As I’m taking a dear friend to the hospital today for more treatment of his failing heart...such a smart man, college professor, former firefighter, who took the clot shots hook line and sinker...and is now suffering.
I mean there's a difference between book smarts and street smarts. I don't care if that nigerian prince has a PHD and graduated from harvard 4 times, he's still not getting my credit card info.
My wife's friend had to have a lung transplant and they made her get the jab 1st. She did really good for a few months but is now having a lot of problems. I would bet her arteries are plugging up ?
Plugged arteries...and more likely myocarditis. Inflammation of the exterior of the heart muscle. This reduces the ability of the heart to pump. My friend who I took for an appt today has 10% ejection fraction...meaning the heart is pumping only 10% of what it should. This causes only 10% transfer of O2 into and CO2 out of the blood. And muscles suffer and become weak.
The clot shots are a major cause of myocarditis and pericarditis (inflammation of the knterior surface of the heart). Fucking crimes against humanity what they did to people. My friend and his wife believed every news report and went full on the shots.
People are so stupid. We all know they twist data to show whatever they want. Which is how they have managed to lie about basically everything--health, diet, supplements, you name it they've lied about it.
Not only are they lying about the vax offering protection, but they’re simultaneously linking Covid to all of the injuries the vax seems to be creating. This is par for the course for the deep state. The only problem is that almost all of the people who will be seeking treatment for these issues will be “fully vaccinated” against the virus that is allegedly causing these issues. I guess it doesn’t have to make sense, most of these people are so far gone.
This is going to be their new talking point that the vaccines cause less blood clots than the actual virus. If anybody has any information or articles proving the opposite I’d love to see that. This is the argument that I’m getting from my libtard family members regarding the vaccine.
ABC article was written yesterday (March 19, 2024).
The "study" was really just looking up information in government health records databases.
They looked for people who were vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, and health problems they found.
They are CLAIMING that getting the vaxx was helpful to prevent 3 heart problems compared to "getting Covid" without the vaxx.
How did they determine that someone "had Covid?"
Either (a) a fake PCR test, or (b) a fake "clinical diagnosis" (they don't explain what that means).
There is NO EVIDENCE that the health outcomes had anything to do with vaccination. They are merely making CLAIMS that getting the vaxx was helpful -- but the actual numbers DO NOT SHOW THAT.
Overall, it is a mixed bag -- no clear advantage either way, but some of the numbers are REALLY WEIRD.
Go to the study, page 4.
"Cardiac Risk Factors and Prevention" is the title. It is a misleading title, since the table is not really about that, but let's continue ...
Across the top are the 4 databases from which they took data.
Along the side are the health problems they were looking at.
VTE = blood clots in veins
ATE = blood clots in arteries
HF = heart failure (death?)
The numbers in the columns are the total number for that event and (another number, which is how many per 10,000). The number of vaxxed and unvaxxed were not the same, so the (numbers per 10,000) are the way to compare apples to apples.
Cohort 1, CPRD database --
VTE: 2.68 vs. 2.12
ATE: 0.63 vs. 1.27
HF: 1.70 vs. 3.58
So, the vaxxed were slightly better off for VTE, but MUCH WORSE OFF for both ATE and HF.
For the majority of Cohort 1 from that database, the UNVAXXED were better off than the vaxxed.
Notice that for CPRD, Cohorts 1, 2, and 3 all did better (overall) if they were NOT vaxxed than if they were.
Only Cohort 4 is an exception, where the vaxxed did better.
Co-morbidities: A lot for the older people, almost none for the younger
CORIVA was the second database. It is more of a mixed bag, with unvaxxed and vaxxed doing similar; probably the vaxxed doing a little better overall -- except for Cohort 4.
CORIVA, Cohort 4 (Avg. age 34, with almost no co-morbiities) had SKY HIGH health problems, especially for the UNVAXXED.
First 30 days --
VTE: 7.86 vs. near zero
ATE: 7.86 vs. 4.50
HF: 24.67 vs. 7.64
WTF???
34-year old people, with no co-morbidities, suddently having heart failure at 25 per 10,000 -- unvaxxed?
Also, VTE & ATE numbers for them was identical, which seems unlikely.
Even after 6 months, those numbers are SKY HIGH.
What gives?
Well, read the fine print on page 2. This dataset is from ... Estonia.
Is there something weird going on in Estonia, or at least with their health records?
