Proprietary COVID-19 and Vaccine thread
- Thread starter FresnoGator
- Start date
You're an idiot. I'm sorry, but you just are.
You know damn well that any bad info on vaccines get's disappeared. It's not tolerated. All checking the domain does is prove that, it doesn't prove anything about the info...it's just further confirmation of censorship.
Now - I'll fully admit this dude could be full whackadoodle, but your post doesn't prove it.
I'm sure these two are recently registered too. I did find a video on FB they've allowed to stay up, which shocked me.
From Shots to Clots: Science shows COVID vaccines cause blood clots.
Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.
trialsitenews.com
So just a thought: Have you considered or weighed the risk/benefit of just getting one shot even if 2 are needed for full effectiveness? I'm wondering if 1 shot might give enough protection while also less exposure to potential harmful side affects?
Just wondering cause 1 shot vs 2 is never even mentioned. It's always gotta get both or your are a moron.
See, @SORT14? @Uniformed_ReRe has made his purchase. When he encounters new information that claims he made the wrong choice, the first (only) response is to attack the source. Not consider the information.
And the site could be complete BS and so could the domain. Just saying that prior to purchase and with an open mind, this information would likely be considered.
A recently registered domain is hardly a red flag in this scenario.You're an idiot. I'm sorry, but you just are.
You know damn well that any bad info on vaccines get's disappeared. It's not tolerated. All checking the domain does is prove that, it doesn't prove anything about the info...it's just further confirmation of censorship.
Now - I'll fully admit this dude could be full whackadoodle, but your post doesn't prove it.
I'm sure these two are recently registered too. I did find a video on FB they've allowed to stay up, which shocked me.
From Shots to Clots: Science shows COVID vaccines cause blood clots.
Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.trialsitenews.com
Unless that doc is saying what you want to hear, then it merits a drop the mic gif. LOL
A blood cell is 64000 x larger than corona and the spiky bits are obviously smaller than the virus.
The virus caused blood clots in rare cases so we should not be surprised that the vaxx which mimics the virus can also cause blood clots. It was my biggest fear in taking JnJ.
Same thing with other issues like heart inflammation. Some similarities in reactions to both.
It goes against everything you would expect from people in the Medical community. Unfortunately this is just a part of society and the medical community, like others, is not immune to folks that aren't just flawed, but corrupt. Hell, We got one on here that is so prideful that instead of admitting a mistake, is willing to lie to folks to save his own hide.Info on the Yellow Card Scheme in the UK.
The British gov't is much more transparent than ours. To start, they admit that people have died from adverse reactions to the vaccine. I've seen medical professionals here claim that number is zero many times. That's not helpful.
The good news is the truth has been revealed as it always is. I think folks know who to listen to in here, and who not to listen to for the most part.
Truth and honesty matter.
Update on wife and I post vac. We took JnJ. We both experienced some weird chest issues for the first 3 days or so. It was just a weird sensation, and could very well have had nothing to do with vaccine, but it was odd that we both experienced it. Felt like tightness but a little like shooting pain at same time. Wasn't really painful, but is difficult to describe. Maybe just anxiety?
I was off a little on the exact dates we took vaccine,, my apologies as we are busy crossing out T's and Dotting our i's before hitting the road and officially beginning our US tour for retirement. Things have been a little hectic selling our home, our business etc. So days and times are a little blurry for us right now.
Yesterday (about a week and a half into post vaccine) she was driving around town doing errands, and she texted me a photo of her eye. It was massively blood shot. By blood shot I mean almost the entire left side of her left eye was completely red and filled with blood, except for a gooey yellow portion. It looked awful. Long story short, went to eye doc, and had burst a blood vessel in eye. Again, probably nothing to do with vaccine, but with her blood condition, everything like this is a little spooky. Eye doctor didn't seem to think it was related, but just sent her home to rest and monitor.
FWIW we are still desperately trying to get her into a hematologist for further testing.
