87d
@Metal-Brain saidYou always fall for the same thing metalbrain. Not reading your own reference materials. Also the study was already discussed already on this thread.
A study, titled “A Systematic Review of Autopsy Findings in Deaths After COVID-19 Vaccination,” analyzed 325 autopsy cases and found that a staggering 73.9% of deaths were either directly due to or significantly contributed to by the COVID-19 vaccination.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073824001968
Conclusion: causes of deaths from this analysis were previously determined to be vaccine related. So that number 74% you keep posting actually shifted down the total known number of vax-related deaths.
87d
@wildgrass said"shifted down"? at 1% anyone that pushed the juice should be in jail. Can you please define 'shifted down' and where you got it.
You always fall for the same thing metalbrain. Not reading your own reference materials. Also the study was already discussed already on this thread.
Conclusion: causes of deaths from this analysis were previously determined to be vaccine related. So that number 74% you keep posting actually shifted down the total known number of vax-related deaths.
@Wajoma saidErr. The study group was vax-induced corpses. They could only confirm 74% then that's less than previously determined. 240 total corpses.
"shifted down"? at 1% anyone that pushed the juice should be in jail. Can you please define 'shifted down' and where you got it.
It's written in the study.
Of course that's way way less than 1%. Fewer than one in a million. It's pretty consistent with what clinical trials suggested.
87d
@wildgrass saidwildgrass said:
Err. The study group was vax-induced corpses. They could only confirm 74% then that's less than previously determined. 240 total corpses.
It's written in the study.
Of course that's way way less than 1%. Fewer than one in a million. It's pretty consistent with what clinical trials suggested.
"Err"
You sound unsure, and there's a good reason for that.
"vax-induced corpses"? Do you know what that means, you're the person to ask because you're the one that just made it up.
"Of course" nowhere in the study is that term used. And nowhere is 'fewer than one in a million' cited, hinted, deduced, calculated. Please explain how you arrived at this scientific number.
You tried to bluff, your bluff has been called.
87d
@Wajoma saidWhat bluff?
wildgrass said:
"Err"
You sound unsure, and there's a good reason for that.
"vax-induced corpses"? Do you know what that means, you're the person to ask because you're the one that just made it up.
"Of course" nowhere in the study is that term used. And nowhere is 'fewer than one in a million' cited, hinted, deduced, calculated. Please explain how you arrived at this scientific number.
You tried to bluff, your bluff has been called.
What's the study group wajoma? Did you read it?
This is one of those studies that gets misinterpreted and puked all over social media by the anti vaxxers who never even read past the title. It doesn't say what you think it does.
87d
@wildgrass saidYep, definitely a bluff.
What bluff?
What's the study group wajoma? Did you read it?
This is one of those studies that gets misinterpreted and puked all over social media by the anti vaxxers who never even read past the title. It doesn't say what you think it does.
I ask two direct simple questions and you can't answer them.
Waste of time.
@Wajoma saidLol it's ok you lost an argument and threw a tantrum. Pretending you don't know what a corpse is. Embarrassing.
Yep, definitely a bluff.
I ask two direct simple questions and you can't answer them.
Waste of time.
I see you sitting in the dark apartment alone, rereading the article when you suddenly realize "ooh, that anonymous Internet poster on RHP was right. I'll just pretend I don't know what a corpse is and say I won the argument."
@wildgrass saidStill unable to answer two simple direct questions.
Lol it's ok you lost an argument and threw a tantrum. Pretending you don't know what a corpse is. Embarrassing.
Neither of the questions being "What is a corpse?"
One of the questions being:
What does 'vax-induced corpses' mean?
86d
@wildgrass saidExplain your conclusion. You made an assertion without anything to back up your claim.
You always fall for the same thing metalbrain. Not reading your own reference materials. Also the study was already discussed already on this thread.
Conclusion: causes of deaths from this analysis were previously determined to be vaccine related. So that number 74% you keep posting actually shifted down the total known number of vax-related deaths.
86d
5 edits
@wildgrass saidExcuse me, I errr, did some investigation errr, myself prior to the query so no need to errrr act self righteous After a first read of the study I did not come across the term "vaccine induced corpse".
A corpse is a dead body.
A vax induced corpse is a dead body caused by the vax.
