{"id":258257,"date":"2024-02-22T00:02:35","date_gmt":"2024-02-22T05:02:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/z3news.com\/w\/?p=258257"},"modified":"2024-02-22T20:34:30","modified_gmt":"2024-02-23T01:34:30","slug":"99-million-patient-records-and-they-concluded-that-the-benefits-outweigh-the-risks-we-respectfully-disagree","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/z3news.com\/w\/99-million-patient-records-and-they-concluded-that-the-benefits-outweigh-the-risks-we-respectfully-disagree\/","title":{"rendered":"99 million patient records and they concluded that the benefits outweigh the risks!?!? We respectfully disagree."},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Executive summary<\/h3>\n

A new study<\/a> of over 99 million vaccinated people has been highly promoted in the press with headlines like \u201cCovid Vaccines Linked To Small Increase In Heart And Brain Disorders, Study Finds\u2014But Risk From Infection Is Far Higher<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

I\u2019m going to convince you that this is garbage.<\/p>\n

Results at a glance<\/h3>\n

A safe vaccine would be indistinguishable from a placebo. Does this look safe to you?<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\"Image\"<\/picture>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Quick summary of what the article would like you to believe<\/h3>\n

Here are the key points of the study which was funded by the CDC and HHS so no conflict of interest at all:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. They looked at the medical records of 99,068,901 vaccinated individuals.<\/li>\n
  2. They compared observed vs. expected (\u201cOE\u201d) rates of \u201c13 selected adverse events of special interest (AESI) across neurological, haematological, and cardiac outcomes.\u201d<\/li>\n
  3. They only looked for 42 days after the shots<\/strong> since everyone knows you can\u2019t get adverse events after 42 days (I\u2019m being sarcastic)<\/em>.<\/li>\n
  4. They didn\u2019t evaluate mortality due to the shot since everyone knows the vaccines are safe and didn\u2019t kill anyone (I\u2019m being sarcastic)<\/em>.<\/li>\n
  5. They found clearly increased risk of the various AESI, but the end conclusion is that the risks after COVID infection are far higher, so people should take the shots. This is unbelievable. I don\u2019t know a single cardiologist whose business dropped after the COVID vaccines rolled out.<\/strong> Do you?<\/li>\n
  6. As usual, they aren\u2019t allowed to share the data<\/strong> so you have to take their word for it.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The benefits of the COVID vaccine<\/h3>\n

    There aren\u2019t any I\u2019m aware of.<\/p>\n

    A JAMA paper inadvertently revealed that the flu vaccine and COVID vaccine don\u2019t work at all<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    Nobody has been able to explain away that result. Nobody. Ever. They just don\u2019t want to talk about it.<\/p>\n

    Why take a vaccine if the benefit is not measurable? That VA study was the perfect proving ground. The signal should have been large. There was no signal for either the COVID or flu vaccine. It was a stunning paper.<\/p>\n

    I always love it when a paper inadvertently blows the whole narrative out of the water and the medical community is completely clueless as to its significance.<\/p>\n

    The risks of the vaccine<\/h3>\n

    The paper selected just 13 AESIs to evaluate.<\/p>\n

    But did you know that the CDC has determined that there are over 500 AESIs that were <\/a><\/strong>more serious<\/a><\/strong><\/em> than myocarditis<\/a>? <\/strong>They simply forgot to tell people that!<\/p>\n

    Here are the actual numbers from this excellent article by Josh Guetzkow<\/a>:<\/p>\n

    After dropping the new COVID-era AEs, there are 503 AEs<\/strong> with PRRs larger than myocarditis (PRR=3.09) and 552 with PRRs<\/strong> larger than pericarditis (PRR=2.82).5<\/sup><\/a> This means that 66.4% of the AEs had a bigger safety signal than myocarditis and 77.3% were larger than pericarditis. <\/strong>You can see what those were by using this Excel file<\/a> provided by the CDC and sorting the 18+ tab by the 12\/14-07\/29 PRR column (Column E). Then just look at which AEs have PRRs larger than the ones for pericarditis and myocarditis.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    I have a question.<\/p>\n

