One of the reasons I decided to try and organize the case studies was the uneven quality of the few versions of this master list of vax injury studies. That was my starting point, I sorted out the case studies from the rest & then went strolling through the literature to find the rest (or as much of the rest as I can)
I know!! I thought everyone understood that courtesy. But I think it's been happening a lot more than normal, particularly in relation to any COVID studies. Authors are hiding the negative data in the bits that most peeps skip over- figures, discussion, diagrams, etc. So the titles and conclusions can even say the opposite of what the data reflects. I think it's purposely done by those that know but can't risk getting kicked out of the club.
I am still going through the literature to add more studies.
Hopefully won't take too long to go through them to pull & organize data from individual studies.
(I started on the cardiac & hematological (which will need to be updated to reflect an additional 150-175 studies):
https://ashmedai.substack.com/p/compilation-of-184-case-reports-documenting
https://ashmedai.substack.com/p/144-case-reports-of-vaccine-related)
If you haven't seen it, here is a compilation that may help with yours? https://elcolectivodeuno.wordpress.com/2021/12/29/how-much-more-evidence-do-you-need-here-is-a-list-of-860-scientific-studies-and-reports-linking-covid-vaccines-to-hundreds-of-adverse-effects-and-deaths/?fbclid=IwAR1R1S1mAnNzvyJNy3OUtXFSq_MyHJ2MomzcD3EnGvF2AwrFsiTpjni4w98
One of the reasons I decided to try and organize the case studies was the uneven quality of the few versions of this master list of vax injury studies. That was my starting point, I sorted out the case studies from the rest & then went strolling through the literature to find the rest (or as much of the rest as I can)
Ah, yes. A lot of combing! Really appreciate you doing this!
it's an obscene amount of combing lol
especially since some study authors need a serious lesson in how to choose a title that reflects what the study is about
like if you're documenting a vax reaction, do have the curtesy of including in the title that it pertains to vax...
I know!! I thought everyone understood that courtesy. But I think it's been happening a lot more than normal, particularly in relation to any COVID studies. Authors are hiding the negative data in the bits that most peeps skip over- figures, discussion, diagrams, etc. So the titles and conclusions can even say the opposite of what the data reflects. I think it's purposely done by those that know but can't risk getting kicked out of the club.
WOW. Thank you for this heroic effort. (I wish Substack would turn the urls into links automatically.)
email me aronhertz123@gmail.com I can send you with links
🙏👍
What is going here....? :)
😹
Thanks,
I will share it with my 150+ unrequited Aussie penpals.
😂
Great job, Thank you
Wow. Thank you, Ashmedai! I'm saving this list for reference and eventual circulation. Will give attribution to your collation.
You now have a full time job for the next 10 years. The slimy drug companies should be paying you.