Nature published a comprehensive study this week on cardiovascular risk including a total of over 11 million patients that has made a few headlines. The aim was to identify the cause of increased cardiac pathology. It should have been a very simple study comparing four groups:
- Not infected and never vaccinated
- Not infected and vaccinated
- Infected but not vaccinated
- Infected and vaccinated
It is hard to believe the authors did not look at these groups, but whatever was found when comparing them remains a mystery.
Instead, the following groups were compared:
- Not infected and never vaccinated data from 2017
- Not infected, including vaccinated and not vaccinated
- Infected but not vaccinated
- Infected with vaccinated people included but using modelled adjustments
When studies with huge datasets use modelling and fail to share data prior to their adjustments alarm bells should start ringing. Therefore, I took a deeper dive to see what else was questionable.
There were serious biases in the paper which need addressing but first let’s look at the critical question of myocarditis (heart inflammation).
Because of the known risk of myocarditis from vaccination it is worth looking particularly closely at the data presented on this. Oddly, for the issue of the day, the data on myocarditis was all hidden in the supplementary appendix to the paper.
The risk of myocarditis appears to be an autoimmune (the immune system attacking the heart after interaction with the spike protein) rather than direct damage by the virus/vaccine spike protein. Therefore, myocarditis could result from the virus or the vaccine. The key question that needs answering is whether vaccination protects or enhances the risk from the virus.
The authors report 370 per million risk of myocarditis after Covid infection in the unvaccinated. The contemporary control rate was 70 per million and the historic one was 40 per million. What was wrong with the contemporary controls?
They made it clear they removed those who had been vaccinated from the calculation in the Covid arm but they did not state they did this for the control arm. Did vaccination lead to a 30 per million increase in myocarditis in the control arm? Given the cohort appears to be old and we know myocarditis incidence is worse in the young a one in 30,000 incidence is significant.
What about those who were vaccinated and had Covid? Once vaccination (and modelling) were included, the rate rose to 500 per million. It is not entirely clear whether supplementary Table 22 excludes those who were not vaccinated, but given that it does not state the unvaccinated were excluded from this data it is fair to assume the 500 per million relates to the whole population.
Given the higher risk of myocarditis after vaccination one might wonder whether this study showed protection from infection due to vaccination, as this would lower risk from the virus. Hidden in the legends of the supplementary tables the authors reveal that 62% of the Covid patients had been vaccinated compared to 56% of the non-infected controls (not a great advert for vaccine effectiveness against infection).
Using the fact that 62% of the Covid cohort were vaccinated and that the unvaccinated had a rate of 370 per million, to get to an overall rate of 500 per million the vaccinated 62% must have had a rate of 580 per million (580×0.62 + 370×0.38 = 500). Therefore, in those with Covid and vaccination the rate (even after modelling) was 210 per million higher (58% higher) than the unvaccinated with Covid. (If supplementary Table 22 did exclude the unvaccinated the incidence of myocarditis after Covid would have been 35% higher in the vaccinated.) An extra 210 per million works out as an additional risk from vaccination of one in 5,000 among a relatively old population. The 35-58% higher myocarditis rates seen in the vaccinated after Covid compared to the unvaccinated was based only on diagnoses made more than 30 days after their positive Covid test. Any rise in risk in the first 30 day period was censored from the study. How high was it in the first 30 days and for the younger men? This critical question was left unanswered.
The data comprised medical records for U.S. veterans who were 90% male, three quarters white and had a mean age of 63 years.
Two control groups were selected:
- Patients who had used healthcare in 2017 and were still alive in March 2018.
- Patients who had used healthcare in 2019 and were still alive in March 2020.
These groups were compared to patients who tested positive for Covid after March 2020, with each patient being matched to one patient from each control and measuring beginning from the same day as the positive test but two years earlier for the 2018 control.
There was a significant bias between these two control groups and those who tested positive.
The Covid patients (not just those who were sick with it – all those who tested positive) were more obese, saw doctors more often, had more cancer, kidney disease, lung disease, dementia etc.
