__________________
Senast redigerad av korrektamund0 2026-07-24 kl. 13:03.
Senast redigerad av korrektamund0 2026-07-24 kl. 13:03.
Svara
- Ämnesverktyg
- Visa första olästa
- Hitta inlägg efter datum
Citat:
En dokumentär om vaccins samband till kroniska sjukdomar har kommit ut.
https://x.com/AnInconvntStudy/status/1977558805262094702
THIS COULD CHANGE EVERYTHING
In 2016, journalist Del Bigtree issued a challenge to the head of infectious disease at one of the most prestigious medical institutions in the world: conduct the most thorough vaxxed vs. unvaxxed study that has ever been done. The expert took up the challenge and ran the study to prove Del wrong. That study never saw the light of day... until now.
Inspirationen till dokumentären är Henry ford studien som även togs upp i ett förhör i senaten
Länk till förhöret: How the Corruption of Science has Impacted Public Perception and Policies Regarding Vaccines
Henry Ford födelsekohortstudien jämför sammanlagt 16,511 vaccinerade barn med 1,957 ovaccinerade barn, sammanlagt 18,468. Slutledning i studien är: In this study, we found vaccine exposure in children was associated with an increased risk of developing a chronic health disorder. This association was primarily driven by increased risk for asthma, atopy, eczema, autoimmune disease and neurodevelopmental disorders. This suggests that in certain susceptible children, exposure to vaccination may increase the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition, particularly for one of these conditions. Our preliminary findings cannot prove causality and
warrant further investigation.
I dokumentären exponeras försök till att tysta och hemlighålla resultat av studien. Exempelvis så filmas Marcus J Zervos i hemlighet där han erkänner att vaccin troligtvis orsakar kroniska sjukdomar.
Dr Aaby och medförfattare till DTP studien som visade ökad mortalitet barnen som tog emot vaccinet medverkar.
Aaron Siri som drivit frågan i domstol är även med samt en stort antal olika experter och patienter/påstådda offer för vaccinskador.
Är det här ett slutgiltigt bevis om att man har ljugit om att vaccin är säkra och effektiva i alla dessa år?
https://x.com/AnInconvntStudy/status/1977558805262094702
THIS COULD CHANGE EVERYTHING
In 2016, journalist Del Bigtree issued a challenge to the head of infectious disease at one of the most prestigious medical institutions in the world: conduct the most thorough vaxxed vs. unvaxxed study that has ever been done. The expert took up the challenge and ran the study to prove Del wrong. That study never saw the light of day... until now.
Inspirationen till dokumentären är Henry ford studien som även togs upp i ett förhör i senaten
Länk till förhöret: How the Corruption of Science has Impacted Public Perception and Policies Regarding Vaccines
Henry Ford födelsekohortstudien jämför sammanlagt 16,511 vaccinerade barn med 1,957 ovaccinerade barn, sammanlagt 18,468. Slutledning i studien är: In this study, we found vaccine exposure in children was associated with an increased risk of developing a chronic health disorder. This association was primarily driven by increased risk for asthma, atopy, eczema, autoimmune disease and neurodevelopmental disorders. This suggests that in certain susceptible children, exposure to vaccination may increase the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition, particularly for one of these conditions. Our preliminary findings cannot prove causality and
warrant further investigation.
I dokumentären exponeras försök till att tysta och hemlighålla resultat av studien. Exempelvis så filmas Marcus J Zervos i hemlighet där han erkänner att vaccin troligtvis orsakar kroniska sjukdomar.
Dr Aaby och medförfattare till DTP studien som visade ökad mortalitet barnen som tog emot vaccinet medverkar.
Aaron Siri som drivit frågan i domstol är även med samt en stort antal olika experter och patienter/påstådda offer för vaccinskador.
Är det här ett slutgiltigt bevis om att man har ljugit om att vaccin är säkra och effektiva i alla dessa år?
Inte ett bevis för någonting. I vetenskapliga studier så kan slumpen spela roll.
Har gjorts betydligt bättre studier efteråt som följt någon miljon och som varit noggrannare.
Helt ok att inte vaccinera sig eller sina barn. Framförallt om vi diskuterar snabbt framtagna vaccin som pandemrix till svininfluensan eller de som togs fram till covid. Underlaget var begränsat när de släpptes.
Men etablerade vaccin finns det inget vettigt vetenskapligt stöd för de påstående som görs i dokumentären.
Citat:
Nej. Denna studie är i särklass bäst gjord.
Inte ett bevis för någonting. I vetenskapliga studier så kan slumpen spela roll.
Har gjorts betydligt bättre studier efteråt som följt någon miljon och som varit noggrannare.
Helt ok att inte vaccinera sig eller sina barn. Framförallt om vi diskuterar snabbt framtagna vaccin som pandemrix till svininfluensan eller de som togs fram till covid. Underlaget var begränsat när de släpptes.
Men etablerade vaccin finns det inget vettigt vetenskapligt stöd för de påstående som görs i dokumentären.
Har gjorts betydligt bättre studier efteråt som följt någon miljon och som varit noggrannare.
Helt ok att inte vaccinera sig eller sina barn. Framförallt om vi diskuterar snabbt framtagna vaccin som pandemrix till svininfluensan eller de som togs fram till covid. Underlaget var begränsat när de släpptes.
Men etablerade vaccin finns det inget vettigt vetenskapligt stöd för de påstående som görs i dokumentären.
Och det säger en hel del. Läs vad de faktiskt säger. De efterlyser större och starkare forskning eftersom retrospektiva studier aldrig är staka nog.
Den är endast gjord för att se ifall det finns en signal eller inte.
Vi har förstått att du tycker så, men ingen med utbildning eller kunskap håller med, av skäl som är så uppenbara att det hela blir skrattretande. Du är okunnig, helt enkelt.
Antagligen är det också okunnighet som ligger till grund för dina lögner som du hasplar ur dig om och om igen. Men du får naturligtvis chansen att styra upp diskussionen genom att hänvisa till grunden för dina lögner.
Här t.ex.
