A recent study of deaths in U.S. students appears to show a declining rate of sudden cardiac deaths. The study included students who were registered with the National Collegiate Athletic Association, which organises intercollegiate athletics. Figure 1 shows the main findings. However, there are a number of points about this paper which raise doubts about the findings.
The authors had access to data from the following databases:
- NCAA resolutions list
- Parent Heart Watch database
- Prospective media report searches
- NCAA insurance claims
- National Centre for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research database
In the five years from 2004-2008 there were 55 deaths and nine cardiac deaths per year.
Over the 10 years from 2003/4 to 2011/12 there were on average 53 student deaths per year. The NCAA has a database of deaths but the only years publicly available are 2016, 2022 and 2023, which show the following:
- 2016: 71 students and 191 staff deaths
- 2022: 70 students and 231 staff deaths
- 2023: 68+ students and 285+ staff deaths
An honest scientist with access to these data would surely want to investigate the 50% rise in mortality between 2016 and 2023 among staff, but this was ignored. In fact, anyone wanting to understand the impact of Covid vaccines on sudden cardiac deaths would need a much bigger dataset. Epidemiologist Tracy Beth Høeg points out that, assuming vaccine uptake of 85%, this study was examining only 255,000 males, which is far too small to see an increase in mortality of between one in a million and one in 333,000, meaning we would expect zero to one deaths in a study this size.
It is odd that 2016 is the only historical year still available. Was it an outlier? Where are the other years?
As to 2022 and 2023, why were student deaths so much higher than in the preceding years – around 70 compared to a historical average of 53? Have they just got better at recording the deaths? Were there more students registered? The authors are not clear on how many students were enrolled in each year and their characteristics. This is crucial as including more females and more athletes in low risk sports will skew the data. The overall trend downwards (see chart above) seemed to be to do with increasing numbers of females and low-risk sports being included as the rates for male basketball players remained high throughout the period.
Of the cardiac deaths, there were eight due to myocarditis over the whole period with only one post 2020. What is not clear is whether an athlete who received a diagnosis of myocarditis and had to end his or her athletic career as a result would still have been included in the NCAA database if he or she later died.
Tracy Beth Høeg also points out that the small rise in non-cardiac deaths among these athletes was not even commented on by the authors.
While it is encouraging that there was not a loud signal of harm among these U.S. athletes, the small dataset used means it cannot be used to dismiss concerns based on numerous much larger datasets.
Conflicts of Interest?
Virtually no scientific studies are completed these days that do not in some way link directly or indirectly to pharmaceutical funding. I was interested therefore to see this stated boldly on the final page of the paper: “Sources of Funding: None.”
Wow. A completely unbiased piece of scientific research! Amazing!
Or maybe not.
When one takes more than a cursory glance, the ‘Acknowledgements’ and ‘Disclosures’ sections directly above and below the ‘Funding’ section tell a slightly different story (emphasis added).
Disclosures
Dr. Ackerman is a consultant for Abbott, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Invitae, Medtronic, Tenaya Therapeutics, Thryv Therapeutics, and UpToDate. Dr. Ackerman and Mayo Clinic are involved in an equity/royalty relationship with AliveCor, Anumana, ARMGO Pharma, and Pfizer. None of these entities was involved in this study.
Dr. Baggish has received funding from the National Institute of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Football Players Association, the American Heart Association, and the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine to study cardiovascular outcomes among elite athletes and receives compensation for his role as team cardiologist from the U.S. Olympic Committee/U.S. Olympic Training Centres, U.S. Soccer, and U.S. Rowing.
Dr. Drezner has received funding from the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine, the American Heart Association, and the National Centre for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research.
Dr. Harmon has received funding from the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine, Football Research, Inc, the Pac-12, and the American Heart Association.
Dr. Kucera is supported by funds from the National Centre for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research.
Acknowledgments
This research is supported, in part, by the National Centre for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research is supported by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Federation of State High School Associations, the American Football Coaches Association, the National Athletic Trainers’ Association, the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment, and the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine. Conclusions drawn from or recommendations based on the data provided by the National Centre for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Centre for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research or any of the supporters. The authors thank the Parent Heart Watch and National Collegiate Athletic Association for data collection and Kyle Conley for work on this study.
By way of translation, ‘supported’ here means ‘receives money from’. Which essentially means ‘is funded by’. This is a deeply dishonest trick to give the illusion that the paper suffers no conflict of interest bias. We would pretend to be shocked, but as we know by now, this is de rigueur for The Science™. What is also well-known is that if Ackerman, Drezner & co. don’t find exactly what their ‘supporters’ want them to find, that ‘support’ may find itself evaporating overnight. Careers don’t tend to get a mega-boost from crossing Big Pharma.