Are they counting "unvaccinated" differently that the others? Does "unvaccinated" mean "less than the full 3 shots" in Estonia?
Why do 34-year old Estonians have a sky high heart failure rate?
If we add the 4 timeframes (< 30 days, 30-90, 90-180, 180-365) the 34-year olds in Estonia -- UNVAXXED -- had 1,049 heart failures out of a total of 147,545 in the dataset.
Does that sound remotely realistic?
Did they get a vaxx and die, but it counted as "unvaccinated" due to not having all 3 shots?
I don't know, but these numbers do not seem legit. Especially since the "vaccinated" the same Cohort in Estonia had only 64 heart failures out of 22,245.
Is this why Estonia was included in this so-called "study?"
Check out the SIDIAP database records, which is from Spain.
Health problems are way higher for vaxxed than unvaxxed in Cohorts 1 & 2.
About the same in Cohort 3, but once again higher for the unvaxxed than the vaxxed in Cohort 4.
The paper says its "Key Finding" was:
Our analyses showed a substantial reduction of risk (45–81%) for thromboembolic and cardiac events in the acute phase [first 30 days] of COVID-19 associated with vaccination. (Page 7)
This is the statement that ABC "News" ran with, but it is not true.
In most of the Cohorts for Britain, the opposite was true (unvaxxed better than vaxxed). Only Cohort 4 (younger people) had these results, and nothing explains why that would be.
In Spain, the older people had fewer problems if they were unvaxxed.
Across the board, the younger people had more problems if they were NOT vaxxed, but older people were better off not vaxxed -- except for Estonia, which has sky high numbers for unvaxxed, but not "vaccinated."
There is likely A LOT of fuckery in how they defined various terms, and some of that might be in the paper.
I don't have time to sort through it all, though.
Anyone else wanna give it a shot?
We don't know WHY so many younger people had HEART FAILURE (vaxxed or unvaxxed), but I would bet that the answer is in the definitions, which might not even be disclosed in this paper -- they might be hidden in the government health stats databases.
Estonia website, stating that at least 2 shots are required, and a 3rd is advisable:
Now, show the old commercials with doctors saying it's good for pregnant women to smoke. Make sure they all are wearing white lab coats and glasses. 4 out of 5 doctors approve women who smoke during pregnancy.
Does anyone know of any valid analysis of the data that shows fewer people died as a result of the covid shots? I'm thinking that there was ZERO benefit to the covid shots, since the virus had mutated several times between the development of the shots, and giving the shots. Any apparent "improvement" was simply due to the virus being less dangerous.
It doesn't have to be true, if they say it enough times it will be believed. There is an old saying about if you lie hard enough you will begin to believe your own lies.
Yes. Forget the fear mongers on the fake news. They lied through their teeth about the bolognavirus and EVERYTHING ELSE. If you took the jabs, you'll be fine. If you didn't take the jabs you'll also be fine. Do you honestly believe President Trump would endorse a deadly biological weapon?
It’s probably based off some technicality like setting the baseline of improvement after a person already suffered the majority of the damage where the more damaged vaccinated have a bigger recovery compared to those who were mostly undamaged to begin with.
This is the natural next lie the jabbed want to believe. The jab is good to make you wise knowing good from evil... you made the right choice... the next lie is that the pure bloods are giving people the consequences of poisoning themselves because they never poisoned themselves.
KEK!!
And then what happens after that year is up?
You're out of warrantee!
Pretty much guaranteed....
Super cancer
TURBO CANCER
As I’m taking a dear friend to the hospital today for more treatment of his failing heart...such a smart man, college professor, former firefighter, who took the clot shots hook line and sinker...and is now suffering.
Fucking criminals...
I mean there's a difference between book smarts and street smarts. I don't care if that nigerian prince has a PHD and graduated from harvard 4 times, he's still not getting my credit card info.
My wife's friend had to have a lung transplant and they made her get the jab 1st. She did really good for a few months but is now having a lot of problems. I would bet her arteries are plugging up ?
Plugged arteries...and more likely myocarditis. Inflammation of the exterior of the heart muscle. This reduces the ability of the heart to pump. My friend who I took for an appt today has 10% ejection fraction...meaning the heart is pumping only 10% of what it should. This causes only 10% transfer of O2 into and CO2 out of the blood. And muscles suffer and become weak.
