I hope you are right. But the trap this time may be one of those squeeze-boxes used immobilize cattle while they are vaccinated. We may be herded together inside strong fences and driven into the trap one by one...
Don't hesitate, they will make it mandatory, but we are prepared. We know what is under the microscopes and we alert the world in 2021. Now they are clueless because we have discovered the cake. They did not have The Fifth Column.
"Thirteen conditions representing AESI of specific relevance to the current landscape of real-world vaccine pharmacovigilance were selected from the list compiled by the Brighton Collaboration SPEAC Project..."
So they developed a list of AESI before the vaccination with novel vaccines never before used in humans even began. Does anybody see a problem with that? 😄
Another glaringly obvious thing is the 42 day evaluation period. This is especially bizarre since the study ran for nearly 3 years!
Curiously, in the mortality data (elsewhere and everywhere), the healthy vaccinee effect is observed for 30-40 days since vaccination. Probably just a coincidence.
> Who believes in the official world at this point?
About 70% of the population, give or take.
> It is not a vaccine
It is though. Aaron Siri had an excellent substack on this a while ago.
> I don't waste time on this data, really.
This is hardly something to brag about.
> You only need to look at a vaccine under a microscope
And see exactly what? Yeah, German pathologists had a conference a while ago, where they reported strange floating objects. Is it strange and worth following up? Absolutely. Do we know what those objects are? We don't have a slightest clue.
70% is my ballpark estimate based on the proportion of the vaccinated in the West. Now, your claim is zero, and it is wholly unsubstantiated.
> vaccine under a microscope
You have entirely omitted the point I made about it. It's not the matter of belief, it's the matter of, dare I say it, science, and more specifically, scientific approach.
You can look into the microscope all you want, but you will never know exactly what you're seeing unless you run follow-up experiments (NMR, MS, IR etc.). To my knowledge, nobody has done that.
> ???
Finally, you're preaching to the choir here. However, your position is not an excuse for espousing incorrect, unsubstantiated and/or overly hyped statements. These only detract normies who have just started to see the light.
Of course you are a genius. But you don't say the % of the second, third or fourth dose, whose decrease worldwide is 90% (it is my rough estimate based on the proportion of people who have rejected the 2nd, 3rd and 4th dose, hehe)
If you're not an expert at looking under the microscope, you can trust what other experts say, right? You can look at the study that Dr. Campra did in 2021 and see how graphene oxide has been introduced in the so-called covid vaccines. I leave you the link in case you deign to consult the study, since you are not an expert.
Subsequently, more than 15 studies in other countries have confirmed what Dr. Campra found.
You know very well what I'm talking about, even if you play dumb. But of course, you are not here to convince yourself of anything. You are here to lie criminally and continue to confuse people.
Gotta say, that's the most impressive conflicts-of-interest statement I've ever seen. It should win some sort of prize.
And oh yeah, that MMR-autism study of 650,000 kids. When that was published, i took a close look at it. I concluded it was a fine example of "looking through the wrong end of the telescope and then declaring there's no such thing as a star in the sky."
When you can choose to do corporate marketing versus applying the scientific method, you get the illusion of facts. The scientific method is one of the greatest tools that human civilization has produced through trial and error, feedback and re-assessment. It requires a commitment to verifiable facts in order to get a good model of reality. So far, reality is very far away from the dross that passes for peer-reviewed analysis in some journals.
The Data Availability section's "The authors do not have permission to share data." stands out for me. Why should anyone trust a group of researchers who go out of their way to openly say, "It's bad but not that bad, people."?
They are very smart. That way they would see that only the vaccinated are the ones who are dying. In this way they continue to lie, making people dizzy so that they never know the truth about the real content of the vaccines, graphene oxide.
Who is going to believe in studies of this type when THEY control the official establishments and manipulate the figures. As long as they do not explain what is under the microscopes, any new study that appears has no scientific validity.
Excellent, as always - we depend on your enthusiasm to expose such nonsense!
JLW - "Rare" indeed, another attempt to rewrite history with a wave of the hand like this... https://youtu.be/-RQxD4Ff7dY?t=46
Great pick up of the various sleigh of hand techniques.
"Small but not zero" is still a big move away from the prior complete denial. I do wonder what the powers that be are up to.
What they're up to is trying to soften people up for Disease X and another round of cripple-and-kill "vaccines."
We are not going to fall because we know what this story is about. Uninformed people are the ones who will fall into the trap again.
I hope you are right. But the trap this time may be one of those squeeze-boxes used immobilize cattle while they are vaccinated. We may be herded together inside strong fences and driven into the trap one by one...
Don't hesitate, they will make it mandatory, but we are prepared. We know what is under the microscopes and we alert the world in 2021. Now they are clueless because we have discovered the cake. They did not have The Fifth Column.
I’m not sure where I heard this but if something positive is NOT included it won’t be published..
