62% of vaccinated experience clotting

[stix213]

https://www.bitchute.com/video/NpCeoDfJRXq0/

Zoom style meeting with a doctor conducting a post vaccination clotting study. Preliminary results are 62% experience clotting based on blood tests within a week of getting the vaccine.

He goes on with his explanation that this is microscope clotting of the capillaries, such as in the lungs. If he's correct, he's predicting that this will cause a form of high blood pressure as the heart tries to pump blood through the clogged blood vessels. This may possibly lead to heart failure in a few years.

Hopefully he is incorrect in his predictions.

[Den60]

https://www.bitchute.com/video/NpCeoDfJRXq0/

Zoom style meeting with a doctor conducting a post vaccination clotting study. Preliminary results are 62% experience clotting based on blood tests within a week of getting the vaccine.

He goes on with his explanation that this is microscope clotting of the capillaries, such as in the lungs. If he's correct, he's predicting that this will cause a form of high blood pressure as the heart tries to pump blood through the clogged blood vessels. This may possibly lead to heart failure in a few years.

Hopefully he is incorrect in his predictions.

Interesting. My composites guy had to go to the hospital thinking he was having a heart attack. He had been vaccinated for a couple of months. Turned out his blood pressure had spiked. Doctors couldn't find a reason for it. He in his mid 50s and in good shape. My DAR had a minor heart attack, yep he has been vaccinated. Had a stent put in. His wife's a nurse and he has a commercial pilot's certificate (well, had) so gets a physical routinely.

[SloChicken]

It is an interesting investigation.
But according to the article below by a multi-national publication (AFP)

It seems his study in not peer-reviewed, nor does it have parameters established so others can test and confirm or refute his findings.
Further as the article reads, Hematologists around the world discount his theory of increased d-diner being definitive of clots.

Read here

https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252F9HK9UY-6

[DaveInOroValley]

One of the main reasons I will never get the jab. I already take blood thinners for a clotting disorder.

[stix213]

It is an interesting investigation.
But according to the article below by a multi-national publication (AFP)

It seems his study in not peer-reviewed, nor does it have parameters established so others can test and confirm or refute his findings.
Further as the article reads, Hematologists around the world discount his theory of increased d-diner being definitive of clots.

Read here

https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%...m%252F9HK9UY-6

He says these are his preliminary results. Publishing and peer review typically occurs after the study has completed, which is not the case yet.

Though virtually all studies that came out during the pandemic have also lacked peer review, because the peer review process takes a long time. If we were going to wait for peer review, we likely won't hear anything about this until sometime next year, and by then it largely doesn't matter as far as helping people decide whether to get the vaccine. We'll be on booster #3 by then.

I don't believe any study released by the CDC for covid or the vaccines has undergone peer review.

[sd_shooter]

I have hypertension. That will be my "medical reason" for not taking this death shot.

[71MUSTY]

62% of vaccinated experience clotting

I still wonder where they are putting all the bodies???? Death Valley must be full and they must be close to filling the Grand Canyon.

Or perhaps common sense suggest he has a design flaw in his model.

[Den60]

He says these are his preliminary results. Publishing and peer review typically occurs after the study has completed, which is not the case yet.

Though virtually all studies that came out during the pandemic have also lacked peer review, because the peer review process takes a long time. If we were going to wait for peer review, we likely won't hear anything about this until sometime next year, and by then it largely doesn't matter as far as helping people decide whether to get the vaccine. We'll be on booster #3 by then.

I don't believe any study released by the CDC for covid or the vaccines has undergone peer review.

We must not allow any dissent when it comes to the vaccines to gain a foothold. Dissent must be stomped out and dissidents must be silenced and marginalized. The new scientific method demands this.

[stix213]

I still wonder where they are putting all the bodies???? Death Valley must be full and they must be close to filling the Grand Canyon.

Or perhaps common sense suggest he has a design flaw in his model.

The video isn't about the more rare immediately life threatening clots. This is about extremely small clots blocking capillaries. Symptoms are shortness of breath, not being able to physically exert yourself as much as before, headaches, etc. Nothing immediately life threatening.

The doctor is concerned that the circulatory issues resulting from this will result in heart failure "within 3 years" for many people who have these clots.

[71MUSTY]

The video isn't about the more rare immediately life threatening clots. This is about extremely small clots blocking capillaries. Symptoms are shortness of breath, not being able to physically exert yourself as much as before, headaches, etc. Nothing immediately life threatening.

The doctor is concerned that the circulatory issues resulting from this will result in heart failure "within 3 years" for many people who have these clots.

Wait till they find out it cures ED.

[SloChicken]

He says these are his preliminary results. Publishing and peer review typically occurs after the study has completed, which is not the case yet.

Though virtually all studies that came out during the pandemic have also lacked peer review, because the peer review process takes a long time. If we were going to wait for peer review, we likely won't hear anything about this until sometime next year, and by then it largely doesn't matter as far as helping people decide whether to get the vaccine. We'll be on booster #3 by then.

I don't believe any study released by the CDC for covid or the vaccines has undergone peer review.

the studies published by the CDC/NIH and other accepted research entities are all available for peer review simply by one following the listed protocols/parameters of the study.
Which his work is lacking.

