Did COVID Vaccine Injuries Influence FAA’s Revision of EKG Test Limits for Pilots?

[Concart]

I think that someone who puts importance in evidence generally doesn't suspect something unless they have evidence for their suspicion. Michael Nevradakis, the author in question, provides copious amounts of evidence for many of the claims in his article, so I suspect that he was relying on evidence for his suspicion as well. In any case, I've found plenty of evidence that suggests that the FAA's change in their guidelines is fishy. From Janice Hisle, in an article published in The Epoch Times about a week ago:

**
FAA Gives Partial Answer

In a Jan. 17 email to The Epoch Times, the FAA said there is “no evidence of aircraft accidents or incapacitations caused by pilots suffering medical complications associated with COVID-19 vaccines.” That was the same language the FAA used in previous responses to inquiries.

Critics allege that the FAA has found no such evidence because no investigation has been done.

Regarding the revised EKG standard, the FAA said: “When making changes to medical requirements and guidance, the FAA follows standard processes based on data and science.”

But the FAA has yet to reveal what data drove its decision to allow COVID injections for pilots. The agency has not disclosed the reasons for changing the acceptable range for pilots’ PR intervals.

Stephen Carbone, a former FAA safety inspector, takes issue with the FAA on both counts–allowing the COVID shots and the new EKG standard for pilots.

“The FAA’s decision to lower the EKG standards is the latest assault on aviation safety from an organization that has pledged to put aviation safety ahead of all else,” he said in a Jan. 22 email to The Epoch Times. “It is nothing short of safety sacrilege; to those of us in aviation, safety is sacred.”
**

Full article (behind a paywall):
FAA Change to Heart-Test Limit Triggers Worries Over Pilot Health, Public Safety | The Epoch Times

You need to understand that no rational person is going to give any credibility to the Epoch Times. You can feel free to continue to post from that source, but we are going to immediately dismiss anything you post from that source, and for good reason. It is completely unreliable.

In the case of the issues you are discussing, you will get zero traction unless you start to post from medical and scientific journals. Right now, you are simply posting conspiracy theories, and your baseline belief that viruses don't exist destroys any shred of credibility you might have, because it is an absolutely absurd claim that would be not just dismissed, but derided and laughed at. It is absolutely ridiculous, and there is no evidence, NONE, to support that assertion, and tens of thousands of peer reviewed journal articles that completely destroy that position. You won't be taken seriously unless you become a serious poster. Right now, you are not. You are just a nutty conspiracy theorist who dismisses science and medicine. No one is going to take you seriously. It is what it is.

 

[Hawkeye10]

U.S. Sen. Johnson: Is agency aware of COVID-19 vaccine adverse events in aviation industry?

The senator wrote, “Based on data from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database, the whistleblower reported that the total number of disease and injuries in pilots across DoD was 265 in 2016; 252 in 2017; 164 in 2018; 223 in 2019; 2,194 in 2020; 2,861 in 2021; and 4,059 in 2022. These increases in disease and injuries in pilots across the DoD over the last three years, and particularly over the last year, raise questions as to whether FAA has seen similar increases in disease and injuries in individuals in the aviation industry.”

https://www.wispolitics.com/2023/u-...9-vaccine-adverse-events-in-aviation-industry

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

That's not entirely true and you very likely disregard information you don't like.

I never made such a claim so have no reason to produce anything.

So you believe misinformation instead of relying on facts. OK. Got it.

Calling something that is not true and there are no facts showing it to be true misinformation must be some liberal bias thing. Or maybe it's just a critical thinking skill you haven't developed.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I already covered this with Phantasmal in Post #8. It's a strawman argument.



This again -.-. I decided it was time to address these endless unsubstantiated accusations of being a "Russian troll" in a thread referencing an article that deals with the subject, in a place that has higher standards then regular forums here when it comes to being respectful. Thread is here if you're interested:

Promoting Falsehoods and Marginalizing Truth-Tellers | Scheerpost

Hmmmm.. so you are saying your original post didn't make this argument?
The USFF and some vaccine safety advocates suggested the FAA revised the limits because airlines’ vaccine mandates, which some argued violated FAA regulations, resulted in a significant number of pilots sustaining adverse events.

Responding to the specific claim that pilots sustained adverse events is not a strawman. Your claim it is a strawman is a red herring on your part.

You are suspected of being a Russian troll. Suspecting is enough evidence for you to believe something. Ergo. You are a Russian troll using the standards of evidence you require. Feel free to claim you aren't but by your standards you are.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I think that someone who puts importance in evidence generally doesn't suspect something unless they have evidence for their suspicion. Michael Nevradakis, the author in question, provides copious amounts of evidence for many of the claims in his article, so I suspect that he was relying on evidence for his suspicion as well. In any case, I've found plenty of evidence that suggests that the FAA's change in their guidelines is fishy. From Janice Hisle, in an article published in The Epoch Times about a week ago:

**
FAA Gives Partial Answer

In a Jan. 17 email to The Epoch Times, the FAA said there is “no evidence of aircraft accidents or incapacitations caused by pilots suffering medical complications associated with COVID-19 vaccines.” That was the same language the FAA used in previous responses to inquiries.