There are two ways to deal with such biases. One is to match the 150,000 Covid patients with similarly sick patients from the over five millions controls. This reduces the size of the control group but when it is already so large this should not be a concern. Instead, the authors modelled the data until the groups seemed similar. Using an algorithm they claimed the same total number of people were present in the Covid cohort, but whereas 49,407 actually had diabetes in the raw data, 11,903 (24%) no longer had diabetes according to the weighted data. Similarly, 14% were ‘cured’ of lung disease, 14% of cancer and a full 35% of the dementia patients no longer had dementia.
There was no discussion in the paper about the reasons for this unhealthy bias among the Covid patients. All positive test results were included and anyone can catch SARS-CoV-2, so the factors that increase the risk of serious disease and hospitalisation should not have biased a dataset based only on infection. Instead the authors discuss the hypothetical issue of people in the non-infected control group having Covid but not getting tested such that the damage caused by Covid could be worse than the paper reports.
It has been well established that hospital transmission dominates as a source of spread and SAGE has reported that up to 40.5% of cases could be traced back to hospital spread and a majority of hospitalised patients in June 2020 were linked to hospital spread. In Scotland, in December 2020, 60% of the acutely ill with Covid acquired the infection in hospital. Patients accessing hospital are highly likely to be less healthy than the general population. Indeed, we know that the Covid patients in the study accessed hospital more frequently than the controls. If the bias was related to hospital acquired infection then the whole study is called into question, as people who attend hospitals are more likely to be sick.
The authors picked some control conditions to attempt to show they had not introduced a bias. Given the study was about cardiovascular diseases, including those that are an immediate threat to life and those that are very common, I would have picked conditions that might kill you within a year, like lung, pancreatic or oesophageal cancer and common conditions e.g. urinary tract infections, diabetes or prostate cancer.
The authors chose three rare malignancies, all with a one-year survival rate of over 80%, and pre-invasive melanoma – why not include invasive melanoma? They then included rare conditions and odd selection of: hypertrichosis (‘werewolf syndrome’ with excessive facial hair), sickle cell trait and perforated ear drums. When the choices are so niche it begs the question of what the results would have been if more obvious choices had been selected.
The group that tested positive for Covid did badly: 13% ended up in (or began in) hospital and 4% in ICU. The mean age was 63 years which may explain part of the high percentage of sick Covid patients, but it does, again, suggest this group may have been more vulnerable than the control.
They then compared the risk of various cardiac outcomes against the controls. However, they used the same control to compare non-hospitalised patients as patients who had received ICU care. Of course, people who have needed ICU care will be more likely to have cardiovascular complications. Indeed, many of the patients may still have been in the ICU when the measuring period began 30 days after the positive test. A fair study would have only compared the ICU outcomes with the sickest people within the control group, not the average of the whole control group.
The risk to the non-hospitalised Covid patients was low for almost all the cardiovascular risk factors.
The risk to the hospitalised was higher (but remember the controls had significant biases).
Those on ICU had a much higher risk. What is not clear is how much of this is because of the virus.
It is not a surprise for people who have had an ICU stay to be unwell for some time afterwards. The risk of ICU admission for Covid was higher than for influenza, but it is important to understand how much of the cardiovascular risk resulted from the virus and how much from the stay in intensive care per se. How do these Covid ICU patients compare to other ICU patients? The paper did not say.
Similarly the paper makes no attempt to unpick how many of the Covid patients tested positive only after being admitted to hospital. If, as in other studies, a significant proportion acquired Covid in hospital, then a higher risk of being diagnosed with other conditions would be highly likely.
Having failed to examine the above two questions – how much cardiovascular disease was a confounder of hospital transmission and how much is secondary to ICU harm – the overall risk of consequent cardiovascular problems included all the above cardiovascular conditions and thereby inflated the average for the Covid population as a whole.
Nature has published this paper which presents data in an obtuse way that should never have passed peer review. The results were presented as showing how dangerous the Covid virus was for cardiovascular complications without suitable controls to enable that conclusion to be drawn. The evidence on vaccination risks was hidden and not presented in a meaningful way for different age groups. Even then, they demonstrated a significant risk of myocarditis after vaccination, particularly after then encountering the virus but this key finding was hidden in the supplementary appendix. Why?