Så om du kunde vara en duktig antivaxxar-patraskare och plocka fram citaten ur "dokumentären" där något av det du påstår styrks, så vore ju det jättebra, inte minst för DIG, eftersom du då skulle slippa stämpeln som ljugande antivaxxar-patrask som sedan försöker smita undan ansvar genom att inte kunna visa VAR i "dokumentären" det finns stöd för det du påstår.
Så kom igen nu, peka nu ut VAR i "dokumentären" det "framkommer hot och påtryckningar mot Zervos"
VAR!?
Herregud, att det skall vara så svårt för antivaxxar-patrask...
Antagligen är det också okunnighet som ligger till grund för dina lögner som du hasplar ur dig om och om igen. Men du får naturligtvis chansen att styra upp diskussionen genom att hänvisa till grunden för dina lögner.
Här t.ex.
Citat:
Citat:
Så om du kunde vara en duktig antivaxxar-patraskare och plocka fram citaten ur "dokumentären" där något av det du påstår styrks, så vore ju det jättebra, inte minst för DIG, eftersom du då skulle slippa stämpeln som ljugande antivaxxar-patrask som sedan försöker smita undan ansvar genom att inte kunna visa VAR i "dokumentären" det finns stöd för det du påstår.
Så kom igen nu, peka nu ut VAR i "dokumentären" det "framkommer hot och påtryckningar mot Zervos"
VAR!?
Herregud, att det skall vara så svårt för antivaxxar-patrask...
Citat:
Ehh...va!? Sitter du och ljuger här mitt på blanka fredagen!? IGEN??
I dokumentären exponeras försök till att tysta och hemlighålla resultat av studien. Exempelvis så filmas Marcus J Zervos i hemlighet där han erkänner att vaccin troligtvis orsakar kroniska sjukdomar.
Var i studien "exponeras" några försök att "tysta och hemlighålla studien". Var?
Och sedan måste man ju kommentera ditt patetiska försök till sensationalism, när du uttrycker dig med
"filmas i hemlighet där han i erkänner att vaccin troligtvis orsakar kroniska sjukdomar" Haha, det här är så sjukt kul.... HAN ERKÄNNER ATT VACCIN TROLIGTVIS ORSAKAR KRONISKA SJUKDOMAR..?? Haha...
Först och främst:
Du skall INTE SITTA OCH LJUGA OM VAD NÅGON SÄGER för att försöka skapa sensationalism. Det kallas för FALSK RYKTESSPRIDNING på det här forumet. Förstår du!??
Citat:
0.09. Falsk ryktesspridning
Att sprida påhittade uppgifter om personer, företag eller organisationer med uppsåt att utsätta dessa för andras missaktning, eller att avsiktligen sprida förvrängd eller påhittad information med uppsåt att vilseleda, är förbjudet.
Att sprida påhittade uppgifter om personer, företag eller organisationer med uppsåt att utsätta dessa för andras missaktning, eller att avsiktligen sprida förvrängd eller påhittad information med uppsåt att vilseleda, är förbjudet.
För det andra:
Zervos nämner INGENTING om att "vaccin troligtvis orsakar kroniska sjukdomar". DET LJÖG DU HELT ENKELT IHOP. DU VERKAR LJUGA OM ALLTING!!
Citat:
Det är väl om något ett slutgiltigt bevis för att antivaxxar-patrask har tappat det helt och inte klarar av att argumentera för sin sak utan att ljuga.Haha, veckans pannbiff....
PS.
Jag ERKÄNNER att sverige TROLIGTVIS vann fotbolls-VM.
Här är en del av transkriptet som tydligt besvarar era frågor om varför studien inte publicerades.
Det var för att det vore karriärsjälvmord, han hade blivit socialt misshandlad men att han tycker att den bör publiceras.
Han är tydlig med att studien aldrig hade utformningen att bevisa om vaccin orsakar kronisk sjukdom utan att se ifall det finns en signal att de gör de.
Vad annat än att de begås en konspiration om att tysta ned skadorna från vacciner?
https://youtu.be/mvEuMMAafF8?si=9kvfeKGSn-HIqXR0&t=3835
1:03:58 the PR at Henry Ford, they put a gag order on me, you know, I couldn't talk about anything. And they said to me, Mark, so what? You know, so so so you go on CNN, you know, which they would be happy. They'd be thrilled to have you on CNN and you know, and you say what you feel, but they're just going to twist what you say anyway and make you look bad anyway. So what good what what good is it going to be? So I should still be able to defend myself and, you know, and say what the inaccuracies are. So, I'm thinking to myself, maybe maybe the Henry Ford PR was right. Is that it's just going to get twisted around anyway, make you look bad, and you get fired. So, what good does it do? So, what's going to happen with this one is the same thing is that somebody's going to come back and they're going to say, you know, the study was the study is flawed as opposed to looking at it in the way that it should be looked at. How about looking at this as important scientific information that can inform how the proper study should be done? It won't be taken like that. And then I say why because there's a political agenda to it. I get it. It has its issues. Any retrospective study is always going to have the same problems, right? Always have the same attacks upon it. There are limitations to retrospective studies. That's the reason why we like to do randomized clinical trials when we can because they don't have the same limitations. The major one that you have to worry about with retrospective studies is things that are different between the groups that you're comparing that you're unable to account for. If you want a flawless study, do a placebo control trial. Any retrospective study is going to have flaws in it. But in this study, they made a point to address many of the flaws that they found themselves. If someone were critical of the study, I think issues that a researcher might raise would be things like the different lengths of followup for the groups between the children who received no vaccines and the children who receive vaccines. The authors actually did do a sensitivity analysis where they limited the analysis to children who had at least a certain amount of followup. When they limited the follow-up time for both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated to one year, it's still 2.75 times higher rate of chronic disease in the vaccinated. And when they limit it to 3 years, it's 3.38 times the rate of chronic disease in the vaccinated. And when they limit it to 5 years, it's four times greater. So no matter what they did to limit the follow-up time, the results of the study didn't change. The results indicate that the different follow-up period really did not have a substantial effect on the research question that they were probing. Another concern is that there are just big differences in how likely the children who received no vaccines were to seek health care compared to the children who received vaccines. So in other words, could the differences we're finding in the study just be due to the fact that these kids were being seen less often and so they're getting fewer diagnosis? To try and address this, they limited the population of children who didn't receive any vaccines to children who at least had some number of medical visits. And even in that sensitivity analysis, the main findings persisted.
