15 Year Old Boy Dies of Heart Attack Two Days After Taking Pfizer Vaccine, Had No History of Allergic Reactions

in Steem Linkslast month

According to data in the national Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, a 15-year-old boy in Colorado died of a heart attack only two days after being injected with the controversial Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine despite having no previous history of allergic reactions.

The case, listed in the database as VAERS ID 1242573, reveals that the 15-year-old boy was “vaccinated with Pfizer/Biontech” on April 18, 2021. He began to experience adverse reactions to the vaccine on April 19, 2021, and “died 04/20/2021, 2 days after vaccination.” The VAERS database also reveals that he had no other illnesses, no preexisting conditions, no known allergies, no birth defects, and no permanent disabilities. He merely died of “cardiac failure” exactly two days after receiving the controversial vaccine.

15 Year Old Boy Dies of Heart Attack Two Days After Taking Pfizer Vaccine, Had No History of Allergic Reactions

Sort:  

No worries; I take the same tack you do about finding sources to trust.

I was hoping to add context to the article, which neglected to inform the reader about what the VAERS system is. I'd never heard of it, so I looked it up; that's how I found out it was a public system that accepts unverified reports.

To me, it can sometimes be aggravating to read noncommittal language in news and blog posts. But is is also important to me to read accurate analysis, in which that language is often necessary.

Some other outlets stated "an unverified claim suggests that... " or similar language. It's a very different tone than presenting the report as fact.

I hope the information I added is helpful context!

The local health department (Colorado, since that's where the entry indicates this event occurred) stated this: “Given the large number of COVID-19 vaccinations currently underway, it is expected that events such as heart attacks, strokes, serious illnesses, and death will, by chance alone, occur in the days following vaccination. To date, VAERS has not detected patterns in cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines,” the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment said.

I'd expect that "patterns" can take a while to be revealed, especially if adverse effects are under-reported. However, I also came across some information that the bulk of entries in the VAERS system are related to COVID-19; if I recall correctly one site claimed that something like more than half of all claims in the history of the system (that might have been the National File site where this Global Reserach post was sourced)!

I certainly appreciate your insights and time. This COVID-19 situation, like many other issues, is very difficult to navigate. I rely strongly on the sources I trust, some of which I have trusted for years, and they are obviously not perfect, but I have been ahead of the curve because of the great work they do. We're still waiting on the truth about 911, and who killed Kennedy, King and Malcolm! Get where I'm going with this?! Lovers of truth have to find alternative paths to that truth, for we are living in an extremely dishonest world.

Not to mention what happened to the Roanoke settlers!
😎

I've never head of the Roanoke settlers; but if it's another unsolved mystery, the list just gets longer and longer as time goes by!

It's important to note that the organization that runs the VAERS database, where this report came from, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, wants you to know that "VAERS is not designed to detect if a vaccine caused an adverse event, but it can identify unusual or unexpected patterns of reporting that might indicate possible safety problems requiring a closer look."

Despite the fact that submissions to the database are not verified, it's a helpful to researchers and health officials in identifying patterns that allow assessments to be made about possible side effects. And, that framework works!

Hopefully.

Also important to note: no covid vaccine had yet been authorized for children under 16 years of age at the time this report indicates a vaccine was given, so it's unlikely that such a person had received a vaccine dose outside of a clinical trial. In that case, you would hope a participant's family would report the "adverse effect" to trial authorities, and you'd hope that those running the trials would maintain a record of the event. No such record seems to be easily accessible publicly.

Similar reports have been made before (kid too young to have been receiving vaccine, no reports outside of VAERS), and subsequently deleted after the CDC's investigative process because the "CDC discovered that the report submitted to VAERS was false."

Presumably, that might happen in this case as well. The price of a publicly accessible database accepting unverified reports, I suppose.

Yes, I am aware that reporting adverse reactions to "vaccines" is voluntary, and that the system is not designed to validate harm from vaccines. I'm also aware that the adverse reactions are grossly underreported.