I then tried google, zero results in internet land. That's because you're no longer speaking English, one can find such terms as 'vaccine induced myocarditis' or 'vaccine induced myositis' and that the myocarditis may then lead to one being a corpse. It seems you either made a mistake and can't admit it or you're being a pseud like shag doody trying to sound more clever than you are.
After reading the study I understand where this comes from:
"A study, titled “A Systematic Review of Autopsy Findings in Deaths After COVID-19 Vaccination,” analyzed 325 autopsy cases and found that a staggering 73.9% of deaths were either directly due to or significantly contributed to by the COVID-19 vaccination.
But I do not understand where this comes from:
Conclusion: causes of deaths from this analysis were previously determined to be vaccine related. So that number 74% you keep posting actually shifted down the total known number of vax-related deaths. T
What they're saying is that previously all the cases in the group (the sample group) were thought to be 'vaccine induced corpses' and after review of that particular group it dropped from 100% to 74% of the 'vaccine induced corpses' were 'vaccine induced corpses'. There has been no 'shift down' from 74%, but a shift to 74%.
wildgrass then made some 'pretty consistently' wild claims that indicated it was she, that had not read the study:
"Of course that's way way less than 1%. Fewer than one in a million. It's pretty consistent with what clinical trials suggested."
Can you please copy/paste from the study where you got this info.
86d
@Wajoma saidYou see what I get from directly answering your questions. You still pretend not to know what I mean by a vax induced corpse.
Excuse me, I errr, did some investigation errr, myself prior to the query so no need to errrr act self righteous After a first read of the study I did not come across the term "vaccine induced corpse".
I then tried google, zero results in internet land. That's because you're no longer speaking English, one can find such terms as 'vaccine induced myocarditis' or 'vaccine in ...[text shortened]... clinical trials suggested.[/i]"
Can you please copy/paste from the study where you got this info.
The inclusion criteria for the study was vax induced corpses. Here it is in the author's words:: "All original articles, case reports and case series that contain autopsy or necropsy (gross and histologic analysis of organ and tissues) results with COVID-19 vaccines as an antecedent exposure were included."
So, all of the study "participants" had already previously been shown to have died from the vax. They excluded all the other data.
It's still an interesting study, because I appreciate the independent validation from other physicians. Still, tossing around the 74% number in the way that metalbrain did is extremely misleading.
Less than 1% is from other studies with criteria that includes other causes of death than vaccines. Let's first finish with this one, since you still seem confused.
@wildgrass saidAll claims you've made since metalbrain posted the link are wrong.
You see what I get from directly answering your questions. You still pretend not to know what I mean by a vax induced corpse.
The inclusion criteria for the study was vax induced corpses. Here it is in the author's words:: "All original articles, case reports and case series that contain autopsy or necropsy (gross and histologic analysis of organ and tissues) results wit ...[text shortened]... ther causes of death than vaccines. Let's first finish with this one, since you still seem confused.
I didn't know what you meant by 'vax induced corpse' because it is not English, so I first searched the term in the study, then on the internet, then asked I you. What a mistake that was, you proceeded in typical manner to dodge instead of just admitting you got confused made a mistake, were trying to sound clever.
wildgrass said:
"Still, tossing around the 74% number in the way that metalbrain did is extremely misleading."
How was it tossed? It was only misleading to those that had not read the study, which is ironic because you accused others of not having done so.
The only thing I'm confused about is that surely you must realise people see right through you. It is also my strong advice that you bail as you've already announced intention of doing so.
wildgrass said famous last words :^) :
"This is one of those studies that gets misinterpreted and puked all over social media by the anti vaxxers who never even read past the title. It doesn't say what you think it does."
hahaha, no wildgrass, it doesn't say what you think it does.
86d
@Wajoma saidI defined the term very clearly wajoma. Are you ok?
All claims you've made since metalbrain posted the link are wrong.
I didn't know what you meant by 'vax induced corpse' because it is not English, so I first searched the term in the study, then on the internet, then asked I you. What a mistake that was, you proceeded in typical manner to dodge instead of just admitting you got confused made a mistake, were trying to soun ...[text shortened]... n't say what you think it does.[/i]"
hahaha, no wildgrass, it doesn't say what you think it does.
Causes of death from the analysis were previously shown to be vaccine related. Only 74% could be independently validated.
77d
@wildgrass
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/07/05/post-covid-19-vaccination-deaths.aspx?cid_source=dnlsubstack&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20240705_SU