Vax Death Spike

2021 Jul 13, 11:13am   10,123 views  276 comments

by Onvacation   ➕follow (2)   💰tip ($0.10 in tips)  

I downloaded a csv file from the CDC


I was curious about trends so I then downloaded the last six years of death data from the cdc and concatenated it into one file. I graphed it:

It was obvious that there was quite a spike from the corona virus (Blue Gray line) when I eliminated total deaths from the chart.

At this point I was curious if some of the other causes of death had gone down so I eliminated heart disease, cancer, and covid-19.

This is when I noticed the annual winter spike from flu and pneumonia was gone in 2020-2021. I also noticed the spike in "not elsewhere classified". I zoomed in and got this:

Logic using people can see there is a problem here.

« First    « Previous    Comments 273 - 276 of 276   

273   Onvacation   2021 Nov 24, 9:18am  

sjmoca says

All I did was dismantle your theory on "Vax Death Spike" with data. Make an informed choice.

So no answers. Wasn't expecting any.
274   Al_Sharpton_for_President   2021 Nov 24, 9:37am  

sjmoca says
Obviously the Covid mRNA vaccine must be causing gastric cancer, joint infections, emphysema, rheumatoid arthritis, myocardial infarctions, taiwanese lung cancer, glioma, osteosarcoma.

The PLUS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences, Inc, Irvine, CA) a clinically validated measurement of multiple protein biomarkers which generates a score predicting the 5 yr risk (percentage chance) of a new Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). Multiple biomarkers, not just one or two biomarkers. It has been validated as a tool for classifying Heart Disease.


Clinical Utility of the PULS Cardiac Test in Classifying Intermediate Risk Patients

Analytical Performance Validation of the PULS Cardiac Test

Clinical Validation of the PULS Cardiac Test for Improved Coronary Risk Assessment

275   GNL   2021 Nov 24, 10:36am  

sjmoca says
I disagree. The PULS test thing is extremely weak on research. Those few papers just say "yes this test measures the markers we want to measure" and "physicians adapted their treatment plan in response to our test", but critically, no studies are available that validate the predictive efficacy.

Which is most weak...The PCR test or the PULS test?
276   Al_Sharpton_for_President   2021 Nov 24, 1:28pm  

sjmoca says
I disagree.
You are engaging in hit-and run non-sequiturs by asserting that il-16 alone is a non-specific biomarker, and by providing an irrelevant reference (https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.1038/msb.2013.15) that does not measure the three biomarkers described as elevated in the ahajournals.org abstract 10712 cited above.

If you could cite publications where Il-16, soluble Fas, and HGF, the biomarkers described as elevated in the ahajournals.org abstract, were elevated in diseases other than heart disease, that could be a reasonable argument. But you have not, and it is not.

« First    « Previous    Comments 273 - 276 of 276   

Please register to comment:

about   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions