Remember that study of 100 million people that took the C19 “vaccines”? Vinay Prasad, MD MPH; Physician & Professor takes a blowtorch to it in an 18 minute video
Remember that study of 100 million people that took the C19 “vaccines”? Vinay Prasad, MD MPH; Physician & Professor takes a blowtorch to it in an 18 minute video
The study is terrible abject nonsense from the "99 million" in the title. It has no proper controls, and it is afflicted with terrible potential bias. Controls are statistically modeled. It was accepted the day after it was submitted.
".. “expected” AESI rates were obtained from participating sites using pre-COVID-19 vaccination healthcare data stratified by age and sex, while observed rates were reported from the same healthcare datasets since COVID-19 vaccination program rollout."
How does one seriously develop a control for AESIs for a multiple of de novo shots on a virginal population....?
Peter, they looked at each shot with a cut off of 42 days after each. The "expected" AESI's were gleaned from the usual population wide incidence taken over 2015 - 2019 as I recall. "Observed" rates were reported from the same "healthcare" datasets since COVID-19 vaccination program rollout. As I said, these data are are simply NOT comparable.
Using the former data as a 'Control' is abject, non-comparable nonsense. Applauding those that pass this by and then proceed to drill into various immunological metrics that cannot remotely pass the slightest generalisable analysis is simply rank farce.
Thanks for the paper and video.
They can look at all the billions of injured poison recipients around the world. It still won’t save their lying asses.
.
Every one of us needs to adopt a doctor, like one would a rescue dog.
I took Malone in three years ago. But I wouldn’t mind finding someone to take him on the weekends.
‘Must like pets.
.
https://youtu.be/WgxfI2HBYWc?si=d45wq8n8T4__KLWK
The study is terrible abject nonsense from the "99 million" in the title. It has no proper controls, and it is afflicted with terrible potential bias. Controls are statistically modeled. It was accepted the day after it was submitted.
".. “expected” AESI rates were obtained from participating sites using pre-COVID-19 vaccination healthcare data stratified by age and sex, while observed rates were reported from the same healthcare datasets since COVID-19 vaccination program rollout."
How does one seriously develop a control for AESIs for a multiple of de novo shots on a virginal population....?
https://drlatusdextro.substack.com/p/can-you-sense-the-great-unraveling
I think they only looked at specific AESY's for 6 weeks.
Peter, they looked at each shot with a cut off of 42 days after each. The "expected" AESI's were gleaned from the usual population wide incidence taken over 2015 - 2019 as I recall. "Observed" rates were reported from the same "healthcare" datasets since COVID-19 vaccination program rollout. As I said, these data are are simply NOT comparable.
Using the former data as a 'Control' is abject, non-comparable nonsense. Applauding those that pass this by and then proceed to drill into various immunological metrics that cannot remotely pass the slightest generalisable analysis is simply rank farce.
I don't see the video?
Click the first link under "From here:"
It's linked under para "From here" near top.