Page 5 of the Kirsch analysis, he suggests two hypotheses for the reporting for Covid. One is that the vaccine has caused no deaths, the second is that adverse events are being reported at the same rate as previous years.
Considering the barrage of Covid news, it seems likely that Covid reporting would be higher than for other vaccines. Further, the other vaccines have been around for awhile with tolerable adverse event frequencies. Are reporters going to take these as seriously?
Kirsch continues, “And there was nothing “new” this year to
incentivize a massive change in behavior.”
Nothing new? First, the virus may have been man-made. Second, has anything health related ever gotten this much attention? For so long? Between the news and the PSA’s, there’s no way to avoid this story. Third, there is a possibility some may be afraid to report an event. Or want to keep the numbers down. Fourth, there is a possibility the feds are keeping the numbers down.
Heh, nice loser attempt at propaganda.
Too bad you didn’t, like, *read* the article or anything?
They addressed the very issue you raise, in method 3 on pages 7-8...
the researchers looked at the relative frequencies of different adverse events (like a fingerprint, each vaccine has its own set), and they found that the shape of the curves differed once the COVID jabs entered the scene.
And then on page 17, they look at a variety of adverse events, and say (what is the ratio of this adverse event, compared to the expected background rate)?
And they do that for past years 2015-2019, and then for 2020 with the jabs.
They find that for some of the worse adverse events, the COVID jabs are (literally) HUNDREDS OF TIMES WORSE than the other jabs.
Not 8% worse. Not twice as bad. 100s of TIMES.
And no, not minor things like “my fweelings got hurt”.
Things like pulmonary embolism — 473 times worse.
Stroke — 326 times worse.
Tell your Mom not to let you post on her computer anymore.
You’re an embarrassment to trolls everywhere.