Here is just one of the most ridiculous graphs I have ever seen in a paper.
The "Dose 2 > 180 days" group had the exact same mortality rate. So the "vaccine efficacy" in this group was 34%. With tight confidence intervals.
Not a chance.
But it gets worse!
The "unvaccinated" death rate drops by half in the second half of the year....
Whilst the "Dose 2 8-90 days" quadruples in the same time frame, yet designated as a "13.9% efficacy"
This paper could go down in history.
The figures are all over the place. For "COVID-specific mortality" there is no significant difference between "Dose 2 > 180 days" and "Unvaccinated" as their confidence intervals cross. The "Vaccine efficacy" should include negative in the range. But of course it doesn't
And the "Dose 3 > 180 days" has a death rate of 4.068 compared to 9.704, a 58% apparent drop. Except it is quoted at 71.9.
Who did these stats?
The "all cause mortality reduction" is ridiculous. In Australia COVID peaked at 3.2% of deaths during the pandemic.
So how can any reduction in 3.2% of deaths create a 70% reduction in all-cause mortality?
Give me a break.
This is just healthy user bias.
@profnfenton
This is just a skim of the paper. There is no way this has passed an adequate peer review. There are red flags everywhere.
For instance this is just the declared interests. There are more undeclared interests...
...such as the involvement of the supervising author with the NCIRS which literally curates this data.
What @TheBurninBeard is saying here is that the clinical samples that had "COVID" also had gene signatures of Mycoplasma fermentans, a US military pathogen that can be used as a vector to carry viral clones.
@SabinehazanMD found it too.
π§΅
#spraygate @BrokenTruthTV
Can you see that Norman Pieniazek, who headed up the CDC's research division at the time that the @CDCgov sent biological weapons to Iraq to start a war, took himself out of this thread?
Every vaccine scientist will try to convince you that the drop in u25 cancers was due to the vaccine when it was merely due to the change in screening.
But check out the HUGE RISE in 25+ cancers. This pattern is repeated in Scotland and Australia where similar changes to the screening age were made a few years after the introduction of coerced vaccination, obfuscating the figures to hide a scandalous rise in 25-29 age cervical cancers after the vaccine rollout.
For clarity most cancers in this age group are early and detected on screening before they become advanced. Moving the screening age meant that they were diagnosed later and therefore in an older age bracket.
The big red arrow is pointing to the preinvasive diagnoses which tend to mirror the actual cancers - the upper chart was too busy.
Here is the same from the OP with arrows showing both cancer (above) and precancer (below) which both rose significantly after the vaccine rollout
And here is the same data from Cancer Research UK (smoothed) showing a doubling of cancer rates in the over 25s for at least 5 years after the vaccine rollout. cancerresearchuk.org/health-professβ¦