https://indianewengland.com/no-evidence-linking-covid-19-vaccines-to-sudden-deaths-among-young-adults-says-aiims-study/

4yrletterbear said:

---

a Pack of Lies

---

Your qualifications or analysis to reach that conclusion?

Frank Galvin said:

---

4yrletterbear said:

---

a Pack of Lies

---

Your qualifications or analysis to reach that conclusion?

---

Read the study.

4yrletterbear said:

---

a Pack of Lies

---

Please present your contrary study results. Let's see how it holds up under review.

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

4yrletterbear said:

---

a Pack of Lies

---

Your qualifications or analysis to reach that conclusion?

---

Read the study.

---

To be clear, I was asking the poster why he felt he could debunk the study.

cowboycwr said:

---

Funny how you don't post the studies showing how bad the shot is…. Like the recent one from Stanford…..

---

This one?

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/12/myocarditis-vaccine-covid.html

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

4yrletterbear said:

---

a Pack of Lies

---

Your qualifications or analysis to reach that conclusion?

---

Read the study.

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

4yrletterbear said:

---

a Pack of Lies

---

Your qualifications or analysis to reach that conclusion?

---

Read the study.

---

---

Do you think Dumbus prays to Trump each night and thanks him for the rona jabs?

Frank Galvin said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

4yrletterbear said:

---

a Pack of Lies

---

Your qualifications or analysis to reach that conclusion?

---

Read the study.

---

To be clear, I was asking the poster why he felt he could debunk the study.

---

Ok, got it.

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funny how you don't post the studies showing how bad the shot is…. Like the recent one from Stanford…..

---

This one?

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/12/myocarditis-vaccine-covid.html

---

Hahaha, he won't like that one!

From the study.

The mRNA vaccines for COVID-19, which have now been administered several billion times, have been heavily scrutinized for safety and have been shown to be extremely safe, said Joseph Wu, MD, PhD, the director of the Stanford Cardiovascular Institute.


"The mRNA vaccines have done a tremendous job mitigating the COVID pandemic," said Wu, the Simon H. Stertzer, MD, Professor and a professor of medicine and of radiology. "Without these vaccines, more people would have gotten sick, more people would have had severe effects and more people would have died."

mRNA vaccines are viewed as a breakthrough because they can be produced quickly enough to keep up with sudden microbial strain changes and they can be rapidly adapted to fight widely divergent types of pathogens. But, as with all vaccines, not everyone who gets the shot experiences a purely benign reaction.

One rare but real risk of the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines is myocarditis, or inflammation of heart tissue. Symptoms chest pain, shortness of breath, fever and palpitations appear in the absence of any viral infection. And they happen quickly: within one to three days after a shot. Most of those affected have high blood levels of a substance called cardiac troponin, a well-established clinical indicator of heart-muscle injury. (Cardiac troponin is normally found exclusively in the heart muscle. When found circulating in blood, it indicates damage to heart muscle cells.)

Frank Galvin said:

---

4yrletterbear said:

---

a Pack of Lies

---

Your qualifications or analysis to reach that conclusion?

---

Please post your professional, graduate degree level, field of study, and certifying ABMS affiliate board.

Or STFU.

The level of discourse is amazing here.

You might have noticed that I asked for qualifications or analysis. In doing so I was pointing out that the poster likely had neither. I will rely on the qualifications of the study's authors and their analysis. If someone wants to dispute them, they should make an argument, not and accusation.

Thank God Trump was in office during covid. Could you imagine if Joe Biden was the Pres!?! We would still be waiting for a vaccine! zzzzz

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funny how you don't post the studies showing how bad the shot is…. Like the recent one from Stanford…..

---

This one?

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/12/myocarditis-vaccine-covid.html

---

Hahaha, he won't like that one!

From the study.

The mRNA vaccines for COVID-19, which have now been administered several billion times, have been heavily scrutinized for safety and have been shown to be extremely safe, said Joseph Wu, MD, PhD, the director of the Stanford Cardiovascular Institute.


"The mRNA vaccines have done a tremendous job mitigating the COVID pandemic," said Wu, the Simon H. Stertzer, MD, Professor and a professor of medicine and of radiology. "Without these vaccines, more people would have gotten sick, more people would have had severe effects and more people would have died."

mRNA vaccines are viewed as a breakthrough because they can be produced quickly enough to keep up with sudden microbial strain changes and they can be rapidly adapted to fight widely divergent types of pathogens. But, as with all vaccines, not everyone who gets the shot experiences a purely benign reaction.

One rare but real risk of the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines is myocarditis, or inflammation of heart tissue. Symptoms chest pain, shortness of breath, fever and palpitations appear in the absence of any viral infection. And they happen quickly: within one to three days after a shot. Most of those affected have high blood levels of a substance called cardiac troponin, a well-established clinical indicator of heart-muscle injury. (Cardiac troponin is normally found exclusively in the heart muscle. When found circulating in blood, it indicates damage to heart muscle cells.)

---

Thanks for proving my point. They downplayed the risk (because they have been told to) instead of admitting it has killed.

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

https://indianewengland.com/no-evidence-linking-covid-19-vaccines-to-sudden-deaths-among-young-adults-says-aiims-study/

---

You simply can't draw the conclusion from this particular study that Covid vaccines were unrelated to sudden deaths in young people and are therefore safe.