Dr. Clare Craig is a Diagnostic Pathologist and Co-Chair of HART.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“There aren’t many other independent sources of data on stillbirth rates, but one has recently been made available – data on stillbirth rates in Israel was obtained via a freedom-of-information request and has been analysed by Dr. Josh Guetzkow on Jackanapes on Substack. The whole post is worth a read, but to summarise, the data showed that stillbirth rates in the vaccinated were approximately one third higher than in the unvaccinated – surprisingly close to I Numero’s estimate based on an entirely different dataset.”
Seriously, has anyone done a learned article on why governments now consider it acceptable to push actions which may put children’s lives at risk, and then to lie about it?
Oh for the days of the Birkenhead drill.
Why they pushed for jabbing pregnant women and children at no risk with this stuff seems to have been much the same reason we locked down – monkey see monkey do.
The West is now looking at Shanghai and shaking its head at the absurdity and futility, but we had no problem following suit without a second thought two years ago.
Why they are still lying about it is quite obvious – who is ever going to willingly admit to having signed off on possibly causing stillbirths/miscarriages, unnecessary long-term harm and deaths to children and teenagers (not to mention anyone who has been harmed by this sludge)? The next couple of years are going to be the cover-up of all cover-ups.
Last week NL prohibited the use of murderna in the 6-11 age group. If it’s unsafe for them, it’s unsafe for everyone, but they can’t say that out loud.
And also, the vaccines don’t actually work…
They seem to work very well – if one reconsiders their purpose.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/602171
Done. Do tell if there is the slightest evidence that it’ll make a difference.
And tell everybody why doing bugger all is more use than signing a petition that represents strong public feeling.
This is a government website. The same murderous totalitarian regime that locked us down, masked us up, vaxxed our kids, rationed our spending, trashed the economy, introduced medical apartheid, legitimised random police brutality, trampled human rights and is now sending NHS ambulances to assist in Nazi false flag ops in Ukraine. By signing any government petition one simply signals subservience while, in the case of more controversial petitions, ensuring one’s name is on plod’s ‘simple minded troublemaker list’ (see also the Online Safety Bill) for no good reason.
All signatories are not only displaying misplaced trust in our criminal leaders and representatives, they are also asking for and pre-legitimising the subsequent whitewash. In effect they are doing worse than ‘bugger all‘.
Besides, the UK, along with 193 other puppet governments worldwide, has now signed up to WHO rules on all future pandemic decisions. As Debi Evans (health correspondent UKC) commented, what was the point of regaining UK sovereignty if our government surrenders it to a private, non democratic, Gates dominated, Big Pharma promotion cartel?
Maybe, but there are limits to what governments can do, or feel able to do. Very few regimes push all the way, and certainly in the UK they are still sensitive to public opinion, IMO.
Have you forgotten the last two years? They couldn’t give a monkey’s! Besides, public opinion is what the compliant MSM propaganda machine and Government PsyOps tell it to be for the most part. And given the UK Gullibility Index (measured by vaxx uptake) is likely well over 80%, that more than rules out Boris having to be too sensitive to a few disparate rump sceptics.
Of course I have not forgotten the last two years. Public opinion was manipulated, for sure, and in some ways it looked easy though in reality quite a lot of money and skill was spent on it, plus they had the whole world on their side, and fear. And yet at various points restrictions have been lifted, mandates rolled back or not imposed, and I don’t think it was out of goodness or good sense prevailing but out of a sense that the public was beginning to tire of it and the govt was losing credibility. And yes the vaxxed are gullible and/or weak-willed but equally a lot of them now feel it’s over, they have done their bit, and with each “booster” there are fewer takers.
Of course it wasn’t, it just means that certain government advisors have studied key philosophical texts on statecraft be they courtesy of Plato, Machiavelli or Hobbes. Even a cursory glance at Sun Tzu’s ‘Art of War’ might chance upon the bit about subjugating a people quickly but only returning freedoms slowly – so they will be grateful. Why, the plebs might even believe it was their earnest petitions or comments that forced the government’s hand, eh?
