthy people it may have injured. But I'd also suggest that this is small comfort to anyone who had an unprecedented heart attack at 30 after being vaccinated. Those people have every right to be pretty damn angry about how this played out.
How is it interesting that many people perceive the COVID vaccine differently when it is literally an entirely different technology than the common active immunization ('inactivated vaccine') or passive immunization (antibody injections) by oldstyle vaccines? It's a technology which has not ever been proven safe for human use and has failed in several animal trials before.
"Public officials would have to read every entire study and teach courses in statistics to discuss anything".
No shit?! Guess what... that's why they're paid 150k/year for doing nothing else but doing their f*cking homework on political decisions. When you're an incompetent degree holder in gender studies and you have no profound understanding of any subject, let alone basic statistics, you are simple not in the position to make any health decisions for the general public. Most politicians these days are neither competent enough nor willing to actually work for their tax paid salaries, but instead do as they're told by corrupt pharma-paid thinktanks. Wake up.
Your understanding about the situation for young adults, especially males, is wrong, because there is scientific evidence, that risk outweighs the benefits by far. And this has been known even before the vaccines were recommended - or let's say became mandated (by psychological coercion at least) - for children.
The Helmet/seatbelt analogy, which you are regurgitating, is a deceitful WEF-jargon fallacy used by corrupt reporters and scientists. It is excusing the fact that these vaccines do not, have not and never will stop transmission. In fact, they weren't even tested for this before mass rollout. Therefore, your view that taking steps to reduce the risk of disease spread bein a respectful deed that can be expected from anyone shows that you're kind hearted, yet totally naive; because this has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.
The governments all over the world have basically mandated a vaccine, paid for by the taxpayer, that did not have a sterilizing effect on the viral population, that was not effective against infection and that has cost more than 35,000 lives in North America alone. These are statistical facts. All of the profits have been privatized whereas all the risks have been socialized. This is institutionalized corruption and not an adequate methodological approach in any political environment.
I don't know of any instances in which wearing a seatbelt has spontaneously killed people or left them permanently disabled. It's a different story with COVID vaccines though.
This is where the risk/benefit trade-off comes in and why it can be concluded that, for old and vulnerable individuals, the benefits outweigh the risks.
However, there is no justification to coerce the entire fertile population let alone kids to take an experimental vaccine that potentially has devastating effects on their future health 10 years down the road simply on behalf of protecting the elderly. In what kind of society do you sacrifice the health of children - the general public's future - on behalf of its past?
"Yikes" is all you got as a response?
I mean... You, the guy who literally just hypocritically wished for "someone willing and able to have a 'reasonable discussion'"? LMAO.
Would you rather is was a Lancet hit piece at the origins of the virus?
The way people believed the wild virus origin proved to me early on how utterly easy it was to steer the dumb masses.
Better take your vax if you don't want to be in a traffic accident!
It's not even a vaccine, which as with the mumps etc one the kids are given DOES stop spread, which remotely stops the vaccine. Now it apparently just keeps most of out of hospital.
If you are going to preach at least research properly.
As for the issues in young males? Why do you think most of Scandinavia stopped vaxxinating young males, up to 30 by the end of it, and now Denmark aren't vaxxong anyone under 50? Because of the Lolz?
THEY know more than you. So do most governments, that's why almost all mandates are now gone, and most don't push for any more boosters, and most have shut the fk up about covid. It's not because they think covid is gone either, most countries still have high case numbers and lots of deaths.
You're desperation to discredit anyone but government appointed experts is pathetic. Do you know John Ioannidis was cancelled because he published a paper early on that suggested C19 had a similar case fatality to influenza. He was correct and He's the worlds most highly regarded epidemiologist.
If you're not in the least bit suspicious after 3 years of this BS you've lost the ability to think critically.
In German you'd say he is providing a 'Bärendienst', that is, he means well but is actually doing a disservice to like-minded people.
Or are you a complete moron who can't do paragraphs or read properly.
I like the word "Bärendienst". I'll be using that in future, Thank you!
