Tittle is wrong. NOT a 3% mortality from jab, 3% mortality of those that had an adverse reaction to the jab. So a percentage of a percentage. Still, worse than simply catching covid, but incorrect numbers don't help our cause.
Well this study has some major flaws then and we need a link to assess its viability. Simple local studies that could done be by an individual in their place of work or by asking people at a public place would disprove a 93% adverse event rate.
Was this a clinical study - or a that follow-up tracking study of vaccinations up to February 2021? We do have a huge problem, and as time goes by we will likely find that more than 2.8% of those vaccinated will end up with lives that are shortened as a result.
But I can't imagine that the number of Relevant Cases shown in the graphic is 93% of those vaccinated.
Tittle is wrong. NOT a 3% mortality from jab, 3% mortality of those that had an adverse reaction to the jab. So a percentage of a percentage. Still, worse than simply catching covid, but incorrect numbers don't help our cause.
VAERS is estimated to only record 1-10% of all actual adverse events.
Well this study has some major flaws then and we need a link to assess its viability. Simple local studies that could done be by an individual in their place of work or by asking people at a public place would disprove a 93% adverse event rate.
Was this a clinical study - or a that follow-up tracking study of vaccinations up to February 2021? We do have a huge problem, and as time goes by we will likely find that more than 2.8% of those vaccinated will end up with lives that are shortened as a result.
But I can't imagine that the number of Relevant Cases shown in the graphic is 93% of those vaccinated.
If 93% of people have adverse events and 3% of those events are death let's take a look:
.93 x.03 = .0279 = 2.79% death rate.
I don't see how 3% is wrong if we are rounding up, especially since there are more deaths to come.
And I question the “0.75%” mortality rate. Number sounds made up.