#COVID19#vaccineswork No the FAA did not secretly change their cardiac evaluation rules because of myocarditis. The article quoted explains exactly what was changed - requirements on this thing called the PR interval.
The PR interval is defined as the amount of time in between the atrial squeeze and the ventricular squeeze. Having a prolonged PR interval is also known as a first degree heart block.
A pilot candidate can certainly have a medical evaluation to accompany this, but a first degree heart block is among the least worrying heart rhythm changes we have. If I had to choose a heart rhythm change to have, this is the one I would choose.
This change made by the FAA is in line with what the American College of Cardiology is already doing. If there is no other heart rhythm change, then this should be good news supportive of the candidate's medical eligibility to fly.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
#vaccineswork#COVID19 I would like to take a moment to highlight the differences between a real vaccine injury researcher and someone who is grifting for themselves.
@P_McCulloughMD 's current situation is that he blocks everyone who challenges him... and its quite easy to challenge his willful disregard of even basic biochemistry. He now sells vitamins with minimal evidence that they actually protect the heart.
Texas's Stella Immanuel also sells vitamins with minimal evidence, which can also be purchased for more medically valid reasons for much cheaper at places like... Walmart.
#VaccinesWork#neoTwitter#COVID19 Antivax tactic used here - when knowledge is a bit sparse, invent stuff to make your meme more scary. The meme shown here is full of errors. Its about multisystem inflammatory syndrome in neonates.
Lets start with some definitions - multisystem inflammatory syndrome is defined essentially as dysfunction in two or more organ systems after COVID19 infection.
"White lungs" is usually a reference to neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, meaning a situation where the lungs are not well developed enough to produce enough surfactant (a type of biological soap) to keep the lungs open.
#OBGYN#pregnancy#COVID19 The obstetrician Kimberely Biss out of Florida is quite misguided on her statements in the hallway. One of the simplest rules of research is that you cannot necessarily generalize your personal experience to the whole population.
The actual situation on cervical cancer screening is more complicated than what she discusses - there was a lapse in screening/ diagnosis, which needed to catch up. She implies that COVID vaccines cause cervical cancer - NO, HPV does (in most cases). jamanetwork.com/journals/jamao…
COVID vaccines do not raise the miscarriage rate - cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19-vacci…
Miscarriage can be one of the most traumatic experiences ever but even then, systematic analysis is necessary.
Maternal vaccination with two doses of mRNA vaccine was associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization for Covid-19, including for critical illness, among infants younger than 6 months of age. nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…
Severe complications known to be associated with COVID-19 in pregnancy (critical care admission and perinatal mortality) were more common in women who were unvaccinated at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis than in vaccinated pregnant women. nature.com/articles/s4159…
#vaccineswork#COVID19#myocarditis for those who are strongly committed to the COVID doesn't cause myocarditis camp, who love toting this Israeli study, remember that it specifically looked at myocarditis in a post COVID cohort specifically those after day 10 of positive PCR,
and compared it to historical cohorts who had myocarditis from other reasons. Their core conclusion was that the amount of myocarditis was not statistically significant different in the two groups. If you look for myocarditis after COVID only 10 days after, you will ...
find less myocarditis than if you look at all COVID cases added together. We have lots of historical evidence for human coronaviruses of all flavors causing myocarditis. Calling me names will not change that, despite what you prefer to think.
@healthbyjames every point in this analysis contains a distortion or outright misrepresentation. Perhaps you can explain why you formulated your points this way?
1. @healthbyjames Point one is just a division of adverse events in the test group versus placebo group, to give you a big percentage you can share.
2. @healthbyjames The people who were medically attended, received the systematic medical investigations necessary to discover their real diagnoses. You didn't share this table for a reason.