The wide bar for the last category is probably because there were fewer people exercising at those levels, and that variability it what makes the difference "insignificant", using statistical jargon. And indeed the JAMA study concluded that "There was no evidence of harm at 10+ times the recommended minimum (0.68, 0.59–0.76)"
By the way quoting average (or a single data point!) with no regards to the variability, is the main reason why the timed runs appearing on Pinkbike tests are most lileky meaningless. People look at differences of seconds in single runs, without realizing that those differences might mean nothing about the performance of a bike and just reflect random variability.
Also important to recognize that certain heart "abnormalities" that arise from training are often not associated with increased mortality risk if other factors are in control. For example, many cyclist develop some degree of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy (LVH) - however, this is not dangerous if your blood pressure is in normal or low (which many trained athletes will enjoy). Simultaneously, this lower blood pressure also helps to mitigate atherosclerosis and heart disease, which are still the leading causes of mortality in the developed world.
See plenty of young healthy athletes that come in with palpitations and EKG LVH criteria. Haven't seen many without a family history have echo LVH or HCM, HOCM, ARVCM etc...
Asseem Malhotra is a more of a clickbait farmer for the Express than a cardiologist these days.
What a shill for alternative media and it's massive funding arm he is. Why doesn't he just go along with the pharma industrial complex and state funded media like everyone else. Then we could trust him.
Driving more than 10km a day in a personal car is selfish and has to be punished.
Don't mind the people imposing these rules are flying in private jets to live in beach front estates on their private islands which are supposed to be under water by 2030.
Do you not wonder when they’re going to get the game though? The media/government/institutional propaganda has done such a number on the masses. They actually believe the elite establishment acts in their interests to the point that they openly vote for enslavement. It’s even more insidious than 1984 IMO.
In the sake of not arguing with you look up Claus Schwab you've all know a Harari and the world economic forum
This is based on my extensive anecdotal evidence found right here in the pinkbike comments.
over 25 Canadian doctors between 25-59 died suddenly with no known reason and kids dropping dead during sports. Yep nothing to see here carry on.
Because of the way in which some vaccines work its been suggested that some people who may face adverse effects were, due to genetic or other reasons, at an unknown but increased risk of more severe COVID as well. If you're going to have this conversation, its important to remember and consider that COVID also carried cardiovascular, respiratory, systemic inflammatory and neurological risks to people - including healthy and young populations - as well.
Not here to tell anyone what to do. But your supposition/assumption is that "pro-vaccine" people are ignoring some data that you find concerning. Meanwhile, you are also ignoring the COVID mortality data and committing the same "sin", if you will. As many will say, there is no perfect, only tradeoffs. If, for an otherwise healthy, 30-year-old male there is a 1% risk of complications from COVID-19 and a 0.1% risk of complications from a COVID vaccine, then you should take the vaccine all day. (This is not factual - but an illustration of how you might think about risk).
The "costs" of getting the treatment(s) aren't clear because the drug companies that developed them, that were allowed to conduct their own clinical trials, and that are immune from liability, have not made their data public, and as mentioned previously one of them sued to keep it private for 75 years.
My family all non vaxxed and all got covid the same week and back to normal in a week.
Good enough reason to not get the experimental jab...
Shockingly, the people walking around with a smug disposition and accusing everyone else of being "sheep" are, themselves, falling into a specific narrative propagated by a vocal minority. And yet you speak with such confidence about a topic for which, by your own admission, you feel like you don't have the data.
My only point is that there is a methodology for how to evaluate and consider risk (and can be applied to many areas of life). Even my explanation above is too reductive. But I wanted to provide a base-level primer on HOW to think about these things.
Again, none of this is new. Not even a little bit. I am not here to defend the messaging at various points throughout the pandemic - but, personally, my doctor made it very clear when we were discussing the vaccine options in May 2021 that I should expect some degree of protection from symptomatic infection and reasonable protection from the potential complications/morbidity of COVID. To me, that was pretty much spot on with the data at the time and over the 18 months since we had that chat.
Additionally, around the world, more and more governments are pausing their treatment recommendations for young men (like Finland, Sweden, Denmark, etc) because there is some signal that heart injury is a legitimate risk factor from the treatment, while contracting COVID for young people is virtually risk free (also ignoring that the latest booster appears to increase your chance of contracting COVID).
