3:40-4:06, Georgia Segal.
"I remember getting out of the car and I burst into tears, and I said 'Please don't be alarmed at how I am walking.' And it was then that I really realized, I think after the tremors on the Sunday that there was something seriously wrong. And I'd been fine, like I'd been healthy, perfectly fine up until the point of me having my second vaccine.
5:47, Alex Mitchell.
6:48, Charlotte Wright. Widow of a British doctor who took the AstraZeneca vaccine. Based on a balance of probability, the vaccine injured program in Britain awarded her $120,000. Why does she think that this is enough to care for her family by herself? What kind of a job does she have, or what other types of assistance is she getting?
9:40 It's a scandal of such epic proportions, I think people don't know where to begin to begin with it. It's frightening to even approach it." --Dr. Clare Craig.
10:43, Caroline Pover. Multiple symptoms after 1st AstraZeneca jab. She runs a pickling business, writes books, and is a public speaker. For 10 years, she supported a village in Japan, which was devastated by the tsunami, and to make her annual visit she took the jab. 5 months did hardly anything. Exhausted constantly. Head and eye pain was relentless. Said she's only gotten 30% back of what she had before the vaccine.
13:53, Dr. Aseem Malhotra. Says that the spike protein is the mechanism of harm from the vaccine. It gets distributed to every major organ system throughout the body, causing either a direct reaction through toxicity or an auto-immune reaction. And that's the most likely explanation behind the mechanism of harm from the mRNA products.
14:25 These "vaccines" were developed at warp speed, so much so that governments had to indemnify the drug companies against any future injury claims and invest billions up front. They knew they were taking risks.
When vaccine safety and effectiveness showed up at 95%, relieved governments gave the green light. Malhotra argues that the methodology for determining the product as "safe and effective" was flawed. He says, "Relative risk reduction is a way of exaggerating the benefits of any intervention, clearly which would be in the interests of people trying to sell you something, which in this case is the pharmaceutical industry. For example, if you had a 1,000 people in a trial that didn't have the vaccine versus a 1,000 that did, in the placebo group, in the dummy group, you may have 2 people dying and in the intervention group you may have just 1 person dying, and that's a reduction of 50%, 1 over 2, a 50% relative risk reduction. But actually you've only saved 1 life out of a 1,000. So the absolute risk reduction is only 1 in a 1,000. It's a big difference. The guidance has been for many years that we must always use absolute risk reduction in conversations with patients, not just relative risk reduction alone. Otherwise, it's considered unethical.
16:08 The accusation is that governments acted on Pfizer's relative risk figure of 95% efficacy when the absolute risk was a mere 0.84%. In other words, you'd have to vaccinate 119 people to prevent just 1 from catching COVID.
I would think that employees have plenty of data that allows them now to sue their employer for mandating the vaccine.
No comments:
Post a Comment