1:08:12 reassuring. The authors did a good job with the information that they had. I have seen studies on vaccines published in good journals that are much weaker in quality.
Is what you your study shows is it important? You Yeah, it is important. You know who you should send it to? went to what I told you a while ago because I'm just not going to do I'm not going to do it cuz I don't want to I don't want to end up like Giddy or I I don't want to suffer what Mala McCulla did. But, you know, I give him credit for for taking it. Um you know, standing up for it, but um I'm just not going to I'm not going to do it. In any other climate, in a regular climate, you would have put this study out just as it is, right? If we weren't in this world of censorship, I put it out just how it is. You would? I put it out just how it is. I'd like to I'd like to just finish out my work, you know, doing international work. Part of my reluctance to do anything is that nothing is going to come out of it other than me losing my job, which I'd rather not see happen. I'm open it. We're here because I fully respect you and I recognize the danger of I said to you. I said to you, if you do this study, I'm going to repeat it to you cuz I remember. I said, "If you do the study, you're going to come under fire." You said, "I don't care about that. I'm all about the data and I'm about to retire anyway." That's literally what you said. Yeah. So, your your energy has definitely changed on that. But energy is changing. Let me put it this way. I put my whole career on the line because I saw an issue what I I saw an issue that is affecting the children of America and the world. We have a serious growing problem of autoimmune disease, chronic illness. I am not saying that vaccines are the only cause, but I am saying this program needs some serious work. We had much better health when we were getting 10 20 vaccines at 54 shots with 72 doses. It is clear we are not making our children healthier. They're going the wrong direction. If there's a way to do this program better, which I believe, you know, I've never said I'm trying to eradicate vaccines from the planet, but we are at an autism rate now of what 1 in 26 28. We have some serious issues. No, I I actually agree with that. Is there a different way we could be doing? But how do we get there if if if I finally What are the odds? I find someone like you that is has got the clout. If we can't if I can't get this study out, then what hope is there for every kid in the future? I can't do [ __ ] for them. Unless there's a change in leadership, nothing's going to happen. publishing one, you know, one study like uh uh like this like this one is not gonna it's not gonna um it's actually the right thing to do. I don't want to say it's not the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do, but the uh I just don't want to and I don't want to say have enough problems, but I I've got enough things like that that I'm already dealing with and I don't want another Hold on. Hold on. I just want to say this. This is the Galileo moment. I believe this changes more lives than anything there is. If we can fix this vaccine program, it doesn't just change millions of children's lives here in America. It changes worldwide. You'll be the father of the change in the system. That's historic. And I want to work with you to do that. This is why we're here. Yeah. No, I see what you're saying. I see what you're saying. We have an ability to do something that no one ever dreamed possible. If it's not you, then who? For some reason, they always hammering has always comes towards me. No, I can't handle it. I I really And I'm No, I I'm not a good person. I can't handle it. I I'm not a good person, but um I'm just not going to do I'm not going to I'm not going to do that cuz I've got other stuff to worry about.
Det var för att det vore karriärsjälvmord, han hade blivit socialt misshandlad men att han tycker att den bör publiceras.
Han är tydlig med att studien aldrig hade utformningen att bevisa om vaccin orsakar kronisk sjukdom utan att se ifall det finns en signal att de gör de.
Vad annat än att de begås en konspiration om att tysta ned skadorna från vacciner?
https://youtu.be/mvEuMMAafF8?si=9kvfeKGSn-HIqXR0&t=3835
1:03:58 the PR at Henry Ford, they put a gag order on me, you know, I couldn't talk about anything. And they said to me, Mark, so what? You know, so so so you go on CNN, you know, which they would be happy. They'd be thrilled to have you on CNN and you know, and you say what you feel, but they're just going to twist what you say anyway and make you look bad anyway. So what good what what good is it going to be? So I should still be able to defend myself and, you know, and say what the inaccuracies are. So, I'm thinking to myself, maybe maybe the Henry Ford PR was right. Is that it's just going to get twisted around anyway, make you look bad, and you get fired. So, what good does it do? So, what's going to happen with this one is the same thing is that somebody's going to come back and they're going to say, you know, the study was the study is flawed as opposed to looking at it in the way that it should be looked at. How about looking at this as important scientific information that can inform how the proper study should be done? It won't be taken like that. And then I say why because there's a political agenda to it. I get it. It has its issues. Any retrospective study is always going to have the same problems, right? Always have the same attacks upon it. There are limitations to retrospective studies. That's the reason why we like to do randomized clinical trials when we can because they don't have the same limitations. The major one that you have to worry about with retrospective studies is things that are different between the groups that you're comparing that you're unable to account for. If you want a flawless study, do a placebo control trial. Any retrospective study is going to have flaws in it. But in this study, they made a point to address many of the flaws that they found themselves. If someone were critical of the study, I think issues that a researcher might raise would be things like the different lengths of followup for the groups between the children who received no vaccines and the children who receive vaccines. The authors actually did do a sensitivity analysis where they limited the analysis to children who had at least a certain amount of followup. When they limited the follow-up time for both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated to one year, it's still 2.75 times higher rate of chronic disease in the vaccinated. And when they limit it to 3 years, it's 3.38 times the rate of chronic disease in the vaccinated. And when they limit it to 5 years, it's four times greater. So no matter what they did to limit the follow-up time, the results of the study didn't change. The results indicate that the different follow-up period really did not have a substantial effect on the research question that they were probing. Another concern is that there are just big differences in how likely the children who received no vaccines were to seek health care compared to the children who received vaccines. So in other words, could the differences we're finding in the study just be due to the fact that these kids were being seen less often and so they're getting fewer diagnosis? To try and address this, they limited the population of children who didn't receive any vaccines to children who at least had some number of medical visits. And even in that sensitivity analysis, the main findings persisted.
1:08:12 reassuring. The authors did a good job with the information that they had. I have seen studies on vaccines published in good journals that are much weaker in quality.
