Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Terry Maloney who wrote (25087)	6/10/2022 3:09:56 PM
From: h_	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37516

Unless everyone was jabbed at once on December 14, 2020, the rates cannot be meaningfully compared. The deaths prior to that date took out the most vulnerable, further biasing any results forward of that date, masking the real vulnerability to the jabs' lethality. The Pfizer study presented to obtain EUA played this game to the utmost extent possible by using a cohort in their study that was not at all representative of the real population. They even removed people mid-study if they didn't contribute to their fraudulent misrepresentation of their product as "safe and effective." See the case of Pfizer trial victim Maddie De Garay who now has to be fed through a tube and is paralyzed but was not even counted as a serious adverse event. The only meaningful rate comparisons are those made over the last few months where almost everybody that will be jabbed has been jabbed. Going back to the very beginning of the jab program and calculating raw rates is not valid because the denominators are dynamic. Only an integration of a representative mathematical function that closely represents this increasing ratio of jabbed to non-jabbed will provide meaningful results.