It's likely worse than these stats. If we learned anything from pharmacovigilance systems, it's that Vaccine Safety Datalink has a built-in healthy user bias (HUB) that mitigates all harms and creates the illusion of vaccine efficacy.
We are beleaguered and it keeps getting worse and without us being on the international news for being AWFUL I don’t know if it’s going to improve. Basically, Australians are trapped in an abusive relationship with our government.
Would be so grateful if you can provide some analysis of our DAEN or all cause deaths because rn we just get safe and effective on repeat all day every day.
I get it. If I can help in any way (collecting files, tabulating data) I'd be happy to. There are a few of us who can do some basic legwork but no one who does quite what you do.
I don't know whether I should be more concerned about future vaccine mandates, the looming famine, the collapse of the financial system and the great reset, or the nuclear war that the Deep State is trying to start with Russia and China. Maybe Jessica can help before all is lost...
From the beginning I have been bothered by the lack of concern among health professionals about myocarditis. “It’s self limiting, it’s minor, they’ll do fine.” The assumption has always been this will be like typical cases. We don’t know that. The spike protein in the vaccine may have long term effects and alter developing muscle. Shouldn’t we be doing massive studies with cardiac MRI including asymptomatic people. We are ignoring all asymptomatic people as though nothing is happening but we don’t know that because we are unwilling to look at large series.
The Free State of Florida leads the way again. I'm sure there will be more to follow. Gee, I don't see this kind of analysis coming from my old state of Maskachussetts, the medical center of the know universe!🤓
> The authors found that within this 28-day risk window, both all-cause and cardiac-related death risk were substantially higher.
Where does it say all-cause risk was higher? It seems like it says all-cause risk was not higher and it was lower for vaccinated over 60:
"In the 28 days following vaccination, no increase in risk was observed for all-cause deaths. A statistically significant decrease was observed for participants 60 years or older in the 28 days following vaccination (RI = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.94 - 0.99)."
Hopefully they'll re-do this analysis past 28 days, too.
That is what it looks like to me, too, though I can’t see how they got the notion of a “statistically significant decrease” when “healthy user bias” likely has some impact (I.e, not given the vax if sick, much less sick enough to be close to death). The fact that this showed up in the older population (more likely to die to begin with, thus more impact to being healthy at time of vaccination) would conform with that.
Oh I just realized you have both substacks with this same content. Should we move from one to the other? Will you have same content on both? I often go back to comments, so will need to recall there are two. Am I doing this wrong? :)
I don’t understand. What do you mean by “all injection products.” The risk appears higher in that group relative to other age brackets. What am I missing?
So then subtracting, we can determine the omitted category numbers, which has a multiplier of over 3 by my estimations. It looks like 18-39 y.o. male shouldn’t get any injection?
They didn’t parse it out because of the small numbers - 5 cardiac deaths in the “other vax or unknown vax type” group, two of which were in the first 28 days. Can’t draw any conclusions from that small a sample.
This is what Florida's Surgeon General Tweeted then. He'll be labelled a crazy along with DeSantis then. Good news, Germany and the UK are not turning up for their boosters. Might change as it looks like project fear is being ramped up. Again.
This has nothing to do with this article. I am in need of the causation article the Jessica posted a while back. There was a 10 question process that she went through. I can’t find it in the archives. Thanks ahead.
So how do you explain the 97% increase in relative incidence of cardiac-related deaths in 18-39 yo NOT associated with mRNA? You know, the line directly above that?
Not that you asked me, but I reckon Covid is deadly, affects endothelial and heart cells, if people really are getting covid on multiple occasions... No? Lots of coke about too, but that's in the UK... Possibly New Zealand too, have you seen Jacinda lately?
It seems to me that the real risk of cardiac-related death is probably significantly higher than 84% if you expand the observation window past 28 days, because a significant share of the deaths caused by the injections happen after the 28 days after injection.
Participants were observed past 28 days, but if I understand correctly, their (increased) death rate (due to the jab) was included in the calculation of the *baseline* rate. The selection of the 28 days risk period decreases the exposure rate and increases the baseline rate, thereby making the difference smaller.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
In other news, see the blatant manipulation in this study. The authors counted the unvaccinated with acquired natural immunity among the vaccinated (and also the partially vaccinated as unvaccinated as we've come to expect) to be able to show positive efficacy of the jabs!!! See footnote (b) in table 2: "Fully vaccinated includes unvaccinated individuals with previous infection."