The ‘Acknowledgements’ section is particularly compelling reading. If you were an institution involved in the mandating of these jabs as a condition of entry or continuing membership, you might be a tiny bit motivated to find ‘scientific’ evidence to prove that this vaccine mandate had not caused harm, particularly if, as is hypothesised, the harm was in some cases a fatal heart attack in a formerly young, super-fit individual. Nothing here is new, nothing here is surprising. But it continues to be our duty at HART to point out the dishonesty that is being promulgated as ‘science’ to try and prop up the increasingly fantastical idea that these injections were safe and effective.
Dr. Clare Craig is a diagnostic pathologist and Co-Chair of the HART group, which first published this article. She is the author of Expired – Covid the untold story.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
If a country and it’s history have to be undermined and ultimately destroyed then our Flag has to go.
The spirit of this country, the very essence of Great Britain is enshrined within the Union Jack ergo it must be destroyed. We can’t have a one world government running the country while remnants of Britishers cling mournfully to their flag.
“Build Back Better” doncha know.
They can Firk right off.
Yes exactly, hux. There’s that godawful word again: ”Inclusive”. Because didn’t we feel just so excluded for all of these decades prior to 2024? I mean, what better way to feel *included*, right? FFS! Inclusivity equates to excluding white folk, from where I’m standing.
Tenuous link here, but you know I seldom come to the table empty-handed. Look at this UN ‘climate advisor’. Yes, the ‘climate crisis’ is not just ‘manmade’ but it is ‘white man-made’. But it’s the corrupt disgraceful UN, which recently unanimously appointed that bastion of equal rights for women, Saudi Arabia, to chair a gender equality forum next year, so it shouldn’t surprise us that they install this shameless racist biatch to chat toxic garbage to Useless Idiots;
”Meet Ayisha Siddiqa, a climate adviser for the UN. She claims the “white man” and “capitalism” are responsible for bringing life to “the verge of extinction” and calls white men k*llers, looters, and abusers.
Her account is filled with hateful anti-white posts.
Apparently, it’s totally fine to be disgustingly racist against white people if you work at the @UN”
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1775191286032523366
.
Thanks Mogs
Lovely bit of womanhood that Siddiqa. Bright too.
A nice way to handle such a nasty bit of work would be to stop all payments of money taken from white people to her. That would cause her income to drop to about nothing and she’d henceforth be forced to save something more proportionate than planets.
You’re getting the German treatment here (the one Britain and the USA co-invented) because to the people who talk of European fascism and colonialism (like the American guy who keeps writing about the new WHO pandemic treaty) you’re equally in the way and equally part of the forces of evil which have to be pushed aside.
Well it does make one wonder just how many white people were in that audience actually…Something tells me a lot, so here we have another example of the nonsensical and toxic, ”white guilt” phenomena. Or basically just ‘delusional, treacherous Leftards’, as I call them. The kind that would attend a BLM protest/riot. Fully masktarded up, of course.
Exactly. Very little of this insanity is organic. The objective is the communist goal of a single identity – the identity that the state will provide for you. Build on the back of existing divisive ideologies to further the demolition of the traditional family unit. Build a blob of people who have so many different identities that there is no identity; identity becomes a characteristic like hair colour – meaningless. Your identity will be your name. Then your number. You will comply because your thoughts are the thoughts of everyone, and everyone’s thoughts are the thoughts of the state. You will be the states identity. Nothing more.
Sam Goldwyn’s quote is appropriate from 80 years ago. “Gentlemen, include me out!”
The Union already includes all within it’s shores. This ‘new’ rebranding is a from of exclusion, in the extreme.
How appropriate having that wilting white rose above the words Team GB.
Team GB = Team Gay Boys?
= Team Gender Benders?
I am sure you can come up with more.
Grandiloquent Bollocks
And another thing… by what right does the alphabet minority have the right to dictate the colours and content of our National flag? How many alphabet people are there in Great Britain? One per cent if that. Dictating to seventy million if we include all the immigrants.
Furthermore, by what right do the Olympic Association deem it within their remit to take a wrecking ball to the Union Jack? The flag and all it represents belongs to all the people of these nations and not some tiny pea-brained minority which clearly has some WEF Fifth Columnists within its ranks.
Absolutely appalling and treasonous behaviour.
But the agency […] says its Team GB redesign should appeal to a “new generation of sports fans”.
With this, the agency (SPECTRE?) means to communicate that it has absolutely no idea whether or not the new design will actually appeal to anyone but is absolutely certain that it will rub the majority of current sports fans absolutely the wrong way. Which is presumably the sole point of the exercise.