Critics allege that the FAA has found no such evidence because no investigation has been done.

Regarding the revised EKG standard, the FAA said: “When making changes to medical requirements and guidance, the FAA follows standard processes based on data and science.”

But the FAA has yet to reveal what data drove its decision to allow COVID injections for pilots. The agency has not disclosed the reasons for changing the acceptable range for pilots’ PR intervals.

Stephen Carbone, a former FAA safety inspector, takes issue with the FAA on both counts–allowing the COVID shots and the new EKG standard for pilots.

“The FAA’s decision to lower the EKG standards is the latest assault on aviation safety from an organization that has pledged to put aviation safety ahead of all else,” he said in a Jan. 22 email to The Epoch Times. “It is nothing short of safety sacrilege; to those of us in aviation, safety is sacred.”
**

Full article (behind a paywall):
FAA Change to Heart-Test Limit Triggers Worries Over Pilot Health, Public Safety | The Epoch Times

Further proof that because some people suspect you are a Russian troll then you must be a Russian troll. Someone wouldn't suspect you of being a Russian troll unless they have evidence of their suspicion.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

So you believe misinformation instead of relying on facts. OK. Got it.

Calling something that is not true and there are no facts showing it to be true misinformation must be some liberal bias thing. Or maybe it's just a critical thinking skill you haven't developed.

It is lack of education, researching sources and reading critically

 

[Hawkeye10]

Tucker talked about this tonight.

 

[Nordberg]

Tucker talked about this tonight.

In Tucker fashion? I am not saying this, but someone has to. I am just saying what if, He covers his ass with that and you guys post with certainty. He knows he is lying. you guys do not.

 

[Scott]

No. You have once again posted something that is false.

"Something"? I referenced an -article- with a copious amount of links to back up many of the claims it put forward. All you did was produce a sound bite.

 

[Scott]

I think that someone who puts importance in evidence generally doesn't suspect something unless they have evidence for their suspicion. Michael Nevradakis, the author in question, provides copious amounts of evidence for many of the claims in his article, so I suspect that he was relying on evidence for his suspicion as well. In any case, I've found plenty of evidence that suggests that the FAA's change in their guidelines is fishy. From Janice Hisle, in an article published in The Epoch Times about a week ago:

**
FAA Gives Partial Answer

In a Jan. 17 email to The Epoch Times, the FAA said there is “no evidence of aircraft accidents or incapacitations caused by pilots suffering medical complications associated with COVID-19 vaccines.” That was the same language the FAA used in previous responses to inquiries.

Critics allege that the FAA has found no such evidence because no investigation has been done.

Regarding the revised EKG standard, the FAA said: “When making changes to medical requirements and guidance, the FAA follows standard processes based on data and science.”

But the FAA has yet to reveal what data drove its decision to allow COVID injections for pilots. The agency has not disclosed the reasons for changing the acceptable range for pilots’ PR intervals.

Stephen Carbone, a former FAA safety inspector, takes issue with the FAA on both counts–allowing the COVID shots and the new EKG standard for pilots.

“The FAA’s decision to lower the EKG standards is the latest assault on aviation safety from an organization that has pledged to put aviation safety ahead of all else,” he said in a Jan. 22 email to The Epoch Times. “It is nothing short of safety sacrilege; to those of us in aviation, safety is sacred.”
**

Full article (behind a paywall):
FAA Change to Heart-Test Limit Triggers Worries Over Pilot Health, Public Safety | The Epoch Times

You need to understand that no rational person is going to give any credibility to the Epoch Times.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

 

[Scott]

U.S. Sen. Johnson: Is agency aware of COVID-19 vaccine adverse events in aviation industry?

**
The senator wrote, “Based on data from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database, the whistleblower reported that the total number of disease and injuries in pilots across DoD was 265 in 2016; 252 in 2017; 164 in 2018; 223 in 2019; 2,194 in 2020; 2,861 in 2021; and 4,059 in 2022. These increases in disease and injuries in pilots across the DoD over the last three years, and particularly over the last year, raise questions as to whether FAA has seen similar increases in disease and injuries in individuals in the aviation industry.”
**

https://www.wispolitics.com/2023/u-...9-vaccine-adverse-events-in-aviation-industry

Good find.

 

[Scott]

That's not entirely true and you very likely disregard information you don't like.

I never made such a claim so have no reason to produce anything.

So you believe misinformation instead of relying on facts. OK. Got it.

Calling something that is not true and there are no facts showing it to be true misinformation must be some liberal bias thing. Or maybe it's just a critical thinking skill you haven't developed.

You might try specifying what belief of Yakuda's you believe is misinformation. Otherwise, all you've got above are platitudes.