ADDITIONALLY, nearly all discussion on this subject is so taboo that reporting a treatment injury is like a woman reporting sexual harassment in 1950s corporate America. If you report on your injury on social media, there was a time when your post would be taken down. Every "authority" figure said injuries and negative outcomes are a conspiracy theory. You were bullied, told you were a science denier, and ostracized from polite society. When my mom got her booster, got so sick I had to take her to the ER with a fever of 106 and her lungs shutting down (SPO2 in the low 80s and dropping) it took hours for her to regain consciousness. When she did come around, the ER doc was holding her hand and trying to comfort her. He literally said, "Well that was rough, but at least you're protected now".
Given that climate, with studies that by their nature are forced to rely on self-reported data, what is the quality of these studies going to be?
I am not disagreeing that one should consider evidence. However, fully 99% of people that I encounter who are ardent skeptics are wholly unqualified to evaluate the safety of Advil, much less COVID-19 and vaccines.
By the way, I completely agree that the current data DOES suggest that, perhaps, younger populations should not receive the vaccine. I'm well aware of the DATA-DRIVEN DECISION MAKING regarding the potential risks of the vaccine to sub-18 year old populations, weighed against the absolute risks of COVID-19.
oh, of course, you aren't here to defend the "bad messaging," just to smear those that got it right
Keep in mind, I AM a skeptic (of just about everything). I just got done telling 'hamncheez' that I agree that the potential benefits do not seem to outweigh the risks for some populations - specifically young (20ish years old) healthy populations. That said, I have not been convinced that the risks v benefits suggest that one should avoid getting vaccinated beyond that. Similarly, I am concerned about the hypothesis that those who may be most susceptible to vaccine complications are also most susceptible to COVID complications. That is entirely possible, if not probable, and would seriously distract from the aggregate benefits of the vaccine for the broader population.
As always, happy to update my thoughts as more data becomes available.
Even now, with our huge population dataset, excess mortality is being ignored. An incredible decline in fertility rates is being ignored. These two civilization-spanning events are much more correlated with the rollout of the mRNA treatments than with COVID itself. A possible difference-in-difference estimator could be Africa, where the mRNA treatment penetration is under 20% and there doesn't appear to be excess mortality nor fertility decline. Is it 100% caused by these treatments? Impossible to say now, but if you even suggest it or inquire about it your comments risk getting "moderated".
The TL;DR is, you're simply regurgitating manicured media campaigns about "significantly greater risk of cardiovascular complications from a covid infection" without having a clue or any data to prove it.
Smells like confirmation bias to me.
Having had a look at the data, you certainly realized that there is a huge elephant in the room in the shape of a continuous and HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT excess death rate ever since the mass roll-out, wayy higher than the 2020 COVID delta-variant baseline data on an unvaccinated population -- like double digit percentage-wise higher. Under normal circumstances this is regarded a statistically impossible deviation and therefore it has to be explained by some sort of event/change of circumstances.
It has been established that those excess deaths can explicitly NOT be explained by covid, so this is not it. What is it then?! And why is this not the absolute dominant topic in public discourse?
Sure, you could argue that the certified vaccine deaths for North America are only in the mid 5-digit realms as of yet, but then again, you're probably well-informed enough to know that real numbers are likely between 10x and 100x higher (this, too, is a well established statistical fact) for the simple reason that only 1 to 10% of vaccine induced deaths are correctly reported and it's not an easy task to have a vaccine related death actually categorized as such in the first place.
Hypothetically, let's assume only 1% of vaccine deaths are recognized, that's roughly 40k deaths times 100 and, thus, we arrive at 4 million potential deaths or close to 1% (more like 0.66%) of the entire North American population. Mind you, there was *only* 1.4 million covid deaths in North America, and that number is known to be exaggerated.
We're having a public argument. Feel free to find another thread or go pick a wheel size and be a dick about it.
It’s tough getting reliable information even straight from cardiologists. One suggested I take up golf. This post is great but I think the science is still catching up to the explosion in popularity of things like ultra running. Hopefully more will become evident in the next 5 or 10 years. For now quality of life > the length of it.
Your right that the medical information is limited and somewhat inconclusive, but there is association between endurance sport and arrhythmia. About a 8-10% increased risk from those who participate, from what I could find. It's not an area that appears to be well studied but I am aware of a long term study that is underway in Australia, and like you say this is still approx 10yrs away.
Like a lot of things, in the moment you do not even consider the risk. The assumption is that endurance sport is completely healthy, but in the long term it might bite back.
