3 ms·

Factually, the majority of excess death is no longer COVID-attributed. We’re either missing another modality by which COVID kills — or there’s another cause. T

Factually, the majority of excess death is no longer COVID-attributed. We’re either missing another modality by which COVID kills — or there’s another cause. That’s according to the OECD mortality figures. https://zmichaelgehlke.com/images/covid-mortality.png https://zmichaelgehlke.com/images/covid-mortality.png We know from re-analysis of the mRNA trials that their major injury rate is at least 1 in 800. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYR1wz-Cf_M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYR1wz-Cf_M And just coincidentally, 1/800 times the 500M doses in the US is very close to what a 10% increase in mortality (blue line) would be for two years — about 300,000 deaths a year. But I’m sure that it’s a coincidence that our non-COVID-attributed excess death matches the serious injury rate of mRNA vaccines and begins around the same period (purple line going below black line in 21Q2).

maxerickson 4y ago
In your last paragraph, you are conflating things like "diarrhea" and "rash" with major injury and death. (adverse events of special interested listed in tables 3 and 4 in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9428332/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9428332/ , which is the paper the youtube guy is talking on)
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  From those tables, 39 of 52 adverse effects for Pfizer and 63 of 87 for Moderna come from this list: Acute kidney injury Acute liver injury Acute respiratory distress syndrome Coagulation disorder Myocarditis/pericarditis Other forms of acute cardiac injury - - - - - I don’t believe I misrepresented or conflated anything — but if you prefer, that list above is an injury rate of 1/1000 doses. Again, about the excess deaths we mysteriously started seeing in 2021. In fact, I find you suggesting that a side effect like diarrhea (1 in 52 and 2 in 87) is better representative to be verging on misinformation. The most common was “Other forms of acute cardiac injury” (16 of 52; 26 of 87).
  - maxerickson 4y ago
    You conflated adverse events of serious interest with major injury and then conflated major injury with a mortality rate. I didn't try to pick representative examples of the adverse events, I pointed out blatant discrepancies with your characterization.
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      You didn’t point out any discrepancies: The data in the table is over 80% major injuries, with heart damage being the primary one — and heart problems like myocarditis have extremely high fatality rates. I pointed out that the rate of excess death not attributed to COVID is coincidentally about the rate of serious vaccine injuries — which is factually true. Whether we use 1/800 or the 1/1000 from just that subset, listed above.
      - maxerickson 4y ago
        You didn’t point out any discrepancies For that to be true, everything listed as a adverse event of serious interest would have to be a major injury. You can assert that they all are, and I can disagree.
        zmgsabst 4y ago
        No, that’s not the case at all. For what I said to be true, we need the “serious injury rate” to be close to the excess mortality figure — which is true when restricted to the subset above, that has a 1/1000 rate. > And just coincidentally, 1/800 times the 500M doses in the US is very close to what a 10% increase in mortality (blue line) would be for two years — about 300,000 deaths a year. But I’m sure that it’s a coincidence that our non-COVID-attributed excess death matches the serious injury rate of mRNA vaccines and begins around the same period (purple line going below black line in 21Q2). You’re welcome to say what adverse event in the list above you don’t consider to be a major injury — specifically. - - - - - > You aren't innocently pointing out the odd numerical alignment, you are implying that the vaccine injuries are a likely source of the deaths. I said they’re coincidentally close; do you not believe me when I say that? Do you have an explanation for that phenomenon which isn’t coincidence?
_benedict 4y ago
You forgot to mention that the effect was not statistically significant; the confidence intervals include the null hypothesis.

maxerickson 4y ago

In your last paragraph, you are conflating things like "diarrhea" and "rash" with major injury and death. (adverse events of special interested listed in tables 3 and 4 in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9428332/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9428332/ , which is the paper the youtube guy is talking on)

zmgsabst 4y ago
From those tables, 39 of 52 adverse effects for Pfizer and 63 of 87 for Moderna come from this list: Acute kidney injury Acute liver injury Acute respiratory distress syndrome Coagulation disorder Myocarditis/pericarditis Other forms of acute cardiac injury - - - - - I don’t believe I misrepresented or conflated anything — but if you prefer, that list above is an injury rate of 1/1000 doses. Again, about the excess deaths we mysteriously started seeing in 2021. In fact, I find you suggesting that a side effect like diarrhea (1 in 52 and 2 in 87) is better representative to be verging on misinformation. The most common was “Other forms of acute cardiac injury” (16 of 52; 26 of 87).
- maxerickson 4y ago
  You conflated adverse events of serious interest with major injury and then conflated major injury with a mortality rate. I didn't try to pick representative examples of the adverse events, I pointed out blatant discrepancies with your characterization.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    You didn’t point out any discrepancies: The data in the table is over 80% major injuries, with heart damage being the primary one — and heart problems like myocarditis have extremely high fatality rates. I pointed out that the rate of excess death not attributed to COVID is coincidentally about the rate of serious vaccine injuries — which is factually true. Whether we use 1/800 or the 1/1000 from just that subset, listed above.
    - maxerickson 4y ago
      You didn’t point out any discrepancies For that to be true, everything listed as a adverse event of serious interest would have to be a major injury. You can assert that they all are, and I can disagree.
      - zmgsabst 4y ago
        No, that’s not the case at all. For what I said to be true, we need the “serious injury rate” to be close to the excess mortality figure — which is true when restricted to the subset above, that has a 1/1000 rate. > And just coincidentally, 1/800 times the 500M doses in the US is very close to what a 10% increase in mortality (blue line) would be for two years — about 300,000 deaths a year. But I’m sure that it’s a coincidence that our non-COVID-attributed excess death matches the serious injury rate of mRNA vaccines and begins around the same period (purple line going below black line in 21Q2). You’re welcome to say what adverse event in the list above you don’t consider to be a major injury — specifically. - - - - - > You aren't innocently pointing out the odd numerical alignment, you are implying that the vaccine injuries are a likely source of the deaths. I said they’re coincidentally close; do you not believe me when I say that? Do you have an explanation for that phenomenon which isn’t coincidence?

_benedict 4y ago

You forgot to mention that the effect was not statistically significant; the confidence intervals include the null hypothesis.