Even in the current environment where "vaccine sceptic" papers are almost impossible to publish we can see
▶ minimal expected response
▶ cases of transplant rejection
▶ documented renal impairment in renal transplant recipients
▶ COVID infection
It's not science-based medicine.
It's politics-based medicine.
It's not licensed.
It's not studied.
It doesn't work.
It risks transplant rejection.
Yet the Lysenkoist "doctors" at @StVHealthAust and @AlfredHealth would rather you die than they admit they were wrong
@StVHealthAust @AlfredHealth Just one question for @fay_burrows who had the unenviable job of putting their name to the document.
Who was on the SVH AMS (antimicrobial stewardship) committee please?
@CKellyUAP @TonyNikolic10
One final thing.
More than 90% of the population of NSW has had COVID and therefore developed natural immunity.
Not one single study showed a benefit of "vaccine immunity" over natural immunity.
These patients do not need more COVID vaccines.
https://t.co/2Ly8j4REPCpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34956206/ twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
And my new challenge is open to the vaccine zealots at @StVHealthAust and @AlfredHealth
Post one placebo-controlled study showing COVID-19 mRNA vaccination reduces all-cause mortality in transplant recipients in the following year.
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...