Happy to be functional again, out riding at reduced duration and effort (e-mtbr now), and thankful for the quality of life the ablations have restored.
So much lower overall risk, but if they are to have, it's more likely to be during or immediately after a big effort.There is a 'name' for this...welcome corrections if anyone is familiar with this topic
Many cardiologists are raising alarms, especially Dr Aseem Malhotra.
As for Huberman, I really like the guy - but he is very "eager" and I only have about 70% confidence in what he says. He seems much more willing to lean into single/non-replicated studies and draw conclusions. I think he means well, but he's a bit more "on the edge".
If anything, Attia is suggesting that most of these HRT clinics are operating completely irresponsibly and not looking at the "whole picture". Then again, I could be confusing other, longer-form discussion that Attia has had with the conversation he had with Huberman.
We must fully trust these companies that have payed some of the largest criminal law suits in US history and produce drugs with side effects that are the third largest cause of death behind heart disease and cancer.
People form some very strange alliances....
He is 100% correct in this.
'Very important to weigh the roll of SHBG, HCG, Thyroid, aromatization and 5-a-reducatase implications on DHT and derivative sterols.
They both (huberman far more) state elements about all of the above as if they are fact, when there is infact much dispute from within the HRT, endo and urologist community. I will have to relisten for specifics, but in particular Huberman takes anecdotal and somewhat subjective experience and extrapolates an awful lot. I like both of them, and to an extent they are both victim of the media world we are in, they need to appear to provide info that is not available anywhere else in order to grow an audience.
And are those the same early studies that also told us that the vaccines stopped/vastly reduced transmission of the **virus**. Or that there was indeed no issues with younger males and heart issues after vax (oops), or that there is no issues with female fertility (oops x2!!) or infant deaths (please google infant death spikes in Scotland and how they refuse to even look to see if any vax relation just to spare the mothers they say).
Or when Anthony fauci said that masks didn't make any difference based on early studies? Until the gain-of-funtion abusing dickhead decided that he wanted it to?
You mean all these types of early studies?
Bringing up Fauci clearly shows that you have no understanding of Science or medicine. You ever heard of Qanon? Or did you found it?
However it's been proven down here where I live, where 96+%of all adults were coerced into vaccination, and where the virus is STILL running f*cking rampant, that it doesn't f*cking stop transmission and never has. In fact they went from shutting 10% of society in at home and telling everyone it was them who were spreading it and harming the vaxxed to record levels of cases and deaths in that 4 month period where only the vaxxed were allowed out. They also tried it with kids as well, **get then vaxxed because no one wants to see hundreds of kids in hospital etc etc** and when no kids did indeed really get sick never Mind in hospital.. to ** get kids vaxxed to save the elderly**
And even though the higher ups from Pfizer have told you all the vax is useless v omicron anyway (Albert bourla) and that they never tested for transmission (Janine small) anyway. You still think it stops transmission?
If you truly want to study it, don't listen to the media mouthpieces from big pharma or that lying fk Fauci (did he ever make his mind up on masks being useful or not BTW?) Look to Australia. And everything to do with covid, vaccine rates, covid cases after, how death rates spiralled etc. Don't listen to me just look to a country with a massive adult vaccine take up rate.
There is only one of us who has been conned/tricked by the media and it isn't me.
Ps Height of summer here. f*cking roasting. Allegedly good weather for naturally killing a natural virus... oops.
Over 90% vax rate. Cases sky high for us. As are numbers of people in hospital and ICU.
But yeah. It DEFINITELY absolutely for sure, reduces transmission.
That's why clickbaity titles like this one are so successful, people believe a lot of BS.
The unvaxx should be also be respected, no only because it's their personal level decisions too, but also by keeping true to that against all the clear "sponsored" media agenda forcing 100% vaccination policy nonsense.
We are smart and kind people in majority, we love nature by default as part of our hobby/lifestyle and we understand the bullshit of Babylonian/corporative sponsors... That's why we run to the mountains to enjoy real life, blessing (God/Universe/Creator) for that opportunity... Even when we face death close situations into the forest laws.
Love everyone same as you love your entire self. Jesus loves you, and you know it.