Is what you your study shows is it important? You Yeah, it is important. You know who you should send it to? went to what I told you a while ago because I'm just not going to do I'm not going to do it cuz I don't want to I don't want to end up like Giddy or I I don't want to suffer what Mala McCulla did. But, you know, I give him credit for for taking it. Um you know, standing up for it, but um I'm just not going to I'm not going to do it. In any other climate, in a regular climate, you would have put this study out just as it is, right? If we weren't in this world of censorship, I put it out just how it is. You would? I put it out just how it is. I'd like to I'd like to just finish out my work, you know, doing international work. Part of my reluctance to do anything is that nothing is going to come out of it other than me losing my job, which I'd rather not see happen. I'm open it. We're here because I fully respect you and I recognize the danger of I said to you. I said to you, if you do this study, I'm going to repeat it to you cuz I remember. I said, "If you do the study, you're going to come under fire." You said, "I don't care about that. I'm all about the data and I'm about to retire anyway." That's literally what you said. Yeah. So, your your energy has definitely changed on that. But energy is changing. Let me put it this way. I put my whole career on the line because I saw an issue what I I saw an issue that is affecting the children of America and the world. We have a serious growing problem of autoimmune disease, chronic illness. I am not saying that vaccines are the only cause, but I am saying this program needs some serious work. We had much better health when we were getting 10 20 vaccines at 54 shots with 72 doses. It is clear we are not making our children healthier. They're going the wrong direction. If there's a way to do this program better, which I believe, you know, I've never said I'm trying to eradicate vaccines from the planet, but we are at an autism rate now of what 1 in 26 28. We have some serious issues. No, I I actually agree with that. Is there a different way we could be doing? But how do we get there if if if I finally What are the odds? I find someone like you that is has got the clout. If we can't if I can't get this study out, then what hope is there for every kid in the future? I can't do [ __ ] for them. Unless there's a change in leadership, nothing's going to happen. publishing one, you know, one study like uh uh like this like this one is not gonna it's not gonna um it's actually the right thing to do. I don't want to say it's not the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do, but the uh I just don't want to and I don't want to say have enough problems, but I I've got enough things like that that I'm already dealing with and I don't want another Hold on. Hold on. I just want to say this. This is the Galileo moment. I believe this changes more lives than anything there is. If we can fix this vaccine program, it doesn't just change millions of children's lives here in America. It changes worldwide. You'll be the father of the change in the system. That's historic. And I want to work with you to do that. This is why we're here. Yeah. No, I see what you're saying. I see what you're saying. We have an ability to do something that no one ever dreamed possible. If it's not you, then who? For some reason, they always hammering has always comes towards me. No, I can't handle it. I I really And I'm No, I I'm not a good person. I can't handle it. I I'm not a good person, but um I'm just not going to do I'm not going to I'm not going to do that cuz I've got other stuff to worry about.
__________________
Senast redigerad av Ajogen 2026-07-24 kl. 14:28.
Senast redigerad av Ajogen 2026-07-24 kl. 14:28.
Citat:
Bra.
Här är en del av transkriptet som tydligt besvarar era frågor om varför studien inte publicerades.
Det var för att det vore karriärsjälvmord, han hade blivit socialt misshandlad men att han tycker att den bör publiceras.
Han är tydlig med att studien aldrig hade utformningen att bevisa om vaccin orsakar kronisk sjukdom utan att se ifall det finns en signal att de gör de.
Vad annat än att de begås en konspiration om att tysta ned skadorna från vacciner?
https://youtu.be/mvEuMMAafF8?si=9kvfeKGSn-HIqXR0&t=3835
1:03:58 the PR at Henry Ford, they put a gag order on me, you know, I couldn't talk about anything. And they said to me, Mark, so what? You know, so so so you go on CNN, you know, which they would be happy. They'd be thrilled to have you on CNN and you know, and you say what you feel, but they're just going to twist what you say anyway and make you look bad anyway. So what good what what good is it going to be? So I should still be able to defend myself and, you know, and say what the inaccuracies are. So, I'm thinking to myself, maybe maybe the Henry Ford PR was right. Is that it's just going to get twisted around anyway, make you look bad, and you get fired. So, what good does it do? So, what's going to happen with this one is the same thing is that somebody's going to come back and they're going to say, you know, the study was the study is flawed as opposed to looking at it in the way that it should be looked at. How about looking at this as important scientific information that can inform how the proper study should be done? It won't be taken like that. And then I say why because there's a political agenda to it. I get it. It has its issues. Any retrospective study is always going to have the same problems, right? Always have the same attacks upon it. There are limitations to retrospective studies. That's the reason why we like to do randomized clinical trials when we can because they don't have the same limitations. The major one that you have to worry about with retrospective studies is things that are different between the groups that you're comparing that you're unable to account for. If you want a flawless study, do a placebo control trial. Any retrospective study is going to have flaws in it. But in this study, they made a point to address many of the flaws that they found themselves. If someone were critical of the study, I think issues that a researcher might raise would be things like the different lengths of followup for the groups between the children who received no vaccines and the children who receive vaccines. The authors actually did do a sensitivity analysis where they limited the analysis to children who had at least a certain amount of followup. When they limited the follow-up time for both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated to one year, it's still 2.75 times higher rate of chronic disease in the vaccinated. And when they limit it to 3 years, it's 3.38 times the rate of chronic disease in the vaccinated. And when they limit it to 5 years, it's four times greater. So no matter what they did to limit the follow-up time, the results of the study didn't change. The results indicate that the different follow-up period really did not have a substantial effect on the research question that they were probing. Another concern is that there are just big differences in how likely the children who received no vaccines were to seek health care compared to the children who received vaccines. So in other words, could the differences we're finding in the study just be due to the fact that these kids were being seen less often and so they're getting fewer diagnosis? To try and address this, they limited the population of children who didn't receive any vaccines to children who at least had some number of medical visits. And even in that sensitivity analysis, the main findings persisted.
1:08:12 reassuring. The authors did a good job with the information that they had. I have seen studies on vaccines published in good journals that are much weaker in quality.
