Yet the article written by @carey_alexis has some major red flags now.
In particular "not eligible for vaccination due to his age" and "no other confirmation of any teen deaths"
So, was 616124 ANOTHER death, or did Alexis Carey and John Couani lie?
Yet according to the DAEN, there were 193 COVID vaccine adverse event reports in 12-17 year olds (who were "not eligible") between the 1st August 2021 and 10th September 2021
Accounting for the delays in reporting to the DAEN (typically 1-2 weeks) from an event the drive to vaccinated the HSC students is consistent with the adverse event reports which took off on the 26th August and peaked at 23 reports IN ONE DAY.
So, are we to believe that Tom's death was a statistical anomaly - nothing to do with the huge Qudos mass vaccination drive and a completely coincidental tragic death a week later?
In one sense it would be better if these two deaths were not the same person. Because if they were, Carey, Couani @Lalalahna and other senior reporters would have colluded to cover up a story from which other children died as a result.
And if they are not the same person, why did the TGA not declare that a 17 year old had died of myocarditis (the "viral" label is misleading - viral or drug-induced myocarditis may look the same on histopathology) within weeks of a Pfizer vaccine?
As well as these other deaths.
One last thing. The eagle-eyed of you will have noticed in the graphic (h/t @SharonC59122606) that batch FP1430 resulted in a death of a 10 year old boy reported 6th May.
The batch continued to be used and a 5 year old boy died. Reported 10th May.
This is also strange.
The Quentin registry study shows a big jump in vaccination rate by age group but the Bernard study doesn't show the same.
This is more like what a synthetic data set might show based on assumed characteristics of the underlying data.
There are possible explanations for all of these anomalies, but this is the problem with secret registry data:
It's not credible when it conveniently matches a narrative and nobody is allowed to see it.
I'm going to explain why this chart is so important and why @jsm2334 is being disingenuous by ignoring it - whilst making points that undermine the "real world vaccine data" industry.
It's a Kaplan-Meier curve and it obliterates Jeffrey's argument.
Just to go over it... the lines show what proportion of subjects (children) ended up without chronic disease up to 10 years after being studied.
It's called a survival analysis because it's used for cancer survival.
If the red line was a cancer drug it would be a blockbuster
It shows that by the end of the 10 year follow-up, of those that they could still follow up (who stayed in the study) 57% (100-43%) of vaccinated kids had chronic disease (e.g. asthma) and 17% (100-83%) of unvaccinated kids did.
Janet Diaz was the person that led the #MAGICApp guideline committees that stopped your grandma getting antibiotics for her post-viral pneumonia, leading to her death.
But she did this with the help of @pervandvik who deleted his account
Diaz here tells you that COVID kills you by an overreacting immune response, but that was never true.
She was an intensivist recruited by the WHO in 2018.
None of this was true, but it sold a LOT of drugs and killed a LOT of people
Which US govt organisation blew a hole in the ozone layer in 1958 by sending atomic bombs to the troposphere over the Antarctic in operation Argus - then blaming the resulting destruction of ozone on CFC's?
It wasn't just Pfizer that hid the fact that the mRNA-LNP complex went to the ovaries (where it could not possibly provide its declared function in the lung).
The AMH drop (ovarian reserve) after vaccination was later shown by the Manniche paper after being denied by the Kate Clancy and Viki Males of the world.
But this time the Arnold foundation's @RetractionWatch have not only revealed with their "exclusive" that they were directly involved in trying to get this important paper retracted...