Sharing for @fatman76 and @GhostOfMatchesMalone. Or anyone else either trying to decide or otherwise
I was off a little on the exact dates we took vaccine,, my apologies as we are busy crossing out T's and Dotting our i's before hitting the road and officially beginning our US tour for retirement. Things have been a little hectic selling our home, our business etc. So days and times are a little blurry for us right now.
Yesterday (about a week and a half into post vaccine) she was driving around town doing errands, and she texted me a photo of her eye. It was massively blood shot. By blood shot I mean almost the entire left side of her left eye was completely red and filled with blood, except for a gooey yellow portion. It looked awful. Long story short, went to eye doc, and had burst a blood vessel in eye. Again, probably nothing to do with vaccine, but with her blood condition, everything like this is a little spooky. Eye doctor didn't seem to think it was related, but just sent her home to rest and monitor.
FWIW we are still desperately trying to get her into a hematologist for further testing.
Sharing for @fatman76 and @GhostOfMatchesMalone. Or anyone else either trying to decide or otherwise
Last edited:
My arm was sore for 3 days. I had no other symptoms other than those ailments I have had since turning 50 (52 now) or from even earlier.
Yep. That was one thing I forgot to add, ty. Both our arms were pretty sore for about that same amount of time.
I am posting for informational purposes. Not to sway one way or other. So far so good, and for the time being I believe it was the correct decision
I hope years down the road there isn't issues. A lot of experts saying not to take the stuff are claiming there will be. I will never take this mess.
Sounds like subconjunctival hemorrhage? It's mostly a harmless process, but there have been reports of severe thrombocytopenia (low platelets) associated with the vaccines, so I think it's reasonable to get it checked out, especially if she's experienced abnormal bleeding/bruising elsewhere as well. You don't need a hematologist to test for it, a regular complete blood count (CBC), one of the most common tests should do as it includes counts of your platelets as well as white/red blood cells.
Subconjunctival Hemorrhage - The Eye Center
One of the best Eye Care Centers for Raindrop and Lasik in VA with 5 Eye Care centers in Northern Virginia and Washington DC Metro area.
theeyecenter.com
I didn't see where his actual study is at, so I'm basing my assessment on the article you posted. Here are a few things I think are worth pointing out.
First, some general comments:
1) D-dimer is considered a non-specific marker of inflammation. It can become elevated whenever something causes inflammation, like an infection, cancer, surgery or in this case, a vaccine. With that said, it should be noted that the mechanism of D-dimer being elevated in the setting of inflammation is that it can increase coagulation in the blood, so this could actually be an indicator of elevated risk of forming blood clots.
2) The next logical question then, should be: does an elevated D-dimer after vaccination actually lead to an increased risk in blood clots (I'm gonna guess yes, as we've seen some reports of it, and it's reasonable that something that causes inflammation should raises your risk of clots). This should nevertheless be studied, and is in fact being studied in phase 4 trials.
3) The logical question after that then, should be how often does it happen, and to what degree? Only by reaching a conclusion in this step can we truly make the most informed decision. For example, surgeries massively increase your risk of forming blood clots, some raise it so much (e.g. hip replacement) that we actually give therapeutic doses of blood thinners preemptively after the surgery, even with potential risk of increased bleeding right after a surgery. We nevertheless proceed with surgeries, because blood clots don't happen often enough, and they're not deadly enough, to justify putting off surgery in most cases.
4) I think at least one of the logical questions after this would be: if it's still being studied, why do some people, including so many doctors, rush to get the vaccine? This is because COVID, as you might already know, causes massive inflammation in your body, and results in a very, very high risk of blood clots. So much so that in the beginning of the pandemic (and even now in many hospitals) many doctors actually give preemptive treatment for blood clots for COVID patients. It's standard practice to give most hospitalized patients low dose blood thinners to prevent blood clots, but we're talking about at least double the dosing here. If vaccines cause as much blood clots anywhere near what COVID does, then phase 3 trials would've been able to catch them.
