While knowing for decades that at least 50% of studies published are manipulated/fraudulent in one of many ways, the information here is not easily understood by a lay person other than numerous design flaws. I would find it too difficult to present this to others who lack science background and who are believers in the mRNA drugs.
I’m a layperson and I got the gist. It’s more about possessing the curiosity to understand and learn, which is in short supply among those who need to learn the most-our healthcare providers.
wow! They just keep getting better at their fraud. Thank you for this heartbreaking tutorial. Unfortunately few will try to understand this deceit, especially among the doctor class.
An interesting point. Though I would say the AE's they were looking at were on the rare side. For more common things like autism, they of course believe epidemiology has been strong.
The autism epidemiology is garbage for sure. I'm just pointing out that IOM report in itself only supports that conventional medicine admits epi is useless for rare outcomes. I think a mre defensible way to phrase is it would "medicine admits mechanisms are enough to support rare AE's, so in principle they should be willing to do the same for common AE's, if not for undue belief in unreliable epi studies"
“Obviously, near-exposure mortality was avoided in this study...”
A note: Please look at the “Design, Study Population, and Outcomes”of the study
Excerpt :
“..We also assessed the difference in mortality within 6 months following vaccination in an independent, dedicated study, using the most widely used method for evaluating short-term vaccine safety,24-26 namely an adapted SCCS model.27 The detailed methods are provided in eMethods 3 in Supplement 1...”
“Supplemental Online Content*”
-Page 22: eTable 5 “Number of Deceased Patients by Vaccination Status in the Study of Short-Term Mortality”
-Page 23: eTable 6. “Relative Incidence of Short-Term Mortality, All Causes, by Cancer, External Causes, Circulatory Diseases, and COVID-19, Within 2 subperiods of 3 Months Following Vaccination, Using Adapted SCCS Models”
I don’t believe anything an expert has to say. Didn’t fall for Covid. I’ve not even had the flu since December of 2019.
Not being sick one time. Not even a cold.
I’m 62 and remain unjabbed.
This is all I need to know.
go figure ; )
Exactly.
While knowing for decades that at least 50% of studies published are manipulated/fraudulent in one of many ways, the information here is not easily understood by a lay person other than numerous design flaws. I would find it too difficult to present this to others who lack science background and who are believers in the mRNA drugs.
I’m a layperson and I got the gist. It’s more about possessing the curiosity to understand and learn, which is in short supply among those who need to learn the most-our healthcare providers.
Getting the gist of it is not the problem: it is the details of how it is working that gets confusing.
wow! They just keep getting better at their fraud. Thank you for this heartbreaking tutorial. Unfortunately few will try to understand this deceit, especially among the doctor class.
Actually, they keep getting worse. They used to hide it better.
More brazen? The more expert scientific fraudsters are intelligent enough to be in retreat?
"What Is the Role of Epidemiology in Public Health?"
Try to cook the data in every way you can with "adjustments". If any of the analysis outcomes supports the predetermined outcome, publish it.
IOM found epidemiology is useless 93% of the time.
https://zenodo.org/records/3248520
An interesting point. Though I would say the AE's they were looking at were on the rare side. For more common things like autism, they of course believe epidemiology has been strong.
Please see:
https://zenodo.org/records/1117106
The autism epidemiology is garbage for sure. I'm just pointing out that IOM report in itself only supports that conventional medicine admits epi is useless for rare outcomes. I think a mre defensible way to phrase is it would "medicine admits mechanisms are enough to support rare AE's, so in principle they should be willing to do the same for common AE's, if not for undue belief in unreliable epi studies"
Thank you, very helpful.
“Obviously, near-exposure mortality was avoided in this study...”
A note: Please look at the “Design, Study Population, and Outcomes”of the study
Excerpt :
“..We also assessed the difference in mortality within 6 months following vaccination in an independent, dedicated study, using the most widely used method for evaluating short-term vaccine safety,24-26 namely an adapted SCCS model.27 The detailed methods are provided in eMethods 3 in Supplement 1...”
“Supplemental Online Content*”
-Page 22: eTable 5 “Number of Deceased Patients by Vaccination Status in the Study of Short-Term Mortality”
-Page 23: eTable 6. “Relative Incidence of Short-Term Mortality, All Causes, by Cancer, External Causes, Circulatory Diseases, and COVID-19, Within 2 subperiods of 3 Months Following Vaccination, Using Adapted SCCS Models”
*https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jamanetworkopen/939740/zoi251269supp1_prod_1764102559.43925.pdf?Expires=1772865307&Signature=VAmcPh8FG37nartJeAwwtgBouoiuaB-QXCyz05XrfgjWowJ9JRxM38UwQKCcPTNM38rRuMdlYlHJ4KKzw2UlcD3VMSy581c7umNvWjqpUpWZTl6CBOaSxhZP3s4~Q4hdSn32NuXIp~IzGmrv9w0V3kskFZumcviJA39HJ99Ssh2UeG1io3wEJIVPFcwWboRlpf8yC98LZlMT9C-tjkywf2~1ZDhICkD3fwh53oJ~Yaa1ZAPhpgo7kANz5kX-WrFe1L2weepOHk8-tRKb--JiJawKZDNt8Xj6-bV1uivGkZDKfdHEu1NGXGhIXBMRAqvbUgANlWjZZ0tvjUXwHmr~SA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA