The way that most research studies approach the issue of Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) "vaccine" safety is inherently and intentionally flawed.
The study designs use contrived definitions, for example, which transfer huge amounts of risk as part of a process dubbed as "baysian datacrime."
The bad cattitude substack explains how the definition of "vaccinated" suddenly included a two-week buffer from the time of administration. If a person who got jabbed gets sick on day 13, in other words, then he or she is still considered to be "unvaccinated."
This one change allowed for potentially millions of vaccine injuries to be categorized as unvaccinated injuries, greatly skewing the official numbers.
"[I]n this manner, they not only avoid having to count the high risk period one must go through to reach 'vaccinated' as a part of being vaccinated but often actually add this risk into the previous cohort so the 'vaxxed' ascribe immunosuppression enhanced risk to the unvaxxed and the boosted to the double jabbed," writes "el gato malo."
Suddenly that "90 percent efficacy rate" we keep hearing about in relation to the mRNA (messenger RNA) injections turns into negative 50-90 percent for most outcomes, el gato malo adds.
"[Y]ou cannot trust any study or outcomes assessment that uses these definitions," he warns. "[A]nd we can demonstrate it here using just their own study data."
Fraud and fiction were renamed "science" to push covid shots on the masses
In his substack post, el gato malo uses a popular paper from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) as an example.
That study was widely used to claim that "booster" injections are extremely effective against covid infection and negative outcomes, however, its design is "basically unrecoverable right from the start," he warns, as it "relies on 20 kinds of 'adjustment' that are not made transparent in their assumptions and math."
"[W]hat they SHOULD have done was cohort match 2 groups by risk at one point in time and compare them across the same temporal interval counting all outcomes from the moment you got a booster in the boosted group. [T]ellingly, no one seems to do this."
There is so much wrong with the study, in fact, that its conclusions are worthless, unless you are pushing an ulterior motive. The study is just plain wrong, despite being held up by the establishment as "science."
It's the reason, el gato malo explains, why none of the societal outcomes look anything like what the study claims. And yet this and other fake studies were used to approve the shots in the first place.
"[T]he fix is in," he warns. "[T]his practice can literally make an immunosuppressant with no clinical efficacy appear to have strong VE (vaccine effectiveness). [I]t's one of the most egregious abuses of trial design [I]'ve ever seen and it appears to be standard practice around the world."
The bottom line, he says, is that no covid vaccine study is trustworthy that excludes from its outcomes that two-week window post-injection. This is when many of the adverse events occur.
As we reported, upwards of half of all COVID jab deaths occur within that first two-week window, which explains why the establishment wants it excluded from the data.
"I have been wondering for a while how much 'counting the vaxxed as those 14 days past the jab' is hurting the unvaxxed numbers," wrote a commenter. "It's grievous how much Pharma and government agencies are withholding and twisting information."
"Anyone 12-14 days from their 2nd vax or booster w/ an adverse event or death were counted as unvaxxed to skew unvaxxed figures and 'prove' that the unvaxxed are leading cases, hospitalizations, and deaths when it is really the vaxxed who are leading the numbers," responded someone else.
The latest news about Fauci Flu shots can be found at ChemicalViolence.com.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.