And yes the vaxxed are gullible and/or weak-willed but equally a lot of them now feel it’s over, they have done their bit, and with each “booster” there are fewer takers
That sum ups the numpties up quite nicely and yes it is literally almost over for most of them. The boosters are a red herring.
Valid points and of course being in or out of the EU makes little difference to the things that really matter. Either way we are governed by oligarchs.
That’s why I’m sceptical about Le Pen winning the French elections. The Globalists will come together to block what the BBC, France24 et al call ‘populism’.
Did you read the Government response above? ‘Nothing to see here – all safe and effective – move on ‘.
Stonewall of silence in place!
When will the millions of trusting sheep ask just a few questions?
Petitions have become just a steam valve ( just like GBNews), shredded on arrival by the Ruling Elite.
“Petitions have become just a steam valve”
Where’s your evidence for this?
If 20 million people signed it, do you think they would ignore it?
A million?
We are unlikely to get to either of those numbers, but then we are in minority on everything and will remain so, so we just give up, or let off steam here?
Everyone who signs a petition is making a declaration. B.F is right: in some instances it can be a dangerous declaration. In that case, the declaration is an act of defiance.
We need people to be defiant. We need people to decide on taking some form of action without being absolutely sure that it will be effective.
Passivity is not an option. It entrenches a sense of futility and disempowers us.
I’ve signed plenty of petitions. I have never had any confidence in any of them. I rarely follow up the outcome. I do it because I want to show the people who made the effort to put it together and ask people to sign, that I’m on their side.
“We need people to be defiant.”
People are too scared to even go round and ring Neil Ferguson’s doorbell.
“I do it because I want to show the people who made the effort to put it together and ask people to sign, that I’m on their side.”
And anyone who shops in Tesco supports their side, ie. vaccine passports are great … ??!!
““Petitions have become just a steam valve”
Where’s your evidence for this?”
It could be argued that people wearing blue and yellow ribbons on their lapels in support of Ukraine are also helping in some way by… err… I don’t know… oh yes: “raising awareness”.
Sounds like I didn’t need to. The same old rubbish.
I accept that petitions are unlikely to change anything by themselves. But do tell us what are you doing that is more effective?
What needs to be done, in the opinions of many, cannot be expressed on a public forum for fear of reprisals.
After two years and counting of this nonsense (and following on from a clear mandate not to be governed by shady international organizations in 2016), I begin to wonder if anything that I do will make a difference. For heavens sake, racial discrimination didn’t end in the USA with the end of slavery, we didn’t truly get one person one vote after women and working class men got the vote. I don’t think they are going to stop screwing us over any time soon. I suspect that the most effective thing we can do is to make sure that people in our work places, sports clubs, cultural organizations etc. jolly well know that there are some of us who dissent from this shambles and have good reasons for doing so. Changing the corrupt political system may or may not be possible, but we might at least be able to change our own communities.
Done.
Sadly, a total waste of time – just like all the other petitions ignored by the Johnson Government over the last two years.
Even now – having secured Johnson’s position- they are working to reinstate Vaccine Mandates for Health Workers using ‘orders’ to come from the Gates WHO as the excuse !
But: “Look over there! UKRAINE!!”
Tory rebels supposedly trying half-heartedly to get rid of Johnson have been scared off or simply given up and joined the ‘party’!
I see poultry have been slaughtered as new deadly Avian Flu makes its appearance on cue as predicted!
Just the start of their next phase?
(Looks from the video images like they know how to do mass resistance to Globalist ‘coups’ in Pakistan!)
“Sadly, a total waste of time”
But your post here isn’t a waste of time? What’s the difference?
Posts here are mainly to make the many thousands of readers here feel better. Also, may be useful for future reference.
Interesting response from the Government in their shorter January 2022 response to this petition. I quote “The benefits of the vaccines in preventing COVID-19 and serious complications associated with COVID-19 continue to far outweigh the risks in the majority of patients.”