The clot shots are a major cause of myocarditis and pericarditis (inflammation of the knterior surface of the heart). Fucking crimes against humanity what they did to people. My friend and his wife believed every news report and went full on the shots.
People are so stupid. We all know they twist data to show whatever they want. Which is how they have managed to lie about basically everything--health, diet, supplements, you name it they've lied about it.
And so far every food I can think of has been on their "never eat this" list.
They're criminals, and need to be punished.
its satanism
Not only are they lying about the vax offering protection, but they’re simultaneously linking Covid to all of the injuries the vax seems to be creating. This is par for the course for the deep state. The only problem is that almost all of the people who will be seeking treatment for these issues will be “fully vaccinated” against the virus that is allegedly causing these issues. I guess it doesn’t have to make sense, most of these people are so far gone.
You can always tell when they issue another lie; the print is black.
This is going to be their new talking point that the vaccines cause less blood clots than the actual virus. If anybody has any information or articles proving the opposite I’d love to see that. This is the argument that I’m getting from my libtard family members regarding the vaccine.
Ask them: What "virus" has ever caused blood clots?
They don't know. They are just parroting what some dimwit on TV said.
Everybody knows that if the vax kills you so the Wu Flu can't.
100% of the people who got the clot shots, and then died, were protected from covid death :)
It's 'injected', not 'vaccinated' ...
“Magic Studies”
Playbook is known: studies always seem to magically discover that vaccines prevent vaccine problems
Pharaohs Magicians -- "Scientists" / "Doctors"
Looks like they are lying about what the actual study showed.
I don't have time to really dig into it, but skimming through, this is what I found:
Original ABC article:
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/covid-vaccines-found-cut-risk-heart-failure-blood/story?id=108256383
In the first paragraph, they link to the study they are writing about, which can be found here:
https://heart.bmj.com/content/heartjnl/early/2024/01/24/heartjnl-2023-323483.full.pdf
Study was published December 2023.
ABC article was written yesterday (March 19, 2024).
The "study" was really just looking up information in government health records databases.
They looked for people who were vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, and health problems they found.
They are CLAIMING that getting the vaxx was helpful to prevent 3 heart problems compared to "getting Covid" without the vaxx.
How did they determine that someone "had Covid?"
Either (a) a fake PCR test, or (b) a fake "clinical diagnosis" (they don't explain what that means).
There is NO EVIDENCE that the health outcomes had anything to do with vaccination. They are merely making CLAIMS that getting the vaxx was helpful -- but the actual numbers DO NOT SHOW THAT.
Overall, it is a mixed bag -- no clear advantage either way, but some of the numbers are REALLY WEIRD.
Go to the study, page 4.
"Cardiac Risk Factors and Prevention" is the title. It is a misleading title, since the table is not really about that, but let's continue ...
Across the top are the 4 databases from which they took data.
Along the side are the health problems they were looking at.
VTE = blood clots in veins ATE = blood clots in arteries HF = heart failure (death?)
The numbers in the columns are the total number for that event and (another number, which is how many per 10,000). The number of vaxxed and unvaxxed were not the same, so the (numbers per 10,000) are the way to compare apples to apples.
Cohort 1, CPRD database --
VTE: 2.68 vs. 2.12 ATE: 0.63 vs. 1.27 HF: 1.70 vs. 3.58
So, the vaxxed were slightly better off for VTE, but MUCH WORSE OFF for both ATE and HF.
For the majority of Cohort 1 from that database, the UNVAXXED were better off than the vaxxed.
Notice that for CPRD, Cohorts 1, 2, and 3 all did better (overall) if they were NOT vaxxed than if they were.
Only Cohort 4 is an exception, where the vaxxed did better.
So, what is going on?
Page 3 shows us the Cohort data.
Average ages --
Cohort 1: 80 Cohort 2: 58 Cohort 3: 50 & 51 (M & F) Cohort 4: 34
Number of doctor visits:
Cohort 1: 10 Cohort 2: 8 Cohort 3: 4 & 6 Cohort 4: 2
Co-morbidities: A lot for the older people, almost none for the younger
CORIVA was the second database. It is more of a mixed bag, with unvaxxed and vaxxed doing similar; probably the vaxxed doing a little better overall -- except for Cohort 4.
CORIVA, Cohort 4 (Avg. age 34, with almost no co-morbiities) had SKY HIGH health problems, especially for the UNVAXXED.