Is what you your study shows is it important? You Yeah, it is important. You know who you should send it to? went to what I told you a while ago because I'm just not going to do I'm not going to do it cuz I don't want to I don't want to end up like Giddy or I I don't want to suffer what Mala McCulla did. But, you know, I give him credit for for taking it. Um you know, standing up for it, but um I'm just not going to I'm not going to do it. In any other climate, in a regular climate, you would have put this study out just as it is, right? If we weren't in this world of censorship, I put it out just how it is. You would? I put it out just how it is. I'd like to I'd like to just finish out my work, you know, doing international work. Part of my reluctance to do anything is that nothing is going to come out of it other than me losing my job, which I'd rather not see happen. I'm open it. We're here because I fully respect you and I recognize the danger of I said to you. I said to you, if you do this study, I'm going to repeat it to you cuz I remember. I said, "If you do the study, you're going to come under fire." You said, "I don't care about that. I'm all about the data and I'm about to retire anyway." That's literally what you said. Yeah. So, your your energy has definitely changed on that. But energy is changing. Let me put it this way. I put my whole career on the line because I saw an issue what I I saw an issue that is affecting the children of America and the world. We have a serious growing problem of autoimmune disease, chronic illness. I am not saying that vaccines are the only cause, but I am saying this program needs some serious work. We had much better health when we were getting 10 20 vaccines at 54 shots with 72 doses. It is clear we are not making our children healthier. They're going the wrong direction. If there's a way to do this program better, which I believe, you know, I've never said I'm trying to eradicate vaccines from the planet, but we are at an autism rate now of what 1 in 26 28. We have some serious issues. No, I I actually agree with that. Is there a different way we could be doing? But how do we get there if if if I finally What are the odds? I find someone like you that is has got the clout. If we can't if I can't get this study out, then what hope is there for every kid in the future? I can't do [ __ ] for them. Unless there's a change in leadership, nothing's going to happen. publishing one, you know, one study like uh uh like this like this one is not gonna it's not gonna um it's actually the right thing to do. I don't want to say it's not the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do, but the uh I just don't want to and I don't want to say have enough problems, but I I've got enough things like that that I'm already dealing with and I don't want another Hold on. Hold on. I just want to say this. This is the Galileo moment. I believe this changes more lives than anything there is. If we can fix this vaccine program, it doesn't just change millions of children's lives here in America. It changes worldwide. You'll be the father of the change in the system. That's historic. And I want to work with you to do that. This is why we're here. Yeah. No, I see what you're saying. I see what you're saying. We have an ability to do something that no one ever dreamed possible. If it's not you, then who? For some reason, they always hammering has always comes towards me. No, I can't handle it. I I really And I'm No, I I'm not a good person. I can't handle it. I I'm not a good person, but um I'm just not going to do I'm not going to I'm not going to do that cuz I've got other stuff to worry about.
Det var för att det vore karriärsjälvmord, han hade blivit socialt misshandlad men att han tycker att den bör publiceras.
Han är tydlig med att studien aldrig hade utformningen att bevisa om vaccin orsakar kronisk sjukdom utan att se ifall det finns en signal att de gör de.
Vad annat än att de begås en konspiration om att tysta ned skadorna från vacciner?
https://youtu.be/mvEuMMAafF8?si=9kvfeKGSn-HIqXR0&t=3835
1:03:58 the PR at Henry Ford, they put a gag order on me, you know, I couldn't talk about anything. And they said to me, Mark, so what? You know, so so so you go on CNN, you know, which they would be happy. They'd be thrilled to have you on CNN and you know, and you say what you feel, but they're just going to twist what you say anyway and make you look bad anyway. So what good what what good is it going to be? So I should still be able to defend myself and, you know, and say what the inaccuracies are. So, I'm thinking to myself, maybe maybe the Henry Ford PR was right. Is that it's just going to get twisted around anyway, make you look bad, and you get fired. So, what good does it do? So, what's going to happen with this one is the same thing is that somebody's going to come back and they're going to say, you know, the study was the study is flawed as opposed to looking at it in the way that it should be looked at. How about looking at this as important scientific information that can inform how the proper study should be done? It won't be taken like that. And then I say why because there's a political agenda to it. I get it. It has its issues. Any retrospective study is always going to have the same problems, right? Always have the same attacks upon it. There are limitations to retrospective studies. That's the reason why we like to do randomized clinical trials when we can because they don't have the same limitations. The major one that you have to worry about with retrospective studies is things that are different between the groups that you're comparing that you're unable to account for. If you want a flawless study, do a placebo control trial. Any retrospective study is going to have flaws in it. But in this study, they made a point to address many of the flaws that they found themselves. If someone were critical of the study, I think issues that a researcher might raise would be things like the different lengths of followup for the groups between the children who received no vaccines and the children who receive vaccines. The authors actually did do a sensitivity analysis where they limited the analysis to children who had at least a certain amount of followup. When they limited the follow-up time for both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated to one year, it's still 2.75 times higher rate of chronic disease in the vaccinated. And when they limit it to 3 years, it's 3.38 times the rate of chronic disease in the vaccinated. And when they limit it to 5 years, it's four times greater. So no matter what they did to limit the follow-up time, the results of the study didn't change. The results indicate that the different follow-up period really did not have a substantial effect on the research question that they were probing. Another concern is that there are just big differences in how likely the children who received no vaccines were to seek health care compared to the children who received vaccines. So in other words, could the differences we're finding in the study just be due to the fact that these kids were being seen less often and so they're getting fewer diagnosis? To try and address this, they limited the population of children who didn't receive any vaccines to children who at least had some number of medical visits. And even in that sensitivity analysis, the main findings persisted.
1:08:12 reassuring. The authors did a good job with the information that they had. I have seen studies on vaccines published in good journals that are much weaker in quality.
