Here goes @MarcusBlimi again with nonsensical and dishonest claims about evidentiary standards
Dishonest? But isn't she only asking for hard data? What's dishonest about that?
Quite a bit actually.
Let's unpack this
🧵
Dishonest? But isn't she only asking for hard data? What's dishonest about that?
Quite a bit actually.
Let's unpack this
🧵
https://twitter.com/MarcusBlimi/status/1540091256562499584
@MarcusBlimi (BM) is essentially saying that she will only accept for proof of vaccine injuries peer-reviewed literature that analyzes a massive dataset large enough to reach statistical significance for population level extrapolation.
This is deceptive for two reasons
This is deceptive for two reasons
1. This "standard" very cagily avoids dealing with the primary evidence of vax injuries, which are not massive dataset analyses of the sort she demands (see below)
2. She is surreptitiously trying to establish a premise that this type of study is evidence for lack of vax harms
2. She is surreptitiously trying to establish a premise that this type of study is evidence for lack of vax harms
What's the primary evidence for vax injuries?
Let's see
In order of strength of evidence
1. Firsthand experience of thousands of doctors & exponentially more victims. Calling this "anecdotal" is evil and lacks basic common sense (and decency)
Like this
amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/adverse-reac…
Let's see
In order of strength of evidence
1. Firsthand experience of thousands of doctors & exponentially more victims. Calling this "anecdotal" is evil and lacks basic common sense (and decency)
Like this
amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/adverse-reac…
2. Correlation of all-cause mortality to vax rollouts
3. Insurance data on spike in excess deaths, esp in working age ppl, from non-covid causes also correlating to vax rollout
Hey @MarcusBlimi look at the pics on the bottom, it's LINKS (I'm assuming you are capable of reading)
3. Insurance data on spike in excess deaths, esp in working age ppl, from non-covid causes also correlating to vax rollout
Hey @MarcusBlimi look at the pics on the bottom, it's LINKS (I'm assuming you are capable of reading)
4. Numerous studies on the "edges" that get published despite the censorship brigade, such as the following awesomenesses:
COVID vaccination and age-stratified all-cause mortality risk
researchgate.net/publication/35…
COVID vaccination and age-stratified all-cause mortality risk
researchgate.net/publication/35…
Mass Covid-19 Vaccination and Excess Mortality: Direct and Indirect Pathways
repec.its.waikato.ac.nz/wai/econwp/211…
repec.its.waikato.ac.nz/wai/econwp/211…
COVID-19 and All-Cause Mortality Data by Age Group Reveals Risk of COVID Vaccine-Induced Fatality is Equal to or Greater than the Risk of a COVID death for all Age Groups Under 80 Years Old as of 6 February 2022
vixra.org/pdf/2202.0084v…
vixra.org/pdf/2202.0084v…
Estimating the number of COVID vaccine deaths in America
(Oh No!! it says skirsch!! Arguments are valid if they're sound, not because your petty churlish and fragile ego is offended by one of the authors)
skirsch.com/covid/Deaths.p…
(Oh No!! it says skirsch!! Arguments are valid if they're sound, not because your petty churlish and fragile ego is offended by one of the authors)
skirsch.com/covid/Deaths.p…
The higher the vaccination rate, the higher the excess mortality
(this one has nothing to do with SKirsch, I just want to rub it in by using his link🤣🤣)
skirsch.com/covid/GermanAn…
(this one has nothing to do with SKirsch, I just want to rub it in by using his link🤣🤣)
skirsch.com/covid/GermanAn…
Then we have observations of plain excess
Signals that Covid-19 Vaccines may have caused death in children and young adults
It's easy to avoid dealing with the reality of unexpected excess death, but that doesn't make the excess deaths vanish now does it
hartgroup.org/open-letter-to…
Signals that Covid-19 Vaccines may have caused death in children and young adults
It's easy to avoid dealing with the reality of unexpected excess death, but that doesn't make the excess deaths vanish now does it
hartgroup.org/open-letter-to…
Evidence is not peer-reviewed trash
Evidence is anything where A is unlikely to be false if B is true. The strength of evidence is a measure of *how* unlikely it is for A to be false etc.
Which brings us to @MarcusBlimi fraudulent implication here (and explicit elsewhere)
Evidence is anything where A is unlikely to be false if B is true. The strength of evidence is a measure of *how* unlikely it is for A to be false etc.
Which brings us to @MarcusBlimi fraudulent implication here (and explicit elsewhere)
that the 'studies' of incidence rates in general pop post marketing are 'gold standard'.
When they aren't anything but high-class rubbish.
It is obvious to anyone (besides med pro cultists) that it is quite easy for high impact journal to rig a study.
C'mon you'll say, really?
When they aren't anything but high-class rubbish.
It is obvious to anyone (besides med pro cultists) that it is quite easy for high impact journal to rig a study.
C'mon you'll say, really?
Is it really so difficult?
Nope. Actually quite predictable and simple really.
All of these studies are pretty much the same.
Look at a big dataset of diagnostic code entries to see if there are "elevated" rates of specific ICD codes corresponding to vax injuries.
More or less
Nope. Actually quite predictable and simple really.
All of these studies are pretty much the same.
Look at a big dataset of diagnostic code entries to see if there are "elevated" rates of specific ICD codes corresponding to vax injuries.
More or less
So...
What if the ICD codes were, say, corrupted?
You know, like they corrupted all the covid death coding.
Motive is there, but means?
