Posted on 05/30/2021 2:27:59 PM PDT by ransomnote
In an article last week, it was reported that 18 cases of heart inflammation after COVID-19 'vaccination' were reported in Connecticut. All required hospitalization. As of 5/25/21 none of those cases were in the CDC's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database, although another 135 cases states were.
Note that myocarditis was one of a list of potential side effects discussed by the CDC but never revealed to the public.
How is it that 0 out of 18 cases of myocarditis in one state have are not in VAERS? How many other cases exist but have not been reported? How can any agency claim to be watching for signs the 'vaccines' are causing harm if they are not monitoring the data sufficiently?
Every 'vaccine' recipient is provided with contact information and access to a phone app (V-Safe) to report adverse events to ensure transparency and safety monitoriting. As usual, it appears V-Safe is just another information containment effort on the part of the CDC.
In a letter to the CDC & HHS (shown at the bottom of this post), a lawyer notes that after recipients file an adverse event report on their phone via V-Safe, the CDC 'may' decide their information is clinically relevant and call them. After the call, the CDC 'may' enter their information in VAERS.
This information comes on the heels of news that, for reports filed directly to VAERS (the usual process), the CDC is months behind and is apparently only uploading reports of its choosing.
VAERS SYSTEM CONTINUES TO HEAVILY THROTTLE! 59% AE'S = JABS FEB OR OLDER AS OF 5/28/2021
Capturing public reports of adverse events following vaccination, essentially rendering them private, via V-Safe, and withholding public reports to VAERS help eliminate access to information about risks , while the CDC and MSM blanket the public with empty promises of benefits and 'perks' if vaccinated. How is it remotely ethical to wave money and prizes in the faces of the public while capturing and not reporting risks?
COVID-19 vaccine incentives include $1M, full college scholarships [4 minute Youtube Video]
The CDC could make risk information as available as prize information if it chose to do so.
The 'empty promises' and distortions of the CDC are persistent - they cannot blame 'misunderstanding' or 'ignorance' on the part of the public for confusion about 'efficacy' rates, when such confusion is intentional.
By design, the public was never told that Pfizer's '95% efficacy rate' meant that Pfizer claimed .93 of one percent of their controlled cohort of trial subjects was diagnosed with Covid-19 during a 2-month trial period, using an invalid PCR test which does not detect the Covid-19 virus or the illness.
Nor that Pfizer claims that .05 of one percent of the 'vaccinated' group were diagnosed with Covid-19 using that same invalid PCR test over the course of 2 months.
Therefore, most members of the public don't realize that the Pfizer 'vaccine' supposedly shifts their risk of becoming ill with covid from .93 of one percent, to .05 of one percent. Both groups theoretically remain below 1 percent of contracting Covid, ONLY IF THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY HAD IT, and this supposed disparity is expected to determine who must mask, sit in separate areas of ballparks or be denied public access (e.g., airline travel, public gatherings).
Ethics required the CDC to emphasize these results are only valid for a 2 month trial period, or 14 days in the case of Moderna, and advise the public that a more reasonable efficacy rate would emerge in the following months. The CDC doesn't 'do' ethics. Updates indicating MANY more 'vaccinated' (900 for Moderna) have since become ill are 'handled with care' and the CDC isn't rushing to correct the public's 'understanding' of the true efficacy rate.
The CDC is likely happy the public isn't told that the initial, temporary 'vaccine' efficacy rates only apply to reduction of symptoms, not reduction of illness, spread or death. The CDC has so much to be grateful for.
As promised, here is the lawyer's letter requesting transparency from the CDC and HHS.
Imagine how people reporting adverse events following their 'shots' believe the CDC cares what happened to them. In reality, the CDC will review their information and 'may' call them. The CDC 'may' decide to put their information in VAERS.
Complete 'information capture' by the CDC to keep the public in the dark.
The Twitter account linked to the letter written to the CDC & HHS.
PING
VAERS is trash. You’ve been shown.
It doesn’t matter and nobody has heard of it.
Nobody CAERS about VAERS. It’s irrelevant.
You have an obsession.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIs5StN8J-0
Don’t you have a blog to un-pimp?
So right here we see vaers is not total trash. As a matter of fact they are checking and only letting certain ones through, even though un-blog pimps like you tell us that it is completely unfiltered and anybody can put anything they want on there.
Seems it is being filtered, and there is a possibility they the ones they are NOT letting through are the severest.
The fact of the matter is, no vaccine, up until this point, has been allowed to continue with even 1% of the side effects we see now.
To defend this, may very well be, worse than defending your hated blog pimps.
Is that a link to your blog?
Obsessed with doing the right thing.
You say it likes its a bad thing.
Damn bumpkin. See where that devil music gotcha?
thanks for finding and posting this !!!
I don't recall having said that. One of us must be either drunk or making stuff up.
To defend this, may very well be, worse than defending your hated blog pimps.
I haven't defended anything. I've pointed out that VAERS is trash.
If you disagree, then bully for you.
The right thing is crawling all over this VAERS business as if it mattered to anybody or anything?
Or worse, is proof of something?
Please. It's bunk on top of bunkery promoted by bunkheads.
Bringing this info over.....
“vaccines are 95 percent effective” comes from
They misleadingly calculate the “effective” number by calculating the reduction in infections from the vaccinated versus the placebo which was 0.74 (placebo)-0.04 (vax)=0.7 and then they divide that result by the total placebo cases to get the 95% effective rate: 0.7/0.74=0.95.
https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/3/199/htm
It came from this Pfizer report. This report has a lot of interesting things in it that is simply nuts.
They’re playing a shell game with the dosage with the Pfizer vaccine. They’re NOT testing the vaccine at the standard dose.
From page 15 it says the doses they used for BNT162b2 the product that was shipped the dose that tested for was 30μg. The standard dose for the shot is 100μg
BNT162b1(BNT162 RNA-LNP vaccine utilizing modRNA and encoding the RBD): 10μg, 20μg,30μg, 100 μg
BNT162b2(BNT162 RNA-LNP vaccine utilizing modRNA and encoding the P2 S): 10μg, 20μg,30μg
https://media.tghn.org/medialibrary/2020/11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020_Pfizer_BioNTech.pdf
The other point from this they’re testing with the Shedding of the vaccines but we know other coronavirus the medical industry does tell pregnant women to stay away from live virus vaccinated people. They’re not doing that with covid which they’re creating live viruses. (testing for shedding (Exposure During Pregnancy) page 67)
43 posted on 5/30/2021, 12:26:43 PM by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* ‘I love you, guys’)
~~~~~~
Thanks to Treeless and Steve
Everything is proof of something, you troglodyke.
You don't *really* have to, you know.
.......
What the hell are you talking about HG?
It looks like the pfizer report was from an early trial where they were trying different dosages, it looks like from the rest of the report that they did not want pregnant women in the study and did testing prior to administering whatever it was.
I am not worried about shedding, but I am worried about leakage. Everyone has admitted from the start that these things are leaky.
algore wrote:
“I am not worried about shedding, but I am worried about leakage. Everyone has admitted from the start that these things are leaky.”
...
‘Leaky’ Vaccines Can Produce Stronger Versions of Viruses
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/leaky...
Try this one before it disappears.
More honest data collection?/sarc
👍Thanks for the effort.
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.