Is what you your study shows is it important? You Yeah, it is important. You know who you should send it to? went to what I told you a while ago because I'm just not going to do I'm not going to do it cuz I don't want to I don't want to end up like Giddy or I I don't want to suffer what Mala McCulla did. But, you know, I give him credit for for taking it. Um you know, standing up for it, but um I'm just not going to I'm not going to do it. In any other climate, in a regular climate, you would have put this study out just as it is, right? If we weren't in this world of censorship, I put it out just how it is. You would? I put it out just how it is. I'd like to I'd like to just finish out my work, you know, doing international work. Part of my reluctance to do anything is that nothing is going to come out of it other than me losing my job, which I'd rather not see happen. I'm open it. We're here because I fully respect you and I recognize the danger of I said to you. I said to you, if you do this study, I'm going to repeat it to you cuz I remember. I said, "If you do the study, you're going to come under fire." You said, "I don't care about that. I'm all about the data and I'm about to retire anyway." That's literally what you said. Yeah. So, your your energy has definitely changed on that. But energy is changing. Let me put it this way. I put my whole career on the line because I saw an issue what I I saw an issue that is affecting the children of America and the world. We have a serious growing problem of autoimmune disease, chronic illness. I am not saying that vaccines are the only cause, but I am saying this program needs some serious work. We had much better health when we were getting 10 20 vaccines at 54 shots with 72 doses. It is clear we are not making our children healthier. They're going the wrong direction. If there's a way to do this program better, which I believe, you know, I've never said I'm trying to eradicate vaccines from the planet, but we are at an autism rate now of what 1 in 26 28. We have some serious issues. No, I I actually agree with that. Is there a different way we could be doing? But how do we get there if if if I finally What are the odds? I find someone like you that is has got the clout. If we can't if I can't get this study out, then what hope is there for every kid in the future? I can't do [ __ ] for them. Unless there's a change in leadership, nothing's going to happen. publishing one, you know, one study like uh uh like this like this one is not gonna it's not gonna um it's actually the right thing to do. I don't want to say it's not the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do, but the uh I just don't want to and I don't want to say have enough problems, but I I've got enough things like that that I'm already dealing with and I don't want another Hold on. Hold on. I just want to say this. This is the Galileo moment. I believe this changes more lives than anything there is. If we can fix this vaccine program, it doesn't just change millions of children's lives here in America. It changes worldwide. You'll be the father of the change in the system. That's historic. And I want to work with you to do that. This is why we're here. Yeah. No, I see what you're saying. I see what you're saying. We have an ability to do something that no one ever dreamed possible. If it's not you, then who? For some reason, they always hammering has always comes towards me. No, I can't handle it. I I really And I'm No, I I'm not a good person. I can't handle it. I I'm not a good person, but um I'm just not going to do I'm not going to I'm not going to do that cuz I've got other stuff to worry about.
Nu kanske du kan vara vänlig att peka ut VAR i denna transkribering Zervos påstår följande:
Citat:
Citat:
Citat:
I dokumentären exponeras försök till att tysta och hemlighålla resultat av studien. Exempelvis så filmas Marcus J Zervos i hemlighet där han erkänner att vaccin troligtvis orsakar kroniska sjukdomar.
Citat:
Sätt igång nu och peka ut VAR Zervos påstår något av det du svamlat ihop ovan.
FÖR DU MENAR VÄL INTE ATT DU SITTER OCH LJUGER? HELT SKAMLÖST!? Bra, peka då ut VAR han säger något av ovan.
VAR!???
Herregud....
__________________
Senast redigerad av korrektamund0 2026-07-24 kl. 15:16.
Senast redigerad av korrektamund0 2026-07-24 kl. 15:16.
Citat:
Jag är inte utbildad I medicin. Utan I psykologi.
Och en tydlig svaghet i studien är obalansen i antal vad gäller vaccinerade och ovaccinerade.
En vill att grupperna ska vara ungefär lika stora.
I det här fallet ca 16 000 i varje grupp. Inte 16 000 i en grupp och 2000 i den andra.
Sen verkar de ha följt de ovaccinerade för kort tid.
3 år räcker inte för att få ett vettigt resultat. Framförallt inte vad gäller adhd och autism.
Många kan inte diagnostiseras sina första år.
Vi talar om grava fall av autism eller intellektuell funktionsnedsättning. Eller en kombination av flera diagnoser. Generellt sätts diagnoser när barn börjar i skolan.
Men jag har inte tillgång till studien. Och de flesta länkar i trådstarten leder ingenstans.
Den här typen av forskning är komplicerad. Och vid den här typen av studie bör en följa deltagarna i minst 15 år. Troligtvis längre. Och studien bör vara mycket större för att kunna dra slutsatser.
Det är sannolikt att den inte blivit publicerad för att den inte håller tillräckligt hög standard.
Du får gärna uppdatera länkar. Jag är öppen för att vetenskapen kan ha missat något. Det händer mellan varven inom medicin och andra ämnen.
Citat:
Du kanske ska ta och bilda dig lite mer eftersom du har svårt att läsa.
Jag är inte utbildad I medicin. Utan I psykologi.
Och en tydlig svaghet i studien är obalansen i antal vad gäller vaccinerade och ovaccinerade.
En vill att grupperna ska vara ungefär lika stora.
I det här fallet ca 16 000 i varje grupp. Inte 16 000 i en grupp och 2000 i den andra.
Sen verkar de ha följt de ovaccinerade för kort tid.
3 år räcker inte för att få ett vettigt resultat. Framförallt inte vad gäller adhd och autism.
Många kan inte diagnostiseras sina första år.
Vi talar om grava fall av autism eller intellektuell funktionsnedsättning. Eller en kombination av flera diagnoser. Generellt sätts diagnoser när barn börjar i skolan.
Men jag har inte tillgång till studien. Och de flesta länkar i trådstarten leder ingenstans.
Den här typen av forskning är komplicerad. Och vid den här typen av studie bör en följa deltagarna i minst 15 år. Troligtvis längre. Och studien bör vara mycket större för att kunna dra slutsatser.
Det är sannolikt att den inte blivit publicerad för att den inte håller tillräckligt hög standard.
Du får gärna uppdatera länkar. Jag är öppen för att vetenskapen kan ha missat något. Det händer mellan varven inom medicin och andra ämnen.
Och en tydlig svaghet i studien är obalansen i antal vad gäller vaccinerade och ovaccinerade.
En vill att grupperna ska vara ungefär lika stora.
I det här fallet ca 16 000 i varje grupp. Inte 16 000 i en grupp och 2000 i den andra.
