The rate of reported injuries and deaths vary between VAERS, UK Yellow Card System and Europe’s EudraVigilance System. Why the difference? Different brands of covid injections? Different batches? Different demographics? Different ethnicity? Different reporting systems? More covid jab adverse reactions have been reported in Europe than in the U.K. then followed by the USA. And when officialdom in Israel ‘was’ reporting covid jab adverse events the rate of injuries and deaths was off the radar compared to other reporting systems.
Different pressures applied to the physicians? We can only see what they let us see. And sometimes they let us see something they neglected to hide. And then we have a feast day.
Blood type appeared to be a factor in severity of COVID-19 illness symptoms in Wuhan. Blood type 0's had significantly fewer deaths than blood type A's. Maybe there will be a corresponding difference between blood types re: vaccine adverse effects.
I was working with both VAERS and EudraVigilance for a while early in 2021, and took a look into the Yellow Card System.
I'm interested in your topic and questions, but for me to participate in this discussion, you need to be more precise in your language when you say "More covid jab adverse reactions have been reported in Europe than in the U.K. then followed by the USA." I'm not clear on what you mean, because: The data/graphs I was studying in EudraVigilance were organized and reported by conditions and disorders. But a single VAERS record might report several different conditions/disorders in the same patient (and simply counting SMQs for a record doesn't really work to count "equivalently" to EudraVigilance). And the Yellow Card System data I saw (though I didn't "linger" and study it) was quite "atomized" with signs/symptoms mixed into the lists with conditions and disorders.
So...I don't know what it means when you say "More adverse reactions..." What are you counting and comparing?
We've got several terms floating around here...injuries; adverse reactions; adverse events; conditions; disorders; SMQs; AEFIs. I'd like to suggest that you start by abandoning the term "adverse reactions." Why? U.S. doctors use the word "reaction" as shorthand for "allergic reaction" or "anaphylactic reaction"; I suggestion you use one of these specific terms when appropriate and use other terms for other types of adverse events. Technically, incoming reports should be called AEFIs (Adverse events following immunization). When I talk about AEFIs where there's good evidence of causality, I use the term "adverse effects."
Without precision in language, we can't do a valid analysis.
Professionals in general have a tendency to communicate using jargonistic acronyms. For the benefit of ‘All’ readers we should try to avoid using acronyms or at the very least spell out at least once in every comment/article/report/study what the acronyms stand for. For example you mention SMQ’s without stating what it stands for. I think the general public understands clearly what adverse reaction/event/effect reported following a covid injection means. However I doubt many would know what is meant when you use the term AEFI. And then there’s the problem of the translation of AEFI into different languages. Why suddenly try to change the everyday common usage of terms used to date into professional jargon? It’s a barrier to communication. And why at this stage?
Pulling the adverse events data from EudraVigilance is easier said than done......’if only’ they were transparent and provided the adverse events data in graphs/info graphs that would be wonderful......EudraVigilance is a very opaque website. The U.K. Yellow Card System and VAERS vaccine adverse events reporting systems are only slightly less opaque. A Yellow Card report usually contains several reported ‘injuries’ and now a Yellow Card Report may include several injuries to different brands of covid injection!!
And then there’s the U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA) that keeps changing the reporting format almost by the week, moving tables and charts around, becoming more opaque, leaving previously reported data out etc. therefore bringing in some instances a sudden halt the tracking of some important data. They know what data to stop providing and/or to make more difficult to find when the official data (often on independent analyses) starts to tell a different story from the ‘official narrative’. Unlike the very transparent official reports of covid cases and deaths and the progress of the covid injection rollout, independent ‘forensic’ analyses of official data are required when it comes to uncovering the truth about covid injection injuries and fatalities. And that’s a dedicated hard slog for anyone outside of officialdom and nobody in officialdom is likely to get paid to do any data analyses that might go against the official narrative.
I know most people will discount this but La Quinta Columna predicts much higher deaths from the shots (due to Graphene Oxide) when 5G begins using 26 GHz. It's supposed to start on Jan 5 in parts of the US, but there's talk of delaying it again- because not enough people have been vaccinated?! LQC believe vaccine adverse effects also depend on physical proximity to 4G and 5G antennas. I think GO is really in some shots because some people truly do have magnetic arms after vaccination.
If it's the great 'culling' by lethal injection, then, you can bet they are going to mix some 'dummy' saline shots into the mix ala 'Russian Roulette Jabs' which will keep just enough people 'untainted believers' until one of those 'bad boosters' gets the 'lucky' ones.
While I've been able to track down everything you're referencing (I think) it would help if you linked to them. You on Nov 2, and Craig Paardekopper's findings (which I found on bitchute).
In reviewing the former articles it dawned on me that no one asked whether or not the vaccine lots are of uniform size. The assumption in all of the reasoning is that they are, but if they're not, or at least if the number of doses that get into arms varies significantly over the set of lots, then that could explain why the VAERS reports are not evenly distributed among lots.
