The Vaccine Wars Part LI
I appreciate how you balance along the line between accusation and inference from the given data. Part of me is curious about what you think is the goal in developing all this as evidence: do you believe, or hope, there is a court with an enforcement arm that will take what you present and exact justice? Or, do you believe, or hope, there is something greater about truth that requires its disclosure without expectation it will "lead somewhere"? Or, I don't know: maybe you choose from many other ways of feeling about this?
All of the connections to the web I'm open to seeing and sensing have lead me to doubt there is any hope or faith in me that a court on this earth will hear this evidence and find the guilty accurately charged and judged. This just is not the sort of place or planet for that sort of thing, anymore than a snow globe's kingdom needs a fire in a home to stay warm. But it does leave it wide open for what a person can choose to do, how to spend their time, whom to help or to resist, and why.
I think I've figured out why the powerful here want to enslave, destroy, and dissect, because these are also the things we the weak do without realizing it, too. So we have to learn something, and it's a choice to learn how to find and speak and live the truth.
Even before statistics 📊 📉 📈 whatever, one must ask what’s the point injecting all of military with a substance that has no long term data? It’s a fraud in my book. These people were not in any danger before the injections, but are obviously in danger after the injections. I mean there is no place to assume any good will there.
That’s a pretty significant drop in active duty numbers from 2020 to 2021. I would dismiss it as a side effect of the mandate but wouldn’t there be a drop in the Reserve numbers as well? A 4.6% drop in active duty numbers should be a big story. Especially at a time when recruitment is down 40-60%. Something’s not right here. Thanks for the update on MSMR.
I can buy the idea that they brought in a new source of data, and applied it retroactively. This is a data warehouse from many different data sources. The R-code increase is a separate issue, a sudden in crease in "unknown" issues says to me "we're pretty sure it's the vaccine but we're not supposed to say that".
Wouldn't telemedicine visits be for less serious maladies? If so, wouldn't we see this in the data? Like, the milder maladies went up when the telemedicine data was added. But not the more serious maladies, which required in-person visits.
"Don't they pay over $100M a year to Unissant to run this database? (Um, can I bid on that contract, now?) "
I was in a meeting once about $4 million the local park board was spending to hire a contractor to remove cattails from a local pond. I raised my hand and said, "I'll do it for a million."
I assume you should be able to get whatever statistics you want for that kind of money? That seems like even more, the inflated cost of DOD contractors.
Telemedicine sounds like they were searching for an answer and settled on one.
Gaslighting is .
I wonder why so many people are incurious about these stories and the overall lack of data. We've been hearing that we need to make all teaching decisions be data driven and evidence based in the public (government) (un) education system for years. One of the classes offered to teachers was titled "show me the data". Well, why aren't Americans demanding this with all the COVID and frankly every program we pay for. It's frustrating.
This is an attempt to get everyone to question all the data and ultimately get people to lose faith/trust in all of our institutions.
Petyr 'Littlefinger' Baelish : Sometimes when I try to understand a person's motives, I play a little game. I assume the worst. What's the worst reason they could possibly have for saying what they say and doing what they do? Then I ask myself, 'How well does that reason explain what they say and what they do?'
I suspect the telemedicine data is somewhat real, just like the glitch is real. But it seems that a telemedicine visit is not the same as a regular visit. I've used telemedicine, but that was always for quick simple things. Basically, the equivalent for email, but where you would want to just have an interactive chat and perhaps show something. Or to get a referal.
But for serious things for me and my family, you go in. I suspect for many people, there is such a triage where one decides whether one wants to go in person or just get a video or phone call, based on seriousness. Or at least overall over a large set of people there would be such a causal relation
That also brings up, what is telemedicine? Is an email consultation also a telemedicine? Are such incidents counted as telemedicine? That would be comparing apples to oranges.
So why not give both data sets, where we show physical and telemedicine. That way we can see better what is going on.
I suspect the telemedicine is real, a sit they did add this, but as it is kind of apples to oranges, an excellent way of hiding a peak ...
(Although that would in my theory mean telemedicine went down in 2021, assuming actual injuries and hence actual office visits would be up. So still puzzling ...)
I have a question. If a covid vaccine is non-sterilizing, then comparing vaccinated and covid groups looks to be a logical error, since there is no exclusion. The same individuals may be in both groups.
E.g., hypothetical example
5 vaccinated people with myocarditis from covid
5 unvaccinated people with myocarditis from covid
10 total cases of myocarditis from covid
If you compare the vaccinated with myocarditis from covid with the total covid myocarditis count, you get a relative harm of 0.5, which is a benefit.
And if you compare the UNvaccinated with myocarditis from covid with the total covid myocarditis count, you get a relative harm of 0.5, which is a benefit.
Same results both ways.
If you compare the vaccinated with myocarditis from covid with the UNvaccinated with myocarditis from covid, you get a relative harm of 1.0.