Sen verkar de ha följt de ovaccinerade för kort tid.
3 år räcker inte för att få ett vettigt resultat. Framförallt inte vad gäller adhd och autism.
Många kan inte diagnostiseras sina första år.
Vi talar om grava fall av autism eller intellektuell funktionsnedsättning. Eller en kombination av flera diagnoser. Generellt sätts diagnoser när barn börjar i skolan.
Men jag har inte tillgång till studien. Och de flesta länkar i trådstarten leder ingenstans.
Den här typen av forskning är komplicerad. Och vid den här typen av studie bör en följa deltagarna i minst 15 år. Troligtvis längre. Och studien bör vara mycket större för att kunna dra slutsatser.
Det är sannolikt att den inte blivit publicerad för att den inte håller tillräckligt hög standard.
Du får gärna uppdatera länkar. Jag är öppen för att vetenskapen kan ha missat något. Det händer mellan varven inom medicin och andra ämnen.
Av alla studier som har gjorts i området så är det här den bästa.
Det är inte för att studien är stark som den är bäst, utan för att alla andra studier är så svaga.
Att det behövs en starkare studie har de till och med i deras slutsats.
Vad är det här? Läs igenom saker och ting innan du kommenterar.
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Entered-into-hearing-record-Impact-of-Childhood-Vaccination-on-Short-and-Long-Term-Chronic-Health-Ou tcomes-in-Children-A-Birth-Cohort-Study.pdf
Är länken till studien i min TS, fungerar utmärkt.
Our preliminary findings cannot prove causality and warrant further investigation. även det är från TS.
Här är dokumentären: https://www.aninconvenientstudy.com/
Citat:
Det "finns" ingen "rapport" eller "studie", bara ett manuskript som upprättats efter någon form av analytisk aktivitet.
Jag är inte utbildad I medicin. Utan I psykologi.
Och en tydlig svaghet i studien är obalansen i antal vad gäller vaccinerade och ovaccinerade.
En vill att grupperna ska vara ungefär lika stora.
I det här fallet ca 16 000 i varje grupp. Inte 16 000 i en grupp och 2000 i den andra.
Sen verkar de ha följt de ovaccinerade för kort tid.
3 år räcker inte för att få ett vettigt resultat. Framförallt inte vad gäller adhd och autism.
Många kan inte diagnostiseras sina första år.
Vi talar om grava fall av autism eller intellektuell funktionsnedsättning. Eller en kombination av flera diagnoser. Generellt sätts diagnoser när barn börjar i skolan.
Men jag har inte tillgång till studien. Och de flesta länkar i trådstarten leder ingenstans.
Den här typen av forskning är komplicerad. Och vid den här typen av studie bör en följa deltagarna i minst 15 år. Troligtvis längre. Och studien bör vara mycket större för att kunna dra slutsatser.
Det är sannolikt att den inte blivit publicerad för att den inte håller tillräckligt hög standard.
Du får gärna uppdatera länkar. Jag är öppen för att vetenskapen kan ha missat något. Det händer mellan varven inom medicin och andra ämnen.
Och en tydlig svaghet i studien är obalansen i antal vad gäller vaccinerade och ovaccinerade.
En vill att grupperna ska vara ungefär lika stora.
I det här fallet ca 16 000 i varje grupp. Inte 16 000 i en grupp och 2000 i den andra.
Sen verkar de ha följt de ovaccinerade för kort tid.
3 år räcker inte för att få ett vettigt resultat. Framförallt inte vad gäller adhd och autism.
Många kan inte diagnostiseras sina första år.
Vi talar om grava fall av autism eller intellektuell funktionsnedsättning. Eller en kombination av flera diagnoser. Generellt sätts diagnoser när barn börjar i skolan.
Men jag har inte tillgång till studien. Och de flesta länkar i trådstarten leder ingenstans.
Den här typen av forskning är komplicerad. Och vid den här typen av studie bör en följa deltagarna i minst 15 år. Troligtvis längre. Och studien bör vara mycket större för att kunna dra slutsatser.
Det är sannolikt att den inte blivit publicerad för att den inte håller tillräckligt hög standard.
Du får gärna uppdatera länkar. Jag är öppen för att vetenskapen kan ha missat något. Det händer mellan varven inom medicin och andra ämnen.
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Entered-into-hearing-record-Impact-of-Childhood-Vaccination-on-Short-and-Long-Term-Chronic-Health-Ou tcomes-in-Children-A-Birth-Cohort-Study.pdf
Det finns inte heller något protokoll (publicerat eller känt), men min gissning är att ansökan till IRB gjordes på ett protokoll som skiljer sig från metod och design i manuskriptet (Ford Health har också påtalat att de inte kan garantera att manuskriptet inte ändrats från det att det lämnade Ford Health och kom på villovägar). De menar tvärtom att det finns anledning att tro att manuskriptet ändrats.
Citat:
Henry Ford Health was unaware this rejected and unvalidated draft from the early COVID era had somehow been shared or was being discussed, and the health system was never given an opportunity to weigh in on the topic. In addition, because the draft was shared without the system’s knowledge, there’s reason to believe it’s been altered from its original form and made to appear finalized, which it was not.
In addition, this flawed paper is now also being falsely connected to a long-term, NIH-funded research cohort at Henry Ford Health. The disinformation being presented on social media is dangerous, as it aims to sow doubt in the legitimacy of the ongoing research. The health system urges anyone who comes across content regarding this discredited draft to recognize it’s being weaponized.
https://www.henryford.com/news/2025/09/vaccine-study-henry-ford-health
In addition, this flawed paper is now also being falsely connected to a long-term, NIH-funded research cohort at Henry Ford Health. The disinformation being presented on social media is dangerous, as it aims to sow doubt in the legitimacy of the ongoing research. The health system urges anyone who comes across content regarding this discredited draft to recognize it’s being weaponized.
https://www.henryford.com/news/2025/09/vaccine-study-henry-ford-health
Uppföljningstiden är mycket värre än du nämner. 25% av de ovaccinerade följde man bara från födseln till 6 månaders ålder. 50% av de ovaccinerade följde man bara tills de var 15 månader. Endast 25% följde man tills de var äldre än 3 år.