The publication of study methods is what makes a study repeatable and either verifiable or refutable.
The essence of empirical study in a nutshell is described below.

What this doctor is offering is anecdote and conjecture.

He may be right, but until he publishes method so others can replicate the study it is just talk.

Introduction: What is Empirical Research?
Empirical research is based on observed and measured phenomena and derives knowledge from actual experience rather than from theory or belief.

How do you know if a study is empirical? Read the subheadings within the article, book, or report and look for a description of the research "methodology." Ask yourself: Could I recreate this study and test these results?

Key characteristics to look for:

Specific research questions to be answered
Definition of the population, behavior, or phenomena being studied
Description of the process used to study this population or phenomena, including selection criteria, controls, and testing instruments (such as surveys)
Another hint: some scholarly journals use a specific layout, called the "IMRaD" format, to communicate empirical research findings. Such articles typically have 4 components:

Introduction: sometimes called "literature review" -- what is currently known about the topic -- usually includes a theoretical framework and/or discussion of previous studies
Methodology: sometimes called "research design" -- how to recreate the study -- usually describes the population, research process, and analytical tools
Results: sometimes called "findings" -- what was learned through the study -- usually appears as statistical data or as substantial quotations from research participants
Discussion: sometimes called "conclusion" or "implications" -- why the study is important -- usually describes how the research results influence professional practices or future studies

https://guides.libraries.psu.edu/emp

[SloChicken]

Example of a study which is properly performed and published conforming to long accepted scientific method.

Abstract

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently.

Methods: In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety.

Results: A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups.

Conclusions: A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33301246/

Far different to what the doctor in the video has shown

If he puts together his notes and makes them public, then we can see what is what.
Until then ….

[Den60]

the studies published by the CDC/NIH and other accepted research entities are all available for peer review simply by one following the listed protocols/parameters of the study.
Which his work is lacking.

The publication of study methods is what makes a study repeatable and either verifiable or refutable.
The essence of empirical study in a nutshell is described below.

What this doctor is offering is anecdote and conjecture.

He may be right, but until he publishes method so others can replicate the study it is just talk.

Introduction: What is Empirical Research?
Empirical research is based on observed and measured phenomena and derives knowledge from actual experience rather than from theory or belief.

How do you know if a study is empirical? Read the subheadings within the article, book, or report and look for a description of the research "methodology." Ask yourself: Could I recreate this study and test these results?

Key characteristics to look for:

Specific research questions to be answered
Definition of the population, behavior, or phenomena being studied
Description of the process used to study this population or phenomena, including selection criteria, controls, and testing instruments (such as surveys)
Another hint: some scholarly journals use a specific layout, called the "IMRaD" format, to communicate empirical research findings. Such articles typically have 4 components:

Introduction: sometimes called "literature review" -- what is currently known about the topic -- usually includes a theoretical framework and/or discussion of previous studies
Methodology: sometimes called "research design" -- how to recreate the study -- usually describes the population, research process, and analytical tools
Results: sometimes called "findings" -- what was learned through the study -- usually appears as statistical data or as substantial quotations from research participants
Discussion: sometimes called "conclusion" or "implications" -- why the study is important -- usually describes how the research results influence professional practices or future studies

You do understand the term "preliminary," right? You are so quick to dismiss anything that challenges your own opinion. When I was in school I was told you wanted your "worts" enemy to challenge you because the failure to prove you are wrong immensely helps your case. But, nowadays any criticism of "politically correct" science is deemed "heresy." We no longer have the Catholic Church attacking the scientific method, we have politically and profit driven "scientists" taking its place.

[71MUSTY]

You do understand the term "preliminary," right? You are so quick to dismiss anything that challenges your own opinion. When I was in school I was told you wanted your "worts" enemy to challenge you because the failure to prove you are wrong immensely helps your case. But, nowadays any criticism of "politically correct" science is deemed "heresy." We no longer have the Catholic Church attacking the scientific method, we have politically and profit driven "scientists" taking its place.

We are not attacking it because it is not PC we are questioning it because it is basically a Wild *** Guess (WAG) at this point. Basically the guy has a theory, some antidotal support and goes to the media/internet because he knows you can fool some of the people all of the time.

You appear to believe anything that supports your BIAS. No research required

[SloChicken]

You do understand the term "preliminary," right? You are so quick to dismiss anything that challenges your own opinion. When I was in school I was told you wanted your "worts" enemy to challenge you because the failure to prove you are wrong immensely helps your case. But, nowadays any criticism of "politically correct" science is deemed "heresy." We no longer have the Catholic Church attacking the scientific method, we have politically and profit driven "scientists" taking its place.

I understand when research is done properly, and I understand when it is not.

I have no issue with one bringing up concerns.
But any MD or medical professional, let alone one performing a study knows how it should be done.

Even in his video, no mention of method, demographic etc is any more covered than a gloss-over.

Which is why hematologists (doctors specializing in blood pathology) have stated his comments carry little weight, both for lack of information as to where and how he came to his conclusion, and that his conclusions do not jibe with known hematologic phenomenon - which by the way can be shown with replicable and published study.