I thought that, by now, anybody not with his or her head stuck in the sand had come to recognise that this stuff does not “prevent Covid-19”. This is yet more dishonest waffle from an irremediably corrupt and treacherous Government and its satellites (NHS etc.).
“Interesting”?
I have never found pure BS interesting – just can’t see the appeal.
Done. Let’s see if I can persuade any of my acquaintance that they should do the same.
Go to the National Institute of Health website.
https://www.nih.gov/
type ‘Ivermectin and Cancer’ into the search bar.
My jaw hit the floor.
Now tell me whose side big pharma, big government and big tech are on.
Yes, they did the same thing with laetrile/vitamin B17. I have in front of me an apricot kernels container (cheaper than many pharmaceutical products and of no benefit to that industry, needless to say) that says “[due to EU legal limit on amygdalin content] apricot kernels… are therefore not allowed to be sold as a food anymore”. This only happened a few years back after a long smear campaign, with apricot kernels being associated with cancer prevention (and I have been taking them for years without any noticeable harm). It’s like I said about dock leaf and dandelions. These people aren’t interested in health. Only profit.
Can one still get hold of kernels, read about it years ago and been meaning to add to my vitamin regime, but was resigned to having to bust open the stones when apricots were available.
Yes, certain shops (Vegonia), the internet.
The pharma industry is interested in public health. An unhealthy population is infinitely more profitable than a healthy one.
Yes, very interesting, who would have thunk it?
I followed your advice.
I know people shake their heads about the futility of fighting all the lies and deception of the last couple of years, but we have no choice.
I don’t want to be part of a generation that saw the evils of the most gross forms of human greed exposed – as they have been since 2019 – and simply shook our heads; said “Isn’t it dreadful”; and made sure we were unjabbed and unmasked.
We need a series of public trials, with whatever exposure we can get them. If current legal systems have to be bypassed, so be it; but let’s note that an American judge did order the release of Pfizer documents.
One of those trials has to be with regard to the lies and distortion around medications that do not return great profits to Big Pharma; another, obviously, on those concerning medical treatment of pregnant women (no “pregnant” men need apply).
Thanks for this Uncle Monty. Agreed. Jaw-dropping.
We should do the same for ‘Covid Response and Cancer’, since so many have been failed by the various governments’ response to a virus that 99.5% would have survived.
“The number of women who have lost their unborn or new-born child in the USA following Covid-19 vaccination has now surpassed 4,000 just sixteen months after the first Covid jab was given emergency use authorisation. But by comparison just 565 women have lost their unborn or new-born child following Flu vaccination since the year 1990, a period of thirty years.
Therefore, the number of women who have lost their baby due to the Covid jab is currently 16,633% higher than the number of women who have lost their baby due to the Flu jab. However, in reality that number is much worse because many more flu jabs have been administered during pregnancy over a period of 30 years.”
https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/04/11/4000-women-lost-baby-covid-vaccine-usa/
Sterilisation?
2 comments.
First, in the second line of your notional table, ‘treatment in second semester’, should the treated and untreated figures be 50,000 (with the 250 applied to reduce the third line, not the second?)
Second, I wonder if this analysis fully reflects the fact that it revolves around stillbirths, not miscarriages. A stillbirth by definition happens after 24 weeks whereas miscarriages are earlier – many in the initial weeks of pregnancy. So presumably (and depending on when in pregnancy vaccination takes place) survivorship bias is likely to be considerably less when considering stillbirth as opposed to miscarriage. Is your example more suited to miscarriage than to stillbirth?
This analysis only covers stillbirths. Research into miscarriages ought to be carried out to get a full picture.
They should have undertaken a proper prospective trial when they started jabbing the pregnant.
Like they should have undertaken proper prospective trials for the main roll-out of the vaccines in the UK. And the second jab, the boosters, teenagers, younger children, etc etc.
But they did none of this, instead preferring to rely on the pharma-sponsored trials.
A cynical person might suggest that this is because there was a risk that such trials on roll-out might have identified some problems — and without these data everyone would be happy that the politicians had saved the world.