Exactly my concern: how big are the lots used in the US and subject to VAERS? I know for a fact that many of the same lots are distributed as well in Canada, possibly many other countries. So, how much of each lot is distributed in the US no one knows, except the manufacturers that ship directly to the local distributors.
MedAlerts is a project of the National Vaccine Information Center, an honorable non-profit that promotes and works to preserve the right of informed consent/refusal re: vaccinations. You can be sure that they will never "scrub their data to hide the truth better." If you call them, you might well be able to speak to a data analyst who can answer your questions re: their data.
It's been found by a variety of people working with VAERS data on COVID-19 vaccines that some records appear in one (or more) of the weekly downloads and later are "disappeared." Some of these records disappear because they are legitimately combined with another record of the same case (perhaps one was filed by a health care provider and one was filed by a relative). Other records appear to have been deleted.
You might be interested in the work of Jessica Rose PhD re: VAERS. She has published two peer-reviewed reports in the IPAK journal "Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law": (1) "A Report on the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System..." (Volume 2:59-80, May 2021, Clinical and Translational Research section) and (2) "Critical Appraisal of VAERS Pharmacovigilance..." (Volume 3:100-129, October 2021, Clinical and Translational Research section). There's an excellent interview with Dr. Rose on CHD-TV, on Brian Hooker's "Doctors and Scientists" show.
"MedAlerts offers an alternative to the official VAERS search engine, CDC Wonder. Both are built from the government's raw data, but MedAlerts has a better user interface, more powerful search capabilities, and more extensive reporting, making it the best VAERS search facility. "
The rate of reported injuries and deaths vary between VAERS, UK Yellow Card System and Europe’s EudraVigilance System. Why the difference? Different brands of covid injections? Different batches? Different demographics? Different ethnicity? Different reporting systems? More covid jab adverse reactions have been reported in Europe than in the U.K. then followed by the USA. And when officialdom in Israel ‘was’ reporting covid jab adverse events the rate of injuries and deaths was off the radar compared to other reporting systems.
Different pressures applied to the physicians? We can only see what they let us see. And sometimes they let us see something they neglected to hide. And then we have a feast day.
Ethnicity may be a factor too, e.g.,
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cbin.11572
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210830/Could-genetic-variants-in-host-cell-receptors-(ACE2)-explain-COVID-19-susceptibility-among-certain-ethnic-groups.aspx).
Blood type appeared to be a factor in severity of COVID-19 illness symptoms in Wuhan. Blood type 0's had significantly fewer deaths than blood type A's. Maybe there will be a corresponding difference between blood types re: vaccine adverse effects.
I was working with both VAERS and EudraVigilance for a while early in 2021, and took a look into the Yellow Card System.
I'm interested in your topic and questions, but for me to participate in this discussion, you need to be more precise in your language when you say "More covid jab adverse reactions have been reported in Europe than in the U.K. then followed by the USA." I'm not clear on what you mean, because: The data/graphs I was studying in EudraVigilance were organized and reported by conditions and disorders. But a single VAERS record might report several different conditions/disorders in the same patient (and simply counting SMQs for a record doesn't really work to count "equivalently" to EudraVigilance). And the Yellow Card System data I saw (though I didn't "linger" and study it) was quite "atomized" with signs/symptoms mixed into the lists with conditions and disorders.
So...I don't know what it means when you say "More adverse reactions..." What are you counting and comparing?
We've got several terms floating around here...injuries; adverse reactions; adverse events; conditions; disorders; SMQs; AEFIs. I'd like to suggest that you start by abandoning the term "adverse reactions." Why? U.S. doctors use the word "reaction" as shorthand for "allergic reaction" or "anaphylactic reaction"; I suggestion you use one of these specific terms when appropriate and use other terms for other types of adverse events. Technically, incoming reports should be called AEFIs (Adverse events following immunization). When I talk about AEFIs where there's good evidence of causality, I use the term "adverse effects."
Without precision in language, we can't do a valid analysis.
Professionals in general have a tendency to communicate using jargonistic acronyms. For the benefit of ‘All’ readers we should try to avoid using acronyms or at the very least spell out at least once in every comment/article/report/study what the acronyms stand for. For example you mention SMQ’s without stating what it stands for. I think the general public understands clearly what adverse reaction/event/effect reported following a covid injection means. However I doubt many would know what is meant when you use the term AEFI. And then there’s the problem of the translation of AEFI into different languages. Why suddenly try to change the everyday common usage of terms used to date into professional jargon? It’s a barrier to communication. And why at this stage?