Vad värre är, för de barn som var kvar noterades en märkbar skillnad i läkarbesök. Många av barnen hade NOLL läkarbesök (föräldrar som inte vaccinerar sina barn gör det ofta av orsaker som enkelt kan beskrivas som "misstro mot samhället" samt religiösa skäl). Sjukdomar kan alltså inte diagnostiseras om man inte går till läkaren.
I den statistiska analysen kontrollerade man inte för dessa skillnader mellan grupperna, och man valde an analysmetod (COX) som har som KRAV att grupperna var likartade. Jag har förklarat detta ingående:
Citat:
Analysen de använder i Ford-studien är en Cox proportionell riskmodell. Och om man kan något av detta (DU kan inte ett skit utan sitter bara och snackar goja) så vet man att ett av de grundläggande antagandena som är avgörande för en Cox proprtionell risk modell är att förändringen i risken från en kategori till en annan måste vara oberoende av tid.
Det betyder att om risken för att diagnostiseras med (i det här fallet) Diabetes Typ1 förändras över tid, SÅ KAN MAN INTE ANVÄNDA DEN MODELLEN FÖR ANALYS.
Och om vi tittar på vad idioterna som designade Ford-studien höll på med så var det just TID som skiljde de två grupperna åt, både gällande ålder som de följdes men också tidsspannet under vilken de följdes. Men i synnerhet (vad gäller Diabetes Typ1) så följde man ju för FAN inte ens de ovaccinerade barnen till den ålder där majoriteten av Diabetes Typ 1 upptäcks.
Det betyder att om risken för att diagnostiseras med (i det här fallet) Diabetes Typ1 förändras över tid, SÅ KAN MAN INTE ANVÄNDA DEN MODELLEN FÖR ANALYS.
Och om vi tittar på vad idioterna som designade Ford-studien höll på med så var det just TID som skiljde de två grupperna åt, både gällande ålder som de följdes men också tidsspannet under vilken de följdes. Men i synnerhet (vad gäller Diabetes Typ1) så följde man ju för FAN inte ens de ovaccinerade barnen till den ålder där majoriteten av Diabetes Typ 1 upptäcks.
Så du har HELT rätt. Precis som Ford Health:
Citat:
There are many factors that determine whether a research paper should be submitted for consideration by scientific journals or otherwise shared with the public. In this case, a 2020 draft of a paper that aimed to compare health outcomes for vaccinated and unvaccinated children was immediately shelved upon the first internal peer review because of serious issues with its data and methodology. Those flaws included:
The unvaccinated patient sample was vastly different than the vaccinated sample, with more males, more white children, less prematurity and less respiratory distress at birth.
The unvaccinated sample was very small in comparison to the vaccinated sample.
The amount of time measuring occurrence of disease was much shorter for the unvaccinated children.
One quarter were observed only through six months of age, and 75% were only observed up until age 3, which is before doctors can confidently diagnose chronic pediatric diseases.
The draft compared multiple vaccines vs. no vaccines, instead of a specific vaccine vs. no vaccines.
No consideration was given to the number of vaccines or the duration of time between vaccines and the occurrence of disease.
Vaccine guidance has changed over time, but that was not taken into consideration.
https://www.henryford.com/news/2025/09/vaccine-study-henry-ford-health
The unvaccinated patient sample was vastly different than the vaccinated sample, with more males, more white children, less prematurity and less respiratory distress at birth.
The unvaccinated sample was very small in comparison to the vaccinated sample.
The amount of time measuring occurrence of disease was much shorter for the unvaccinated children.
One quarter were observed only through six months of age, and 75% were only observed up until age 3, which is before doctors can confidently diagnose chronic pediatric diseases.
The draft compared multiple vaccines vs. no vaccines, instead of a specific vaccine vs. no vaccines.
No consideration was given to the number of vaccines or the duration of time between vaccines and the occurrence of disease.
Vaccine guidance has changed over time, but that was not taken into consideration.
https://www.henryford.com/news/2025/09/vaccine-study-henry-ford-health
__________________
Senast redigerad av korrektamund0 2026-07-24 kl. 16:57.
Senast redigerad av korrektamund0 2026-07-24 kl. 16:57.
Citat:
Det är inte en välutförd studie. Den kritik som jag för fram är vattentät.
Hade studien varit väldesignad så hade de redan tagit i beaktning det jag nämnde i studiens design. Att försöka rädda ett sjunkande skepp och sedan presentera det som övertygande. Nej, det håller inte.
Sedan vill jag påminna dig om att vad författarna själva säger i de irrelevanta delarna av en studie har ingen större relevans. Det som har relevans är metodologin, hur studien var designad och resultatet. Det är så man analyserar studier för annars finns det risk att man färgas av författarnas tolkning (vilket är precis det som har hänt dig).
Det är ett vanligt misstag att tro att man behöver läsa studier ifrån A-Ö. Behövs inte. Räcker med metodologin, design och resultatet.
Så jag står fast vid min ståndpunkt och jag har dubbelkollat så jag vet att jag har tänkt rätt. Sedan finns det flera auktoriteter som också har gett ett utlåtande kring detta.
Hade studien varit väldesignad så hade de redan tagit i beaktning det jag nämnde i studiens design. Att försöka rädda ett sjunkande skepp och sedan presentera det som övertygande. Nej, det håller inte.
Sedan vill jag påminna dig om att vad författarna själva säger i de irrelevanta delarna av en studie har ingen större relevans. Det som har relevans är metodologin, hur studien var designad och resultatet. Det är så man analyserar studier för annars finns det risk att man färgas av författarnas tolkning (vilket är precis det som har hänt dig).
Det är ett vanligt misstag att tro att man behöver läsa studier ifrån A-Ö. Behövs inte. Räcker med metodologin, design och resultatet.
Så jag står fast vid min ståndpunkt och jag har dubbelkollat så jag vet att jag har tänkt rätt. Sedan finns det flera auktoriteter som också har gett ett utlåtande kring detta.
Aha ok auktoriteter.
Vilka är det du hänvisar till för din bedömning?
Skapa ett konto eller logga in för att kommentera
Du måste vara medlem för att kunna kommentera