Notice how wide the bar is for the last category. It is probably because there were fewer people exercising at those levels, and that variability makes the difference "insignificant", using statistical jargon. And indeed the JAMA study concluded that "There was no evidence of harm at 10+ times the recommended minimum (0.68, 0.59–0.76)"
By the way quoting average (or a single data point!) with no regards to the variability, is the main reason why the timed runs appearing on Pinkbike tests are most lileky meaningless. People look at differences of seconds in single runs, without realizing that those differences might mean nothing about the performance of a bike and just reflect random variability.
We all die of something. The chances of developing a heart issue or suffering sudden cardiac death from riding too much are pretty low. Even for those that do, I would argue, they have at least lived a full life, which to me is better than sitting around doing nothing.
I am soooo tired of discussions about covid vaccines. Please take that crap elsewhere, nobody is changing standpoints anymore anyway.
I was about 8 when my parents divorced an we moved to the other side of town. I was taken in by a group of lads all on Raleigh Burners, Falcon Pro Freesstylers while I had my ratty beat up Team Murry my folks brought over from the States when we moved back to the UK.
We would use old pallets, car wheels an anything we could find to build little kick start style trials out side Jason's house. We would ride miles around an out of town looking for things to ride down or jump off. I remember one day, we nearly made it aboot 6 or 7 miles through the woods to the next town over cos they had a full BMX track! We had to turn around an get bollocking from our folks as we didn't make it back before dark, pretty much the only rule we had to live by in those days...
We grew up, discovered cars an girls and moved away etc etc..
40 years later, I knew Jason was riding as he popped up on strava but, with me being a 4X, DH degenerate free rider an Jason being the XC / road super athlete we never got back in touch other than A quick YO JAY! as he flew past at double my speed on our local forest loop training.
One November day I got home from training. To the news that Jason had passed out an passed away from sudden heart failure while out on the same loop at the same time, just in a different part of the woods......
Jason Nunn For EVER
See you in Val Hala brother
P.S we had a ride out for J an raised over £9k for East Anglia Air Ambulance
I found ut I had Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy after collapsing at the top of a climb after chasing mates up the hill as you do, cut a long story short I got lucky come to and eventually had an ICD fitted, initially told to quit mountain biking completely because of the risk I ended up getting into ebikes back in 2015,(another long story) anyway I carried on with condition and got myself fitter via ebike and conventional bikes. Change of lifestyle, less alcohol no smoking etc. Come round to covid I got the vaccines and I'm still here, could it be a coincidence people who have had the vaccine have underlying Heart Conditions? As the video says HCM is 1-500. If you push yourself hard then it's probably worth while go getting an ECG to check yourself out even if you don't have the vaccine, then have further checkups periodically. I know there will always be this 'thing' with the vaccine, but I don't think it's quite as bad as people worry about. Peace out ✌️
There is no doubt a shift in the health and well being of the population, just look at insurance companies data of death from unkown causes.
There is so much information out there if you just open your eyes…
A good mate is an olympic running coach. He will tell you that huge amounts of high level constant exercise is bad for you due to heart scaring. Do the exercise but put the rest in as well. You are a human not a machine and even they need maintenance.
But healthy all the time and still fast enough , if I don't forget to take my pills and don't dehydrate.
Stroke risk is still there, so next year when I'm 65 I will take some more pills...
The pain lasted 3-4 days continually, and took around 2 weeks to disappear completely. But today after a bit more mtb, I can feel a light pain again.
I got 2 shots of the vaccine, but I got covid anyway.
So of course I may have ridden too hard, but it's quite suspicious that it would happen now when I never had any heart issue in the past.
Gotta read this article meticulously.
Too bad I totally forgot to ask the cardio about covid and vaccine, though he might have evade the issue.
But this time around they were much more prone to give me an appointment, so either that was indeed scarry, and/or the whole covid thing has clearly increased heart issues rates.
Cuz I sound like an antivax cuz' I talk about the vaccine in the same post as my chest pain ?
How would I be, I even wrote I got 2 shots, dummies.
In the same sentence I say I got covid anyway, which could, as per the article, be the cause of my chest pain.
Then again, I wasn't worried when my intensity was high. Better to of a heart attack having fun than die of a heart attack watching the real housewives on TV
Conspiracy theory continues to be used American lexicon 2022. But now peoples voices can be silenced if someone doesn’t like what they read.
