Athletes didn't develop serious heart issues from covid

[PlayerRep]

First, I was talking about athletes who got covid.

Second, from linked article, "the condition usually clears up after 3 months." That's not serious.

So you're saying Edwardo Rodriguez did not have covid? His myocarditis was a direct result of his China Virus illness and he is just now working out with the Red Sox, after nearly a year. I have heard no one say his condition was anything but serious.

I said he took off 3 months from working out hard, and now is completely recovered. Can you not read? Can you not research? He isn't just working out now. He's been working out for many months.

"After spending three months resting up combined with a full offseason of conditioning training, Rodriguez said he's grateful to push through his health issues."

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/30929594/red-sox-p-eduardo-rodriguez-fully-recovered-covid-19-bout-myocarditis

"So far, we're not finding myocarditis or significant heart involvement with cardiovascular disease in patients with limited symptoms," Boehmer said. "It doesn't seem that exercise and cardiovascular outcomes are correlated with the pandemic, which is a very reassuring observation."

A special communication written by a team of sports cardiologists and published in JAMA Cardiology in October 2020 supports Boehmer's observations. It states: "Our combined experience suggests that most athletes with COVID-19 are asymptomatic to mildly ill, and to date, return-to-play risk stratification has yielded few cases of relevant cardiac pathology."

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201119/Study-investigates-link-between-myocarditis-and-COVID-19.aspx

"So far, this has been more of a tempest in a teapot than a tempest.
Paul Thompson"

In reality, what was being described on the MRIs were really quite trivial findings, or very subtle, hard-to-detect signs of inflammation without any corroborating evidence of heart injury.”

This latest paper, however, provides reassurances, noting that the incidence of myocarditis keeps declining as more rigorous research is conducted, as in the present study.

https://www.tctmd.com/news/low-incidence-myocarditis-among-pro-athletes-diagnosed-covid-19

 

[alabamagrizzly]

Uhhh, that’s not what the media was telling us not too long ago...

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/college-athletes-experienced-heart-damage-after-covid-19-study-67929



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7506347/



https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-08-coronavirus-heart-inflammation-athletes-myocarditis.html

The opening paragraph in this article.


Remember, these are all from medical science journals that people “trust” to bring them legitimate scientific reports. All three articles were the first three that popped up on a “covid causes myocarditis” search and the oldest is only seven months old. These aren’t politicaly driven news agencies trying to fear monger. They’re scientists trying to fear monger. Makes you wonder who’s controlling them. Sorry argh, I trust no one.

Those articles turned out not to be accurate;

Yet they were published in scientific and medical journals, whom we should be able to trust. “Things that make you go mmmm”

There was another pretty big story published on one of the covers of the most widely trusted scientific journals that was pretty damning to a certain drug that Mr Trump was trying to promote. It turned out to be full of false claims and a couple months later was retracted but that news was never published and the damage was done. When I get a moment later in the day, I’ll provide links but right now I’m off to work.

 

[alabamagrizzly]

Those articles turned out not to be accurate;

Yet they were published in scientific and medical journals, whom we should be able to trust. “Things that make you go mmmm”

There was another pretty big story published on one of the covers of the most widely trusted scientific journals that was pretty damning to a certain drug that Mr Trump was trying to promote. It turned out to be full of false claims and a couple months later was retracted but that news was never published and the damage was done. When I get a moment later in the day, I’ll provide links but right now I’m off to work.

Here’s one link. Some can not be found anymore because they’ve been deleted.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200605/lancet-retracts-hydroxychloroquine-study

The online medical journal The Lancet has apologized to readers after retracting a study that said the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine did not help to curb COVID-19 and might cause death in patients.

The study was withdrawn because the company that provided data would not provide full access to the information for a third-party peer review, saying to do so would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements.

“Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted.”

The study was massive, with information coming from 671 hospitals around the world and the medical records of 96,000 patients.

In the study, researchers concluded the drug didn’t help curb COVID-19, caused heart problems, and appeared to increase the risk of death. The study had immediate impact, with the World Health Organization and other groups stopping research into hydroxychloroquine.

But questions about the research methods rose immediately. The Lancet launched a third-party peer review.

“Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements,” The Lancet statement said.

The reviewers were unable to conduct “an independent and private peer review” and withdrew from the process, The Lancet said.

