Definitions of SAEs were altered during COVID-19 shot roll-out in Canada

They also knew about reported excessive harms to women.

I am posting this as a separate Substack article because it speaks to my article from yesterday about spike protein binding estrogen receptors. It is exceedingly important to understand what is being said here: the classification of an SAE was pigeon-holed to exclude everything but hospitalization, disability/incapacity or death. I imagine they did this to try to mimic the VAERS definition of an SAE, but left out birth defect, life-threatening illness and emergency room visits.

Having said this, um, what about all the other things that are excluded as SAEs that perhaps involved hospitalization, but that didn’t get the hospital box checked? What about all the other AEFIs/AEs that are certainly serious but that don’t click any boxes?

The part of this report from Odessa Orlewicz that I want to focus on, however, are the comments she reports on that refer to the disparity between AEFIs reported for males and women.

Here is a reiteration of my hypothesis from yesterday’s article entitled: “Spike binds estrogen receptor and could alter collagenase gene expression”.

Since targeted delivery of the modified-spike-mRNA-LNP complex results in massive amounts of (intracellular) spike protein production, and spike protein binds to estrogen receptors, is it possible that this binding event prevents dimerization of ERs to subsequently down-regulate specific gene activity? And if so, is one of these genes collagenase? And if so, is this why we are seeing strange de novo connective tissue disorders and fibrosis in individuals post COVID-19 injection?

I will add another question to my list.

And if so, does this explain why females were/are sustaining more injuries (and reporting more) than males in the context of the COVID-19 shots?

Apparently, according to FOI-requested information from individuals and organizations in Canada now implicated in contracting SAE definitions to give the AEFI data the appearance of being innocuous (aka: you’ll only feel a slight pinch), there were 8.2 times more women sustaining injury from the COVID-19 shots than men. This is also mirrored in VAERS.

This is screenshot from an email sent to Odessa Orlewicz from Lex Acker.

Source: https://x.com/OdessaOrlewicz/status/1802421506561179839.

You can find more information on this here.

Could it be that this skewed reported damage/injury is enhanced due to estrogen receptor binding by spike?

Since males and females both have estrogen receptors, but differing distributions and expressions (lower in males), perhaps this explains (at least partly) why females are suffering more? Estrogen receptor alpha is the predominant ER in males, particularly in the brain, while Estrogen receptor beta is more abundant in females, particularly in the uterus.

I will update as this story develops.

Currently, as of the VAERS update for June, the female:male ratio of reports is 64:34. The other 2% percent of reports applies to individuals whose sex is not reported. I do realize that there might be female-skewed reporting bias, and there certainly is a bit of that, but this doesn’t explain why so many females were/are experiencing menstrual defects and pregnancy/birthing/term issues.

To be continued…