Time To Get Your Covid 19 And 'Flu Jabs.

[Tilly2]

Don't forget.

[Togo]

The flu jab we have is the same all over the World. Its content is agreed upon by WHO. The data produced is from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) who funded and conducted a three-year study. If they wanted to produce false data why take 3 years and spend big momey when they could have just done what the eco loons do and take old date and alter it? I will carry on looking under the stones I think. You keep your head in the sand. It will be safe there. 

[Peter Pedant]

very very good thread: I am  surprised it hasnt been scrapped or hidden away in "a much  better" dump

 which is why my muscles hurt. - good description of trauma localisation (used to explain why conscript tommies in Egypt 1950s had more paralysis from polio than the stay  at home teddy boys)

[THECORBYLOON]

I believe I have found the research on which the 65% increased risk is based and this is the link to the American report, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7115556/#s0035title

I am not technically minded in these things but looking at the research, they studied the after-effects of the flu-jag among those aged eighteen and over and those aged under eighteen during a  three-year period.

They looked at the, “hazard ratio” (HR) of non-influenza respiratory pathogens found in those who had had the jag compared to those who hadn’t.

In the Results, it states,

“Of the 999 participants, 68.8% were children, 30.2% were adults. Each study season, approximately half received influenza vaccine and one third experienced ≥1 ARI. The hazard of influenza in individuals during the 14-day post-vaccination period was similar to unvaccinated individuals during the same period (HR 0.96, 95% CI [0.60, 1.52]). The hazard of non-influenza respiratory pathogens was higher during the same period (HR 1.65, 95% CI [1.14, 2.38]); when stratified by age the hazard remained higher for children (HR 1·71, 95% CI [1.16, 2.53]) but not for adults (HR 0.88, 95% CI [0.21, 3.69]).” [Emphasis added]

If I read it correctly, the 65% increase refers to the “HR 1.65” (meaning the hazard was 1.65 times higher) which I take to be for the whole sample.

It states that when looking at the hazard ratio by age it, “remained higher for children... but not for adults”

As indicated earlier, I might be wrong but I think the alleged increase in risk doesn’t relate to adults but feel free to contradict me.