What is truth?
Thank you for publishing this. I've known endurance athletes that have died suddenly during events and no one seems to accept the answers. It's always easier to blame something that we don't understand than to accept an answer that we don't want.
He had an enlarged heart with scaring
But how could he? He was running the Pikes Peak Marathon again, how could he have underlying heart disease if he was so healthy?
He had an abnormal heart valve that lead to increased shearing forces on the aorta
That couldn't be the truth, he was in his 20s, something else must have happened.
He suffered a heart attack during a run, he had severe atherosclerotic disease
But he was skinny and fit, how could that be? Nevermind the genetic history of this disease in the family
The only certainty is that Big Pharma has become richer than it already was by giving an experimental drug to millions without reporting its side effects and, this is the truly amazing thing, with very few people demanding that information and refusing to put that shit into their bodies.
And although it is touching to see the number of innocent souls out there, today the human being is basically a sheep with no ability to think for himself.
The 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans recommended a minimum of 75 vigorous-intensity or 150 moderate-intensity minutes per week (7.5 metabolic equivalent hours per week (MET h/wk)) of aerobic activity for “substantial” health benefit, and suggested “additional” benefits by doing more than double this amount. However, the upper limit of longevity benefit or possible harm with more physical activity is unclear.
So if I am a total weekend warrior with one vigorous 2-hr MTB ride per week, that would put me in the 20 MET h/wk category, as I read it.
Countries in Europe have pulled back on mass vaccines in men under 30 for nearly a year. Not just one. But multiple. And iirc Denmark now saying no one under 50 needs any vaccines.
When countries admit that the vaccines can cause specific issues (heart) in specific cohorts (men under 30) then YOU should listen. It's really that simple.
As for those of you who like to say "but but my studies".. most of you can't read them, they are deliberately obtuse, if you want to see how studies are manipulated see the recent ones that say you are 5 times more likely to get POTS after the infection than the vaccine. Until you really delve into said study and realise that the sample size results were manipulated and nothing like the headlines that news took from it. Link below
"People in this category tend to be successful"
You have success if you can achieve your goals. These goals are different for everyone and you should define them yourself. But if you can't balance your life, did you miss your goal or would it be a good idea to review your goals?
NOTE: The average vaccine approval generally takes between 8-10 years to be deemed "safe for public use". If the government cannot successfully run a post office, do not believe them when they tell you a vaccine is safe/affective and has zero side-effects.
Life insurance companies are paying out over 40% greater claims since 2020 from deaths in young adults. You can't tell me that the vaccine intake doesn't have something to do with this. Just saying!
Also, the vaccines were not largely available for younger populations until, what, February 2021? Even then, many people waited until spring or summer of 2021 - and you just stated that the payouts increased beginning in 2020.
Meanwhile, did you know that traffic fatalities (probably the leading cause of insurance payable death in populations 18-40) are up dramatically throughout the pandemic? Specifically, they went up 7.1% and 10.5% (year over year) in 2020 and 2021 - and these will disproportionately affect younger populations. Traffic fatalities alone likely account for nearly half of the insurance payout increase.
Apparently for those "do your own research" it means finding only what you want to agree with that is wrong and dwarfed by what you don't agree with that is factual.
That's basically all the right and left do anymore these days haha. Anything they don't like they'll simply ignore or attack the person rather than argument.
Continue here... rwmalonemd.substack.com/archive?sort=new
And here... petermcculloughmd.substack.com and if interested in finding the truth keep searching for it...
As far as people claiming there are not any peer reviews articles linking the jab to people dying suddenly. Your mistaken. There are dozens and dozens you won’t hear about them in your news.
I could give sources but y’all won’t look at them anyways.
Folks have the right to choose, even if that choice kills them. I don't really care if you die, I'm more interested in my life than yours
They'll never be fully vaccinated.
Here is quote from study.
"We did not observe an increased incidence of neither pericarditis nor myocarditis in adult patients recovering from COVID-19 infection."
So if not the virus itself? Then what? The vaccine? McDonald's? Lycra? THERE'D BE NO WAY OF KNOWING.
LOOK AT IT CLOSELY.
Doctor: well you have a huge heart.
Liberal: I know right?
Doctor: no I mean you have myocarditis, it's one of the possible side effects.