The only reliable data seems to be number of deaths, and presumably number of births. Every stillbirth means a baby not born. So if vaccines increased the likelihood of early miscarriage (or indeed failure to conceive), or stillbirth, then the effects would become visible 9 months later against the background birthrate. If the effects were temporary, number of births would return to normal once people stopped receiving injections, or when the majority of stabs occurred before pregnancy. When did they start jabbing pregnant women?
Ah, but, if stillbirths are registered as births….I know there is some form of registration, but does it get included in the birth numbers on the registers?
In which case only the earlier miscarriages or non conceptions would be visible in birth numbers.
Lockdowns and ‘fear’ have also had an impact on ‘propensity to procreate’ and thus will impact on the birth rate.
I wonder if this scheme, since 2020 and due to end August 2022, has significantly impacted on birth rate?
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/home-use-of-both-pills-for-early-medical-abortion/home-use-of-both-pills-for-early-medical-abortion-up-to-10-weeks-gestation
I guess. Although for the under 30s the negative parameter “lack of opportunities for meeting new mates”, and the positive effect of “gagging for it” could be additional factors. I’m sure Ferguson could come up with an even less accurate model.
Who knew that mass vaccination with a product not subject to the usual safety protocols might cause problems?
And who could possibly have been suspicious when governments gave the makers of those products immunity from prosecution?
The HIV causes AIDS story was a con, the WMD in Iraq was a con, the whole covid19 drama was a con to name but a few.
£billions in profit will be made by the ruling class, many millions of little people will be killed, injured and impoverished and on they will go.
As tragic as every miscarriage is, whether it’s babies or justice, the number that really concerns me is total fertility rate.
In 2020, this plunged to 1.58 in England and Wales, and a sporran-shrivelling 1.29 in Scotland, among the very lowest in the world.
These numbers include births to foreign-born mothers, which in 2020 accounted for 29.3% of live births. That’s nearly a third born to first-generation immigrants, let alone those who still look to the Old Country for their mores, morality and laws.
TRF for English born mothers in 2020 was 1.5, compared to 1.98 for foreign both mothers, with the number required for a steady population being 2.1. And yet our population just rises and rises as we import more and more adults who aren’t even replacing themselves.
God help us with dealing with that demographic time bomb, because the children that we’re not having (and many of the ones that “we” are having) won’t.
I’m waiting for the March 2022 birth figures to appear on the registers of Scotland, as it must be 9 months since pregnant women were included in the stabbings, plus a significant number of younger adults are stabbed. The weekly births are typically below 1000 now, 15 years ago it was 25% higher.
I’ve looked at the product safety information for the vaxx on the FDA and the EMA website on several occasions in the past year. The latest dated document I can remember was around October 2021. Even at that time both still clearly stated that there was not sufficient data to state that the vaxx was safe and effective for pregnant women or for people under 16.
It’s almost like they were actually telling the truth, and all the government officials and doctors stating otherwise were – well – telling porkies?
If anyone has a spare moment they might like to look up the history of a vaccine called PregSure and blood sweating. It was a cattle vaccine, but that is irrelevant in terms of what happened. It took 4 years for the problems to be investigated and determined, during which time it was not the cattle vaccinated that suffered harm, but their offspring. No reason why that couldn’t happen with this stuff. Especially when one considers who the producer of PregSure was.
Remember Thalidomide. They dished that out for morning sickness because it was nice and saaafe.
My daughter had the Pfizer vaccine in December at the beginning of the second trimester, baby due in May. On Monday her waters broke and is in hospital, (week 34) baby in utero and is healthy, but very little amniotic fluid left, my daughter is fine. She’s waiting to speak to obstetrician again this morning. They will try and keep baby in utero until week 37, when it will be “full term” (36-40 weeks)
Her husband was premature and her older brother was premature so there could be a genetic component.
Here’s the government shite about the jabs, pregnancy and breast feeding.
Utter barstewards!
