- Thanks for this Latus. You may know that drug co safety reports have a check box for Causality: YES /NO/UNKNOWN, and a separate section for the company's opinion that usually goes like this, "The patient had signs and laboratory results suggesting myocarditis 2 weeks after injection. The patient was taking diltiazem for high BP and atorvastatin for high cholesterol. While there were confounding variables, causality with the injection can not be denied. Causality: UNKNOWN."
- I'd also like to point out the complexity smoke-screen used in the paper. Just look at the abstract, "homologous vaccination schedules contributed 23,168,335 person-years of follow-up. OE ratios with LBCI > 1.5 were observed for Guillain-Barré syndrome (2.49, 95 % CI: 2.15, 2.87) and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (3.23, 95 % CI: 2.51, 4.09) following the first dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis". Many Drs don't even know or have the time to figure out what this means.
-Some of the major no-virus people, are also over-complex some going into such painful detail with posts that take an hour just to skim. Only a small fraction of the population can really understand them-is that on purpose? I've got blank stares from geneticist PhDs, ChemE PhDs, Pharma PhDs and more trying to explain no-virus to them even simply so I'm convinced the complex stuff is just circling the drain of ignorance.
Thank you PM. You make important valid points and highlight the pointlessness of circling the drain of repetition and ignorance. I guess in the end, the complexity will give way to the obvious, namely that 'bafflement' on the one hand is not a valid or reliable diagnosis merely an unethical and ridiculous subterfuge, and on the other, that a medical industrial obsession with the imagined has merely served to delay thorough examination of deleterious environmental influences. The litany of death and sickness may eventually regain people's attention? Most eventually seem inclined to reject a destination to no where. Survival is a fine thing.
You make a good point regarding the intentional use of terribly obtuse and obfuscatory language, designed to ensure the reader in worn into submission, barely getting beyond the abstract with perhaps a short conclusion. Likewise, the intentional and intensely distracting use of unusually hybridised metrics, ridiculously demanding biostatistics and truly bizarre methodologies, where proxy ersatz controls replace more traditional methods that were designed to flagellate a null hypothesis, leaves most unwilling to engage. A useful strategy that is wearing increasingly very thin and finally trashing the hijacked journal culture?
We can save ourselves a lot of work and effort that is currently still being wasted on the effectiveness and safety of 'vaccinations'. By finally realising that there was never any reason to use these 'vaccinations' in the first place.
And for someone like me, who "doesn't know from" medical jargon, one thing that jumps out is the orwellian redefining of what appears to be a list -- even a severely shortened one -- of devastating side-effects as "safety signals."
- Thanks for this Latus. You may know that drug co safety reports have a check box for Causality: YES /NO/UNKNOWN, and a separate section for the company's opinion that usually goes like this, "The patient had signs and laboratory results suggesting myocarditis 2 weeks after injection. The patient was taking diltiazem for high BP and atorvastatin for high cholesterol. While there were confounding variables, causality with the injection can not be denied. Causality: UNKNOWN."
- I'd also like to point out the complexity smoke-screen used in the paper. Just look at the abstract, "homologous vaccination schedules contributed 23,168,335 person-years of follow-up. OE ratios with LBCI > 1.5 were observed for Guillain-Barré syndrome (2.49, 95 % CI: 2.15, 2.87) and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (3.23, 95 % CI: 2.51, 4.09) following the first dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis". Many Drs don't even know or have the time to figure out what this means.
-Some of the major no-virus people, are also over-complex some going into such painful detail with posts that take an hour just to skim. Only a small fraction of the population can really understand them-is that on purpose? I've got blank stares from geneticist PhDs, ChemE PhDs, Pharma PhDs and more trying to explain no-virus to them even simply so I'm convinced the complex stuff is just circling the drain of ignorance.
Thank you PM. You make important valid points and highlight the pointlessness of circling the drain of repetition and ignorance. I guess in the end, the complexity will give way to the obvious, namely that 'bafflement' on the one hand is not a valid or reliable diagnosis merely an unethical and ridiculous subterfuge, and on the other, that a medical industrial obsession with the imagined has merely served to delay thorough examination of deleterious environmental influences. The litany of death and sickness may eventually regain people's attention? Most eventually seem inclined to reject a destination to no where. Survival is a fine thing.
Thanks Latus. I also noticed "Drug Safety Report" is an oxymoron isn't it?
Indeed; not so very different from a MSDS.
You make a good point regarding the intentional use of terribly obtuse and obfuscatory language, designed to ensure the reader in worn into submission, barely getting beyond the abstract with perhaps a short conclusion. Likewise, the intentional and intensely distracting use of unusually hybridised metrics, ridiculously demanding biostatistics and truly bizarre methodologies, where proxy ersatz controls replace more traditional methods that were designed to flagellate a null hypothesis, leaves most unwilling to engage. A useful strategy that is wearing increasingly very thin and finally trashing the hijacked journal culture?
We can save ourselves a lot of work and effort that is currently still being wasted on the effectiveness and safety of 'vaccinations'. By finally realising that there was never any reason to use these 'vaccinations' in the first place.
Correct! I should have added that to the bottom of my first paragraph. See, even I can get caught up in the diversionary details 🤭
Precisely. Polio, smallpox, rabies viruses ... all you need to know are those hoaxes, end of.
And for someone like me, who "doesn't know from" medical jargon, one thing that jumps out is the orwellian redefining of what appears to be a list -- even a severely shortened one -- of devastating side-effects as "safety signals."