But if that same dude was interviewed on CNN it would be just peachy, right? And meet your stupid standard of truth.
Chase, you think as a child.
Posted on 08/25/2021 6:06:23 PM PDT by ransomnote
Who then?
The CDC? The FDA? The NIH?
Biden? Fauci?
The MSM?
Which of the above reliable sources would you consider more credible than Twitter or Facebook?
“ The CDC? The FDA? The NIH?
Biden? Fauci?
The MSM?”
————————————————————————————
You listed those sources, not me.
Try these:
New England Journal of Medicine.
Harvard School of Medicine.
Hopkins University.
Cleveland Clinic.
Henry Ford Health System
Journal of Medicine-Pathology
Why is twitter being questioned?
They banned Trump.
They allow the Taliban.
These vax-holes should kiss the ground this tweet tweeted from.
But, wait....Alex used to work for the NY Slimes. That is, until he began blowing the whistle on this PlanDEMic.
Alex is also on substack, btw.
He just alerts folks to his findings, via Twitter.
You know...like the leftist outlets do....only, their tweets are considered reliable.
I notice you left off The Lancet.
The vax troll doesn’t even get your hypocrisy post.
Reeks of a ferriner 😏
Interesting, isn’t it, that Twitter wasn’t dissed so much when Trump was using it running for office.
I notice you left off The Lancet.
Bwahahahaha.
Do the double jabbed realize that they’ll soon be called anti-vaxxers by the triple jabbed....?
🤣
And of course, we all “know” that peer review journals are never biased in what they choose to review and publish.
Right?
Have you seen this?
Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Setting
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475
RESULTS
In the vaccination analysis, the vaccinated and control groups each included a mean of 884,828 persons. Vaccination was most strongly associated with an elevated risk of myocarditis (risk ratio, 3.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55 to 12.44; risk difference, 2.7 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 1.0 to 4.6), lymphadenopathy (risk ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 2.05 to 2.78; risk difference, 78.4 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 64.1 to 89.3), appendicitis (risk ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.01; risk difference, 5.0 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 0.3 to 9.9), and herpes zoster infection (risk ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.73; risk difference, 15.8 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 8.2 to 24.2). SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a substantially increased risk of myocarditis (risk ratio, 18.28; 95% CI, 3.95 to 25.12; risk difference, 11.0 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 5.6 to 15.8) and of additional serious adverse events, including pericarditis, arrhythmia, deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, intracranial hemorrhage, and thrombocytopenia.
Says some random dude on the internet.
Berenson isn't some random dude.
Says some random dude on the internet.
Berenson isn’t some random dude.
Exactly.
Please allow a correction....
Says some random, LYING, vaxtroll n00b on FR/the internet.
Obvious that the troll isn’t even aware of who Alex Berenson is.
I’ll repeat....n00b vaxtroll must be a foreigner.
But if that same dude was interviewed on CNN it would be just peachy, right? And meet your stupid standard of truth.
Chase, you think as a child.
This sounds like a major breakthrough. You and your colleagues need to publish your findings stat.
I’m all about data and info,
_____________________
Now that right there is funny.
But, but, but, hes all about data and info. As long as it comes from some government hack.
I always trust Johns Hopkins when it comes to science. Even their promotional stuff talks about science!
“The Johns Hopkins Center for Transgender Health blends cutting-edge science and a caring environment where lives are reborn.”
Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Setting
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475
RESULTS
In the vaccination analysis, the vaccinated and control groups each included a mean of 884,828 persons. Vaccination was most strongly associated with an elevated risk of myocarditis (risk ratio, 3.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55 to 12.44; risk difference, 2.7 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 1.0 to 4.6), lymphadenopathy (risk ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 2.05 to 2.78; risk difference, 78.4 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 64.1 to 89.3), appendicitis (risk ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.01; risk difference, 5.0 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 0.3 to 9.9), and herpes zoster infection (risk ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.73; risk difference, 15.8 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 8.2 to 24.2).
SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a substantially increased risk of myocarditis (risk ratio, 18.28; 95% CI, 3.95 to 25.12; risk difference, 11.0 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 5.6 to 15.8) and of additional serious adverse events, including pericarditis, arrhythmia, deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, intracranial hemorrhage, and thrombocytopenia.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, it is an unusual study, taken at different periods of time.
There are caveats:
"The effects of vaccination and of SARS-CoV-2 infection were estimated with different cohorts. Thus, they should be treated as separate sets of results rather than directly compared."
Unfortunately they rely on the FAKE PCR test to determine who is ill so those said to experience effectls like mycarditus as a result of Covid may not have have Covid. We don't have any way of knowing what respiratory illness they had. Also, it's likely those deemed ill with Covid did not receive proper treatment for illness, so whatever harm was experienced as a result of some kind of unknown influenza or other collection of respiratory illnesses which they called "Covid" could possibly have been reduced or avoided if properly treated.
They ignore what they consider mild syptoms following 'vaccination' and most problematic, they rely on official or passive reporting systems like VAERS to determine who had negative reactions.
Israel's ministry of Health has some questionable reporting under it's belt and countries signing a contract with Pfizer are contractually barred from what we would consider fair and honest reporting of adverse events following vaccination for 10 or more years (per contract agreement).
"The study was exempt from the requirement for informed consent." ....*sigh*
"no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection" is a requirement that is not meaninfgul. Dr. Yeadon demonstrates through his account of Sars1 and Sars2 (covid) immunity that may of us have already encountered similar viruses and retain varying levels of immunity based on exposure (SARS1 patents who recovered were immune to SARS2 Covid 17 years later). But some have not encountered similar viruses and acceptance of other vaccines required for school attendance or travel may have modified immunity over time.
They utilized succeptibility to Covid factors identified by the CDC to match a control to a vaccinated person, but the CDC does not consider critical factors like D3 or zinc levels. There are more factors in play than were accounted for.
Adverse events were limited to that which is reported, which has been a devastating deparity in the US.
"The set of potential adverse events for the target trial was drawn from several relevant sources, including the VAERS, BEST, and SPEAC frameworks, information provided by the vaccine manufacturer, and relevant scientific publications. "
The study lasted no more than 42 days.
"Similarly, adverse events that could not plausibly be diagnosed within 42 days (e.g., chronic autoimmune disease) were not included." You can imagine important, potentially life threatening, disparities between vaccinated and unvaccinated could arise after 42 days (ADE)
The list of adverse events recorded in Table S2 can't be accurate. "Cerebrovascular accident" levels were well above normal in the sample of VAERS reports/per vaccinations given for the US, but in Israel, are higher for the control group???
Like wise less Thrombocytopenia and intercranial hemmorage in the vaccinated group doesn't square with US data. German researchers have done work to identify the mechanism by which the vax contributes to thrombocytopenia etc.
No disparity in siezures, no anaphylaxis and ZERO neurologic symptoms - this list of adverse events does not match that of Dr. Hoffe's, and he only vaccinated 900 of his patients, while the control and experimental groups for this study included about 900,000 people in each group. 1000 times the number of participants Dr. Hoffe had, but a small fraction of the negative effects he witnessed. Just 4 adverse events associated with the 'vaccines'? I wish that had been true.
So limitations in parameters " yet these trials were subject to size and patient-mix limitations. " were a problem but the two key take aways for me is 1) lack of adequate adverse reporting and 2) contractual obligations to avoid reporting significant adverse events. For example - zero anaphylaxis or deaths from vaccination, when that hasn't been the case observed by others.
Sadly,this work is biased and too limited,but will be quoted extensively to falsely portray 'vaccination' as safer than it is, and falsely exagerate the risks of Covid-19. :(
Likely a furriner... 😲
🤔🧐
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.