Pulling the adverse events data from EudraVigilance is easier said than done......’if only’ they were transparent and provided the adverse events data in graphs/info graphs that would be wonderful......EudraVigilance is a very opaque website. The U.K. Yellow Card System and VAERS vaccine adverse events reporting systems are only slightly less opaque. A Yellow Card report usually contains several reported ‘injuries’ and now a Yellow Card Report may include several injuries to different brands of covid injection!!
And then there’s the U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA) that keeps changing the reporting format almost by the week, moving tables and charts around, becoming more opaque, leaving previously reported data out etc. therefore bringing in some instances a sudden halt the tracking of some important data. They know what data to stop providing and/or to make more difficult to find when the official data (often on independent analyses) starts to tell a different story from the ‘official narrative’. Unlike the very transparent official reports of covid cases and deaths and the progress of the covid injection rollout, independent ‘forensic’ analyses of official data are required when it comes to uncovering the truth about covid injection injuries and fatalities. And that’s a dedicated hard slog for anyone outside of officialdom and nobody in officialdom is likely to get paid to do any data analyses that might go against the official narrative.
Adverse reactions = injuries
And it’s a pity you stopped looking at the VAERS and EudraVigilance data in early 2021 otherwise you might have spotted the differences....
Daily Expose has an app which identifies the 5% of lots they claim have the most adverse effects:
https://dailyexpose.uk/2021/12/16/how-bad-is-my-covid-19-vaccine-batch/
I know most people will discount this but La Quinta Columna predicts much higher deaths from the shots (due to Graphene Oxide) when 5G begins using 26 GHz. It's supposed to start on Jan 5 in parts of the US, but there's talk of delaying it again- because not enough people have been vaccinated?! LQC believe vaccine adverse effects also depend on physical proximity to 4G and 5G antennas. I think GO is really in some shots because some people truly do have magnetic arms after vaccination.
https://www.orwell.city/2021/12/26-GHz.html
https://rumble.com/vri3uf-thumbnail-233-nanotechnology-identified-in-vaccines-composition-and-purpose.html
And who knows what is in what if there is no one checking randomly . I suspect that many are just saline .
Too bad Gavin Newsom ran out of luck on the 3rd jab. Or was it a dead horse’s head notice?
If it's the great 'culling' by lethal injection, then, you can bet they are going to mix some 'dummy' saline shots into the mix ala 'Russian Roulette Jabs' which will keep just enough people 'untainted believers' until one of those 'bad boosters' gets the 'lucky' ones.
Where’s FBI when we need one!
Probably in cahoots along with the bad politicians, bad hospitals, bad doctors, bad pharma, bad billionaire/zillionare NWO cultists...et al. :(
That was rhetorical LOL!
Now if only triple-jabbed could see it for what it is.
I feel sorry for them even though some are mini-tyrants.
Oh gosh! LMAO! *bonks self on head*! =0))
While I've been able to track down everything you're referencing (I think) it would help if you linked to them. You on Nov 2, and Craig Paardekopper's findings (which I found on bitchute).
will do, I just shot that from my cell phone.
In reviewing the former articles it dawned on me that no one asked whether or not the vaccine lots are of uniform size. The assumption in all of the reasoning is that they are, but if they're not, or at least if the number of doses that get into arms varies significantly over the set of lots, then that could explain why the VAERS reports are not evenly distributed among lots.
Exactly my concern: how big are the lots used in the US and subject to VAERS? I know for a fact that many of the same lots are distributed as well in Canada, possibly many other countries. So, how much of each lot is distributed in the US no one knows, except the manufacturers that ship directly to the local distributors.
MedAlerts is a project of the National Vaccine Information Center, an honorable non-profit that promotes and works to preserve the right of informed consent/refusal re: vaccinations. You can be sure that they will never "scrub their data to hide the truth better." If you call them, you might well be able to speak to a data analyst who can answer your questions re: their data.
It's been found by a variety of people working with VAERS data on COVID-19 vaccines that some records appear in one (or more) of the weekly downloads and later are "disappeared." Some of these records disappear because they are legitimately combined with another record of the same case (perhaps one was filed by a health care provider and one was filed by a relative). Other records appear to have been deleted.
You might be interested in the work of Jessica Rose PhD re: VAERS. She has published two peer-reviewed reports in the IPAK journal "Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law": (1) "A Report on the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System..." (Volume 2:59-80, May 2021, Clinical and Translational Research section) and (2) "Critical Appraisal of VAERS Pharmacovigilance..." (Volume 3:100-129, October 2021, Clinical and Translational Research section). There's an excellent interview with Dr. Rose on CHD-TV, on Brian Hooker's "Doctors and Scientists" show.
Thanks for the tip about MedAlerts! For other readers:
https://www.medalerts.org/
"MedAlerts offers an alternative to the official VAERS search engine, CDC Wonder. Both are built from the government's raw data, but MedAlerts has a better user interface, more powerful search capabilities, and more extensive reporting, making it the best VAERS search facility. "