Mentioning who has compiled the study and the name of the study would not, imo, be a political statement. It is additional information, not an opinion.
Dr Andrew G. Huff, former EcoHealth Alliance VP turned whistle-blower spoke exclusively to Trial Site News’ Sonia Elijah about his tenure at the controversial organization, which has been at the centre of the Covid-origin lab leak theory. Huff, who is an expert in the field of bioterrorism and biosurveillance worked at EcoHealth Alliance from 2014-2016. He reviewed the research proposal "Understanding the risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence" that was submitted to the NIH which detailed gain of function virology work, which he attests led to the creation of SARS-CoV-2. He warned Dr Peter Daszak, his former boss, about the biosafety and biosecurity risks but Daszak was dismissive of his concerns. Huff also revealed the fact there was no biological security officer and institutional biosafety committee at EcoHealth Alliance, which was a violation of NIH guidelines.
Nothing is going to be able to stop it from coming out now. I think the quote is, "The cat's out of the bag."?
It might be worth reading the journal articles refenced in some of the substack articles - irrespective of the platform, it's the data that matters. There do seem to a be a lot of studies performed by credible scientists many of which have been speciously denied publication. This is not "vaccines let 5G control you", this is hard data - it's starting to look a bit more serious than 'a conspiracy'.
Or
Or
or
Unfortunately, most of the info is probably redacted due to "proprietary" reasoning. Do I agree with this? No. But laws have allowed corporations, including our daily use products (think cleaning solutions as a small example) to claim that everything they do is theirs to do with as they wish and no one else can possibly use it to benefit or discredit. This is the real base of conspiracy theories. Off topic, but I don't think there would be so much distrust if "big business" financial health didn't over rule the right to public knowledge.
OK. I read the article. "The Pfizer trial 6 month report showed that more people died (and were injured) who got the drug than who got the placebo. In other words, the cure was worse than the disease."
On the other hand, 2 people from the placebo group died because of ‘multiple organ dysfunction syndrome’ & 2 due to myocardial infarction. None in the vaccinated group. I’m not sure what conclusions you can draw from it.
I just went through the original NJEM article again and don't see this, the last table is table 3. In any case, this data is not relevant to the baseline of the article, which studies the incidence of infection with c19 and adverse events related to vaccination between the two groups. It also won't give you absolute counts of all deaths because as the note says one death can appear counted more than one time if multiple causes of death were present. So it doesn't show how many unique deaths of all causes. And even if these were unique deaths, a difference of 1 in a sample of 22,000 is not significant. You didn't however point out the interesting point that this study was paid for by the manufacturer.
Coal - I forgot to answer your post. I am sorry.
Yes the soupiness of the list makes it useless if you were trying to tie cause of death to immunization status, which was not the purpose of the study. And it was in fact part of the required material submitted for approval, hence the specific purpose.
That's very interesting. Does she also have to do this for other vaccines?
Sure. MIssing data on SAE's for other common vaccines.
And the report contains the following
I'm not having another booster either, despite being bombarded with texts by the good old NHS. Once was enough and this landed me in hospital hardly able to breathe. Clearly the NHS don't bother to read patient notes before telling you get another booster. Which is quite worrying. I wonder if some patients of practices, having had an adverse reaction to the booster, will get another because they have been "told to " by their GP.Good replies.I'm still not having another booster
At least until the cause of the well documented (across several countries) excess deaths has been determined.
Our boosters, as adults, are every 10 years. I think the majority of adults don't keep their shots up to date. She has only had this device for about 3 years. So, I don't know, though I would think that possibly anything that affects her immune system might upset how her body responds to the device. She does have random seizure activity (tremours to full seizures) and turns the device off when this happens. If it does not correct the problem, she sees her surgeon who adjusts the program on the device.
Most likely it's a computer generated list of numbers and now you're one if the lucky
ones to be on that mailing list. It's like junk mail.And that is what makes people fearful. Along with the newness of the vaccine. Nothing much you can so about that.
There is nothing wrong with it. It is a perfectly good paper which discusses at length its own limitations. It is not actually claiming that there is damning evidence of serious adverse events from the vaccinations but simply calling for the raw data to be released so that it can be examined more closely, especially since at face value, it does look as if harm could outweigh benefit. This paragraph explains a few ways in which benefit/harm analysis is difficult to quantify.
