Safe and Effective®

6 Replies to “Safe and Effective®”

1. https://youtu.be/6K4FbBkUt7E?si=KZAFmi9-rY4g1XCT

2. The authors of the paper stated in the abstract that “Myocarditis is a rare but potentially serious complication of COVID-19 vaccination“ (bolding added). There is often an attempt to emphasize the rarity of the problem when reporting negative issues about COVID-19 shots, and it may even be necessary for some papers that highlight any concerns to get published in the current world of politicized science. But, it is nonetheless objectively wrong to firmly draw such a conclusion. It is based on the fact that relatively few of these cases are found in the vaccine adverse event monitoring systems, yet, as you have now seen with your own eyes, rather than acknowledging that there is an undefined but substantial under-reporting factor, it is assumed that the numbers in these databases represent, in the words of the authors, “All adverse vaccine-related events”.

   This is wrong. The rate of myocarditis following COVID vaccination is not determined from adverse effect reporting systems, but rather studies where the subjects are monitored for a set length of time, like this one:

   https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2024/02/26/18/38/booster-vaccination-with

   In fact, adverse effect reporting systems often state outright their data should not be used to draw definitive conclusions from.

   Bridle almost certainly knows this, but he chooses to mislead anyway.

   1. Okay, now I know you’re just trolling.

      The quote you extracted literally says the same thing you did. It’s beyond comical that you’re responding to an essay pointing out that studies in this field are based on incomplete or faulty data by pointing to another study based on incomplete and faulty data.

      1. Bridle and I agree that data from adverse effect reporting systems are not reliable.

         But Bridle claims that estimates of rates of myocarditis from vaccination are based on these databases. He is wrong. They are based on studies where the health of subjects is monitored.

   2. This was such a deadly disease it needed massive amounts of money spent on marketing it. It wasn’t obvious in the streets so TV became the prime infection vector.

      We are here:
      1. Nuremberg Trials for violations against humanity and bodily autonomy
      OR
      2. Nothing to see here, “experts” did their very best for the “common good.”

3. Covid related: Stanford study says jabs saved fewer lives than touted:

   https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/07/landmark-stanford-study-finds-covid-jabs-saved-far/