Now, some critical comments/questions:
1) The type of study Dr. Hoffe ran is not unusual, but typically these types of studies are used to raise questions, not to answer them. That is, if an intervention raises D-dimer levels, it should raise the questions I asked above (i.e. does it actually increase clots? if so how often, and how severe?). Studies may then be done to answer these questions. It's bad science to just jump to the conclusion of these questions, which seems like what the article and Dr. Hoffe have done.
2) In fact, Dr. Hoffe jumps to a lot of conclusions. For example, this was quoted in the article "they’ve clogged up thousands of tiny capillaries in their lungs." How does he know that? Did he take biopsies of lung tissue? We know it happens in COVID because of autopsy findings confirming such, has he done the same with vaccinated patients? It seems like he just checked a D-dimer and then jumped to various conclusions.
3) Probably the biggest and most glaring issue, even to laymen, is that it's clearly stated that "Hoffe has been conducting the D-dimer test on his patients to detect the potential presence of blood clots within four to seven days of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine" Yet the conclusion he reaches is that there is permanent damage being caused. I think he's missing a few steps in between.
4) Another note: having access to his actual study is useful. Does he has a control group. Any good study needs a control group. What are D-dimer levels in non-vaccinated patients? What are they in people who are recently vaccinated with say the influenza or tetanus vaccine? Is there randomization? We know that D-dimer levels go up with age, so if his patients are mostly elderly, then comparing it to the average of the general population may be inapplicable. Randomization helps to eliminate these kinds of biases.
What about the theory that the shots are actually speeding the creation of new variants because they don't expose your body to the virus?
wow, this is just an awesome and honest response - thoughtful, layman level descriptive and open to the idea that we don't know everything about these vaccinesSounds like subconjunctival hemorrhage? It's mostly a harmless process, but there have been reports of severe thrombocytopenia (low platelets) associated with the vaccines, so I think it's reasonable to get it checked out, especially if she's experienced abnormal bleeding/bruising elsewhere as well. You don't need a hematologist to test for it, a regular complete blood count (CBC), one of the most common tests should do as it includes counts of your platelets as well as white/red blood cells.
Subconjunctival Hemorrhage - The Eye Center
One of the best Eye Care Centers for Raindrop and Lasik in VA with 5 Eye Care centers in Northern Virginia and Washington DC Metro area.
I didn't see where his actual study is at, so I'm basing my assessment on the article you posted. Here are a few things I think are worth pointing out.
First, some general comments:
1) D-dimer is considered a non-specific marker of inflammation. It can become elevated whenever something causes inflammation, like an infection, cancer, surgery or in this case, a vaccine. With that said, it should be noted that the mechanism of D-dimer being elevated in the setting of inflammation is that it can increase coagulation in the blood, so this could actually be an indicator of elevated risk of forming blood clots.
2) The next logical question then, should be: does an elevated D-dimer after vaccination actually lead to an increased risk in blood clots (I'm gonna guess yes, as we've seen some reports of it, and it's reasonable that something that causes inflammation should raises your risk of clots). This should nevertheless be studied, and is in fact being studied in phase 4 trials.
3) The logical question after that then, should be how often does it happen, and to what degree? Only by reaching a conclusion in this step can we truly make the most informed decision. For example, surgeries massively increase your risk of forming blood clots, some raise it so much (e.g. hip replacement) that we actually give therapeutic doses of blood thinners preemptively after the surgery, even with potential risk of increased bleeding right after a surgery. We nevertheless proceed with surgeries, because blood clots don't happen often enough, and they're not deadly enough, to justify putting off surgery in most cases.
4) I think at least one of the logical questions after this would be: if it's still being studied, why do some people, including so many doctors, rush to get the vaccine? This is because COVID, as you might already know, causes massive inflammation in your body, and results in a very, very high risk of blood clots. So much so that in the beginning of the pandemic (and even now in many hospitals) many doctors actually give preemptive treatment for blood clots for COVID patients. It's standard practice to give most hospitalized patients low dose blood thinners to prevent blood clots, but we're talking about at least double the dosing here. If vaccines cause as much blood clots anywhere near what COVID does, then phase 3 trials would've been able to catch them.