In this ocean of information that we are drowning in, we have a choice to become professional investigative reporters or researchers, or we can find some sources who do the hard work for us, and just trust them. I have relied on Global Research for over a decade now to provide me with information that I can rely on to shape my opinion about what is going on in the world.

I am fairly confident that this experimental gene therapy (which is not a vaccine) is causing damage and death to those who are accepting to be the equivalent of lab rats. We have yet to see the long term negative effects.

@remlaps Hey Steve! Thanks for the votes. I was just about to write you. I took a bit of a hiatus to handle some personal issues in my life, but am slowly getting back to the crypto-social game. I was going to ask how the penny4thoughts experiment is going? Any changes, updates? Hope you and your loved are doing well! And thanks for your constant contributions to this community!

Hi, welcome back!

I had noticed that you went quiet for a while, so was hoping everything was alright. I'm glad to see that you're back.

Penny4thoughts is still operating and it seems like maybe it has been generating a little bit of engagement on some posts, recently. No changes to the way it works. I have some things I'd like to do with it, but with my "day job", I've been lucky to find time for just writing a post or two per week and curating the posts in "Steem Links" and "Popular STEM".

Thank you for the update and for welcoming me back. Steemit is a fun and exciting experience but certainly not a priority over many other areas of my personal life. Just before taking my break, I was beginning to introduce the experiment to the Italian community, who were very excited about the idea. I will hopefully be able to reignite that enthusiasm now that I see that the program is still running smoothly. I really appreciate your continued contributions to Steem Links! I see your brother is contributing as well!

Thanks for introducing the Italian community to penny4thoughts. Let me know if anyone runs into any issues. I really hope that the concept can make an impact on the overall level of genuine engagement that takes place here.

And yes, I've been happy that my brother has been chipping in for both steemlinks and penny4thoughts.

I'm still working on some techinal issues regarding my smartcasting adventures which will allow me to relaunch my podcasts. I've been reflecting on a possible issue that may arise in the future. The Italian community has grown, and is continuing to grow, both in membership, as well as Steem Power. Perhap you have already pondered this issue regarding the 100% upvote for qualifying comments. If not, my mind has begun to work on some formulas. I don't remember much from my school days learning BASIC (showing my age there, ha ha!) but I used to love the IF THEN rules.

Someone, like my Country Rep, with 100,000+ SP would find it challenging upvoting comments with a 100% upvote. I immagine you can already see where I'm going with this...

Would it be possible, in the future, to add some coding like...

IF SP > 5000 THEN > 75% UPVOTE = QC
IF SP > 15000 THEN > 50% UPVOTE = QC
QC = Qualifying Comment

Or something along those lines. Just some thoughts on what could pop up as an issue.

Good point. I'll take a look this weekend and see how hard it would be to do something like that. I was already thinking about just reducing it to >50% for anyone because I've been exhausting my own voting power on comment upvotes, but I hadn't considered high SP accounts. Even 50% might be too high for some.

In the short term, maybe I'll just reduce it to >25% for everyone. The point is mainly just to give the author a lever to control which comments get distributions. Eventually, I'd like to adjust it so that the distribution is proportionate to the author's upvotes. Not sure how long that will take, though.

I imagine that your reasoning for setting 100% was to encourage Authors to support comments, which is understandable. I'm trying to think of how an Author could abuse a, let's say, >1% upvote? There's no real gain for the Author, so my thought is, what if you simply left it up to the Author to decide the upvote amount, that way those who offer more engaging and well written comments could be rewarded more than someone who gives a lesser quality comment? I believe that those Authors who are going to genuinely use this experiment in a positive way, would be more inclined to participate, if they are given this level of flexibility. As a Curator yourself, you are aware of the importance of managing Voting Power. What do you think?

I imagine that your reasoning for setting 100% was to encourage Authors to support comments, which is understandable.

That was part of it. The other part was that I wanted to give the author a way to upvote the reply without distributing any beneficiary rewards. I'm not sure why that would ever be used, but I wanted to preserve the possibility.

I'd be willing to switch it to 1% (or just any upvote) and see how it goes. I have a long to-do list this weekend, though. Might not be able to get to it 'til next week.