Post by batngat on Sept 24, 2021 22:01:34 GMT 10
from
americanbuddhist.net/2021/09/24/explanation-of-paper-showing-grave-harm-from-covid-vaxxes/
A new hero has emerged. Mostly-retired scientist Ronald Kostoff, PhD, and a highly experienced team, just had their paper published. The appropriate, if understated title of the paper is
Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?
Let us appreciate his restraint in never using the word “assholes” anywhere in the paper. At the age of 84, he maintains a level of polite discipline in the face of assholes I can scarcely muster on my better days.
Kostoff worked in the past as a Georgia Tech affiliated researcher (or consultant or whatever the correct term is now), has 30 years of government service, and a long publication history that includes an amazing breadth of topics including neuropsychology, information science, research and development management, molecular mass spectrometry, citation analysis, competitive intelligence, natural language processing, naval engineering, text analysis, and now analysis of what assholes refuse to analyze (soon to be a new category at researchgate). He published on disruptive technologies before it was cool.
roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/confirmation-of-vaccine-associated
The linked essay by Matthew Crawford is well-worth reading as the original paper is long and scholarly, obscuring major points for most readers. Crawford chooses good excerpts from the paper to show how damning the paper is. I am going to repeat some of them here: ABN
A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic. The risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially.
For example, the trials and VAERS reported clots that resulted in serious symptoms and deaths but gave no indication of the enhanced predisposition to forming serious clots in the future with a higher base of micro-clots formed because of the mRNA intervention. The latter is particularly relevant to children, who have a long future that could be seriously affected by having an increased predisposition to multiple clot-based (and other) serious diseases resulting from these inoculations.
What does this mean in the real world? In the USA, there are approximately 4,000,000 children in each age year for adolescents. Thus, there are ˜16,000,000 children in the 12–15 age band. A serious adverse event, including death, that occurred at a 1/800 rate would not be detectable with high confidence in a sample of 1005 people. Thus, the results of the trials for 1005 children would allow for 20,000 children to suffer a non-trial-detected serious adverse event, including death, when extrapolated to potential inoculation of all children in the 12–15 age group! Given that the risk of contracting COVID-19 with serious outcomes is negligible in this population, proceeding with mass inoculation of children 12–15 years old based on the trials that were conducted cannot be justified on any cost-benefit ratio findings.
Kirsch, Crawford, and now Kostoff are seeing grave harm being caused by the vaccines. If you are paying full attention to this topic, this is the core issue that tells us what is really going on.
americanbuddhist.net/2021/09/24/explanation-of-paper-showing-grave-harm-from-covid-vaxxes/
A new hero has emerged. Mostly-retired scientist Ronald Kostoff, PhD, and a highly experienced team, just had their paper published. The appropriate, if understated title of the paper is
Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?
Let us appreciate his restraint in never using the word “assholes” anywhere in the paper. At the age of 84, he maintains a level of polite discipline in the face of assholes I can scarcely muster on my better days.
Kostoff worked in the past as a Georgia Tech affiliated researcher (or consultant or whatever the correct term is now), has 30 years of government service, and a long publication history that includes an amazing breadth of topics including neuropsychology, information science, research and development management, molecular mass spectrometry, citation analysis, competitive intelligence, natural language processing, naval engineering, text analysis, and now analysis of what assholes refuse to analyze (soon to be a new category at researchgate). He published on disruptive technologies before it was cool.
roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/confirmation-of-vaccine-associated
The linked essay by Matthew Crawford is well-worth reading as the original paper is long and scholarly, obscuring major points for most readers. Crawford chooses good excerpts from the paper to show how damning the paper is. I am going to repeat some of them here: ABN
A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic. The risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially.
For example, the trials and VAERS reported clots that resulted in serious symptoms and deaths but gave no indication of the enhanced predisposition to forming serious clots in the future with a higher base of micro-clots formed because of the mRNA intervention. The latter is particularly relevant to children, who have a long future that could be seriously affected by having an increased predisposition to multiple clot-based (and other) serious diseases resulting from these inoculations.
What does this mean in the real world? In the USA, there are approximately 4,000,000 children in each age year for adolescents. Thus, there are ˜16,000,000 children in the 12–15 age band. A serious adverse event, including death, that occurred at a 1/800 rate would not be detectable with high confidence in a sample of 1005 people. Thus, the results of the trials for 1005 children would allow for 20,000 children to suffer a non-trial-detected serious adverse event, including death, when extrapolated to potential inoculation of all children in the 12–15 age group! Given that the risk of contracting COVID-19 with serious outcomes is negligible in this population, proceeding with mass inoculation of children 12–15 years old based on the trials that were conducted cannot be justified on any cost-benefit ratio findings.
Kirsch, Crawford, and now Kostoff are seeing grave harm being caused by the vaccines. If you are paying full attention to this topic, this is the core issue that tells us what is really going on.