Now, some critical comments/questions:
1) The type of study Dr. Hoffe ran is not unusual, but typically these types of studies are used to raise questions, not to answer them. That is, if an intervention raises D-dimer levels, it should raise the questions I asked above (i.e. does it actually increase clots? if so how often, and how severe?). Studies may then be done to answer these questions. It's bad science to just jump to the conclusion of these questions, which seems like what the article and Dr. Hoffe have done.
2) In fact, Dr. Hoffe jumps to a lot of conclusions. For example, this was quoted in the article "they’ve clogged up thousands of tiny capillaries in their lungs." How does he know that? Did he take biopsies of lung tissue? We know it happens in COVID because of autopsy findings confirming such, has he done the same with vaccinated patients? It seems like he just checked a D-dimer and then jumped to various conclusions.
3) Probably the biggest and most glaring issue, even to laymen, is that it's clearly stated that "Hoffe has been conducting the D-dimer test on his patients to detect the potential presence of blood clots within four to seven days of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine" Yet the conclusion he reaches is that there is permanent damage being caused. I think he's missing a few steps in between.
4) Another note: having access to his actual study is useful. Does he has a control group. Any good study needs a control group. What are D-dimer levels in non-vaccinated patients? What are they in people who are recently vaccinated with say the influenza or tetanus vaccine? Is there randomization? We know that D-dimer levels go up with age, so if his patients are mostly elderly, then comparing it to the average of the general population may be inapplicable. Randomization helps to eliminate these kinds of biases.
take notes @gator1776 - this is how you can say "we don't really know" without being so condescending to those asking the question
good
I hope you're done with any issues related to the vax or not.
Did you pick Janssen to avoid mRNA?
Great stuff, thank you for sharing. It should also be noted that, related to the article cited, there is an 88.9% posterior probability that clickbait style headlines are deceptive, or intended to deceive (i.e. fake news) according to Shu et al. (2017) and Johnson et al (2021).Sounds like subconjunctival hemorrhage? It's mostly a harmless process, but there have been reports of severe thrombocytopenia (low platelets) associated with the vaccines, so I think it's reasonable to get it checked out, especially if she's experienced abnormal bleeding/bruising elsewhere as well. You don't need a hematologist to test for it, a regular complete blood count (CBC), one of the most common tests should do as it includes counts of your platelets as well as white/red blood cells.
Subconjunctival Hemorrhage - The Eye Center
One of the best Eye Care Centers for Raindrop and Lasik in VA with 5 Eye Care centers in Northern Virginia and Washington DC Metro area.
I didn't see where his actual study is at, so I'm basing my assessment on the article you posted. Here are a few things I think are worth pointing out.
First, some general comments:
1) D-dimer is considered a non-specific marker of inflammation. It can become elevated whenever something causes inflammation, like an infection, cancer, surgery or in this case, a vaccine. With that said, it should be noted that the mechanism of D-dimer being elevated in the setting of inflammation is that it can increase coagulation in the blood, so this could actually be an indicator of elevated risk of forming blood clots.
2) The next logical question then, should be: does an elevated D-dimer after vaccination actually lead to an increased risk in blood clots (I'm gonna guess yes, as we've seen some reports of it, and it's reasonable that something that causes inflammation should raises your risk of clots). This should nevertheless be studied, and is in fact being studied in phase 4 trials.
3) The logical question after that then, should be how often does it happen, and to what degree? Only by reaching a conclusion in this step can we truly make the most informed decision. For example, surgeries massively increase your risk of forming blood clots, some raise it so much (e.g. hip replacement) that we actually give therapeutic doses of blood thinners preemptively after the surgery, even with potential risk of increased bleeding right after a surgery. We nevertheless proceed with surgeries, because blood clots don't happen often enough, and they're not deadly enough, to justify putting off surgery in most cases.
