Carlos you are a regular troll here and your link is about as science based as the links I find about bigfoot. Military psychological ops still follow your posts, if you are real, you are a paid troll
You keep coming here but nobody trusts or cares about you go someplace else. Of course, the author of the BS study you posted is Gorski- who is a paid whore for the jab companies.
Dr Peter A. McCullough knows about 1000x more about covid shots than your Saviour Gorski that just debulks tumors. Gorski is is a joke amongst real doctors I worked with
The Pfizer and Moderna "gold standard" randomized, double-blind clinical trials both showed a 40-50% increase in cardiac-related deaths and 15-20% increase in overall non-COVID deaths with vaccine compared to placebo. Both clinical trials showed absolutely no lives saved with mRNA vaccination.
When we consider people were classified as "unvaccinated" for 14 days post injection, I doubt we will ever fully understand just how large a roll the jabs had on mortality.
I know that. But that’s irrelevant because they compared what happened to people within a month after vaccination and at other times. That was the nature of the control.
The bottom line headline from the study is the following.: "COVID-19 VACCINES MAY REDUCE YOUR RISK OF NON-COVID DEATH, ANALYSIS SHOWS" The risk of cardiac death was higher, but the risk of every other kind of death was much lower. More than making up for the cardiac deaths. That’s exactly what the study showed. which is great news.
Not so fast- the "good news" you mention only applies to J&J, based on the "gold standard" evidence. The Pfizer and Moderna randomized, double-blind clinical trials both showed a 40-50% increase in cardiac-related deaths and 15-20% increase in overall non-COVID deaths with vaccine compared to placebo, and absolutely no lives saved with vaccination. The J&J vaccine did save lives in its clinical trial (both COVID and non-COVID), but we all know it's not exactly "safe" either.
What this study did was to combine mRNA (which causes excess cardiac-related and non-COVID deaths) with J&J (which actually reduces non-COVID deaths but has major risks) when looking at "all-cause" mortality, so that they could arrive at the politically correct statement that COVID vaccination in general was not associated with increased "all-cause" mortality (they say "all-cause", but it is actually non-COVID, as you point out). And they are missing most of the risk, because the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials both showed that most of the excess cardiac deaths with vaccine compared to placebo happen a few months after vaccination, NOT within the first month. Steve Kirsch also did a post a few weeks ago showing many real-world data sources that pointed to excess deaths around 5 months post-vaccination, not immediately after.
In any case, because this study excluded people who caught or died from COVID, this is a major limitation that pro-vaxxers will be glad to pounce on. The study also excluded people who got a booster, which almost certainly resulted in the actual real-world vaccine dangers being attenuated. Bottom line: the randomized, double-blind clinical trials for Pfizer and Moderna, which showed that mRNA vaccines kill more than they save overall, are infinitely more scientifically valid than this study (although it seems like a good effort, it has a LOT of problems).
Wait a minute. Does this study actually compare mortality risk in weeks 0-4 post vax VERSUS mortality risk in weeks 5-25 post vax, among the vaccinated only (no control group)? If so, this is quite weird in many ways, and it is likely to conceal the true vaccine-associated risks for many reasons, most notably that the Pfizer and Moderna trials both showed that most of the excess cardiac deaths with vaccine compared to placebo happen a few months after vaccination, NOT within the first month.
Also, it was clever how they combined mRNA (which causes excess cardiac-related and non-COVID deaths) with J&J (which actually reduces non-COVID deaths but still has major risks) when looking at all-cause mortality, so that they could arrive at the politically correct statement that COVID vaccines in general are not associated with increased all-cause mortality. And they are actually looking at non-COVID mortality although they say "all-cause" mortality, which destroys the credibility. But anyway, is the new benchmark that a vaccine is "safe and effective" as long as it shows no INCREASE in mortality?
This study is not very convincing, what with all the exclusions, and no accounting for healthy user bias, since people who are on death's doorstep undoubtedly weren't given the jabs. This effect would be especially noticeable among the elderly. The only way to tell is the effects on populations of comparable age and health status prior to receiving the jabs. I observed no accounting for such considerations in the study.
It's taken from David Sorensen's - Stop World Control:
Boys are labelled girls, people who own nothing are happy, everyone must be locked up in prison cities, wilderness areas must be closed off, nobody is allowed to think for themselves, everybody must eat fake food, elderly must kill themselves, … and a whole lot more madness. All for a "better world".
Everything caught my eye, but the bit that stood out was, the elderly must kill themselves to make for a "better world".
My question is, does the "old" Klaus Schwab include himself in this suicide agenda?
