So it appears that the Covid jabs represent a 1,714% increase in risk for death over the flu jab. This is stunning; particularly since flu jabs are far from benign. Thoughts? Abstract
Background: Since the roll-out of the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2, Moderna mRNA-1273, Janssen Ad26.COV2.S and Novavax COVID-19 injections in the United States, millions of individuals have reported adverse events (AEs) using the Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System (VAERS).
Objectives: To examine reports of death in VAERS associated with autopsy reports in the context of the COVID-19 injectable products and Influenza vaccines for equivalent timeframes.
Methods: VAERS data was used to examine the frequency of reporting of general AES, and specific AEs linked to autopsy reports since the beginning of the COVID-19 mass injection campaign - up to and including July 2024. COVID-19 injectable product AE data collected from 2021-2023, were compared to Influenza vaccine AE data collected from 2018-2020, thus matching timeframes of administration and VAERS reporting of AEs associated with each product. The total number of shots administered per product type was also calculated and used to calculate rates of AEs per million doses. Autopsy reports made in association with the COVID-19 injectable products were also further examined in the context of fetal and child deaths. In addition geographic locations were mapped according to ratios of autopsies to deaths per state in order to visualize which states ordered the most autopsies.
Results: The number of autopsy reports in VAERS domestic data following COVID-19 injection spanning 2021-2023 is 18 times higher than the average of Influenza vaccines for the timeframe spanning 2018-2020. This represents a 1,714% increase in absolute number of reports of autopsy for equal timeframes in the context of four COVID-19 products versus twelve Influenza vaccines. The average age of the reports involving autopsy in the COVID-19 shot context is 53 whereas it is 25 in the Influenza shot context. 69% of all COVID-19 shot autopsy-linked reports were associated with cardiovascular AEs, and more precisely, 11%, 12% and 16% of these reports are associated with myocarditis, cardiac arrest and pulmonary embolism (PE), respectively. Likewise for Influenza autopsy-linked reports with regard to percentage of autopsy reports associated with cardiovascular issues (67% of total), but only with 7% associated with myocarditis; there were no autopsy reports involving cardiac arrest or pulmonary embolism. The rate of reporting of autopsies in the COVID-19 shot context decreased significantly (p = 0.03) by a staggering 77.6% when compared to the Influenza shot context indicating a questionable discrepancy between standard autopsy request rates and rates in the COVID-19 era.
Conclusions: The rate of autopsy reporting in the context of death AEs when comparing Influenza vaccine to COVID-19 injectable product reports is statistically significantly different. Despite the fact that there is a 1,714% increase in absolute count of autopsies in VAERS when comparing Influenza vaccine to COVID-19 injectable product reports, there is a 77.6% decrease in the rate of autopsy reporting in the context of deaths. 69% (N=262) of autopsy-linked VAERS reports in the context of COVID-19 injections involve cardiovascular AEs including myocarditis, cardiac arrest and PE and supports the theory that the COVID-19 injectable products are deterministic for myocarditis, cardiac arrest and PE. Noteworthy, is that 67% (N=14) of autopsy-linked VAERS reports in the context of Influenza vaccines involve cardiovascular-related death, but with no reported involvement of cardiac arrest or PE.
Keywords
SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; myocarditis; VAERS; adverse events (AEs); serious adverse events (SAEs)
Word Count: 7,600
Funding source(s): None related
ChatGPT
The study you've outlined suggests a substantial increase in autopsy reports linked to COVID-19 vaccines compared to influenza vaccines, which raises several important points for consideration:
Data Interpretation: It's crucial to scrutinize how the data was interpreted. A 1,714% increase in autopsy reports may sound alarming, but it’s essential to assess whether this increase is truly indicative of a higher risk or if it reflects differences in reporting practices, surveillance intensity, or other factors.
Autopsy Rates: The reported decrease in the rate of autopsy reporting by 77.6% during the COVID-19 era compared to the influenza vaccine context is notable. This discrepancy might indicate changes in how autopsies are requested or conducted, or it could reflect shifts in healthcare practices or reporting norms over time.
Adverse Event Rates: While the study highlights a higher percentage of cardiovascular adverse events (AEs) linked to COVID-19 vaccines, it’s important to contextualize these findings. The overall incidence of myocarditis, cardiac arrest, and pulmonary embolism in the general population due to the vaccines, especially when compared to the risk from the diseases themselves, should be considered.
Reporting System Limitations: VAERS is a passive surveillance system, meaning it relies on voluntary reporting, which can lead to underreporting or overreporting of adverse events. This can impact the reliability of the data. Comparing reports of serious adverse events like death between vaccines requires careful consideration of these limitations.
Comparative Analysis: The study compares data from different time periods (COVID-19 vaccine era vs. influenza vaccine era), which can be challenging due to evolving medical practices, changes in vaccine administration, and differences in population health.
Confounding Factors: Various confounding factors, including underlying health conditions, vaccine administration practices, and external influences (such as increased awareness and scrutiny during the pandemic), need to be considered when interpreting these results.
In summary, while the findings may suggest an association between COVID-19 vaccines and increased autopsy reports, it’s vital to approach the results with caution and consider broader epidemiological data, study design, and potential biases. Further research, including peer-reviewed studies and expert reviews, can help provide a clearer understanding of these findings.
Thanks for your diligence in researching and reporting Sir!
Hope you are giving Chatty a frameache.