4) I think at least one of the logical questions after this would be: if it's still being studied, why do some people, including so many doctors, rush to get the vaccine? This is because COVID, as you might already know, causes massive inflammation in your body, and results in a very, very high risk of blood clots. So much so that in the beginning of the pandemic (and even now in many hospitals) many doctors actually give preemptive treatment for blood clots for COVID patients. It's standard practice to give most hospitalized patients low dose blood thinners to prevent blood clots, but we're talking about at least double the dosing here. If vaccines cause as much blood clots anywhere near what COVID does, then phase 3 trials would've been able to catch them.
Now, some critical comments/questions:
1) The type of study Dr. Hoffe ran is not unusual, but typically these types of studies are used to raise questions, not to answer them. That is, if an intervention raises D-dimer levels, it should raise the questions I asked above (i.e. does it actually increase clots? if so how often, and how severe?). Studies may then be done to answer these questions. It's bad science to just jump to the conclusion of these questions, which seems like what the article and Dr. Hoffe have done.
2) In fact, Dr. Hoffe jumps to a lot of conclusions. For example, this was quoted in the article "they’ve clogged up thousands of tiny capillaries in their lungs." How does he know that? Did he take biopsies of lung tissue? We know it happens in COVID because of autopsy findings confirming such, has he done the same with vaccinated patients? It seems like he just checked a D-dimer and then jumped to various conclusions.
3) Probably the biggest and most glaring issue, even to laymen, is that it's clearly stated that "Hoffe has been conducting the D-dimer test on his patients to detect the potential presence of blood clots within four to seven days of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine" Yet the conclusion he reaches is that there is permanent damage being caused. I think he's missing a few steps in between.
4) Another note: having access to his actual study is useful. Does he has a control group. Any good study needs a control group. What are D-dimer levels in non-vaccinated patients? What are they in people who are recently vaccinated with say the influenza or tetanus vaccine? Is there randomization? We know that D-dimer levels go up with age, so if his patients are mostly elderly, then comparing it to the average of the general population may be inapplicable. Randomization helps to eliminate these kinds of biases.
Sounds like subconjunctival hemorrhage? It's mostly a harmless process, but there have been reports of severe thrombocytopenia (low platelets) associated with the vaccines, so I think it's reasonable to get it checked out, especially if she's experienced abnormal bleeding/bruising elsewhere as well. You don't need a hematologist to test for it, a regular complete blood count (CBC), one of the most common tests should do as it includes counts of your platelets as well as white/red blood cells.
Subconjunctival Hemorrhage - The Eye Center
One of the best Eye Care Centers for Raindrop and Lasik in VA with 5 Eye Care centers in Northern Virginia and Washington DC Metro area.
I didn't see where his actual study is at, so I'm basing my assessment on the article you posted. Here are a few things I think are worth pointing out.
First, some general comments:
1) D-dimer is considered a non-specific marker of inflammation. It can become elevated whenever something causes inflammation, like an infection, cancer, surgery or in this case, a vaccine. With that said, it should be noted that the mechanism of D-dimer being elevated in the setting of inflammation is that it can increase coagulation in the blood, so this could actually be an indicator of elevated risk of forming blood clots.
2) The next logical question then, should be: does an elevated D-dimer after vaccination actually lead to an increased risk in blood clots (I'm gonna guess yes, as we've seen some reports of it, and it's reasonable that something that causes inflammation should raises your risk of clots). This should nevertheless be studied, and is in fact being studied in phase 4 trials.
3) The logical question after that then, should be how often does it happen, and to what degree? Only by reaching a conclusion in this step can we truly make the most informed decision. For example, surgeries massively increase your risk of forming blood clots, some raise it so much (e.g. hip replacement) that we actually give therapeutic doses of blood thinners preemptively after the surgery, even with potential risk of increased bleeding right after a surgery. We nevertheless proceed with surgeries, because blood clots don't happen often enough, and they're not deadly enough, to justify putting off surgery in most cases.
