I found this link to an article by Alex Berenson at TGP:
Part 2: Why does the CDC keep calling post-Covid vaccine heart problems in young men "rare" and "mild" when they are neither?
I found this brief quote quite striking:
…the CDC’s own data shows that for every 100,000 vaccines given to young people, more than 25,000 will have temporary side effects that prevent them from “normal activities,” 700 will require medical care and 200 will be hospitalized.
In contrast, the CDC estimates that only about 50 out of 100,000 adolescents have EVER been hospitalized for Covid-related illness.
Moreover, the risk of hospitalization aside for a moment, the risk of mortality from Covid is vanishingly small in this demographic--so small as to almost defy conceptualization. Quite lterally, and by the CDC's own numbers, the risk from the vaccine is greater than the risk from the disease.
And yet, as TGP notes, these stunning revelations are being met with silence from the MSM. It's as if the vaccines have become some bizarre cultish dogma that flies in the face of all public health science. And this cult is being embraced not by the ignorant proles but by our supposed cultural elites.
Strange days in America.
Ivor Cummins's most recent video about the epidemic.
ReplyDeleteAn extremely informative discussion with Gordon Luac, the head advisor to the Croatian advisor to the Croatian Government about the COVID-18 advisor about the epidemic.
As one example of problems with the Berenson piece, he cites a CDC chart showing 0.2% of vaccine recipients will need treatment at an ER or hospital. That becomes the basis for his claim that 200 per 1,000 will be "hospitalized".
ReplyDeleteHowever, getting treated in an ER is NOT identical (eg, for insurance purposes) to being "hospitalized" as an inpatient. So that CDC factoid is being misunderstood and mis-applied.
As another example, there are two widely-cited studies of NCAA and professional athletes who tested positive for COVID (links below.)
Roughly 7%, or 7,000 per million, showed myocarditis.
For the highest risk group shown in the CDC vaccine data (males age 12-17) the myocarditis *AND* pericarditis rate was 67 per million.
Berenson does not dwell on comparisons and analysis as to whether 7,000 is greater or less than 67.
CDC data
JAMA on NCAA athletes
JAMA on 789 pro athletes
Here is the sentence that is critical in comparing the athletes who were ACTIVELY screened with exquisitely sensitive testing (MRI of the heart) to the self-reported cases of myocarditis/pericarditis post vaccine: 9 had clinical myocarditis and 28 had subclinical myocarditis. If cardiac testing was based on cardiac symptoms alone, only 5 athletes would have been detected (detected prevalence, 0.31%).
DeleteThe VAERs reporting is from a group well known not to communicate voluntarily, as any parent of teen boys will attest. Comparing an MRI scan finding to a teen male telling you he feels bad enough to go to a hospital for diagnosis of myocarditis is apples to oranges.
Additionally in determining the risk/benefit of voluntary injection of mRNA of the healthy it is necessary to evaluate the side effects--in this case, one that is potentially fatal, as well as potentially life changing in its lasting effects.
In the face of approaching likely herd immunity, many of the young men may well never be infected--or may already have been, and not know they have T cell immunity already.
I am in strong agreement with Dr. Pierre Kory--in light of the known risks of mRNA injection to create spike protein, no one under 30 should be jabbed without first determining their antibody status.
Thanks for the input.
DeleteAs to your bottom line - determine antibody status first - I'd be fine with colleges and rock concerts accepting a positive antibody test as an alternative to a vaccine card. The little science I've seen around natural post-infection immunity versus vaccine induced immunity hasn't made me a True Believer in a vaccine-or-die strategy for low risk groups.
DeleteBut as to MRI screening versus clinical symptoms and a likely VAERS undercount- of course it is a confounder, but...
(a) the CDC is looking at both myo- and pericarditis. The study of 789 pro athletes found 3 with myo-carditis and 2 with pericarditis. The NCAA study found "34 athletes with pericardial abnormalities" but they didn't drill down for details.