“How can we unite all the disparate folk of Britain around their national team?”
“I know! Why not antagonise everyone who cares about the nation?
You mean the ‘Far Right’, decent family type people who pay their bills, and won’t take part in turning their nation into a rancid shithole.
Everybody’s Far Right now – my take.
“For fans of all backgrounds” They’ve just lost one here.
Also has to be said here: This is an absolutely shitty design which steals the general layout of the Union Jack, splashes a blue – pink – purple colour gradient over it and fills all available spaces with seemingly random patterns introducing a lot of optic noise which seems to exist for the sake of it. Kindergartenkids using finger paint would easily come up with something of much more artistic substance because they’d be trying to paint something and not just to obscure someone else’s creation.
Outrageous!!
It reminds me of a section from the Hitchiker’s Guide, which described the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as “a bunch of mindless jerks who shall be first against the wall come the revolution”. A copy of the Guide from the future fell through a wormhole and described them as “a bunch of mindless jerks who were first against the wall…”
For some reason, this made be think of the depressed, telepathic elevators sulking in the basement.
Our enemies are ramping up the pressure. Let them – they will be more clearly seen for what they are.
This chap nails the whole ‘DEI’ anti-white/racist scam, in my opinion;
”The best way to understand DEI is to separate the marketing pitch—which, I agree, is attractive—from the reality of DEI in practice. Here is how I see it:
1. Diversity: We agree that it is important for people of all backgrounds to be treated fairly. But “diversity” in the political sense means treating individuals as a representation of their group identity, sorting them into a hierarchy based on the “oppressor-oppressed” dynamic, and then discriminating for or against certain groups on that basis. In practice, it means putting identity above merit, rewarding and punishing individuals based on their ancestry and, increasingly, their political ideology. In academia, for example, “diversity statements” are used to measure conformity to left-wing racial theories.
2. Equity: We agree that we should maximize opportunity for all. But “equity” is a political ideology that is distinct from, and contradictory to, “equality.” In the highest sense, equality means that the state should treat individuals impartially, as in “equality under law,” while recognizing that individuals have different talents, desires, and motivations, which will inevitably lead to inequalities. In a sense, you cannot have equality without inequality—they are two sides of the same coin. “Equity,” on the other hand, treats all inequality as illegitimate and attempts to force group equalization, or “equality of outcomes,” through redistribution of wealth and property. This is a key tenet of critical race theory.
3. Inclusion: We agree that institutions should have constructive, creative environments. But in practice, “inclusion” is a code word for a distinct, left-wing orthodoxy and is used to suppress disfavored groups and opinions. At many universities, DEI administrators publish speech codes in the name of “inclusion” that restrict the range of discourse and speech on campus. Additionally, the “inclusion” principle is never extended to supposed “oppressor” groups, such as whites, men, and Christians—instead, it becomes a form of exclusion. We can see this in the real world with many institutions implementing “hate,” “bias,” and “safe space” policies, which, in practice, are used to silence dissent and, especially, conservative speech.
This is not speculation. I have substantiated all of these claims with dozens of investigative reports on DEI bureaucracies in universities, schools, and corporations. It is, in fact, much worse in the particular than in the general dynamics I am describing above.”
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1774891216737538166
Great comment
From where I am in France, I simply cannot imagine French men and women of any background standing by if their flag was debased in this way. Or Marianne being portrayed as anything other than a white woman. Hell would freeze over first. Too right, too. And it’s not because they’re racist. They aren’t. They actually care. Common courtesy exists here.
I ain’t patrotic. Too anarchic for that. But just because:
.
The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are intent on destroying our country.
People from all corners of the globe come here to live and work. They obviously come here for a better life and when you ask them “Where do you come from”? they will often get offended and adamantly state “I am British”. —–OK that is great you are all British. So why then are culture warriors fiddling about with the British flag talking about trying to be “inclusive” and other such woke language? ——-There is clearly no need for this absurd idea that our flag may offend people from other parts of the world, since they all say they are British when it suits them. —–STOP IT.
Another Bud-Lite fiasco. They never learn.
They know exactly what they are doing. The thick ones are our unconcerned British (for the moment) brethren.
No other country would allow its National Flag to be disrespected and abused in this way.
Why do we?
The government of the state of Berlin (SPD – Left- Greens) has banned display of the German flag by the police during the upcomfing Euros because of “state neutrality”. And the present chancer (Olaf Scholz¹) is on record for referring to marches where people were carrying placards with stuff like “Against nation, state and capitalism!” written on them a fine demonstration of comittment to democractic values.
¹ Most famous for getting out of an anti-corruption and tax fraud hearing by declaring that he really couldn’t remember anything about the events in question.