Connect
← Return to Covid and AFib Connection?
Discussion
Comment receiving replies
Reading back I agree my recommendation to complete a living will was flippant. But on the other hand many would agree we should all have a living will in place.
You describe having had 4 vaccinations with no effect. But people like myself havre had strong reactions. It would be questionable to repeat that experiment. The next recommendation I made was to consult your doctor about possibly of adding an angiotensin II agonist. I believe some doctors are prescribing and others are not. It may be at this time somewhat “off label”, but there is a fairly widespread acceptance that it is reasonable. Read the abstract at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7468676/
Or many others.
As with any medical intervention there are risks. The rate of of unwanted complications is not going to be either zero or one. But most of us expected that the trials data would have been collected in an objective manner. It was clearly not. See the Phizer releases and ask a trusted expert if the criteria for declaring myocarditis seems traditional or unusual. I expect you will conclude “unusual” or “absurd”.
The entire topic of COVID is so utterly political that it’s pointless to list a source as we can find sources that say anything A simple claim, such as “Omicron is typically mild” can now be checked by just about all of us directly. I have spoken with now about 25 people who had it, none were hospitalized. This tiny sample aligns with numerous open access data (like worldometer).
Do you think that I, after a heart attack and now AFib, should go get a 4th mRNA shot? Why?
What would be the risk benefit? Do you believe that Omicron is a lethal virus? Do you believe that mRNA vaccines are harmless to all? Do you believe that adverse reaction reporting is in place that is thorough and transparent? Why?
Replies to "Reading back I agree my recommendation to complete a living will was flippant. But on the..."
As to your lone cited source of information, it is filed in "Med Hypotheses" in the National Library of Medicine, drafted 2 and a half years ago when the authors' admitted speculation reflected a then new guess that virus entry to cells where ACE2 enters might be crucial. That speculation became an instant concern to scientists designing the mRNA that the vaccines use to create conditions that are hostile to the coronavirus. They even went so far as to presume that this entry might interfere with the RAS and thereby affect blood pressure controls. Nothing about arrythmias in the heart, which is mentioned only once in the entire hypothetical paper from South Africa. In the final sentence of the abstract at the head of the paper, they assured us of their guesstimating: "We hypothesize that . . . renin-angiotensin-aldosterone MAY account for . . . biochemical and clinical abnormalities in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2." Not even a guess about arrythmias like A-fib.
Connect
Your response to my question is to urge that I do the research to answer my own questions. You made the undocumented claims and incur the responsibility to document them -- not by "sources" but by expert testimony. What I "believe" is of no consequence, nor is what you believe unless you have evidence to back up your faith with fact. Is it possible that your A-fib reactions to vaccination were coincidental rather than causal? Some evidence to document causality would be nice to have.