Thanks Jessica. Would the longer term data not be skewed by the fact that the population is being taught NOT to associate “SADS” phenomenon with the shots?
One key point that hinders an analysis of VAERS to determine the under-reporting factor for adverse events and deaths is the probability that - once the immediate and obvious events occur within a few hours or days - medical staff and families are fat LESS likely to associate death and harms with injections as months go by. This is especially true for deaths when co-morbidities are present. Morbidities may very well have developed over months following injections and are NOT being attributed to injections.
In a perfect world, there would be a reconciliation of excess deaths with progressive injections, as there would be a reconciliation of the rate of development of morbidities. These reconciliations would compare, say, FIRSTLY, 5 years worth of pre-covid annual averages fusing 2015 to 2019 years with the covid year with no injections - 2020, SECONDLY, a roll-out year 2021, increasing to 70% and increasing doses and THIRDLY, a fully injected (as full as likely in any rate) period of the 8 months or so of 2022.
You can see how the "dumbfounding" factors of non-reporting are fatal to analysis and why a reconciliation of excess deaths with injections is crucial, but also the other serious conditions/morbidities have toe reconciled (comparison of 2015-2019 annual averages for deaths and morbidities with 2020, then 2021 then so far in 2022).
This would resolve the issue of an increasing propensity to dissociate long term impacts (reference Steve Kirsch's view that it takes 150 days for the vulnerable to die from the injections).
Of concern to me is that there is an emerged dogma that says "treat the vulnerable". This makes no sense to me. The vulnerable are most likely to suffer and die from the injection of toxins.
I agree with the analysis here - that shows (to me) the causative impact of injections on deaths in the UK as its roll-out started with the oldest and worked down in cohorts - each time, deaths spiked (sic) immediately following injections..
Robert Malone recently interviewed a Dutch statistician that pointed to the same phenomena
Anyway, I applaud the work you do and look forward to lots more of it whilst the injection genocide persists!
There may be a better injection on the way with no side effects - fingers crossed the white mice in this study are endorsed in the same way as the bivalents from Pfizer and Moderna were!
So, this is South Africa VAERS? Some of this is confusing.
It looks like there are around a thousand records or so, being amplified by a URF of 31, for about 30+k? How was this factor selected? It seems like a very different system.
Seems too low, considering that US VAERS is currently sporting 863,000, unadjusted.
SA are reporting around 37 million doses administered, compared with 611 million in the US. Based on that, roughly 52,000 reports would be expected, unadjusted for URF.
What are we missing here? It looks like this system is vastly more under reported than the official system in the US, it wouldn't make sense to use a similar URF.
In official WHO and CDC parlance, severe adverse event is not the same as serious adverse event. Severe refers to a temporary condition such as a lot of pain. Serious refers to a lasting or damaging condition. Of course there can be overlap. I wonder if this is a difference in usage between South African and American english.
If I am reading your slides correctly, there is not a greater percentage of injuries with each additional shot. I thought that is what was being said on other sites? Anyway, great slides. Thank you.
The South Korean version of VAERS is showing that the number of adverse events per 1,000 jabs is steadily dropping (especially Moderna in the last month of 2021). I was wondering if you have seen anything similar in US reports.
I assume that SAVAERS is a portion of the VAERS database apportioned only for severe adverse events? (Apologies if that is an obvious question!) Also, I wonder if a comparison to previous cases would provide context. Consider, when I compare VAERS data for *just* the mRNA vaccines to all previous vaccines, I see a stark contrast and an obvious signal. Is the same true in the SAVAERS case?
Thanks Jessica. Would the longer term data not be skewed by the fact that the population is being taught NOT to associate “SADS” phenomenon with the shots?
Is it possible to get larger print on the 2nd to last slide? Cannot read the text. thanks
Great work, as usual!
One key point that hinders an analysis of VAERS to determine the under-reporting factor for adverse events and deaths is the probability that - once the immediate and obvious events occur within a few hours or days - medical staff and families are fat LESS likely to associate death and harms with injections as months go by. This is especially true for deaths when co-morbidities are present. Morbidities may very well have developed over months following injections and are NOT being attributed to injections.
