Covid-19 vaccine methodology is flawed

The way that most research studies approach the issue of Wuhan
coronavirus (COVID-19) “vaccine” safety is inherently and
intentionally flawed (https://bit.ly/3iyypoh).
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.”
n 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 wan 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.