Anyway - *IF* VAERS is finding ONLY 1% of folks with myo- or pericarditis, than we could extrapolate to total cases of 6,700 per MM in the highest risk group, young males.
That gets to a risk level comparable to that seen with trained athletes post-COVID.
So, what is a fair guess as to VAERS under-reporting of folks with clinical signs of myo- or pericarditis?
Remember, the NCAA study found 37 myocarditis athletes using full court press screening; 5 had clinical symptoms, which is the 0.31% figure (doubled to include pericarditis).
I'd be surprised if 99% of the newly-vaxxed under-30 crowd with shortness of breath and/or chest pain would just walk it off. But TBF, I was a stupid young man myself once. Now I'm not so young...
A fascinating read: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/the-impact-of-vaccines-on-mortality-decline-since-1900-according-to-published-science/
ReplyDeleteTx.
Deletehttps://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693/htm
ReplyDeleteThe Safety of COVID-19 VaccinationsWe Should Rethink the Policy
"The present assessment raises the question whether it would be necessary to rethink policies and use COVID-19 vaccines more sparingly and with some discretion only in those that are willing to accept the risk because they feel more at risk from the true infection than the mock infection. Perhaps it might be necessary to dampen the enthusiasm by sober facts? In our view, the EMA and national authorities should instigate a safety review into the safety database of COVID-19 vaccines and governments should carefully consider their policies in light of these data. Ideally, independent scientists should carry out thorough case reviews of the very severe cases, so that there can be evidence-based recommendations on who is likely to benefit from a SARS-CoV2 vaccination and who is in danger of suffering from side effects. Currently, our estimates show that we have to accept four fatal and 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations in order to save the lives of 2 to 11 individuals per 100,000 vaccinations, placing risks and benefits on the same order of magnitude."
Makes sense. This is precisely the overall issue that Dr. Malone--who invented the mRNA vaccine idea--has been censored for discussing.
DeleteLet's also bear in mind that this is the bare minimum threshold risk. We simply don't know enough yet about all of the side effects of these experimental injections nor do we have good reporting and data collection to get the true numbers. It is highly likely that the risks and damage will turn out to be greater.
DeleteI think if people drill down on this report they will dismiss it. Here's my problem:
DeletePer the study "approximately four people will die from the consequences of being vaccinated per 100,000 vaccinations delivered".
That is based (Table 3) on 280 deaths following the Pfizer vaccine in the Netherlands (rate of 4.15/100,000 by their calculation) and Euro data of 4.11 deaths per 100,000.
However! Folks who hark back to the Pfizer trial will recall there were six deaths among the 40k participants - 2 among the vaccinated and 4 in the placebo group.
The key takeaway - the vaccines do not confer immortality. One of the 'vaccine' deaths was a heart attack several months after vaccination. Mandatory reporting but no link. The other was three days after the first shot and from arteriosclerosis. No obvious vaccine link.
Is this happening with the Dutch reporting? Google translate provides everything in English.
They currently show 318 Pfizer related deaths.
They follow up on each report and not all details are in but they say that
"In the reports with sufficient information, health problems are the most obvious explanation for the deaths for a large part."
The Dutch also took a long look at early death reports. Same takeaway: There were 90 deaths in their study. 72 were elderly, ie, 80 or over. 16 were between 65 and 80. (2 age unknown). This was during the first eight weeks of the vaccination campaign, so the population should skew old, with health care workers also in the mix.
Their gist:
"No pattern of complaints indicating serious side effects that caused people to die."
31 cases needed more info.
"In the reports with sufficient information, it is obvious in 41 reports that causes other than the vaccination led to death. In 18 reports, side effects may have contributed to the worsening of an already fragile health situation or dormant underlying condition, whether or not due to old age. These are known side effects of the corona vaccines such as fever, nausea and general malaise."
As younger people became eligible the thrombosis/ low platelet thing showed up. Four times resulting in death.
These Dutch figures simply don't jibe with the author's claim that people are dying "from the consequences of being vaccinated." Nor do they tell us much about the vaccine risk of death faced by the non-elderly, except by omission.