In a perfect world, there would be a reconciliation of excess deaths with progressive injections, as there would be a reconciliation of the rate of development of morbidities. These reconciliations would compare, say, FIRSTLY, 5 years worth of pre-covid annual averages fusing 2015 to 2019 years with the covid year with no injections - 2020, SECONDLY, a roll-out year 2021, increasing to 70% and increasing doses and THIRDLY, a fully injected (as full as likely in any rate) period of the 8 months or so of 2022.
You can see how the "dumbfounding" factors of non-reporting are fatal to analysis and why a reconciliation of excess deaths with injections is crucial, but also the other serious conditions/morbidities have toe reconciled (comparison of 2015-2019 annual averages for deaths and morbidities with 2020, then 2021 then so far in 2022).
This would resolve the issue of an increasing propensity to dissociate long term impacts (reference Steve Kirsch's view that it takes 150 days for the vulnerable to die from the injections).
Of concern to me is that there is an emerged dogma that says "treat the vulnerable". This makes no sense to me. The vulnerable are most likely to suffer and die from the injection of toxins.
I agree with the analysis here - that shows (to me) the causative impact of injections on deaths in the UK as its roll-out started with the oldest and worked down in cohorts - each time, deaths spiked (sic) immediately following injections..
https://notrickszone.com/2022/01/21/analysis-by-german-prof-thousands-of-hidden-deaths-daily-may-be-greatest-medical-debacle-in-human-history/
Robert Malone recently interviewed a Dutch statistician that pointed to the same phenomena
Anyway, I applaud the work you do and look forward to lots more of it whilst the injection genocide persists!
There may be a better injection on the way with no side effects - fingers crossed the white mice in this study are endorsed in the same way as the bivalents from Pfizer and Moderna were!
https://peterhalligan.substack.com/p/sp1-77-to-the-rescue
All the best
Peter
So, this is South Africa VAERS? Some of this is confusing.
It looks like there are around a thousand records or so, being amplified by a URF of 31, for about 30+k? How was this factor selected? It seems like a very different system.
Seems too low, considering that US VAERS is currently sporting 863,000, unadjusted.
SA are reporting around 37 million doses administered, compared with 611 million in the US. Based on that, roughly 52,000 reports would be expected, unadjusted for URF.
What are we missing here? It looks like this system is vastly more under reported than the official system in the US, it wouldn't make sense to use a similar URF.
https://jessica5b3.substack.com/p/my-slides-for-the-first-savaers-conference?r=zfbjp&utm_medium=ios
I think there are a lot more deaths from the vaxx that has not been reported & misdiagnosed as heart attack, stroke, organ failure, blood clots, etc…
They are not doing very many autopsies.
May the Lord bless you and keep you from any harm.
In official WHO and CDC parlance, severe adverse event is not the same as serious adverse event. Severe refers to a temporary condition such as a lot of pain. Serious refers to a lasting or damaging condition. Of course there can be overlap. I wonder if this is a difference in usage between South African and American english.
If I am reading your slides correctly, there is not a greater percentage of injuries with each additional shot. I thought that is what was being said on other sites? Anyway, great slides. Thank you.
The South Korean version of VAERS is showing that the number of adverse events per 1,000 jabs is steadily dropping (especially Moderna in the last month of 2021). I was wondering if you have seen anything similar in US reports.
https://ncv.kdca.go.kr/board.es?mid=a11707010000&bid=0032&act=view&list_no=818&tag=&nPage=1
You might need to run the attachment on that page through Google translate, but there are a couple of charts that show the decline.
Thank you Jessica, good conference and great presentation.
Thank you so much!!! 💓
I assume that SAVAERS is a portion of the VAERS database apportioned only for severe adverse events? (Apologies if that is an obvious question!) Also, I wonder if a comparison to previous cases would provide context. Consider, when I compare VAERS data for *just* the mRNA vaccines to all previous vaccines, I see a stark contrast and an obvious signal. Is the same true in the SAVAERS case?