This was a single center, relatively small cross-sectional study in one regional area in India that only observed and analyzed the sudden deaths of 103 "young" adults (ages 18-45) over a period of only one year. The definition of "sudden death" used in this study was limited to deaths occurring within one hour of symptom onset or death occurring within 24 hours of the person being last seen. This would eliminate deaths that occurred with symptoms appearing more than one hour prior, which at least anecdotally, accounts for many suspected cases of vaccine-induced demise. (Personal, real life example - I personally knew someone who was complaining of feeling "ill" for a few days, and then he dropped dead. He had received a booster Covid vaccine a few months prior. Autopsy was performed, but due to the city's coroner office being backlogged, his parents were told the official report may take a year or longer, thus perhaps another impediment to accurate study findings.)

Here's the kicker: Out of the 103 "sudden deaths" investigated among young adults, 21% (TWENTY ONE percent) were deemed "unexplained." I'm no professor of logic, but it would seem to me that you really can't say that there's no relationship between the vaccine and sudden death in the young, when you don't even know what caused the sudden death of TWENTY ONE percent of those in your study. But hey, maybe that's just me.

Here's the authors' concession on these points: regarding the limited study size and scope - "Our study highlighted a small amount of regional data on various etiological factors. Similar multicentric studies across different regions in India will provide the true incidence of etiological factors relating to sudden death in young".....

... and regarding the significant number of "unexplained" sudden deaths: "Despite thorough investigation, approximately one-third of cases remain unexplained and are classified as "sudden unexplained deaths (SUDs). Incorporation of post-mortem genetic study (molecular autopsy) has proven to be an efficient diagnostic tool in these cases." NOTE: they did not do molecular autopsies in this study. The authors acknowledge that incorporating this technique would make studies like this more accurate.

Frank Galvin said:

---

The level of discourse is amazing here.

You might have noticed that I asked for qualifications or analysis. In doing so I was pointing out that the poster likely had neither. I will rely on the qualifications of the study's authors and their analysis. If someone wants to dispute them, they should make an argument, not and accusation.

---

Unless you read the actual study, you're not relying on the study authors' analysis, you're only relying on the reporting of their analysis.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

https://indianewengland.com/no-evidence-linking-covid-19-vaccines-to-sudden-deaths-among-young-adults-says-aiims-study/

---

You simply can't draw the conclusion from this particular study that Covid vaccines were unrelated to sudden deaths in young people and are therefore safe.

This was a single center, relatively small cross-sectional study in one regional area in India that only observed and analyzed the sudden deaths of 103 "young" adults (ages 18-45) over a period of only one year. The definition of "sudden death" used in this study was limited to deaths occurring within one hour of symptom onset or death occurring within 24 hours of the person being last seen. This would eliminate deaths that occurred with symptoms appearing more than one hour prior, which at least anecdotally, accounts for many suspected cases of vaccine-induced demise. (Personal, real life example - I personally knew someone who was complaining of feeling "ill" for a few days, and then he dropped dead. He had received a booster Covid vaccine a few months prior. Autopsy was performed, but due to the city's coroner office being backlogged, his parents were told the official report may take a year or longer, thus perhaps another impediment to accurate study findings.)

Here's the kicker: Out of the 103 "sudden deaths" investigated among young adults, 21% (TWENTY ONE percent) were deemed "unexplained." I'm no professor of logic, but it would seem to me that you really can't say that there's no relationship between the vaccine and sudden death in the young, when you don't even know what caused the sudden death of TWENTY ONE percent of those in your study. But hey, maybe that's just me.

Here's the authors' concession on these points: regarding the limited study size and scope - "Our study highlighted a small amount of regional data on various etiological factors. Similar multicentric studies across different regions in India will provide the true incidence of etiological factors relating to sudden death in young".....

... and regarding the significant number of "unexplained" sudden deaths: "Despite thorough investigation, approximately one-third of cases remain unexplained and are classified as "sudden unexplained deaths (SUDs). Incorporation of post-mortem genetic study (molecular autopsy) has proven to be an efficient diagnostic tool in these cases." NOTE: they did not do molecular autopsies in this study. The authors acknowledge that incorporating this technique would make studies like this more accurate.

---

The authors' recommendation for multicentric studies and genetic testing is an admission that this paper is a starting point, not a final word. For a broader perspective, it is often more reliable to look at large-scale meta-analyses or national-level database studies that track millions of individuals to see if the "unexplained" signals become clearer.

Frank Galvin said:

---

The level of discourse is amazing here.

You might have noticed that I asked for qualifications or analysis. In doing so I was pointing out that the poster likely had neither. I will rely on the qualifications of the study's authors and their analysis. If someone wants to dispute them, they should make an argument, not and accusation.

---

You won't last long here.

Frank Galvin said:

---

4yrletterbear said:

---

a Pack of Lies

---

Your qualifications or analysis to reach that conclusion?

---

Several things to consider here:

1. Tempus Rectum linked to a newspaper article, not a scientific study.

2. Generally speaking, to test a scientific article's validity, one needs to examine the journal's reputation as well as the authors; review the methodology; ensure clear peer-review, cross-reference the findings with other reputable literature, and, most importantly, check for conflicts of interest.

3. If you want to read the paper: Article

4. In the article you will find that this study received funding support from the Indian Council of Medical Research.

5. The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICRM) oversaw the clinical trials and was the agency that granted emergency use approvals for the various COVID-19 vaccines used in India.

So what we have here is a study funded by the vary agency that approved the vaccines and it found no increased risk - you don't say.