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-women-of-childbearing-age-currently-pregnant-planning-a-pregnancy-or-breastfeeding/covid-19-vaccination-a-guide-for-women-of-childbearing-age-pregnant-planning-a-pregnancy-or-breastfeeding
This is quite interesting.
Thanks for the link.
Pharma companies pay a good daily rate for volunteer drug testers. Imagine if governments signed billions of their citizens up to test the new drugs, the daily rate x billions, the UK has a large population x millions £. Then if they continued testing for various reasons x millions£……
Is this something pregnant men should worry about?
Yes where are the graphs for the alphabet people?
They should worry if they think they are pregnant
It sounds like there is both scope and need for a detailed Freedom of Information Act request and proper analysis of the data on this subject.
If ever there was a topic to finally get people to listen, this is surely it.
Thanks amanuensis. You make a really good observation, that a woman giving birth early for any reason (and hence more likely for it to result in complications) results in less opportunity/time for her to “get jabbed” during her pregnancy. Unaccounted for, it skews the analysis considerably, underplaying any possible negative consequences of the “jab”.
It takes a step back, up and out from the act of getting bogged down in numbers, calculating, graphing, etc. to allow the imagination and our naturally sceptical natures to spot the confounding factors which make any analysis seem, at first, cut and dried.
So many analysts, managers et al I have worked with rush to draw graphs and give their bosses answers. Latterly, I learned to do the first round, then go for a long cup of tea and a wander round the city, thinking, “Now, what exactly ARE these data?”
Thanks again.
Act now by email to save 5 to 11s from the jab
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/act-now-by-email-to-save-5-to-11s-from-the-jab/
Kathy Gyngell
Stand by the road for freedom with our Yellow Boards next events
Tuesday 12th April 5.30pm to 6.30pm
Yellow Boards
Junction Broad Lane/
A3095 Bagshot Road
Bracknell RG12 9NW
Thursday 14th April 3pm to 4pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A329 Reading Rd
& Station Approach
Wokingham RG41 1EH
Stand in the Park Sundays from 10am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham Howard Palmer Gardens
(Cockpit Path car park free on Sunday)
Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
The Emerald Fox will, hopefully, be content, now that Bagshot Lane has been corrected to Bagshot Road. He’s such a keyboard worrier. [NB Mr Fox, yes I mean worrier not warrior.]
Accuracy is important! Good to see it’s been corrected.
Let’s hope you used the words ‘wind turbines’ in future when referring to wind turbines. Windmills are something else and after all, accuracy is important.
Great stuff.
It is reassuring to know that there are academics out there checking the pronouncements of corrupt institutions.
We are just at the start. No one is listening right now
Despite industrial scale efforts, with time it will be more difficult to suppress the truth about the damage caused by the vaccines
A ‘new report’ on the massive damage done by the ‘injections’ to the human race nearly every day now, just as we have had warnings alarm calls from real virologists for 18 months.
Response: .”Nothing to see here, move on” from all our Elites, Institutions,and “authorities”.
It seems definitive that nothing must interfere with the Globalist “narrative”.
Meanwhile, more news from Corruption Bay
Covid: Welsh government spends £32,000 on podcast – BBC News
Amateurs — they could have easily spent £320,000 on that.
A little off topic but talking of Doctors and vaccines, the last vaccine I requested was a tetanus (after cutting a finger while attempting to remove a rusty nail from a gate post 10+ years ago) however my notes on the NHS app, (recently downloaded), say otherwise, I had in fact been given a polio vaccine, I’m sure it could just as easily have been a covid vaccine, had they been around.
You probably got DTP, diphtheria, tetanus and polio 3 in 1. Informed consent?
Quite possibly. Since moved so unlikely to investigate.
How do you know you got a polio vaccine? Perhaps you got the tetanus jab and a ‘clerical error’ was made when it was typed up?
When you got the tet/polio jab, did you not look at the vial to see what the label said?
“When you got the tet/polio jab, did you not look at the vial to see what the label said?”
Who does that apart from the nurse?
We used to believe that we could trust doctors and nurses.
It would be interesting to know if there has been an increase in congenital defects in the jabbed mothers. If so exactly which defects
From the Telegraph article referred to in the thread header:
What’s really going on?