I realize it doesn’t come out and say that the article was a lie but there is such a thing as lying by omission and when you can’t provide any of the data that is required to prove your claims, that should probably be considered the same thing. For one thing, a study that claims to be of the magnitude they claim, should be able to provide something without still compromising its patients. The study came out May 22nd, shortly after Trump was talking up the drug and retracted a couple weeks later with very little publicity. Like I said, “things that make you go mmmm.”

 

[PlayerRep]

"Ohio State cardiologist says myocarditis is not a reason for football season to be canceled"

[The guy who did the study says people and the media misconstrued the study and interpreted the study the opposite of what it concluded.]

"An Ohio State cardiologist and co-author of a study on myocarditis does not believe that issue is reason enough to cancel the B1G football season, instead suggesting that it demonstrates that the sport can be played safely.

Dr. Curt Daniels told The Columbus Dispatch’s Bill Rabinowitz that information and interpretations regarding myocarditis have been “misconstrued.” He says it’s not a reason to cancel football or any other fall sports.

″‘My gosh, they found myocarditis, there’s no way we can play,’ ” Daniels said of the general reaction. “They’re putting it out there saying it’s not safe to play. They’re not reading the article. Or if they’re reading it, they’re just putting their own spin on it, like, ‘It’s not safe.’

“It’s actually the opposite. We’re saying we actually found this, but we know a path now to say it’s safe to go back as opposed to having this uncomfortable feeling of not knowing anything” about the actual risk.

Daniels co-authored the study, along with Ohio State athletic department head physician Dr. James Borchers, who was part of the B1G medical subcommittee that met with presidents and chancellors over the weekend."

https://saturdaytradition.com/ohio-state-football/ohio-state-cardiologist-says-myocarditis-is-not-a-reason-for-football-season-to-be-canceled/

 

[alabamagrizzly]

"Ohio State cardiologist says myocarditis is not a reason for football season to be canceled"

[The guy who did the study says people and the media misconstrued the study and interpreted the study the opposite of what it concluded.]

"An Ohio State cardiologist and co-author of a study on myocarditis does not believe that issue is reason enough to cancel the B1G football season, instead suggesting that it demonstrates that the sport can be played safely.

Dr. Curt Daniels told The Columbus Dispatch’s Bill Rabinowitz that information and interpretations regarding myocarditis have been “misconstrued.” He says it’s not a reason to cancel football or any other fall sports.

″‘My gosh, they found myocarditis, there’s no way we can play,’ ” Daniels said of the general reaction. “They’re putting it out there saying it’s not safe to play. They’re not reading the article. Or if they’re reading it, they’re just putting their own spin on it, like, ‘It’s not safe.’

“It’s actually the opposite. We’re saying we actually found this, but we know a path now to say it’s safe to go back as opposed to having this uncomfortable feeling of not knowing anything” about the actual risk.

Daniels co-authored the study, along with Ohio State athletic department head physician Dr. James Borchers, who was part of the B1G medical subcommittee that met with presidents and chancellors over the weekend."

https://saturdaytradition.com/ohio-state-football/ohio-state-cardiologist-says-myocarditis-is-not-a-reason-for-football-season-to-be-canceled/

Very good take on how the media runs with fear driven news stories.

 

[AZGrizFan]

"Ohio State cardiologist says myocarditis is not a reason for football season to be canceled"

[The guy who did the study says people and the media misconstrued the study and interpreted the study the opposite of what it concluded.]

"An Ohio State cardiologist and co-author of a study on myocarditis does not believe that issue is reason enough to cancel the B1G football season, instead suggesting that it demonstrates that the sport can be played safely.

Dr. Curt Daniels told The Columbus Dispatch’s Bill Rabinowitz that information and interpretations regarding myocarditis have been “misconstrued.” He says it’s not a reason to cancel football or any other fall sports.

″‘My gosh, they found myocarditis, there’s no way we can play,’ ” Daniels said of the general reaction. “They’re putting it out there saying it’s not safe to play. They’re not reading the article. Or if they’re reading it, they’re just putting their own spin on it, like, ‘It’s not safe.’

“It’s actually the opposite. We’re saying we actually found this, but we know a path now to say it’s safe to go back as opposed to having this uncomfortable feeling of not knowing anything” about the actual risk.

Daniels co-authored the study, along with Ohio State athletic department head physician Dr. James Borchers, who was part of the B1G medical subcommittee that met with presidents and chancellors over the weekend."

https://saturdaytradition.com/ohio-state-football/ohio-state-cardiologist-says-myocarditis-is-not-a-reason-for-football-season-to-be-canceled/

Very good take on how the media runs with fear driven news stories.

and how people buy it hook, line and sinker.