Household transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in Denmark
I think the point of this analysis is that if there is a cluster of incidences near to the intervention, with a big decline from the period after, that provides evidence that it is the intervention causing the effect, rather than something else.
No doubt about that: the injection is causing this enormous increase in deaths. My point is that if the risk period is extended to a more appropriate duration (let's say 6 months instead of 28 days), it will show the intervention to be much more harmful than this analysis shows.
The not mRNA is combined with “unknown”? So it could be confounded with mRNA? I’ll have to read the article but as you know, the quality of the data can really affect things. Before they confounded “unvaccinated” by including anyone that could be up to twice injected but not two weeks out from second injection!
At least they have done testing independent of governmental controls. So they are trying to get at the truth. Good for them. I hope they'll keep on top of that with more testing.
California has altered medical care there forever, or until the Light shines on them. They have made medical doctors agents of the State. That is communism. Not good at all.
Your idea about the heme causing amyloidosis coincides with research on the latest research on Alzheimer's disease. The amyloid beta plaques are formed in AD from the LOSS of the soluble amyloid beta form. The plaques are just the left over debris from the loss. They are makers.
Just like SarsCoV2 spike protein strips the lipids and collagen from the vasculature and the heme and 02 from the RBCs. The amyloid fibrotic clots form after this loss. -JaineySez
It's likely worse than these stats. If we learned anything from pharmacovigilance systems, it's that Vaccine Safety Datalink has a built-in healthy user bias (HUB) that mitigates all harms and creates the illusion of vaccine efficacy.
i don't doubt it.
Dr Jessica, Australians would be most grateful if you could turn your eye to some of the Australian data... our version of VEARS is DAEN.
https://www.tga.gov.au/safety/safety/safety-monitoring-daen-database-adverse-event-notifications/database-adverse-event-notifications-daen
We are beleaguered and it keeps getting worse and without us being on the international news for being AWFUL I don’t know if it’s going to improve. Basically, Australians are trapped in an abusive relationship with our government.
https://rebekahbarnett.substack.com/p/australians-are-trapped-in-an-abusive
Would be so grateful if you can provide some analysis of our DAEN or all cause deaths because rn we just get safe and effective on repeat all day every day.
oh man, i need to make the time for it!
I get it. If I can help in any way (collecting files, tabulating data) I'd be happy to. There are a few of us who can do some basic legwork but no one who does quite what you do.
Thanks for all you do !
I don't know whether I should be more concerned about future vaccine mandates, the looming famine, the collapse of the financial system and the great reset, or the nuclear war that the Deep State is trying to start with Russia and China. Maybe Jessica can help before all is lost...
Happy Columbus Day!
Be of good cheer, our enemies are an adrenochrome-drunk retarded clown show, and are auto-yeeting from the gene pool on a minute-by-minute basis.
Get as much tribe, food, shelter, water, ammo, silver, Bitcoin, and gold as you understand. We're gonna make it, you'll see.
From the beginning I have been bothered by the lack of concern among health professionals about myocarditis. “It’s self limiting, it’s minor, they’ll do fine.” The assumption has always been this will be like typical cases. We don’t know that. The spike protein in the vaccine may have long term effects and alter developing muscle. Shouldn’t we be doing massive studies with cardiac MRI including asymptomatic people. We are ignoring all asymptomatic people as though nothing is happening but we don’t know that because we are unwilling to look at large series.
My sister is suffering from lethargy and severe fatigue. Fully vaccinated. She is blaming her fibromyalgia. It could be myocarditis?
Could be, but chronic fatigue is a hallmark sign of Long Covid ss well as vaxx injury.
The Free State of Florida leads the way again. I'm sure there will be more to follow. Gee, I don't see this kind of analysis coming from my old state of Maskachussetts, the medical center of the know universe!🤓
Dr. Rose is a JEWEL!
> The authors found that within this 28-day risk window, both all-cause and cardiac-related death risk were substantially higher.
Where does it say all-cause risk was higher? It seems like it says all-cause risk was not higher and it was lower for vaccinated over 60:
"In the 28 days following vaccination, no increase in risk was observed for all-cause deaths. A statistically significant decrease was observed for participants 60 years or older in the 28 days following vaccination (RI = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.94 - 0.99)."
Hopefully they'll re-do this analysis past 28 days, too.
