According to WHO, Covid-19 Vaccine adverse reactions
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (58)
sorted by:
Thank you for your reply. I do understand that there could be several categories listed for a single report. That being said, these numbers are still extremely alarming when considering the fact that the real numbers could be higher by a factor of 10-20 times as you stated.
The fact that more women suffer from adverse vax reactions does not surprise me and I think this is a fairly reasonable reflection. Women are more likely to suffer neurological, autoimmune complications, and musculoskeletal complications, such as fibromyalgia, MS, and CFS. So, an approximate 2 to 1 reporting of women to men does not seem out of line considering the types of categories reported. When considering neurological complications due to things like CVA, there is crossover. The system is not designed to be precise, but as you stated, the statistics are reasonable and they do follow what we would expect to see in this type of distribution pattern. I should have stated that the side effects associated with the initial administration, such as sore arm, mild headaches, etc, was not my focus. There is a reason why there is a separate category for those types of milder reactions. These reporting systems are supposed to be an early warning system for vaxxine adverse reactions. The systems are doing their job - it is just that the information is being ignored by those with another agenda.
As far as "headaches" and "nervous system disorders" being "not that bad," I beg to differ. I have worked with many patients that suffered from a variety of those conditions due to vaxxine or drug injury and they were far from not being that bad. In many cases they were life altering and devastating. Vaxxine injuries that impact the nervous system can be severe. One only needs to look at the explosion in autistic spectrum disorders to know that something is terribly wrong. (This is one area where the boys outnumber the girls substantially.)
Some conditions, such as Bell's Palsy, are often self limiting and will resolve over time - but it no fun for the person that is afflicted with it. Shingles is not exactly a walk in the park either. My brother, 6 months post vax with rapid onset shingles, still cannot where a shirt and his skin is scarred. The more severe autoimmune and nervous system disorders as a result of vaxxine injury are often permanent and disabling and the vast majority of those that suffer from these injuries are women. We should not make the mistake of downplaying these injuries or the people that suffer from them like the press and government officials are often guilty of.
Deaths are not reported and that must also be taken into consideration when assessing the demographics by age. The reason the geriatric age group is lower could be due to the victim actually succumbing to the vax while their death is attributed to some other cause such as old age or cancer. So all of this must be taken with a grain of salt. My assessment of this report was only cursory, but I have worked in public health medical research so this information does not seem out of line with what I would expect to see given the demographics and conditions reported. It is just that the actual numbers would be higher across the board.
When scanning the symptoms and conditions of the report, which is not a perfect system and is similar to VAERS, I stand by my original assessment of neuro and skeletal muscular issues being the most reported and could cover several categories. I also believe that those numbers are only going to increase as time passes due to a later manifestation of certain types of neurological and autoimmune related conditions and their often delayed diagnosis - such as MS. We will not know the full impact of these more chronic conditions possibly for several years - although we are starting to see rapid onset MS and an increase in brain tumors and other types of new cancers or recurrent cancers that had been in remission. Unfortunately, most of this increase is not being connected to the jabs. The oncologists for the most part, have drank the Kool-Aid.
My point about the media reporting is that the cardiac and blood clotting adverse events appear to be taking center stage because they are often acute situations. Neurological disorders and the like, which can be acute but may also take time to manifest, are underreported in the news compared to the more headline grabbing heart and blood stories. The majority of the events in this report acute situations so I find the numbers alarming - considering this may only be the tip of a very big iceberg when the more chronic conditions begin to manefest. Since we know the media is a captured operation and is owned by Pharma, their choice in which adverse reactions they report to me always must be viewed with a bit of skepticism. Thank you again for taking the time to respond. Next time I will be clearer with my explanations. Have a great week.
I said specifically "as a statistical data point," not as an anecdote. Headache on a VAERS report could be anything from a mild inflammatory response, which would be expected for many vaccinations, real vaccine or otherwise, to brain cancer.
I agree, but you won't find the statistical inference on those injuries in the "headache" column. You will find it in the other checkboxes on the same report. That is why "headache" as a statistical data point is mostly meaningless (for the purposes of analytics of injury severity, which is what we are discussing).
I am looking at it from the perspective of extracting inference from the statistics (aka analysis of the data). It is important to understand the dataset in order to extract accurate inference. Looking at a catch all column for which the most likely outcome is "mild" is not meaningful for this purpose. You must look deeper into the data (the other checkboxes as mentioned above). What I am not doing is saying that all headaches are meaningless. I am not saying that at all. I am saying you must understand the dataset to get good analysis.
The oncologists ARE the Kool-Aid. Medicine as it is taught has little to do with health and everything to do with treatment. The medical industry was taken over in the early 20th century by the Rockefeller Foundation. All medicine is taught as allopathy. We have been taught to shun (shame) all other forms of health learning and research.
The Rockefellers own all of big pharma. They own all of the radiation machines. They own (or fund) all the medical schools, they own the AMA, they own the regulatory agencies, they own all the hospitals, they own the insurance companies, they own everything that exchanges a dollar in medicine. They founded allopathy as the primary source of medical teaching because they own all the money making sources derived from it.
We are 100% molecular machines derived 100% from food. "You are what you eat" is the most true statement that can be made about the human body. Yet despite this fact, nutrition is not taught in medical school at all. Whole body health is completely ignored. Non-pharmaceutical remedies (nutrition or other natural substances) are never researched outside of academia because you can't get funding for it from the primary funding sources (all owned by the Rockefellers), nor can you patent it, meaning no money can be made on it.
