Also, this study presented an unorthodox manner of collecting Covid data, which was clearly inconsistent and confusing. So many errors can be highlighted, but the study correctly stated that the deaths in the results may not be caused by Covid. Keep in mind that this poor study jumpstarted the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” movement. https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/covid-19-vaccine-breakthrough-cases-data-from-the-states/ In 2020, CDC released a report with data showing that 94% of Americans who allegedly died from Covid had on average 2.6 additional comorbidities that may have contributed to their death. Stating people absolutely died from Covid, using faulty PCR tests and incentives for doctors and hospitals to mark Covid on death certificates, is irresponsible and unethical. There are even reports of medical personnel giving Covid tests to patients after death. https://www.jems.com/coronavirus/cdc-report-underlying-conditions-94-percent-covid-19-deaths/ This presentation, from a CDC doctor representing a Covid-19 Planning Unit, isn’t erroneous but revealing. This presentation was made in September of 2020, where the doctor clearly showcased (on slide 8) a preliminary list of “adverse events of special interest” regarding the Covid shots. This list included death, Covid-19 disease, myocarditis, transverse myelitis, stroke, autoimmune disease and many other illnesses. Ironically, the FDA presented a similar list of potential injuries from taking the Covid shots. However, both agencies continued to shout the safety of these shots, even though they clearly knew the shots could cause serious harm in a myriad of ways. Most people knew nothing of these risks before taking the shots. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/94841/ This CDC study is a prime example on how flawed vaccine registries and data massaging may have biased the results. This study presents favorable data for the shots preventing hospitalization, but to its credit, it lists many study limitations, stating that the vaccine effectiveness rates were imprecise and should be interpreted with caution. Without sound vaccine data, these studies hold little weight. In the fifth paragraph, data massaging appeared to occur with excluding certain patients for the analysis. Only 25% of the eligible patients were included in the study, and no explanation was given on how they were chosen. An additional 7,500 patients were also excluded without reason. A sound statistician can manipulate data and include certain patients to get the desired results. Moreover, no explanation was given on why the unvaxxed patients were in the hospital. Just know that unvaxxed patients are tested more often than vaxxed patients and are usually in the hospital for other reasons besides Covid. In Table 1 of the study, they included substantially more unvaxxed patients in this study who tested both positive and negative for Covid. Again, it appears that data massaging occurred to get the desired results, which contradict completely with this study. This CDC study also used data from vaccine registries, and for insight on this tricky topic, click here. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7115e2.htm This CDC study on breakthrough cases also used smoke and mirrors to give the desired illusion. Even though the PCR test is erroneous, this study claimed that only a small fraction of vaxxed people experienced a breakthrough infection in the US. However, the study listed the following statement as a limitation which says everything— "The number of reported COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough cases is likely a substantial undercount of all SARS-CoV-2 infections among fully vaccinated persons. The national surveillance system relies on passive and voluntary reporting, and data might not be complete or representative.” Nothing else needs to be said here. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7021e3.htm
13
Made with FlippingBook. PDF to flipbook with ease