4) I think at least one of the logical questions after this would be: if it's still being studied, why do some people, including so many doctors, rush to get the vaccine? This is because COVID, as you might already know, causes massive inflammation in your body, and results in a very, very high risk of blood clots. So much so that in the beginning of the pandemic (and even now in many hospitals) many doctors actually give preemptive treatment for blood clots for COVID patients. It's standard practice to give most hospitalized patients low dose blood thinners to prevent blood clots, but we're talking about at least double the dosing here. If vaccines cause as much blood clots anywhere near what COVID does, then phase 3 trials would've been able to catch them.
Now, some critical comments/questions:
1) The type of study Dr. Hoffe ran is not unusual, but typically these types of studies are used to raise questions, not to answer them. That is, if an intervention raises D-dimer levels, it should raise the questions I asked above (i.e. does it actually increase clots? if so how often, and how severe?). Studies may then be done to answer these questions. It's bad science to just jump to the conclusion of these questions, which seems like what the article and Dr. Hoffe have done.
2) In fact, Dr. Hoffe jumps to a lot of conclusions. For example, this was quoted in the article "they’ve clogged up thousands of tiny capillaries in their lungs." How does he know that? Did he take biopsies of lung tissue? We know it happens in COVID because of autopsy findings confirming such, has he done the same with vaccinated patients? It seems like he just checked a D-dimer and then jumped to various conclusions.
3) Probably the biggest and most glaring issue, even to laymen, is that it's clearly stated that "Hoffe has been conducting the D-dimer test on his patients to detect the potential presence of blood clots within four to seven days of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine" Yet the conclusion he reaches is that there is permanent damage being caused. I think he's missing a few steps in between.
4) Another note: having access to his actual study is useful. Does he has a control group. Any good study needs a control group. What are D-dimer levels in non-vaccinated patients? What are they in people who are recently vaccinated with say the influenza or tetanus vaccine? Is there randomization? We know that D-dimer levels go up with age, so if his patients are mostly elderly, then comparing it to the average of the general population may be inapplicable. Randomization helps to eliminate these kinds of biases.
Thank you for taking time to do this. Eye doctor diagnosed same as you said. One thing, I should gave given more background on hematologist part. It’s something we were referred to do prior to this incident. Years ago we were given a diagnosis of von willebrands for my wife, then about a year ago another doc went against that diagnosis. My wife has always had blood circulation issues/difficulty clotting, bruising easily, getting cold when it’s real hot etc. fast forward to feb this year and my wife began having migraines that lasted for weeks at a time, pain in her legs etc…so we have been referred to both hematologist and rheumatologist to try and get some tests done.
Some of these were part of the reason for our concerns for the vaccines, as well a covid. I know TMI, just wanted to provide context.
Thanks again
Last edited:
Janssen. Couple reasons.
1. One and done for now
2. Seemed like a more traditional method which made me more comfortable
3. It’s what was simplest for us both in proximity and timeframe for quickest efficacy for us. Or so it seems.
Sorry @fatman76. I misread your question earlier
Last edited:
I haven't heard much about that one. I did read something briefly about those with prior exposure (and therefore some level of antibodies present in their blood) having some causal effect on the formation of new variants. If that is true, then it would make sense that the vaccine could potentially do the same. I'd be interested in reading more about that.
Actually I was trying to say it is worth more investigation but I was rushing through that voice to text because we’re moving a lot of Covid patients around today to make room. Sorry
@kjfreeze @fatman76
Being meaning to post this, there is an ongoing multicenter clinical trail for Ivermectin, this is the kind of study we really need to see if there is any benefit in using it in COVID. If this trial shows benefit, and the research is well conducted and reviewed, then I'll be the first to say it works and start using it. I hope it does work.
clinicaltrials.gov
Being meaning to post this, there is an ongoing multicenter clinical trail for Ivermectin, this is the kind of study we really need to see if there is any benefit in using it in COVID. If this trial shows benefit, and the research is well conducted and reviewed, then I'll be the first to say it works and start using it. I hope it does work.
