What have we learned from all this?

On Saturday, 27 February 2021 at 22:24:14 UTC, Martin Gregorie wrote:
...
There is no mention of any associated blindness and, indeed, scanning the
complete report for 'blind', 'blindness', 'eye', 'optic' and 'visual'
found no hits at all, so it seems that any claims of associated blindness
are purest bull****.
I agree, but strangely, in that page, Chrome text search (ctrl/F) reported two hits for "blind" (yes, yes, without the quotes!), but couldn't actually find either!
Clearly, a tool built for trolls!
J.

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 14:40:09 -0800, wrote:

On Saturday, 27 February 2021 at 22:24:14 UTC, Martin Gregorie wrote:
...
There is no mention of any associated blindness and, indeed, scanning
the complete report for 'blind', 'blindness', 'eye', 'optic' and
'visual' found no hits at all, so it seems that any claims of
associated blindness are purest bull****.
I agree, but strangely, in that page, Chrome text search (ctrl/F)
reported two hits for "blind" (yes, yes, without the quotes!), but
couldn't actually find either!
Clearly, a tool built for trolls!
J.

I did discover where those snippets of disease tables came from - there
are appendices associated with both vaccine types that go on for pages
and, as far as I can tell from there preliminary boilerplate, are saying
in effect that 'people visiting a medic after having a vaccination shot
were found to have these conditions' but there is absolutely no
indication whether these were pre-existing conditions, and so not
associated with being vaccinated. Seeing that the main report didn't
mention them, any connection seems unlikely and the association of
blindness with a vaccine, if it exists at all, is very slight at under
1:120,000 or 0.0008 %.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org