    At a minimum, they should have warned people about myocarditis and everything more serious than that<\/strong>. So you should have been handed a long list of serious adverse events before you got the shot.<\/p>\n

    If you got the shot, please let me know if they warned you:<\/p>\n

    <\/div>\n

    They claim that risks for GBS, etc. are higher from the virus than from the vaccine<\/h3>\n

    The paper claims that even though the risks were elevated, that multiple studies show the virus itself is more dangerous:<\/p>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n\"\"<\/picture>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
    \n

    But even if that was true (which it isn\u2019t), it doesn\u2019t matter because, as I mentioned earlier, the vaccine doesn\u2019t prevent you from getting COVID, so the vaccine is simply adding to the risk.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The reality that I see shows that the vaccine is way more dangerous than the virus ever was<\/h3>\n

    I have huge difficulty believing that the virus is more dangerous than the vaccine. If that were true and the vaccine resulted in a net benefit, we\u2019d be seeing cases of myocarditis DROP after the vaccines rolled out.<\/p>\n

    Where is the evidence for that?<\/p>\n

    I can\u2019t find a single cardiologist whose myocarditis rates in kids went DOWN after the vaccines rolled out. Can you<\/strong>?<\/p>\n

    In a survey of 1,000 randomly selected Americans that was done by a professional market research firm, nearly half the deaths reported in the survey were ascribed to the vaccine, not to the virus<\/a><\/strong>. That\u2019s a very serious safety signal. How could this study have missed it? Of course, no health authority is willing to run their own survey. They don\u2019t really want to learn the truth.<\/p>\n

    Here\u2019s what people actually observed in real-life, but these are just anecdotes of course:<\/p>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n\"\"<\/picture>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
    \n

    As you can see, there is a huge disconnect here. Someone is lying to you. Big time<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

    Unfortunately, no pro-vax person will try to replicate this survey. They just don\u2019t want to know for some reason.<\/p>\n

    The myocarditis risk is all over the place in the peer-reviewed literature<\/h3>\n

    According to the peer-reviewed literature<\/a>, myocarditis risk is elevated by 1.5 to 1.7X after a Pfizer shot, but if you got the virus, your risk of myocarditis is 11X higher if you are unvaxxed and 5X higher if you are vaxxed. So the claim in the literature is that the virus is more dangerous which is clearly at odds with the surveys above.<\/p>\n

    That same paper admitted if you are male <40, your risk of myocarditis is over 6X<\/strong> higher than after the virus for the 2nd dose of the Moderna shot. So if you are a male <40, vaccination makes no sense, especially since it\u2019s all downside. But the CDC will never tell you that and the paper doesn\u2019t make any distinction at all for different ages.<\/p>\n

    Let\u2019s look at a paper authored by scientists at the New Zealand Ministry of Health entitled \u201cAdverse Events Following the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) in Aotearoa New Zealand<\/a>.\u201d They found that the COVID vaccines are indistinguishable from placebo (no statistically significant results in 11 of the 12 AESIs studied<\/strong>), except that there was a safety signal for myo\/pericarditis which was 25.6X higher than expected in the 5-19 age group after Dose 2. <\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n\"\"<\/picture>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

    A 25.6X higher rate of myocarditis in kids is an insane safety signal. What does our CDC do about it? They recommend everyone get the shot. And top universities like Harvard require the COVID shots if you want to attend classes there as a student (faculty and staff are exempted because that\u2019s how \u201cscience\u201d works).<\/p>\n

    It doesn\u2019t add up<\/h3>\n

    How can there be 770 adverse events that are generating CDC safety signals<\/a> and these studies are claiming that the vaccines are safe? The New Zealand study is stunning\u2026 they only found myo\/pericarditis was elevated; the other 11 events studied were insignificant.<\/p>\n

    Yet from Josh\u2019s article:<\/p>\n