here's a fun little master class in obfuscation
Look at that table again, specifically, the females column. Notice anything interesting??
Ages 40-49: --- Dose1: 6.9 --- Dose2: 3.8
Ages 50-59: --- Dose1: 10.2 -- Dose2: 11.5
Ages 60-69: --- Dose1: 2.8 --- Dose2: 5.2
So, women undergoing menopause, when their testosterone levels are at the highest relative to their estrogen levels for their entire lives (and in flux)... have higher levels of this adverse reaction than outside of that time-frame.... If there's ANY signal that demonstrates a vaccine cause, this one is ironclad. Men clearly have a bigger problem with these heart problems with the vaccines, and women have it worse when their testosterone levels are high... Sex-selected or biochemical selected adverse events mean the medicine is to blame, not randomness, or injection method, or anything else.
I find the discussion shocking. Any time I would mention VAERS, I would get a reply "VAERS is so unreliable". But the authorities are not looking into VAERS at all!!!
I actually took time to look into VAERS myself, for just my state. I wanted to see if I could spot fake, antivaxxer-generated entries.
I could not find any such entries. Most were clearly medical personnel generated, some were reports like "my brother died two days after his second dose, his doctor would not report him to VAERS"
Sadly, by now we know they AREN'T interested in an honest accounting. They hype the scariest numbers, and shove aside those which attack the narrative. As a quick example, take a look at the movement of the goalposts in Washington State.
Goalpost 1: Licensed Beds Occupied by Patients
The most obvious metric of success. How busy are our hospitals? Turns out, not very busy at all. The first picture is the last day of date at this goalpost station. Our total occupancy hovered between 55-60% during the entire 'crisis'. This is nearly empty as it pertains to regular hospital occupancy.
Goalpost 2: Adult Staffed Acute Care Beds Occupied by Patients
First all, moving the goalpost here was an admission that kids weren't much at risk for going to the hospital for covid. Of course Inslee and the Idiot Brigade never once mentioned that, later mandated masking at school and all sorts of anti-kid rules. Moving the goalposts here had the effect of removing 5,500 beds from our supply. All of a sudden instead of 60% we were running at 83% and 'failing'. Note that actual hospital usage remains flat, and at the end you see the number of available beds falling. This is because of Inslee's stupid vax mandate. However, since that is inconvenient, we must move the goalposts again, to....
Goalpost 3: Percentage Only
On August 30, this chart was 'moved', and on its new home it doesn't show the total number of beds at all, only the occupation percentage. Clearly the total number of beds has to be known to determine the percentage of beds that are taken, but because the information was getting to be problematic, it's simply removed.
This isn't an accident, and Washington isn't the only state doing this. The rampant misuse of data ALL IN THE SAME DIRECTION proves this is deliberate. Why would Inslee want the emergency to stop? He's getting to hand out MILLIONS of dollars to the politically connected. It's Christmas all year for those in government who spend your money.
Your calculation is exceedingly correct and very you are extremely sentient.
That said, things are far worse than you are implying. Here's why.
About 10% of population only had one shot. They had one shot and would not do another.
Why is that so? Are they just lazy? Or did they suffer from ill effects and were too scared to do the "second shot"?
Many indications are that it is the latter.
So the risk of death with Covid in Canada for someone in the 12-24 age group is no more than 1 in 40,000 (100 reported deaths and ~4MM). Covid deaths tend to be over-reported, so the true incidence is less, and kids without health issues have much lower risk. But even so, a male's risk for serious heart disease per this data is at least 1 in 5,000 (probably higher due to under-reporting), and the risk of sub-clinical but still serious illness is doubless much higher than this.
Just on this one adverse event, the vaccines should be severely restricted! Not to mention other serious issues including death.
More than infuriating!
Didn’t the cdc actually recommend - when presented with the myocarditis risk in teenage boys back in the summer - that they should get the second jab EVEN IF THEY’D HAD myocarditis after the first? I remember reading that and completely losing the little faith I had left in the cdc.
"...no doctor is going to give you dose two after such a severe adverse reaction to dose one."
I wouldn't bet on that actually. They have already normalized anaphylaxis, what's a side of myocarditis to them?
The latest is they are recommending you mix and match the jabs! That’s a great way to contaminate your trial and fudge once again the results.
Thank you, badass cat, for dissecting yet another example of how authorities are manipulating data to preserve a collapsing narrative while the scientifically illiterate clap on command as the deceptions are funneled down their credulous throats.
They take us for idiots, and they are mostly right. As we let them.
I think I speak for a lot of folks here. Especially given their conduct since the pandemic began, I no longer trust a single statement that government, the media and (unfortunately) big medicine.
thankfully more people are speaking up! worth reading this letter from an er doc. https://www.sirillp.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Letter-Regarding-Covid-19-Vaccine-Injuries-Dr-Patricia-Lee.pdf
You think Ontario is bad, this is what the Saskatchewan Health Authority wrote yesterday on Twitter: "Your risk from COVID-19 is not determined by age, fitness level or community...your risk is determined by vaccine status. ~78% of all new cases & hospitalizations in #Sask in Sep were unvaccinated or partially vaccinated" Talk about a whopper. They won't allow replies on their twitter feed.
Wow. Wouldn't that 4000+ myo/pericarditis number be substantially higher than the number of expected severe COVID cases in the 18-24 demographic?
I don't have the data in front of me, but how many people have died in that game group from COVID? I'd be shocked if it's more than 1000 (probably quite a bit less).
MMR (which Merck is in a lawsuit for falsifying efficacy data) is usually given to babies unable to articulate their side effects
It would be good to know, or rather important to know how many of those showing up on VAERS had covid prior to taking the vaccine. Does the vax have a compounding effect on the those with prior infection? Does the vax pose a greater or lessor risk of AE after prior exposure? Are these questions not important to the FDA?
Those with prior infection have needless exposure to the risk associated with the vax. Whatever happened to "first do no harm"?