👏There are a lot of gems in that paper.
"Thirteen conditions representing AESI of specific relevance to the current landscape of real-world vaccine pharmacovigilance were selected from the list compiled by the Brighton Collaboration SPEAC Project..."
So they developed a list of AESI before the vaccination with novel vaccines never before used in humans even began. Does anybody see a problem with that? 😄
Another glaringly obvious thing is the 42 day evaluation period. This is especially bizarre since the study ran for nearly 3 years!
Curiously, in the mortality data (elsewhere and everywhere), the healthy vaccinee effect is observed for 30-40 days since vaccination. Probably just a coincidence.
Who believes in the official world at this point? They have lied, they manipulate the data and they continue to lie.
Look, they keep talking about side effects, when:
1. It is not a vaccine, it is a liquid interface. We already demonstrated it in 2021.
2. There are no side effects, there is one main effect which is killing.
I don't waste time on this data, really. You only need to look at a vaccine under a microscope to realize the lie.
> Who believes in the official world at this point?
About 70% of the population, give or take.
> It is not a vaccine
It is though. Aaron Siri had an excellent substack on this a while ago.
> I don't waste time on this data, really.
This is hardly something to brag about.
> You only need to look at a vaccine under a microscope
And see exactly what? Yeah, German pathologists had a conference a while ago, where they reported strange floating objects. Is it strange and worth following up? Absolutely. Do we know what those objects are? We don't have a slightest clue.
70%??? Is it statistical? Where did you get that percentage from?
If you have never looked at a vaccine under a microscope, we are not at the same level. You will have to convince yourself. Don't believe me
> Is it statistical?
70% is my ballpark estimate based on the proportion of the vaccinated in the West. Now, your claim is zero, and it is wholly unsubstantiated.
> vaccine under a microscope
You have entirely omitted the point I made about it. It's not the matter of belief, it's the matter of, dare I say it, science, and more specifically, scientific approach.
You can look into the microscope all you want, but you will never know exactly what you're seeing unless you run follow-up experiments (NMR, MS, IR etc.). To my knowledge, nobody has done that.
> ???
Finally, you're preaching to the choir here. However, your position is not an excuse for espousing incorrect, unsubstantiated and/or overly hyped statements. These only detract normies who have just started to see the light.
Of course you are a genius. But you don't say the % of the second, third or fourth dose, whose decrease worldwide is 90% (it is my rough estimate based on the proportion of people who have rejected the 2nd, 3rd and 4th dose, hehe)
If you're not an expert at looking under the microscope, you can trust what other experts say, right? You can look at the study that Dr. Campra did in 2021 and see how graphene oxide has been introduced in the so-called covid vaccines. I leave you the link in case you deign to consult the study, since you are not an expert.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355979001_DETECTION_OF_GRAPHENE_IN_COVID19_VACCINES?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InByb2ZpbGUiLCJwYWdlIjoicHJvZmlsZSJ9fQ
Subsequently, more than 15 studies in other countries have confirmed what Dr. Campra found.
You know very well what I'm talking about, even if you play dumb. But of course, you are not here to convince yourself of anything. You are here to lie criminally and continue to confuse people.
"the current landscape of real-world vaccine pharmacovigilance"
Geez, these people could write poetry if they weren't so busy writing "Science."
Gotta say, that's the most impressive conflicts-of-interest statement I've ever seen. It should win some sort of prize.
And oh yeah, that MMR-autism study of 650,000 kids. When that was published, i took a close look at it. I concluded it was a fine example of "looking through the wrong end of the telescope and then declaring there's no such thing as a star in the sky."
Simply unbelievable. Ties and funding from government health agencies, pharmaceutical companies. Total lack of credibility.
When you can choose to do corporate marketing versus applying the scientific method, you get the illusion of facts. The scientific method is one of the greatest tools that human civilization has produced through trial and error, feedback and re-assessment. It requires a commitment to verifiable facts in order to get a good model of reality. So far, reality is very far away from the dross that passes for peer-reviewed analysis in some journals.
The Data Availability section's "The authors do not have permission to share data." stands out for me. Why should anyone trust a group of researchers who go out of their way to openly say, "It's bad but not that bad, people."?
"The authors do not have permission to share data." [Snort] [Guffaw]
They do, however, have permission to share a steaming, stinking pile of bovine manure...
How did they handle confounding from background rates of COVID?
I love that these are compared to other vaccines and not to the unvaccinated! I didn't get that from the chart I saw! Thanks for laying it all out!
They are very smart. That way they would see that only the vaccinated are the ones who are dying. In this way they continue to lie, making people dizzy so that they never know the truth about the real content of the vaccines, graphene oxide.
Who is going to believe in studies of this type when THEY control the official establishments and manipulate the figures. As long as they do not explain what is under the microscopes, any new study that appears has no scientific validity.