Forum
»
99 Million Person Study Showing Myocarditis/Clots "Rare" is Based on Secret Data WTF?
- Results 1 to 3 of 3
-
Page 1 of 1
03-28-2024, 03:51 PM
-
#1
- chicagopizzaboy
- Registered User
-
- chicagopizzaboy
- Registered User
- Join Date: Mar 2023
- Age: 56
- Posts: 4,036
- Rep Power: 17641
-
-
99 Million Person Study Showing Myocarditis/Clots "Rare" is Based on Secret Data WTF?
Not "rare." And not science. Data must always be public.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...64410X24001270


https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...64410X24001270
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...dverse-events/
Children's Health Defense
CDC-Funded Study of 99 Million COVID-Vaccinated People Finds ‘Very Rare Adverse Events’
A study of adverse events in 99 million people vaccinated for COVID-19 found increased but “very rare” risks of neurological, blood and heart disorders. Myocarditis odds were over 6 times higher than normal after a second Moderna shot.
___
Most significantly, the limitation of data collection of only up to 42 days post-vaccination carries the likelihood of vast underreporting, especially for symptoms that may take longer to develop. For example, McCullough has reported cardiac arrests happening up to two years after vaccine administration.
Second, by red-flagging only those adverse events where researchers are 95% sure the vaccine makes them 1.5 times more likely, some real risks could slip through the cracks when it comes to further studies or the development of remedies.
Lower than “1.5 times more likely” still means higher-than-reported vaccine-related risks. While appropriately cautious, the validity of this statistical distinction merits further evaluation.
Third, the study did not analyze or report on deaths following COVID-19 vaccination. The researchers did not mention vaccine-induced mortality at all and only stated that additional studies are still warranted using methodologies better suited to assess different kinds of data.
Hooker said:
“The authors appear to sidestep the severity of COVID-19 vaccine AEs [adverse events] by avoiding reporting on ‘death,’ ‘hospitalization,’ and ‘serious injury’ associated with the reported conditions as well. These are notably missing and one wonders why they were omitted given the high mortality levels indicated through CDC’s VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System].”
Fourth, the datasets were not globally representative and contained a number of confounding factors. Data from the U.S., which had some of the worst COVID-19 outcomes and ample reporting of adverse events, were not included. Asia and Africa were completely unrepresented.
____
In the section declaring competing interests, some authors acknowledged receiving funding from the CDC directly, though they clearly stated the study’s conclusions were their own.
Some authors reported associations with or funding from other state or country-level health agencies, and relationships with Big Pharma companies such as Gilead Sciences (makers of remdesivir), Novo Nordisk, AbbVie, Sanofi, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline.
The lead author of the study, K. Faksova, is employed by the Danish vaccine manufacturer Staten Serum Institut.
“This is a blatant conflict of interest,” Hooker said.
The researchers also said they did not have permission to share data from the study — meaning their conclusions cannot easily be verified or challenged by other researchers.
Children's Health Defense
CDC-Funded Study of 99 Million COVID-Vaccinated People Finds ‘Very Rare Adverse Events’
A study of adverse events in 99 million people vaccinated for COVID-19 found increased but “very rare” risks of neurological, blood and heart disorders. Myocarditis odds were over 6 times higher than normal after a second Moderna shot.
___
Most significantly, the limitation of data collection of only up to 42 days post-vaccination carries the likelihood of vast underreporting, especially for symptoms that may take longer to develop. For example, McCullough has reported cardiac arrests happening up to two years after vaccine administration.
Second, by red-flagging only those adverse events where researchers are 95% sure the vaccine makes them 1.5 times more likely, some real risks could slip through the cracks when it comes to further studies or the development of remedies.
Lower than “1.5 times more likely” still means higher-than-reported vaccine-related risks. While appropriately cautious, the validity of this statistical distinction merits further evaluation.
Third, the study did not analyze or report on deaths following COVID-19 vaccination. The researchers did not mention vaccine-induced mortality at all and only stated that additional studies are still warranted using methodologies better suited to assess different kinds of data.
Hooker said:
“The authors appear to sidestep the severity of COVID-19 vaccine AEs [adverse events] by avoiding reporting on ‘death,’ ‘hospitalization,’ and ‘serious injury’ associated with the reported conditions as well. These are notably missing and one wonders why they were omitted given the high mortality levels indicated through CDC’s VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System].”
Fourth, the datasets were not globally representative and contained a number of confounding factors. Data from the U.S., which had some of the worst COVID-19 outcomes and ample reporting of adverse events, were not included. Asia and Africa were completely unrepresented.
____
In the section declaring competing interests, some authors acknowledged receiving funding from the CDC directly, though they clearly stated the study’s conclusions were their own.
Some authors reported associations with or funding from other state or country-level health agencies, and relationships with Big Pharma companies such as Gilead Sciences (makers of remdesivir), Novo Nordisk, AbbVie, Sanofi, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline.
The lead author of the study, K. Faksova, is employed by the Danish vaccine manufacturer Staten Serum Institut.
“This is a blatant conflict of interest,” Hooker said.
The researchers also said they did not have permission to share data from the study — meaning their conclusions cannot easily be verified or challenged by other researchers.

Who is J6 "Scaffold Commander," the key to the J6 Fedsurrection? https://rumble.com/v45y4z6-why-is-the-king-pin-of-j6-scaffold-commander-not-wanted-nor-identified-by-t.html
03-29-2024, 01:39 PM
-
#2
- chicagopizzaboy
- Registered User
-
- chicagopizzaboy
- Registered User
- Join Date: Mar 2023
- Age: 56
- Posts: 4,036
- Rep Power: 17641
-
-
This never should have made it even to pre-print.
Who is J6 "Scaffold Commander," the key to the J6 Fedsurrection? https://rumble.com/v45y4z6-why-is-the-king-pin-of-j6-scaffold-commander-not-wanted-nor-identified-by-t.html
05-05-2024, 12:46 PM
-
#3
- chicagopizzaboy
- Registered User
-
- chicagopizzaboy
- Registered User
- Join Date: Mar 2023
- Age: 56
- Posts: 4,036
- Rep Power: 17641
-
-
Who is J6 "Scaffold Commander," the key to the J6 Fedsurrection? https://rumble.com/v45y4z6-why-is-the-king-pin-of-j6-scaffold-commander-not-wanted-nor-identified-by-t.html
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-

- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