 

[Concart]

Unsubstantiated assertion.

Suit yourself. Some ability to self reflect would serve you well.

 

[Scott]

Truth : FAA Did Not Admit Pilot EKGs Are Abnormal From Vaccines!

This is yet another example of MISINFORMATION created and/or propagated by anti-vaccination activists, and here are the reasons why…

https://www.techarp.com/facts/faa-admit-pilot-ekgs-vaccines/?amp=1

I already covered this with Phantasmal in Post #8. It's a strawman argument.

Hmmmm.. so you are saying your original post didn't make this argument?

That's right.

**
The USFF and some vaccine safety advocates suggested the FAA revised the limits because airlines’ vaccine mandates, which some argued violated FAA regulations, resulted in a significant number of pilots sustaining adverse events.
**

Responding to the specific claim that pilots sustained adverse events is not a strawman.

You really have to pay attention to what you're talking about. Quoting your own post material back to you:

**
Truth : FAA Did Not Admit Pilot EKGs Are Abnormal From Vaccines!

This is yet another example of MISINFORMATION created and/or propagated by anti-vaccination activists, and here are the reasons why…

https://www.techarp.com/facts/faa-admit-pilot-ekgs-vaccines/?amp=1
**

The strawman argument here is your claim that my article claimed that the FAA admitted pilot EKGs are abnormal from vaccines. My article made no such claim.

 

[Scott]

This thread is yet another of the many conspiracy theories that Phoenyx is pushing in the threads he has started as he appears to be a Russian troll simply here to spread disinformation.

This again -.-. I decided it was time to address these endless unsubstantiated accusations of being a "Russian troll" in a thread referencing an article that deals with the subject, in a place that has higher standards then regular forums here when it comes to being respectful. Thread is here if you're interested:

Promoting Falsehoods and Marginalizing Truth-Tellers | Scheerpost

You are suspected of being a Russian troll.

-You- have certainly claimed that I "appear" to be a Russian troll. You haven't actually provided any solid evidence for your claim though. In essence, you're engaging in an ad hominem attack. From Wikipedia:

**
Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Suspecting is enough evidence for you to believe something.

Suspecting something is true is not the same thing as believing that something is true. From Merriam Webster:

**
suspect: [snip] to imagine to exist or be true, likely, or probable
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suspecting

**
believe: [snip] to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believe

 

[Scott]

Tucker talked about this tonight.

If you can, post a link to the video?

 

[Scott]

You need to understand that no rational person is going to give any credibility to the Epoch Times.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

Suit yourself. Some ability to self reflect would serve you well.

I'm not the one who made an unsubstantiated assertion.

 

[Concart]

I'm not the one who made an unsubstantiated assertion.

Of course you are. You have claimed that viruses don't exist. There cannot possibly be a more unsubstantiated claim. Your claim here has also been proven false.

I expressed an opinion. My opinion is well informed. Epoch Times is a far right website catering to conspiracy theories, and unabashedly pro Russia and pro Trump. It lacks credibility. You can choose to quote it as much or as little as you like. You will not get any traction doing so. When you start using objectively reliable sources (peer reviewed journal articles) to back your assertions, you will get somewhere. The problem you have is that no support exists for your position in the scientific community. That is a fact, not an assertion.

 

[Scott]

You need to understand that no rational person is going to give any credibility to the Epoch Times.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

Suit yourself. Some ability to self reflect would serve you well.

I'm not the one who made an unsubstantiated assertion.

Of course you are. You have claimed that viruses don't exist.

First of all, I made an entire thread on the subject of whether viruses exist, complete with a statement from a group of doctors who no longer believe they exist, as well as a methodology wherein anyone can try to prove that they do. It's a thread I see that you only just started posting in after over the thread had been going on for over 250 posts. For anyone interested, it's here:

Settling the Biological Virus Debate | justplainpolitics.com

Second of all, the unsubstantiated assertion I'd been referring to was your claim that "no rational person is going to give any credibility to the Epoch Times", a claim you have yet to substantiate in any way.

 

[Concart]

First of all, I made an entire thread on the subject of whether viruses exist, complete with a statement from a group of doctors who no longer believe they exist, as well as a methodology wherein anyone can try to prove that they do. It's a thread I see that you only just started posting in after over the thread had been going on for over 250 posts. For anyone interested, it's here:

Settling the Biological Virus Debate | justplainpolitics.com

Second of all, the unsubstantiated assertion I'd been referring to was your claim that "no rational person is going to give any credibility to the Epoch Times", a claim you have yet to substantiate in any way.

You don't know the difference between an opinion and an assertion. Buy a dictionary. Anyone who believes viruses don't exist is hopelessly ignorant. There is no need to sugarcoat it or pretend it isn't true. It is on par with those that believe the earth is flat, the moon landing didn't happen, and Jewish space lasers changed election results. It does not rise to the level that is worth debating. Especially with someone who has zero credentials.