I find it hard to believe that every single one of the people who are being thrown out of hospital wards is well enough not to be there.
It would probably be a grave error to assume that most of them are testheads who are wetting their knickers because they’ve got a cold and their 10th SARSCoV2 test this week told them they’re positive and they think they’re going to die. Those idiots probably don’t get given hospital beds anyway.
We need to untangle two things:
1) the rise in hypochondria (officially encouraged by means of the testdemic and by the spreading of ignorance about respiratory infections), and
2) the very real and widespread attack on people’s health (lockdowns, indefinite delay of hospital surgery, GPs hiding away somewhere, the murder of tens of thousands of care home residents, the disgusting psychological abuse of children in schools, etc.)
It could be that another wave of Spring 2020-style “care patient” murders is in the offing…
As soon as they realised the jabs were interferring with womens mentrual cycles they should have immediately been pulled. Any responsible government/medical establishment would have done so. That they didnt tells you everything you need to know about the types of people making the decisions on our behalf. I know 2 couples who have had kids recently, both mothers jabbed. I know one was jabbed towards the end of term and had a premature birth, but not sure about the other. Both had problems at birth with the kid being ill and having to stay in for a few days. I dont know the details but you cant help but link the jab with all we know about them.
People will think we are conspiring, read above. Almost the same situation.
Not on this site
One of the mothers lives a stones throw away and she was encouraged by the NHS to have it. They have told us they dont pay attention to the news or do any research so they will have been completely unaware of any potential risks (just like most in the NHS). Unfortunately thats probably the most common scenario in new mothers.
The mother of the new baby is actually a nurse at the hospital, she joked about getting pregnant on purpose to align with the deadline of vax mandates for NHS workers, can’t really sack someone who is on maternity leave I guess. Crafty.
Yet again, only speaking from personal experience, I know of three instances of personal friends (not Facebook friends) having lost a pregnancy during the the last seven months, one poor couple has had it happen twice.
On the other hand an unvaccinated couple I know only last week welcomed a healthy baby boy into their family.
I don’t have the heart to tell the others what I have gleaned from the jab data, much the same as many people I know who are suffering side effects from the jab, thankfully so far not lethal.
Here at the G7 where leaders had beach BBQs whilst you were locked down
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAfR_CeR-zI
Katie Hopkins OFFICIAL
Stand by the road for freedom with our Yellow Boards next events
Tuesday 12th April 5.30pm to 6.30pm
Yellow Boards
Junction Broad Lane/
A3095 Bagshot Lane
Bracknell RG12 9NW
Thursday 14th April 3pm to 4pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A329 Reading Rd
& Station Approach
Wokingham RG41 1EH
Stand in the Park Sundays from 10am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham Howard Palmer Gardens
(Cockpit Path car park free on Sunday)
Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Hoorah, Bagshot Lane is back.
A bit like Baldrick’s holiday.
“As a reward, Baldrick, take a short holiday……. Did you enjoy it?”
URGENT!!! Comment on the WHO treaty **NOW**
Comments CLOSE in less than 21 hours from now! It will take you <2 minutes to do. Here’s exactly how to comment.
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/urgent-comment-on-the-who-treaty?r=o7iqo&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Thanks
Can’t you simply look at the proportion of stillbirths by trimester year by year? If there is a negative vaccine effect – with survivor bias as a confounder – seems to me it should mean an increase in the proportion of stillbirths in T3 post vaccine vs prior year.
VenomTech company announces massive library of SNAKE VENOM peptides for pharmaceutical development; “nanocarriers” stabilize snake venom in WATER (PubMed)
https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-04-13-venomtech-company-announces-massive-library-of-snake-venom-peptides-for-pharmaceutical-deployment.html#
Dr. Bryan Ardis releases huge allegations: The covid-19 virus, vaccines and some treatments are all derived from SNAKE VENOM
https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-04-12-dr-bryan-ardis-releases-huge-allegations-the-covid-19-virus-vaccines-derived-snake-venom.html