The basics of a doctors education is in biology, but they barely touch some of the more important parts of it (on the micro scale) as it relates to human health (in cell and molecular biology and molecular physiology). Only pharmaceuticals are taught in medical school, and doctors are told to rely on pharma reports for all their information on them. They are taught to hand over their critical thinking in cell and molecular biology and drug/receptor interactions over to pharma. That doesn't mean that all doctors follow this, and I know several that look much deeper into pharmaceuticals before prescribing them, but this is how it is taught. This is the medical establishment in a nutshell.
Sorry for the rant, but I have been disgusted with the medical community for a long time having worked with several doctors in my research. It is only recently that my (GA) research has led me to the reason for my disgust (Rockefellers).
No argument from me on this.
In the end, you and I are really on the same team. You are preaching to the choir. I have spent over the last 25 years from within the system doing public health research and private clinical practice, and it has not been easy. Those of us that walked the fine line between allopathic and alternative medicine always run the risk of the wrath of the licensing boards if we make waves and try to rock the boat. I know many that had to legally fight for their right to keep their licenses and their practices.
I think with Covid, more clinicians have come to an awakening of what the rest of us have been warning about for years. We operated within the old system that we could navigate to some extent while we kept our heads down, not drawing the attention of the ever watchful eye of the state licensing boards. It was far from perfect, but it was the best we could do and still practice and not end up broke and in jail. We knew the whole time that our education was lacking in many ways and was all about the prescription pad. Pharmaceutical companies have kept data bases on what types and how many drugs a practitioner prescribes. Many of us are targeted that way. All it takes is one well placed complaint to the board and they crawl up your ass with a microscope looking for any reason to strip a license and to be a warning to others thinking about straying off the plantation.
Insurance companies and the AMA created a monster that was already poor disease management and put it on steroids by handing patient care over to algorithms and AI - especially in critical care and the authority of the intensivist. I believe this closed system with our hospitals was one of the main factors this sham was allowed to manifest. The patient's own physician has no input regarding care and many people die as a result. The draw of money makes fertile ground for the unthinkable.
The ACA was the nail in the coffin to bury the old system, as broken as it was, which stopped us from operating with a little bit of autonomy. the ACA was the straw that broke many backs and several good clinicians called it a day and left. Others tried their hands at subscriber based practice with mixed results. Covid has now moved us into a nightmare that I can no longer be a part of any longer. I made the decision to leave rather than be a part of this genocidal insanity. I dealt with patients damaged by vaccines - myself included. I know I did help some of my patients - the ones willing to put in the effort to try another path to find health that didn't involve drugs. They have been worth all the aggravation trying to fight the machine.
Thanks for the discussion. You make some really good points. I will read over you comments again when I have some time to really chew on them.
Wow. I had totally forgotten about the pharma database on doctors. I vaguely recall having a conversation about that with a doctor a decade or more ago. Thank you for bringing that up. I will do a little digging on that. If you have more specific information on it that would be helpful in my report.
Thank you for your excellent response. I am sorry you feel it necessary to leave the system. It is exactly people that are willing to fight it from the inside that we need, though I also decided to leave academia almost a year ago for similar reasons so I get it.
After having an awakening and seeing the real causes of the corruption in the system I was unable to continue on that path. This was before mandatory vaccines, or even most of the blatant current crap. I just had finally understood the real force and intent behind the indoctrination I had been seeing all over for years and just couldn't stomach the disease formerly known as science I was a part of.
Sounds all too familiar my fren. I was getting burned out and saw the direction things were going and decided I needed a sabbatical. I needed some time just to air the cobwebs out and refocus. Even in the beginning stages of the plandemic I kept myself plugged in to what was happening on the front lines. I helplessly watched as practitioners that genuinely cared struggled to come up with solutions to help their patients only to be shutdown and demeaned for even suggesting treatments not approved by the guardians of the science. This process started barely two weeks into the first hospitalizations. Patients were put on ventilators and literally sacrificed for money. The Covid cash cow piggy trough was engaged early to help fuel the greed from administrators and officials that were giddy with all the dollars flowing into their coffers. I was horrified. Then the censoring started. It was all like a really bad dream that never ends.
I have decided for the moment, that returning to clinical practice will not work the way things are currently. Maybe in time, if this system blows up, I can be involved in building something better that really focuses on health. Also like you, I could not bring myself to return to teaching either because I could not stomach the narrative of just absolute bull crap I would be forced to teach to the new and upcoming medical and dental professionals. Any curriculum that presented information that strayed from the narrative was met with swift and often job ending discipline. So, I am finding other pursuits to challenge my mind.
I challenged the narrative even when I was a student and I had many differences of opinions with instructors over just basic science - especially when it came to wrong information contained in textbooks. Years are spent learning basic foundational elements of anatomy, biochem, and physiology, only to have it shelved when application moves in. Somehow, 1 + 1 now equaled 3, 4, or 5 depending on the desired outcome. Even then I felt like I was the only one in the classroom that could still critically think. Nutrition was a dirty word and anyone that even suggested there were alternatives was immediately belittled and publicly chastised. It is perpetual hazing that does not end after graduation - as anyone that has dared to buck the Olympian gods of the science can attest.
Here is something to help get you started about the tracking of prescribers among other things. It is a little dated, but still a good place to begin. The companies mentioned in the article that data mine the healthcare industry have since merged with other companies - as is the case with many industries that consolidate into larger behemoth structures. If I find anything else on the topic I will be sure to forward it to you. Thanks again for the discussion. The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry on Healthcare Practitioners’ Prescribing Habits