First 30 days --
VTE: 7.86 vs. near zero ATE: 7.86 vs. 4.50 HF: 24.67 vs. 7.64
WTF???
34-year old people, with no co-morbidities, suddently having heart failure at 25 per 10,000 -- unvaxxed?
Also, VTE & ATE numbers for them was identical, which seems unlikely.
Even after 6 months, those numbers are SKY HIGH.
What gives?
Well, read the fine print on page 2. This dataset is from ... Estonia.
Is there something weird going on in Estonia, or at least with their health records?
Are they counting "unvaccinated" differently that the others? Does "unvaccinated" mean "less than the full 3 shots" in Estonia?
Why do 34-year old Estonians have a sky high heart failure rate?
If we add the 4 timeframes (< 30 days, 30-90, 90-180, 180-365) the 34-year olds in Estonia -- UNVAXXED -- had 1,049 heart failures out of a total of 147,545 in the dataset.
Does that sound remotely realistic?
Did they get a vaxx and die, but it counted as "unvaccinated" due to not having all 3 shots?
I don't know, but these numbers do not seem legit. Especially since the "vaccinated" the same Cohort in Estonia had only 64 heart failures out of 22,245.
Is this why Estonia was included in this so-called "study?"
Check out the SIDIAP database records, which is from Spain.
Health problems are way higher for vaxxed than unvaxxed in Cohorts 1 & 2.
About the same in Cohort 3, but once again higher for the unvaxxed than the vaxxed in Cohort 4.
The paper says its "Key Finding" was:
This is the statement that ABC "News" ran with, but it is not true.
In most of the Cohorts for Britain, the opposite was true (unvaxxed better than vaxxed). Only Cohort 4 (younger people) had these results, and nothing explains why that would be.
In Spain, the older people had fewer problems if they were unvaxxed.
Across the board, the younger people had more problems if they were NOT vaxxed, but older people were better off not vaxxed -- except for Estonia, which has sky high numbers for unvaxxed, but not "vaccinated."
There is likely A LOT of fuckery in how they defined various terms, and some of that might be in the paper.
I don't have time to sort through it all, though.
Anyone else wanna give it a shot?
We don't know WHY so many younger people had HEART FAILURE (vaxxed or unvaxxed), but I would bet that the answer is in the definitions, which might not even be disclosed in this paper -- they might be hidden in the government health stats databases.
Estonia website, stating that at least 2 shots are required, and a 3rd is advisable:
https://kriis.ee/en/sickness-health-vaccinations/vaccines-and-vaccinations/vaccination-estonia
Now, show the old commercials with doctors saying it's good for pregnant women to smoke. Make sure they all are wearing white lab coats and glasses. 4 out of 5 doctors approve women who smoke during pregnancy.
You can't prove that in the amount of family members, coworkers, and neighbors. There have been at least 20-25.
It's called survivorship bias.
Doublespeak from propaganda whores
Does anyone know of any valid analysis of the data that shows fewer people died as a result of the covid shots? I'm thinking that there was ZERO benefit to the covid shots, since the virus had mutated several times between the development of the shots, and giving the shots. Any apparent "improvement" was simply due to the virus being less dangerous.
It doesn't have to be true, if they say it enough times it will be believed. There is an old saying about if you lie hard enough you will begin to believe your own lies.
Yes. Forget the fear mongers on the fake news. They lied through their teeth about the bolognavirus and EVERYTHING ELSE. If you took the jabs, you'll be fine. If you didn't take the jabs you'll also be fine. Do you honestly believe President Trump would endorse a deadly biological weapon?
Somebodys pants are on fire.
It’s probably based off some technicality like setting the baseline of improvement after a person already suffered the majority of the damage where the more damaged vaccinated have a bigger recovery compared to those who were mostly undamaged to begin with.
Well, you can cut those risks by making a product that helps to ensure the death of the patient.
This is the natural next lie the jabbed want to believe. The jab is good to make you wise knowing good from evil... you made the right choice... the next lie is that the pure bloods are giving people the consequences of poisoning themselves because they never poisoned themselves.
pure satanism
Well, until they pay the price it will continue. So far they're having a free ride that we're paying for. I don't approve.
Can't be both
Replace cut with increase. To many studies to count out now that show the jab is designed to kill you. ABC/Disney need to be ashed.