Well if you post this article about the FL AG on facebook you will be wiped from FB for 30 days. I did and they did. We must bring war crimes , Nuremberg style trials for the people covering up this mass maiming and murder. Thee people will continue to silence us until more people start talking about trials for these people. The seed MUST be planted, the time to plant it is now. They are not going to stop unless they fear getting held accountable
I don't get this. The way I read this study is that it only looked at people who died within 25 weeks of getting jabbed to see how their risk of death within the 28 day period immediately after the jab compared to the whole 25 week period. What the hell??? I mean, it doesn't tell you what you really want to know, which is how do the jabbed compare to the unjabbed. You could theoretically have 100% of the jabbed dead within 25 weeks (a very big deal) and just because their deaths aren't concentrated towards the first 28 days, you're going to conclude there is no problem? Am I misunderstanding this?
There are so called doctors on this forum that keep saying that the covid shots are still safe and effective. They need to know we are documenting and recording everything.
The 3rd Psychological Operations Battalion (A) (Media Dissemination -we still exist. Some off us know what is going on. Those that push the mrna shots will face justice. It will take time but will happen.
As with all things- this comes down to money. Pfizer and Moderna are making billions with these shots which I will not call vaccines. The boosters will soon be forced on most of us next month.
Life insurance and health insurance companies know what is happening. They know the shots are killing and injuring people, but they do not want to pay off claims of those that have been disabled or killed by the mrna shots..
I will not give medical advice online. If you want to take these mrna shots it is your call.
Links at bottom were corrupted with a typo. All 3 links work now
Read: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-state-of-florida-spreads-antivaccine-disinformation-disguised-as-an-epidemiological-study/
Carlos you are a regular troll here and your link is about as science based as the links I find about bigfoot. Military psychological ops still follow your posts, if you are real, you are a paid troll
You keep coming here but nobody trusts or cares about you go someplace else. Of course, the author of the BS study you posted is Gorski- who is a paid whore for the jab companies.
Dr Peter A. McCullough knows about 1000x more about covid shots than your Saviour Gorski that just debulks tumors. Gorski is is a joke amongst real doctors I worked with
I volunteer to state the truth about COVID-19 vaccines. Dr. Gorski is an oncologist who does not receive vaccine company funding.
McCullough is a lying fraud who is spreading medical misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines. His medical license should be revoked.
https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/joe-rogan-interview-with-peter-mccullough-contains-multiple-false-and-unsubstantiated-claims-about-the-covid-19-pandemic-and-vaccines/
The Pfizer and Moderna "gold standard" randomized, double-blind clinical trials both showed a 40-50% increase in cardiac-related deaths and 15-20% increase in overall non-COVID deaths with vaccine compared to placebo. Both clinical trials showed absolutely no lives saved with mRNA vaccination.
Hi Steve, thank you for posting this, please see my full comments below.
When we consider people were classified as "unvaccinated" for 14 days post injection, I doubt we will ever fully understand just how large a roll the jabs had on mortality.
Acute Arterial Ischemic Stroke Following COVID-19 Vaccination
https://n.neurology.org/content/99/14/e1465
I know that. But that’s irrelevant because they compared what happened to people within a month after vaccination and at other times. That was the nature of the control.
The bottom line headline from the study is the following.: "COVID-19 VACCINES MAY REDUCE YOUR RISK OF NON-COVID DEATH, ANALYSIS SHOWS" The risk of cardiac death was higher, but the risk of every other kind of death was much lower. More than making up for the cardiac deaths. That’s exactly what the study showed. which is great news.
Not so fast- the "good news" you mention only applies to J&J, based on the "gold standard" evidence. The Pfizer and Moderna randomized, double-blind clinical trials both showed a 40-50% increase in cardiac-related deaths and 15-20% increase in overall non-COVID deaths with vaccine compared to placebo, and absolutely no lives saved with vaccination. The J&J vaccine did save lives in its clinical trial (both COVID and non-COVID), but we all know it's not exactly "safe" either.
What this study did was to combine mRNA (which causes excess cardiac-related and non-COVID deaths) with J&J (which actually reduces non-COVID deaths but has major risks) when looking at "all-cause" mortality, so that they could arrive at the politically correct statement that COVID vaccination in general was not associated with increased "all-cause" mortality (they say "all-cause", but it is actually non-COVID, as you point out). And they are missing most of the risk, because the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials both showed that most of the excess cardiac deaths with vaccine compared to placebo happen a few months after vaccination, NOT within the first month. Steve Kirsch also did a post a few weeks ago showing many real-world data sources that pointed to excess deaths around 5 months post-vaccination, not immediately after.
