Yellow Card Reporting

User avatar
MikeAustin
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:27 pm

Yellow Card Reporting

Post by MikeAustin »

Everyone here will know of the goverment's Yellow Card Reporting. Some will also be familiar with ukcolumn's front end to it.

Today's release a few hours ago shows total deaths 1253 (up from 1213) and total adverse reactions 888,196 (up from 859,481). There is an average of 5 deaths per day over the last three weeks.
jab-deaths-20210603.jpg
jab-deaths-20210603.jpg (36.68 KiB) Viewed 473 times

The number of spontaneous abortions is 150 (was 134) and has averaged 10 per week. This rate is increasing (currently 16 per week) as the ages of those jabbed reduces (i.e. more likely to be pregnant).
abortion-adverse-20210603.jpg
abortion-adverse-20210603.jpg (32.59 KiB) Viewed 473 times

I print simple flyers each week with updated figures. On the reverse side, I make a comparison of the jab risks (1 death in 31,000) with covid risks

Any healthy person 40 or under doubles their death risk with these jabs. Healthy schoolchildren multiply their death risk by 160! If they are all jabbed, then the jab will become the highest cause of death among school kids, accounting for 22% of them!

Nobody
Posts: 291
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:05 pm

Re: Yellow Card Reporting

Post by Nobody »

Thanks for being smart enough to figure all that out. It is nice to be presented with the evidence required to affirm one's prejudices.

User avatar
MikeAustin
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:27 pm

Re: Yellow Card Reporting

Post by MikeAustin »

Nobody wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 3:00 pm Thanks for being smart enough to figure all that out. It is nice to be presented with the evidence required to affirm one's prejudices.
Hehe! I have to watch out for that one! Egotism and attachment to my views tends to desire the death rate to go up in opposition to the original altruism to save lives!

One assumption that I make in estimating the effect on schoolchildren is that the death rate is constant and will equally apply to them. That is why the deaths chart is important. The rate has indeed been constant over the last 5 or 6 weeks. However, I would expect it to eventually go down with age to some extent - although not to 1/160th of the current rate.

I am particularly concerned about pregnant woman. I imagine that few pregnant women will have had the jab yet due to their age group. With reports that these jabs are causing problems with women's menstrual cycles and the depositing of spike protein (which some say toxic) in the ovaries, there is cause for alarm.

miahoneybee
Posts: 1485
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:26 pm

Re: Yellow Card Reporting

Post by miahoneybee »

A great piece of work mike..
Thanks
:D

thinksaboutit
Posts: 676
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Yellow Card Reporting

Post by thinksaboutit »

MikeAustin wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 2:10 pm Everyone here will know of the goverment's Yellow Card Reporting. Some will also be familiar with ukcolumn's front end to it.

Today's release a few hours ago shows total deaths 1253 (up from 1213) and total adverse reactions 888,196 (up from 859,481). There is an average of 5 deaths per day over the last three weeks.
jab-deaths-20210603.jpg


The number of spontaneous abortions is 150 (was 134) and has averaged 10 per week. This rate is increasing (currently 16 per week) as the ages of those jabbed reduces (i.e. more likely to be pregnant).
abortion-adverse-20210603.jpg


I print simple flyers each week with updated figures. On the reverse side, I make a comparison of the jab risks (1 death in 31,000) with covid risks

Any healthy person 40 or under doubles their death risk with these jabs. Healthy schoolchildren multiply their death risk by 160! If they are all jabbed, then the jab will become the highest cause of death among school kids, accounting for 22% of them!
Can you advise how many you have excluded from your analysis, based on no evidence of causation?

thinksaboutit
Posts: 676
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Yellow Card Reporting

Post by thinksaboutit »

MikeAustin wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 2:10 pm Everyone here will know of the goverment's Yellow Card Reporting. Some will also be familiar with ukcolumn's front end to it.

Today's release a few hours ago shows total deaths 1253 (up from 1213) and total adverse reactions 888,196 (up from 859,481). There is an average of 5 deaths per day over the last three weeks.
jab-deaths-20210603.jpg


The number of spontaneous abortions is 150 (was 134) and has averaged 10 per week. This rate is increasing (currently 16 per week) as the ages of those jabbed reduces (i.e. more likely to be pregnant).
abortion-adverse-20210603.jpg


I print simple flyers each week with updated figures. On the reverse side, I make a comparison of the jab risks (1 death in 31,000) with covid risks

Any healthy person 40 or under doubles their death risk with these jabs. Healthy schoolchildren multiply their death risk by 160! If they are all jabbed, then the jab will become the highest cause of death among school kids, accounting for 22% of them!
According to the NHS, about 1 in 8 pregnancies end in miscarriage. i.e. there is a background rate, which may be just coincident with vaccination.