 

[alabamagrizzly]

Very good take on how the media runs with fear driven news stories.

and how people buy it hook, line and sinker.

Makes you wonder, which is more dangerous?

 

[ilovethecats]

and how people buy it hook, line and sinker.

Makes you wonder, which is more dangerous?

Speaking of which, I’ve had a question recently.

Now that it’s been reported that wearing two masks (or three :roll: )is safer than just wearing one, (shocking) are those people wearing only one being selfish and dangerous?

It’d be funny to start freaking out on people and asking them why they’re only wearing one mask like many have freaked out and asked others why they’re not wearing masks. Hey, it’s just what the science says. If you care about your neighbor, you really should be wearing 2-3 masks everywhere you go.

 

[alabamagrizzly]

Makes you wonder, which is more dangerous?

Speaking of which, I’ve had a question recently.

Now that it’s been reported that wearing two masks (or three :roll: )is safer than just wearing one, (shocking) are those people wearing only one being selfish and dangerous?

It’d be funny to start freaking out on people and asking them why they’re only wearing one mask like many have freaked out and asked others why they’re not wearing masks. Hey, it’s just what the science says. If you care about your neighbor, you really should be wearing 2-3 masks everywhere you go.

Except for the CDC has now said all vaccinated people don’t need to wear masks anymore so if you want to take your three masks off, you better roll up your sleeve.

 

[tourist]

Makes you wonder, which is more dangerous?

Speaking of which, I’ve had a question recently.

Now that it’s been reported that wearing two masks (or three :roll: )is safer than just wearing one, (shocking) are those people wearing only one being selfish and dangerous?

It’d be funny to start freaking out on people and asking them why they’re only wearing one mask like many have freaked out and asked others why they’re not wearing masks. Hey, it’s just what the science says. If you care about your neighbor, you really should be wearing 2-3 masks everywhere you go.

Sarcasm, love it. I see you're using Fauci as a prop. I'll make up some shooting targets featuring Fauci 's face. Bet I'm sold out in an hour. Anyone getting in my face about not wearing a mask, will be wearing one, or two, or three just to cover the facial trauma which will ensue.
Oh, I don't give a rat's ass about my neighbors. Their health is THEIR problem.

 

[PlayerRep]

Makes you wonder, which is more dangerous?

Speaking of which, I’ve had a question recently.

Now that it’s been reported that wearing two masks (or three :roll: )is safer than just wearing one, (shocking) are those people wearing only one being selfish and dangerous?

It’d be funny to start freaking out on people and asking them why they’re only wearing one mask like many have freaked out and asked others why they’re not wearing masks. Hey, it’s just what the science says. If you care about your neighbor, you really should be wearing 2-3 masks everywhere you go.

That's a good point. Can you get someone to research it?

 

[ilovethecats]

Speaking of which, I’ve had a question recently.

Now that it’s been reported that wearing two masks (or three :roll: )is safer than just wearing one, (shocking) are those people wearing only one being selfish and dangerous?

It’d be funny to start freaking out on people and asking them why they’re only wearing one mask like many have freaked out and asked others why they’re not wearing masks. Hey, it’s just what the science says. If you care about your neighbor, you really should be wearing 2-3 masks everywhere you go.

That's a good point. Can you get someone to research it?

I don’t have those kinds of friends PR! :lol:

But it makes sense right? If we were all selfish dicks for not wearing masks, which is what we’ve been told for 9 months; now that the science says 2 masks is even better than one, are all those only wearing one measly mask selfish dicks too?!

:idea:

 

[alabamagrizzly]

Speaking of which, I’ve had a question recently.

Now that it’s been reported that wearing two masks (or three :roll: )is safer than just wearing one, (shocking) are those people wearing only one being selfish and dangerous?

It’d be funny to start freaking out on people and asking them why they’re only wearing one mask like many have freaked out and asked others why they’re not wearing masks. Hey, it’s just what the science says. If you care about your neighbor, you really should be wearing 2-3 masks everywhere you go.

That's a good point. Can you get someone to research it?

No but I can certainly find a medical journal that will publish an article about how life saving it is and how you’ll die if you don’t adhere.

 

[PlayerRep]

That's a good point. Can you get someone to research it?