In any case, because this study excluded people who caught or died from COVID, this is a major limitation that pro-vaxxers will be glad to pounce on. The study also excluded people who got a booster, which almost certainly resulted in the actual real-world vaccine dangers being attenuated. Bottom line: the randomized, double-blind clinical trials for Pfizer and Moderna, which showed that mRNA vaccines kill more than they save overall, are infinitely more scientifically valid than this study (although it seems like a good effort, it has a LOT of problems).
Wait a minute. Does this study actually compare mortality risk in weeks 0-4 post vax VERSUS mortality risk in weeks 5-25 post vax, among the vaccinated only (no control group)? If so, this is quite weird in many ways, and it is likely to conceal the true vaccine-associated risks for many reasons, most notably that the Pfizer and Moderna trials both showed that most of the excess cardiac deaths with vaccine compared to placebo happen a few months after vaccination, NOT within the first month.
Also, it was clever how they combined mRNA (which causes excess cardiac-related and non-COVID deaths) with J&J (which actually reduces non-COVID deaths but still has major risks) when looking at all-cause mortality, so that they could arrive at the politically correct statement that COVID vaccines in general are not associated with increased all-cause mortality. And they are actually looking at non-COVID mortality although they say "all-cause" mortality, which destroys the credibility. But anyway, is the new benchmark that a vaccine is "safe and effective" as long as it shows no INCREASE in mortality?
This study is not very convincing, what with all the exclusions, and no accounting for healthy user bias, since people who are on death's doorstep undoubtedly weren't given the jabs. This effect would be especially noticeable among the elderly. The only way to tell is the effects on populations of comparable age and health status prior to receiving the jabs. I observed no accounting for such considerations in the study.
You can delete tweets, you can burn books, but you will never be able to eliminate the truth!" About the COVID big lie for big $$$ Profits...
To the ones still pushing the vaccine; may you all get ass cancer on your face. Out.
Deceptive not to include a baseline number from which 84% is calculated!
You mean like the pushed claims of 90% relative risk reduction of the mRNA vaccines? Picky picky. Suddenly people are interested in ratios.
I was always 100% against these shots being forced. I would hate for people, who are bringing truth to light, to lose credibility.
https://anamihalceamdphd.substack.com/p/fifth-generation-5g-directed-energy
This is off topic, but I just had to include it.
It's taken from David Sorensen's - Stop World Control:
Boys are labelled girls, people who own nothing are happy, everyone must be locked up in prison cities, wilderness areas must be closed off, nobody is allowed to think for themselves, everybody must eat fake food, elderly must kill themselves, … and a whole lot more madness. All for a "better world".
Everything caught my eye, but the bit that stood out was, the elderly must kill themselves to make for a "better world".
My question is, does the "old" Klaus Schwab include himself in this suicide agenda?
I include this: https://stopworldcontrol.com/domination/?inf_contact_key=3ab537238b614a32b62d7a448cba398ef651f238aa2edbb9c8b7cff03e0b16a0
Well if you post this article about the FL AG on facebook you will be wiped from FB for 30 days. I did and they did. We must bring war crimes , Nuremberg style trials for the people covering up this mass maiming and murder. Thee people will continue to silence us until more people start talking about trials for these people. The seed MUST be planted, the time to plant it is now. They are not going to stop unless they fear getting held accountable
https://rumble.com/v1mujzm-wow-citizens-try-to-arrest-cops-for-failing-to-shut-down-nuremberg-violatin.html?mref=6zof&mrefc=3
Indeed!
I don't get this. The way I read this study is that it only looked at people who died within 25 weeks of getting jabbed to see how their risk of death within the 28 day period immediately after the jab compared to the whole 25 week period. What the hell??? I mean, it doesn't tell you what you really want to know, which is how do the jabbed compare to the unjabbed. You could theoretically have 100% of the jabbed dead within 25 weeks (a very big deal) and just because their deaths aren't concentrated towards the first 28 days, you're going to conclude there is no problem? Am I misunderstanding this?
They didn’t have a control group
There are so called doctors on this forum that keep saying that the covid shots are still safe and effective. They need to know we are documenting and recording everything.
The 3rd Psychological Operations Battalion (A) (Media Dissemination -we still exist. Some off us know what is going on. Those that push the mrna shots will face justice. It will take time but will happen.
women also have a lot of side effects. they need to stop them for all.
Fingers crossed that is the next study to be released!
As with all things- this comes down to money. Pfizer and Moderna are making billions with these shots which I will not call vaccines. The boosters will soon be forced on most of us next month.
Life insurance and health insurance companies know what is happening. They know the shots are killing and injuring people, but they do not want to pay off claims of those that have been disabled or killed by the mrna shots..
I will not give medical advice online. If you want to take these mrna shots it is your call.