ClinicalTrials.gov
clinicaltrials.gov
13,000 Deaths, Nearly 600,000 Adverse Events Reported After COVID Vaccines, as Debate Swells About Need for a Third Dose
https://truthbasedmedia.com/2021/08...as-debate-swells-about-need-for-a-third-dose/VAERS data released Friday by the CDC showed a total of 595,622 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 13,068 deaths and 81,050 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and Aug. 13, 2021.
37806 out of 354 million is 0.0002 percent. The average age of death was 73.1. No mention of underlying health issues. The increase of 10k from the week prior is non discussed relative to the growing number of vaccinated people (the article ignores base rate of event). The lack of context is why I emphasize reading science.
I think we have covered this before, but VAERS is not a causation reporting system. There is no direct correlation between death and the vaccine, or "serious injury" and the vaccine. When you have vaccinated 150,000,000 Americans that age in range from 12 to 100 plus, statistically it is not unusual for 13,068, or 0.009%, to die from any number of things w/in a reportable time frame of getting the vaccine, none of which are likely related to the vaccine itself.
We have made an active push to vaccinate all nursing home patients for example. Nursing home patients die at a rate of a little over 10% per year from a variety of causes such as coronary artery disease, stroke, pneumonia, urinary tract infections, heart failure, and COPD. There are 1.4 million NH patients in the US right now. That means 140,000 NH patients die each year, or roughly 11,667 NH patients that die each month in the US.
So simply statistics would argue that, if we push to vaccinate NH patients, and conservatively we say 60% got vaccinated from Dec 14 to Aug 13, 2021, that means 840,000 NH patients have been vaccinated over this time from. Conversely, roughly 93,300 NH patients have died over that same period of time based on the average number of NH patients that die each month based on a 10% per year NH death rate. So just by that metric alone, the reporting that someone died w/in a month of getting the vaccine would easily account for the 0.009% that "died" after getting the vaccine and in no way implies causation.
In other words, when people write up sensational titles like this and make a false implication that the vaccine in some ways is accountable for these deaths, all of which are likely due to natural causes that just happened to occur around the time they received the vaccine, they push a false narrative designed to deceive and misinform the general public, usually for less than moral motivates.
Again, deception as a means towards the end vs. truly deciphering the numbers in a way to try and determine what the results really mean.
Last edited:
As time goes by I have a suspected feeling that deaths are going to skyrocket. They're not trying to eradicate a 99.98% survival rate virus for the sake of health. This process is geared toward the diabolic of future events. Yay!! Love to spread conspiracy joy.
I get it. I popped out a headline without any true knowledge, but it doesn't eradicate the fact that people do die with vaccines and are having adverse reactions. Again, I WILL NOT get the vaccine!
Hope you’re wrong
Where do you get that survival data, based off of known cases the survival rate is roughly 98% not 99.98%, do you have a source for that? Serious question not trying to be a smart ass.
Trust me I don’t think any of us are trying to convince you to get the vaccine. That’s a personal choice and very much you’re right to refuse it if you don’t think it’s good for you.
But it’s reasonable to discuss these things when people bring them up on here, is it not? My supposition was not that you popped out a headline without any true knowledge, I was just attempting to help you interpret the numbers as was @SORT14
Last edited:
So you're saying it could be a case of dying WITH the shots vs FROM the shots?
Interesting.
I’m not making any value judgment about the covariation between shots and the adverse effects described because there is so much missing context.
Ding Ding my reasons also. On 3 I was going to Disney and the last thing I wanted was to catch it on vacation. But the final factor was a negative antibodies test.
Dude I did NOT give you permission to use my pic on this board!
Agree. Be nice if the data was stratified either way...deaths by age group, comorbities, etc.
Similar threads
