Kevin McKernan

three uh three days and there's 250 reports this is confusing i don't know what this means yeah what you can see there is a dose response i mean that's what you'll see in so in jessica's paper and what jessica and peter did is they put this through uh what's known as a bradford hill criteria so if you want to try and derive causation from you know from correlative information because

That's where everyone goes to to defend against this is, ah, it's just correlation. But it's a lot of correlation. So what Bradford Hill makes you go and do is you've got to show that there's a temporal connection, that it's within close temporal proximity of the actual dose that this happens. You have to show a biological trend in that more dose creates more problem, which they have here.

That's where everyone goes to to defend against this is, ah, it's just correlation. But it's a lot of correlation. So what Bradford Hill makes you go and do is you've got to show that there's a temporal connection, that it's within close temporal proximity of the actual dose that this happens. You have to show a biological trend in that more dose creates more problem, which they have here.

That's where everyone goes to to defend against this is, ah, it's just correlation. But it's a lot of correlation. So what Bradford Hill makes you go and do is you've got to show that there's a temporal connection, that it's within close temporal proximity of the actual dose that this happens. You have to show a biological trend in that more dose creates more problem, which they have here.

right okay um so there's a there's there's about 10 of these criteria in bradford hill that go through that help you determine whether something can be deemed causative or correlative and they've satisfied bradford hill criteria on this one on myocarditis that's what her paper goes through is that okay there's a time connection there's a biological mechanism there's a dose response to this uh and uh and and that that got suppressed for for three years go to the next slide steve 1321 reports what

right okay um so there's a there's there's about 10 of these criteria in bradford hill that go through that help you determine whether something can be deemed causative or correlative and they've satisfied bradford hill criteria on this one on myocarditis that's what her paper goes through is that okay there's a time connection there's a biological mechanism there's a dose response to this uh and uh and and that that got suppressed for for three years go to the next slide steve 1321 reports what

right okay um so there's a there's there's about 10 of these criteria in bradford hill that go through that help you determine whether something can be deemed causative or correlative and they've satisfied bradford hill criteria on this one on myocarditis that's what her paper goes through is that okay there's a time connection there's a biological mechanism there's a dose response to this uh and uh and and that that got suppressed for for three years go to the next slide steve 1321 reports what

uh verified using cdc case definition well that's a that's a word salad right there yeah there when the cdc gets involved with case definition they end up uh bearing most of it um but there are papers now out that look at autopsies that mccullough's been involved in and it's something like that's that's the cold hard truth and not enough autopsies were done but when he was looking through autopsies it was something like 70 to 75 of the cases they could pin to the vaccine

uh verified using cdc case definition well that's a that's a word salad right there yeah there when the cdc gets involved with case definition they end up uh bearing most of it um but there are papers now out that look at autopsies that mccullough's been involved in and it's something like that's that's the cold hard truth and not enough autopsies were done but when he was looking through autopsies it was something like 70 to 75 of the cases they could pin to the vaccine

uh verified using cdc case definition well that's a that's a word salad right there yeah there when the cdc gets involved with case definition they end up uh bearing most of it um but there are papers now out that look at autopsies that mccullough's been involved in and it's something like that's that's the cold hard truth and not enough autopsies were done but when he was looking through autopsies it was something like 70 to 75 of the cases they could pin to the vaccine

Whereas when it goes to the CDC's hands, it's like 7% or something. They start playing all these games being like, well, it could have been something else. But kids don't get myocarditis. This is one that's really overt that they kind of had to cough up. I think where the cancer stuff gets messy is it tends to be sometimes older people.

Whereas when it goes to the CDC's hands, it's like 7% or something. They start playing all these games being like, well, it could have been something else. But kids don't get myocarditis. This is one that's really overt that they kind of had to cough up. I think where the cancer stuff gets messy is it tends to be sometimes older people.

Whereas when it goes to the CDC's hands, it's like 7% or something. They start playing all these games being like, well, it could have been something else. But kids don't get myocarditis. This is one that's really overt that they kind of had to cough up. I think where the cancer stuff gets messy is it tends to be sometimes older people.

Um, although that is not, um, holding true with, uh, I was just with, uh, Dr. Maccas, uh, and he was showing that like the peak of cancer is actually like in the forties and fifties. So people are getting cancer like 10 years earlier. They're starting to screen earlier, uh, because of what's happened.

Um, although that is not, um, holding true with, uh, I was just with, uh, Dr. Maccas, uh, and he was showing that like the peak of cancer is actually like in the forties and fifties. So people are getting cancer like 10 years earlier. They're starting to screen earlier, uh, because of what's happened.

Um, although that is not, um, holding true with, uh, I was just with, uh, Dr. Maccas, uh, and he was showing that like the peak of cancer is actually like in the forties and fifties. So people are getting cancer like 10 years earlier. They're starting to screen earlier, uh, because of what's happened.

Like they're trying to move the mammograms up 10 years to try and move the colonoscopies up 10 years because, uh, that's in some ways, uh, That will actually hide the signal because you'll get more negatives when you do that. If you open up the scanning window and suddenly change it to 30 instead of 40 for breast cancer, suddenly you'll get a lot more people coming through that don't have it.

Like they're trying to move the mammograms up 10 years to try and move the colonoscopies up 10 years because, uh, that's in some ways, uh, That will actually hide the signal because you'll get more negatives when you do that. If you open up the scanning window and suddenly change it to 30 instead of 40 for breast cancer, suddenly you'll get a lot more people coming through that don't have it.

Like they're trying to move the mammograms up 10 years to try and move the colonoscopies up 10 years because, uh, that's in some ways, uh, That will actually hide the signal because you'll get more negatives when you do that. If you open up the scanning window and suddenly change it to 30 instead of 40 for breast cancer, suddenly you'll get a lot more people coming through that don't have it.

And so the prevalence rate will go down if they just move the window around on you. But you are picking some people up at those ages, which you shouldn't be. That's what I think is the most shocking thing. And John's data shows us as well that the age demographic shift happened after the vaccine came into play.