The Adverse Event Causality Shell Game
The Adverse Event Causality Shell Game
Vaccine injury is deliberately elusive.
The system is rigged to direct you to just about anything else. As I’ve written before, even a “mystery” or “coincidence” will do.
Once more than a handful of people start linking sudden onset illness or death to a recent shot, mainstream media will flood our feeds with stories about syndromes you've never heard of before.
There will be a sudden influx of "new research" pointing to anything but the sh!t.
New spikes in pathology are normalized. (ie. blood clots and heart attacks in young people happen all the time, you just never noticed before.)
Illness is minimized. (Not to worry, myocarditis can be "mild" and treatable)
Terminology will be swapped out (switching between very broad and very specific) to make it more difficult to understand and draw conclusions. (facial paralysis, nerve damage, neuropathy, Bell’s Palsy, Guillain Barré, Ramsay Hunt Syndrome)
Diagnostic parameters and definitions will change.
This is all part of an emerging field of $cience - I’m going to call it Decoy $cience - dedicated entirely to pointing away from any pharmaceutical product that may be inconveniently linked to adverse events, illness or death when things go wrong.
When the spell is lifted, people will recognize it as propaganda. But something happens when doctors and scientists bless information with the magic letters after their names. After all, we were trained to “Trust the Experts.”
In the meantime, folks like Toby Rogers, Naomi Wolf, Jessica Rose and Steve Kirsch, are working hard to break the spell. And fortunately, these folks, if you read them, are very effective at helping people cultivate strong and lasting immunity. To propaganda, that is.
But in case you can’t keep up with all of the research and the entire narrative spin around it, here are a couple of general ideas that will help you filter incoming news …
Look for Moving Goal Posts
Health Feedback describes itself as “a worldwide network of scientists sorting fact from fiction in health and medical media coverage. Our goal is to help readers know which news to trust.” Their motto is “Accurate Information is the Foundation of Democracy.”
In a fact-check article that disputes the reliability of VAERS data, Health Feedback cites Austin Bradford Hill’s “The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?”
The article then references the WHO guidelines:
His viewpoints are now generally accepted by scientists as useful guidelines to consider when inferring causality. To show how this relates to vaccines, we can turn to the World Health Organization (WHO) guide that applies the criteria to the analysis of adverse events following vaccination.
But the WHO changed their Causality Assessment of an Adverse Event Following Immunization (AEFI). In a 2019 critique of the WHO’s new parameters, Jacob Puliyel, notes:
In the old system, reactions that were temporally associated with immunization, for which there was no alternate explanation, were classified as ‘probably’ related to immunization. It facilitated signal detection. This cannot be said for the currently used WHO causality assessment.
In the new causality assessment, only reactions that have previously been acknowledged in epidemiological studies to be caused by the vaccine, are classified as a vaccine-product–related-reactions. Reactions observed for the first time during post-marketing surveillance (Phase 4 clinical trial) are not considered as ‘consistent with causal association with vaccine’. All new serious adverse reactions are labelled as coincidental events ‘inconsistent with causal association,’ or ‘unclassifiable’ and the association with vaccine is not acknowledged. (5). It has, in effect, made phase 4 trials redundant. https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l2268/rr-0
This is important, because the entire rollout of COVID spikeshots is essentially a Phase 4 clinical trial. VAERS reports are part of the post-marketing surveillance. And the Warp Speed clinical trials were not designed to discover all of the potential adverse events that could be caused by these shots.
But the potential for adverse events was recognized. And some say the incriminating evidence remains buried for now…
Sadly, when it comes to adverse events, vaccines (or shots that play vaccines on TV) are innocent until proven guilty. This is why the CDC and other alphabet agencies will refer to evidence or lack of evidence rather than showing it explicitly.
Evidence continues to build showing that COVID-19 vaccination before and during pregnancy is safe and effective. It suggests that the benefits of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine outweigh any known or potential risks of vaccination during pregnancy.
But what is the evidence?
From Naomi Wolf’s recent Substack post:
The Volunteers have drilled deep into the Pfizer documents’ reports about pregnancy and found that the assurance that the vaccine is “safe and effective” for pregnant women, was based on a study of 44 French rats, followed for 42 days (the scientists who ran the study are shareholders or employees of BioNTech).
Watch the Word Salad
Keep an eye out for qualifiers and vague phrasing and consider what could be hiding there. Here are some examples:
There is no evidence to suggest - you don’t tend to find what you’re not looking for
linked to - correlation
associated with -correlation
may cause - correlation/conjecture
likely, unlikely, possible - conjecture/opinion (not science)
You are likely to see dozens of “possible causes” linked to myocarditis, heart attacks, blood clots, hepatitis, and now thanks to Justin Bieber, facial paralysis and Ramsay Hunt Syndrome. You are just as likely to see mainstream media warn about misinformation, linking those same things to COVID shots.
But there’s only one culprit that is rapidly and consistently dismissed on the basis of “no sufficient evidence to establish causality.” Guess which one?
Please. Ask questions.
And if you're vilified or mocked for asking quetions, ASK MORE.
canwetalkaboutit.org