It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Among 192 405 448 persons receiving a total of 354 100 845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines during the study period, there were 1991 reports of myocarditis to VAERS and 1626 of these reports met the case definition of myocarditis
originally posted by: lordcomac
well the 'vaccines' have to do SOMETHING, because they're clearly not reducing the rate of infection
Might as well be thinning out the population, we could use less fewer of the kind of people that ran right out and asked for their experimental jabs
originally posted by: igloo
originally posted by: lordcomac
well the 'vaccines' have to do SOMETHING, because they're clearly not reducing the rate of infection
Might as well be thinning out the population, we could use less fewer of the kind of people that ran right out and asked for their experimental jabs
The thought has crossed my mind but I hope not. I'll have no family or friends left.
originally posted by: UpThenDown
a reply to: v1rtu0s0
I am not the best at maths but I think this shows the chances of being unfortunatly effected by Myocarditis
Among 192 405 448 persons receiving a total of 354 100 845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines during the study period, there were 1991 reports of myocarditis to VAERS and 1626 of these reports met the case definition of myocarditis
1626 / 192405448 = 0.0000084509
I could be wrong though, how are you then seeing its a 133% increase, do you have data prior to covid?
originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: vNex92
Well thankfully I live in a state that we do not have such nonsense and we live pretty much as before the scamdemic.
But we know most of the infected democrat rat holes do not.
originally posted by: UpThenDown
a reply to: rickymouse
Thanks I was unsure so if we use 50,000,000 as you suggest it would be
1626/50,000,000 = 0.00003252
Nobody should be put at risk from medication but would this number fall within reasonable or is it larger than previous data for same age group suffering myocarditis
originally posted by: UpThenDown
a reply to: v1rtu0s0
I am not the best at maths but I think this shows the chances of being unfortunatly effected by Myocarditis
Among 192 405 448 persons receiving a total of 354 100 845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines during the study period, there were 1991 reports of myocarditis to VAERS and 1626 of these reports met the case definition of myocarditis
1626 / 192405448 = 0.0000084509
I could be wrong though, how are you then seeing its a 133% increase, do you have data prior to covid?
originally posted by: network dude
originally posted by: UpThenDown
a reply to: v1rtu0s0
I am not the best at maths but I think this shows the chances of being unfortunatly effected by Myocarditis
Among 192 405 448 persons receiving a total of 354 100 845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines during the study period, there were 1991 reports of myocarditis to VAERS and 1626 of these reports met the case definition of myocarditis
1626 / 192405448 = 0.0000084509
I could be wrong though, how are you then seeing its a 133% increase, do you have data prior to covid?
Yea, using VARES for anything is problematic. It's too easy for anyone to add anything there. You need official data.