Turbo cancer
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2023 5:29 pm
Could it really be that some batches of the Covid 19 injections are actually more likely to lead to cancer than others? And that some have heart attacks as a more likely adverse event? This comment on a substack by Conspiracy Sarah alludes to the possibility.
"I just watched a presentation by Craig Paardekooper (howbadismybatch.com) who came up with a new approach to analyze VAERS data based on Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR, the proportion of spontaneous reports for a given agent that are linked to a specific AE), Same Symptom Consistency (SSC, i.e. the same symptom occurs in different organs, showing that the agent is having a consistent effect throughout the body), and Related Symptom Consistency (RSC, where closely related conditions also show a high PRR).
E.g. in the case of THROMBOSIS, related conditions and terms in VAERS would be: D-dimer, Fibrin, Infarctions, Occlusions, Embolisms, Clots, Aneurysms, Coagulation. As weak and (purposefully) underreporting VAERS is — his findings are still mind-blowing.
* There are 94 symptoms in VAERS that contain the word THROMBOSIS.
* COVID 19 has a high PRR (> 2, considered a safety signal) for 89 of them.
* No other vaccine (there are case reports for 100 different vaccines in VAERS) has a high PRR for more than 4 of them.
* Its like comparing a medicine with a weapon. The medicine has a harmful side effect (AE). The weapon has a harmful main effect.
When he plotted the PRRs for e.g. SEPSIS vs. IMMUNE SYSTEM DISORDER for different batches he found that all batches neatly cluster onto separate lines that radiate like spokes from the 0/0 origin. The gradients of these lines aren’t random but exhibit precise constant increments, in this case: 0.5/4 = 1/8 ... 1/4 = 2/8 … 1.5/4 = 3/8 ... 2/4 = 4/8 ... 3/4 = 6/8 ... 4/4 = 8/8 … 5/4 = 10/8. And for x = 2: 3/2 = 12/8 … 3.5/2 = 14/8 ... 4/2 = 16/8 ... 4.5/2 = 18/8 ... 3/1 = 24/8. Infections and sepsis are supposed to be very random, and immune suppression is supposed to be highly variable due to biology. These neat mathematical patterns are highly unusual and suspicious.
He found the same mathematically precise phenomenon for other PRR comparisons — e.g. Bacterial Infection vs. HIV Test, Immunosuppression vs. Immunoglobulin therapy, Herpes Simplex vs. Autoimmune Disorder — with different but always precise incremental gradients.
His conclusions: the toxicity of a given batch is determined by its PRR for a specific symptom.
Differences in the ratio of the PRR of one symptom to another indicate that when toxicity for symptom A is the same, toxicity for symptom B will be precisely double or triple. This is due to a difference in formulation NOT concentration. If it were just a change in concentration then both symptom A and Symptom B would increase. Rather it is a change in proportion, so symptom B doubles whilst symptom A remains the same.
This means that the difference between lines is a difference in formulation. The people(?) who engineered this have an extraordinary precision and control of biological processes. To precisely double, triple, quadruple or quintuple the rate of symptom B to match an exact whole number is no easy feat. It's a mathematical design.
This brief study highlights the evidence for differences in formulation of batches that produce elevations in one symptom, whilst maintaining the same levels of another symptom. This is clearly a proportional rather than a concentration difference.
1. CONCENTRATION = just more of the same thing
2. PROPORTION = more of one thing but not of another".
https://conspiracysarah.substack.com/p/ ... s-a-choice
"I just watched a presentation by Craig Paardekooper (howbadismybatch.com) who came up with a new approach to analyze VAERS data based on Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR, the proportion of spontaneous reports for a given agent that are linked to a specific AE), Same Symptom Consistency (SSC, i.e. the same symptom occurs in different organs, showing that the agent is having a consistent effect throughout the body), and Related Symptom Consistency (RSC, where closely related conditions also show a high PRR).
E.g. in the case of THROMBOSIS, related conditions and terms in VAERS would be: D-dimer, Fibrin, Infarctions, Occlusions, Embolisms, Clots, Aneurysms, Coagulation. As weak and (purposefully) underreporting VAERS is — his findings are still mind-blowing.
* There are 94 symptoms in VAERS that contain the word THROMBOSIS.
* COVID 19 has a high PRR (> 2, considered a safety signal) for 89 of them.
* No other vaccine (there are case reports for 100 different vaccines in VAERS) has a high PRR for more than 4 of them.
* Its like comparing a medicine with a weapon. The medicine has a harmful side effect (AE). The weapon has a harmful main effect.
When he plotted the PRRs for e.g. SEPSIS vs. IMMUNE SYSTEM DISORDER for different batches he found that all batches neatly cluster onto separate lines that radiate like spokes from the 0/0 origin. The gradients of these lines aren’t random but exhibit precise constant increments, in this case: 0.5/4 = 1/8 ... 1/4 = 2/8 … 1.5/4 = 3/8 ... 2/4 = 4/8 ... 3/4 = 6/8 ... 4/4 = 8/8 … 5/4 = 10/8. And for x = 2: 3/2 = 12/8 … 3.5/2 = 14/8 ... 4/2 = 16/8 ... 4.5/2 = 18/8 ... 3/1 = 24/8. Infections and sepsis are supposed to be very random, and immune suppression is supposed to be highly variable due to biology. These neat mathematical patterns are highly unusual and suspicious.
He found the same mathematically precise phenomenon for other PRR comparisons — e.g. Bacterial Infection vs. HIV Test, Immunosuppression vs. Immunoglobulin therapy, Herpes Simplex vs. Autoimmune Disorder — with different but always precise incremental gradients.
His conclusions: the toxicity of a given batch is determined by its PRR for a specific symptom.
Differences in the ratio of the PRR of one symptom to another indicate that when toxicity for symptom A is the same, toxicity for symptom B will be precisely double or triple. This is due to a difference in formulation NOT concentration. If it were just a change in concentration then both symptom A and Symptom B would increase. Rather it is a change in proportion, so symptom B doubles whilst symptom A remains the same.
This means that the difference between lines is a difference in formulation. The people(?) who engineered this have an extraordinary precision and control of biological processes. To precisely double, triple, quadruple or quintuple the rate of symptom B to match an exact whole number is no easy feat. It's a mathematical design.
This brief study highlights the evidence for differences in formulation of batches that produce elevations in one symptom, whilst maintaining the same levels of another symptom. This is clearly a proportional rather than a concentration difference.
1. CONCENTRATION = just more of the same thing
2. PROPORTION = more of one thing but not of another".
https://conspiracysarah.substack.com/p/ ... s-a-choice