Without knowing what the normal rate is the data is meaningless. They then state "within range", how many sigma is "within range"? was it high or low?
Also, all the (((rulers))) force on us is "withing 28 days of a positive test". Where is the data for miscarriages, heart issues, and deaths within 28 days of a shot? The test isn't even a good one, but we sure do know the exact times they got the shots. I will put out there that if the data showed nothing wrong then they would be showing it, they aren't.
Then you need to read it again. Holy crap I can’t believe the ignorance around here. Look, I’m on your side, this vaccine is dangerous, but this study indicates the exact opposite. Is the data made up? Maybe.
And we absolutely do know what the “normal rate“ is. We absolutely do. You need to look at the time frame of the study again, do a little research on what the normal rate is, if you want to call it “normal rate“, and you will quickly see what I’m talking about.
The language of the presentation of the study was slightly altered for legalistic reasons, the data did not change. And the data very much goes against the narrative that these vaccines are dangerous for pregnant women and their babies.
I was ranting about the GP not presenting it. But honestly i looked for it in the papers linked by them and didn't see it either. I guess your merchant was well earned.
(post is archived)