Young women at much higher risk from heart-related death after COVID jab
The ONS, effectively a branch of the UK government, has found that the “risk of dying from heart issues was three and a half times higher among young women in the first three months after a single dose of the AstraZeneca [DNA] Covid vaccine”, and that this “corresponds to six cardiac-related deaths per 100,000 vaccinated with at least a first dose, according to the study, which was published in the journal Nature Communications”. Source.
Now I’m no mathemagician, but the same UK government recently found that hundreds of thousands of young and healthy Brits needed to be vaccinated to prevent just one COVID-19 hospitalisation, and it seems to me that one of these numbers is much, much bigger than the other, in a way that makes the ‘conspiracy theorists’ look like geniuses. And this 6/100,000 figure only concerns one of the apparently sexist COVID-19 vaccines. And it only includes deaths. And it only includes deaths from “heart issues”. And it only includes heart-related deaths for the short-term, with the total long-term risks still currently unknown. Who knows what we’ll find in the next 70ish years (that’s how long the data was to be hidden, and that’s how long it took for the once ‘safe & effective’ but actually deadly pholcodine to be withdrawn). And yet they still want to tell us with a straight face “that the benefits of the vaccines outweigh the risks in the majority of people”. Source.
Okay then.
Extra: And they also want to stop us thinking that the jab has anything to with the mysterious rise in cardiovascular-driven excess deaths. And for those new to OTN, it may have even been the case that the risks of the jabs outweighed the benefits, from the very beginning (and from their own clinical trials). Still waiting for that proper apology, Piers.
the “risk of dying from heart issues was three and a half times higher among young women in the first three months after a single dose of the AstraZeneca [DNA] Covid vaccine”
What other information do we need? How bad does it have to get before people come to grips with the havoc these jabs are wreaking?
Keep reporting, OTN, the word might be spreading slowly, but spread it must.
Good post.
I think one of the biggest issues is that the various pharmacovigilance places like VAERS in the US, the Yellow-Card system in the UK, etc etc, are recording only a fraction of adverse events. For the UK's Yellow-Card system, it's said that no more than 10% of adverse reactions are recorded. For VAERS in the US, some people have claimed that it's more like 1%.
That means that if the UK Yellow-Card system registers, for example, 300 lost babies, that figure could be 3000, ten times higher. And if the US VAERS system registers 300 lost babies, that figure could really be between 3000 & 30 000, much higher.
Those who dismiss VAERS & the others because they register only reports & the reports are just reports & have not been investigated & are not actual evidence of harm rarely mention that the figures presented could be between 10 & 100 times too low.
We need to consider BOTH factors. 1) That the registered figures could be a lot lower than they actually are & 2) That the reports to pharmacovigilance are just reports & have not been investigated fully & proven genuine.