Is there as well.
If you would read or listen to vax victim testimonials, one of the common features is that they don't get diagnosed.
What if the ICD codes were, say, corrupted?
You know, like they corrupted all the covid death coding.
Motive is there, but means?
Is there as well.
If you would read or listen to vax victim testimonials, one of the common features is that they don't get diagnosed.
Not diagnosed??
accurately
and sometimes at all. literally.
If you get sent home with Xanax, you're not getting logged with a neuro deficit code. Duh.
What would be interesting is for someone to do a survey to see how prevalent this is. Might be eye opening to honest people.
accurately
and sometimes at all. literally.
If you get sent home with Xanax, you're not getting logged with a neuro deficit code. Duh.
What would be interesting is for someone to do a survey to see how prevalent this is. Might be eye opening to honest people.
And then there is good old fashioned fraud.
Like where a hospital admin literally just deletes codes from the system.
"But they would never"
Let's see.
There's this thing called DMED
something I doubt @MarcusBlimi ever heard of, which further proves she's a fraud cuz it's on
Like where a hospital admin literally just deletes codes from the system.
"But they would never"
Let's see.
There's this thing called DMED
something I doubt @MarcusBlimi ever heard of, which further proves she's a fraud cuz it's on
the official list of databases being surveilled by the CDC for safety monitoring in the !!bestest safety program ever!!
So any expert ought to be aware of, you know, what databases are on the list.
Regardless
So quick primer: DMED is military database of all military ICD codes
So any expert ought to be aware of, you know, what databases are on the list.
Regardless
So quick primer: DMED is military database of all military ICD codes
Which would show if there were, say, elevated rates of vax injuries.
Unless the DoD rewrote the whole darn thing.
Which they did.
😱😱😱😱
Something even a lying nitwit like @MarcusBlimi can see for herself (if she was interested in the truth, that is)
Unless the DoD rewrote the whole darn thing.
Which they did.
😱😱😱😱
Something even a lying nitwit like @MarcusBlimi can see for herself (if she was interested in the truth, that is)
"Nobody running a database would revise data this way without explanation for those drawing data from the DB. It fundamentally changes tens or hundreds of thousands of rates of illness in reporting."
https://twitter.com/EduEngineer/status/1516838567531720711
So where does this leave us?
That @MarcusBlimi should supply hard evidence that the ICD datasets are *NOT* systemically corrupted.
You know, like she demands from everyone else.
That @MarcusBlimi should supply hard evidence that the ICD datasets are *NOT* systemically corrupted.
You know, like she demands from everyone else.
Of course, she can't do that
She doesn't even know how to sort through the statistical math anyways.
All she can do is say "JAMA study says"
Anyone can cite a JAMA study
Not everyone can understand what they actually did behind the curtain though
She doesn't even know how to sort through the statistical math anyways.
All she can do is say "JAMA study says"
Anyone can cite a JAMA study
Not everyone can understand what they actually did behind the curtain though
Another major prong of evidence of widespread vaccine harms is
CORRUPTION
Yes, corruption
You only do corrupt stuff when the truth is damning to you
You only would want to hide the safety & efficacy data if the vaccine was not safe or effective
CORRUPTION
Yes, corruption
You only do corrupt stuff when the truth is damning to you
You only would want to hide the safety & efficacy data if the vaccine was not safe or effective
This is logic that a 5yo readily intuits
It takes an evil sociopath to complain "but it's not a peer-reviewed study in a high-impact journal"
It takes an evil sociopath to complain "but it's not a peer-reviewed study in a high-impact journal"
Oh yeah, before I forget, there are the case reports of injuries.
Just a ton of coincidences of course.
I have about 1,700 I am sorting through
ashmedai.substack.com/p/preliminary-…
Just a ton of coincidences of course.
I have about 1,700 I am sorting through
ashmedai.substack.com/p/preliminary-…
And most would rather not be burdened by the knowledge of what goes on behind the curtain
Considering that JAMA sacked their president for daring to say that doctors aren't all intrinsically racist, it wouldn't be surprising to see the politicization of science now would it?
Considering that JAMA sacked their president for daring to say that doctors aren't all intrinsically racist, it wouldn't be surprising to see the politicization of science now would it?
Beware anyone who dismisses rational arguments with hand waving or says "but it's not a peer-reviewed population dataset study"
They are charlatans
Evil charlatans who lack the capacity for rational analysis or critical thinking
They are charlatans
Evil charlatans who lack the capacity for rational analysis or critical thinking
So back to @MarcusBlimi tweet
She is lying when she says she wants to see data
She does not
She wants to embarrass you by tricking you into accepting her fraudulent premise that only peer-reviewed massive dataset analyses are "evidence"
Don't let her
She is lying when she says she wants to see data
She does not
She wants to embarrass you by tricking you into accepting her fraudulent premise that only peer-reviewed massive dataset analyses are "evidence"
Don't let her
https://twitter.com/MarcusBlimi/status/1540091256562499584
Furthermore
Here is hard evidence of ICD corruption
Very simple: The ICD's are failing to pick up that there is excess morbidity & mortality all over regardless of the cause
If there are excess cardiac deaths there should be excess ICD codes reflecting that
And there aren't
Here is hard evidence of ICD corruption
Very simple: The ICD's are failing to pick up that there is excess morbidity & mortality all over regardless of the cause
If there are excess cardiac deaths there should be excess ICD codes reflecting that
And there aren't
Ditto for the other categories
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
