reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
In the message described, Speaker 0 highlights a key claim: the CDC and FDA were fully aware of the masking phenomenon within their empirical Bayesian analysis. The speaker emphasizes that this awareness was part of the information being conveyed in a letter to Bobby Kennedy. The central issue raised is not about general safety signals, but about the timing of deaths relative to vaccination.
The speaker notes a concern that began earlier, stating that back in October there were discussions with Mike Eden about these injections. The concern is tied to what was observed in the data, specifically that “early on in March and April” the data appeared to be "screaming at us" when looking at thousands of deaths. The speaker provides a concrete statistic: “forty six percent of those deaths were occurring on the day of vaccination than one or two days.” The speaker then updates the figure, saying that they are “up to almost thirty nine thousand deaths” in total, and adds that “Twenty four percent of those deaths occurred on the day of vaccination or within one or two days.”
The speaker asserts that this information “has been available month by month by month since about March, April 2021,” yet alleges that “the federal officials are still not acknowledging it.” Instead of acknowledging these signals, the speaker claims officials point to other metrics, stating they “go to these, you know, PRR, the proportional reporting ratios, or a more sophisticated” approach. The claim continues that when PRRs were showing safety signals, officials reacted as if, “oh, we're not using those. We're using empirical Bayesian analysis. They set the trigger.”
In summary, the transcript presents a narrative in which the CDC and FDA are described as being aware of a masking phenomenon identified through empirical Bayesian analysis, with specific, alarming timing data linking a significant proportion of deaths to the day of vaccination or the following couple of days. The speaker contends this information has been publicly accessible on a monthly basis since early 2021, but accuses federal officials of not acknowledging it and of favoring a different analytic framework (PRR) or of claiming to use empirical Bayesian analysis after the fact, implying that the trigger for safety signals was set within that framework. The overall emphasis is on the alleged discrepancy between available data and official acknowledgment, as well as the choice of analytic methods used to interpret safety signals.