That is what it looks like to me, too, though I can’t see how they got the notion of a “statistically significant decrease” when “healthy user bias” likely has some impact (I.e, not given the vax if sick, much less sick enough to be close to death). The fact that this showed up in the older population (more likely to die to begin with, thus more impact to being healthy at time of vaccination) would conform with that.
Oh I just realized you have both substacks with this same content. Should we move from one to the other? Will you have same content on both? I often go back to comments, so will need to recall there are two. Am I doing this wrong? :)
content on both. :) wanted the reach of both so i double posted
What is that 1.97 in the 18-39 male, no mRNA?
all injection products
I don’t understand. What do you mean by “all injection products.” The risk appears higher in that group relative to other age brackets. What am I missing?
Thanks.
So then subtracting, we can determine the omitted category numbers, which has a multiplier of over 3 by my estimations. It looks like 18-39 y.o. male shouldn’t get any injection?
They didn’t parse it out because of the small numbers - 5 cardiac deaths in the “other vax or unknown vax type” group, two of which were in the first 28 days. Can’t draw any conclusions from that small a sample.
This is what Florida's Surgeon General Tweeted then. He'll be labelled a crazy along with DeSantis then. Good news, Germany and the UK are not turning up for their boosters. Might change as it looks like project fear is being ramped up. Again.
This has nothing to do with this article. I am in need of the causation article the Jessica posted a while back. There was a 10 question process that she went through. I can’t find it in the archives. Thanks ahead.
So how do you explain the 97% increase in relative incidence of cardiac-related deaths in 18-39 yo NOT associated with mRNA? You know, the line directly above that?
Small sample size. 5 deaths total, 2 in the risk period, 3 outside of it.
I have the same question.
Not that you asked me, but I reckon Covid is deadly, affects endothelial and heart cells, if people really are getting covid on multiple occasions... No? Lots of coke about too, but that's in the UK... Possibly New Zealand too, have you seen Jacinda lately?
It seems to me that the real risk of cardiac-related death is probably significantly higher than 84% if you expand the observation window past 28 days, because a significant share of the deaths caused by the injections happen after the 28 days after injection.
Participants were observed past 28 days, but if I understand correctly, their (increased) death rate (due to the jab) was included in the calculation of the *baseline* rate. The selection of the 28 days risk period decreases the exposure rate and increases the baseline rate, thereby making the difference smaller.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
In other news, see the blatant manipulation in this study. The authors counted the unvaccinated with acquired natural immunity among the vaccinated (and also the partially vaccinated as unvaccinated as we've come to expect) to be able to show positive efficacy of the jabs!!! See footnote (b) in table 2: "Fully vaccinated includes unvaccinated individuals with previous infection."
Household transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in Denmark
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33328-3
I think the point of this analysis is that if there is a cluster of incidences near to the intervention, with a big decline from the period after, that provides evidence that it is the intervention causing the effect, rather than something else.
No doubt about that: the injection is causing this enormous increase in deaths. My point is that if the risk period is extended to a more appropriate duration (let's say 6 months instead of 28 days), it will show the intervention to be much more harmful than this analysis shows.
They should go out 6 months.
The not mRNA is combined with “unknown”? So it could be confounded with mRNA? I’ll have to read the article but as you know, the quality of the data can really affect things. Before they confounded “unvaccinated” by including anyone that could be up to twice injected but not two weeks out from second injection!
We need to understand what these categories mean
At least they have done testing independent of governmental controls. So they are trying to get at the truth. Good for them. I hope they'll keep on top of that with more testing.
California has altered medical care there forever, or until the Light shines on them. They have made medical doctors agents of the State. That is communism. Not good at all.
Your idea about the heme causing amyloidosis coincides with research on the latest research on Alzheimer's disease. The amyloid beta plaques are formed in AD from the LOSS of the soluble amyloid beta form. The plaques are just the left over debris from the loss. They are makers.
Just like SarsCoV2 spike protein strips the lipids and collagen from the vasculature and the heme and 02 from the RBCs. The amyloid fibrotic clots form after this loss. -JaineySez
https://twitter.com/ssayssayssay/status/1579460141250150406?s=20&t=_FoRZiDXTfg8TT1ZsvRb8Q
More on the Alzheimers Study
https://twitter.com/ssayssayssay/status/1579476177093537792?s=20&t=_FoRZiDXTfg8TT1ZsvRb8Q