What could "general disorders" mean? There are categories for most everything else... Thank you for crunching the numbers! Not my strong point so am thankful it is for others, such as yourself!
OK, had guessed as much but happy to have it confirmed LOL. Am off to see an odd case of what sounds like migratory arthritis in a young male, onset...wait for it...after the vaccine... (that apparently multiple other docs can't figure out...)
Quote "So, you have to wait for day 14 to hit before you can truly say that your COVID-19 is due to the ineffectiveness of your shots." Eh, I have long suspected the jab gives one covid and other problems.
Wow table 1 on page 7 of the pdf says they have 29914 female vs 9182 for male, 3x more female than male. what's up with that? Looks like VAERS has a similar 3:1 female:male ratio for Pfizer\Biontech in that time range as well.
Jessica: my 15 year old athletic UNVAXXED (definitely unvaxxed) grandson was diagnosed with Myocarditis at the end of Nov 2021. We truly believe this was caused by vax shedding from his volleyball team mates…bi-weekly practices, 2 day weekend tournaments. Lots of intense, physical interactions. Obviously, we have no proof but what a coincidence, right?
Hi Dr. Rose. I keep seeing this strange logic about the studies showing miscarriage rates. It seems like maybe everyone is relying on your analysis (Mercola, CHD, Kirsch, etc)?
You say:
"There are 34 reports where outcomes were available. 238+34=272. So, the actual number of data points liked to an outcome is 34. So this means that 68% of the women suffered a miscarriage."
I would really like you to explain, if you could, why it would make sense to conclude that 68% of "the women" miscarried--are you assuming that the 34 women in the group were representative of the whole group?
To me it seems the study simply didn't follow most of the women, which makes it a meaningless result. Same as with the 82% figure, as explained by the authors of that study, which you even linked to yourself but didn't comment on: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2113516
Anecdotal evidence does suggest a horrifying increase in miscarriage and stillbirths but I have not seen any convincing studies on this:
What could "general disorders" mean? There are categories for most everything else... Thank you for crunching the numbers! Not my strong point so am thankful it is for others, such as yourself!
This is code word for 'this shit affects everything in human physiology and causes hyper-inflammation'.
OK, had guessed as much but happy to have it confirmed LOL. Am off to see an odd case of what sounds like migratory arthritis in a young male, onset...wait for it...after the vaccine... (that apparently multiple other docs can't figure out...)
they need to go back to school
Thank you, Dr. Rose. Your explanation is very thorough and helps me to better understand.
Quote "So, you have to wait for day 14 to hit before you can truly say that your COVID-19 is due to the ineffectiveness of your shots." Eh, I have long suspected the jab gives one covid and other problems.
Wow table 1 on page 7 of the pdf says they have 29914 female vs 9182 for male, 3x more female than male. what's up with that? Looks like VAERS has a similar 3:1 female:male ratio for Pfizer\Biontech in that time range as well.
Many many thanks
Jessica: my 15 year old athletic UNVAXXED (definitely unvaxxed) grandson was diagnosed with Myocarditis at the end of Nov 2021. We truly believe this was caused by vax shedding from his volleyball team mates…bi-weekly practices, 2 day weekend tournaments. Lots of intense, physical interactions. Obviously, we have no proof but what a coincidence, right?
Hi Dr. Rose. I keep seeing this strange logic about the studies showing miscarriage rates. It seems like maybe everyone is relying on your analysis (Mercola, CHD, Kirsch, etc)?
You say:
"There are 34 reports where outcomes were available. 238+34=272. So, the actual number of data points liked to an outcome is 34. So this means that 68% of the women suffered a miscarriage."
I would really like you to explain, if you could, why it would make sense to conclude that 68% of "the women" miscarried--are you assuming that the 34 women in the group were representative of the whole group?
To me it seems the study simply didn't follow most of the women, which makes it a meaningless result. Same as with the 82% figure, as explained by the authors of that study, which you even linked to yourself but didn't comment on: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2113516
Anecdotal evidence does suggest a horrifying increase in miscarriage and stillbirths but I have not seen any convincing studies on this:
https://www.reignitedemocracyaustralia.com.au/lab-tech-tells-all/
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/latest-devastating-news-on-the-vaccine
Well done, Jessica! I hope this opens some eyes.