Can you explain your accounting for this fact in the statistics you publish?

User avatar
MikeAustin
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:27 pm

Re: Yellow Card Reporting

Post by MikeAustin »

thinksaboutit wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:24 pm Can you advise how many you have excluded from your analysis, based on no evidence of causation?

According to the NHS, about 1 in 8 pregnancies end in miscarriage. i.e. there is a background rate, which may be just coincident with vaccination.
Can you explain your accounting for this fact in the statistics you publish?
Please address your questions to MHRA who should be investigating figures that they themselves have published.

And now I will put you back in the solitary cell that is my blocklist.

jmc
Posts: 438
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:01 am

Re: Yellow Card Reporting

Post by jmc »

thinksaboutit wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:18 pm Can you advise how many you have excluded from your analysis, based on no evidence of causation?
Here is how the "causation" works. And has worked for many generations.

Most immediate adverse reactions to vaccination fall into two groups. Anaphylactic shock. And cardiac / pulmonary related. The first group most younger people. The second group older people.

Younger people with a high risk of anaphylactic shock have a very low probability of an anaphylactic shock episode in any given 15 day period. After vaccination they have a many times higher probability of a serious anaphylactic shock episode.

The usual trigger is the adjuvant. Which is added to the weak / low reactive vaccines to irritate the immune system into a response. This is a very well know problem with adjuvants. If at all possible they are avoided. All SARs CoV 2 vaccines so far are low response so need strong adjuvants. Mild anaphylactic shock is such a common reaction with these type of vaccines that Epipens are usually immediately to hand while administered.

The cardiac / pulmonary related adverse responses are more varied in their causes and the mechanism in how death is caused but both the adjuvant and the response of the persons body to an immunsystem shock caused by both adjuvant and vaccine seems to account for most cases. According to the published literature.

The causation proof is quite straight forward. If the 15 day mortality rates for certain very specific sub groups, by age and medical history, is suddenly elevated in the 15 days after getting a vaccine shot then thats good enough clinically speaking to show causality.

If you care to look at the published literature on the subject you will find there is nothing particularly special about the SARs 2 vaccines regarding types of adverse responses triggered, or the age specificity. The big difference with the SARs CoV 2 vaccines is the risk of adverse response is almost two orders of magnitude higher than and previous approved general use vaccine. At least 70x to 90x the risk of serious, severe or fatal adverse response.

And thats the problem with using experimental vaccines. These are exactly the sort of problems that cause the vast majority of vaccines candidate to fail clinical trials. Number like the ones we are seeing in the adverse response databases for the SARs CoV 2 vaccines.

thinksaboutit
Posts: 676
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Yellow Card Reporting

Post by thinksaboutit »

MikeAustin wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:06 pm
thinksaboutit wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:24 pm Can you advise how many you have excluded from your analysis, based on no evidence of causation?

According to the NHS, about 1 in 8 pregnancies end in miscarriage. i.e. there is a background rate, which may be just coincident with vaccination.
Can you explain your accounting for this fact in the statistics you publish?
Please address your questions to MHRA who should be investigating figures that they themselves have published.

And now I will put you back in the solitary cell that is my blocklist.
MHRA is very clear that it publishes the statistics on what was reported through the yellow card scheme.
Obviously, this can include some instances with coincidence and not causation.

You do not cater for this effect (or even admit the concept), so your statistics must be considered as unreliable and sensible people should simply ignore them. They are "designed to deceive"

RichardTechnik
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2020 11:01 am

Re: Yellow Card Reporting

Post by RichardTechnik »

thinksaboutit wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 4:46 pm
MikeAustin wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:06 pm
thinksaboutit wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:24 pm Can you advise how many you have excluded from your analysis, based on no evidence of causation?

According to the NHS, about 1 in 8 pregnancies end in miscarriage. i.e. there is a background rate, which may be just coincident with vaccination.
Can you explain your accounting for this fact in the statistics you publish?
Please address your questions to MHRA who should be investigating figures that they themselves have published.

And now I will put you back in the solitary cell that is my blocklist.
MHRA is very clear that it publishes the statistics on what was reported through the yellow card scheme.
Obviously, this can include some instances with coincidence and not causation.

You do not cater for this effect (or even admit the concept), so your statistics must be considered as unreliable and sensible people should simply ignore them. They are "designed to deceive"
I would say your posts supporting the MHRA counterconcept that any adverse reactions cannot be attibuted to the 'vaccine' are "designed to deceive" as is your MHRA and decitful June Raine.

Post Reply