So researchers decided to look at 99,000,000 patient records yet restricted the window of injury to only 42 days post shot. Do they know how absurd even the premise of that is? They could have looked at 3 years! Can you imagine 35 people signing their name to that especially given the rises already found? It's clear it's going to be way …
So researchers decided to look at 99,000,000 patient records yet restricted the window of injury to only 42 days post shot. Do they know how absurd even the premise of that is? They could have looked at 3 years! Can you imagine 35 people signing their name to that especially given the rises already found? It's clear it's going to be way worse.
This is a limited hangout operation. The reason they said what they found was in line with what was known before is in order to blame YOU! if you took the shot, it's your fault. However, if they were to find any data beyond showing massive increases in injury and death, that means they are to blame. They cannot show this can they?
Not including mortality or AE after 42d is flipping ridiculous! They also didn’t share the ICD codes they used. If they did, I didn’t see it; please correct if I’m wrong. Using many different codes for essentially the same thing is a classic obfuscation, like how they “lowered” SIDS deaths.
The observation that the increase in the rates of non-SIDS causes of sudden unexpected infant death could account for >90% of the drop in the SIDS rates suggests that a change in classification may be occurring.
When they went to the ICD codes 10, I can see where they anticipated this whole scenario, which is how I connected it with the ACA back under obummer...
So researchers decided to look at 99,000,000 patient records yet restricted the window of injury to only 42 days post shot. Do they know how absurd even the premise of that is? They could have looked at 3 years! Can you imagine 35 people signing their name to that especially given the rises already found? It's clear it's going to be way worse.
This is a limited hangout operation. The reason they said what they found was in line with what was known before is in order to blame YOU! if you took the shot, it's your fault. However, if they were to find any data beyond showing massive increases in injury and death, that means they are to blame. They cannot show this can they?
Not including mortality or AE after 42d is flipping ridiculous! They also didn’t share the ICD codes they used. If they did, I didn’t see it; please correct if I’m wrong. Using many different codes for essentially the same thing is a classic obfuscation, like how they “lowered” SIDS deaths.
The observation that the increase in the rates of non-SIDS causes of sudden unexpected infant death could account for >90% of the drop in the SIDS rates suggests that a change in classification may be occurring.
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/115/5/1247/67529/Changes-in-the-Classification-of-Sudden-Unexpected?redirectedFrom=fulltext
When they went to the ICD codes 10, I can see where they anticipated this whole scenario, which is how I connected it with the ACA back under obummer...