I don’t have those kinds of friends PR! :lol:

But it makes sense right? If we were all selfish dicks for not wearing masks, which is what we’ve been told for 9 months; now that the science says 2 masks is even better than one, are all those only wearing one measly mask selfish dicks too?!

:idea:

I agree. Did you ever not wear a mask in public when you were supposed to?

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

Your headline should read "Heart issues RARE in Professional athletes."

Nope, that wasn't the subject of my post. I wasn't talking about heart disease in athletes. I was talking about SERIOUS heart problems from covid. Only a few players had any heart issues at all. 5 according to the article/post I made. None of them ended up with any serious heart or health issue, after taking some time off and perhaps missing a season.

Thats good that some of the most physically fit humans in the world, with some of the best medical services available in the world, do not seem to be likely to develop long lasting heart conditions from getting covid.

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

Speaking of which, I’ve had a question recently.

Now that it’s been reported that wearing two masks (or three :roll: )is safer than just wearing one, (shocking) are those people wearing only one being selfish and dangerous?

It’d be funny to start freaking out on people and asking them why they’re only wearing one mask like many have freaked out and asked others why they’re not wearing masks. Hey, it’s just what the science says. If you care about your neighbor, you really should be wearing 2-3 masks everywhere you go.

This is 100% not accurate.

Except for the CDC has now said all vaccinated people don’t need to wear masks anymore so if you want to take your three masks off, you better roll up your sleeve.

 

[PlayerRep]

Nope, that wasn't the subject of my post. I wasn't talking about heart disease in athletes. I was talking about SERIOUS heart problems from covid. Only a few players had any heart issues at all. 5 according to the article/post I made. None of them ended up with any serious heart or health issue, after taking some time off and perhaps missing a season.

Thats good that some of the most physically fit humans in the world, with some of the best medical services available in the world, do not seem to be likely to develop long lasting heart conditions from getting covid.

Yes. professional athletes and college football players were the target groups. Some said that those groups shouldn't play because the covid/heart risk was too high. The Big 10 and MW made decisions not to play their seasons initially, based on bad advice and wrong interpretations of developing data and advice regarding myocarditis. Then, when those conferences woke up to the right data/analysis, they reversed themselves and started their seasons late. And it's true, at least the professionals sports, and maybe college football too, instituted testing procedures to look for the start of heart issues and held out a few players from their seasons. To my knowledge, no one developed serious or long-lasting problems, but a few missed last season.

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

Makes you wonder, which is more dangerous?

Speaking of which, I’ve had a question recently.

Now that it’s been reported that wearing two masks (or three :roll: )is safer than just wearing one, (shocking) are those people wearing only one being selfish and dangerous?

It’d be funny to start freaking out on people and asking them why they’re only wearing one mask like many have freaked out and asked others why they’re not wearing masks. Hey, it’s just what the science says. If you care about your neighbor, you really should be wearing 2-3 masks everywhere you go.

I haven't seen any actual studies or hard data that definitively prove that two masks are better than one. In looking at the CDC's own released "proof" for mask mandates, one comes to understand that they are setting the bar so low for "statistically significant" improvements that it's laughable. Take this study which was released in the last several days: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm

Here's an excerpt: "During March 1–December 31, 2020, state-issued mask mandates applied in 2,313 (73.6%) of the 3,142 U.S. counties. Mask mandates were associated with a 0.5 percentage point decrease (p = 0.02) in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all) (Table 1) (Figure). Mask mandates were associated with a 0.7 percentage point decrease (p = 0.03) in daily COVID-19 death growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.0, 1.4, 1.6, and 1.9 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all). Daily case and death growth rates before implementation of mask mandates were not statistically different from the reference period."

So at best, mask mandates caused a 1.9% decrease in the covid death rate and at worst a .5% decrease in the case growth rate. In what other context would a decrease of one HALF of a percentage point be considered STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT?? Vaccines have to be at least 50% effective to be approved, and most Americans don't even get the annual flu shot because it's effectiveness is so low, yet we all were conned into wearing masks for A YEAR PLUS. This is crap science.

 

[MikeyGriz]

Hi, we're from the government and we're here to help!

 

[PlayerRep]

The CDC study/stats actually show how little masks and restaurant closings impacted covid. Shockingly small percentages. In MT, the mask mandate was put in place in mid-july when covid stats were low, and within a few weeks stats startted climbing to their peak. Not saying there was causation, but the MT stats showed the exact opposite of the CDC study/stats.

Follow the science? Ha.