Possible interpretations of Dr. Hoffe's data

Dr. Hoffe is a family practice physician near Alberta in Canada. He administered the shots to patients of his who wanted it, and began to see some of those patients become sick.

He decided to start keeping records on those patients he injected, and what those records show and how that data might be interpreted is the purpose of this thread.

He did blood work on these patients, conducted from 4 to 7 days after injection. He conducted the D-Dimer test, which determines levels of fibrinogen in the blood, and also microscopic analysis of the blood and other aspects.

What he found was that 62% of those tested showed elevated fibrinogen levels and microscopic clotting.

What does that imply for the 38% who did not show such signs?

My hypothesis is that because of individual chemistry, some are more effected by the drug, others are less effected by the drug.

Anecdotally, I see this among my friends, family and acquaintances in everyday life. Most appear to be fine with no apparent change in their physical appearances.

Others look poorly months after the shots, and some die.

Any thoughts?

 

My best friend is suffering renal failure after the Pfizer shot.

 

It is sad. Most of the people I know who've taken it are doing fine. Others have problems, as VAERS shows. I know several who've taken it and begin a downhill trajectory with their health. Dr. Hoffe saw the same thing. He no longer administers the shots to his patients.

I'm trying to see if the 62-38 ratio has any significance at all.

 

Hard to prove.

 

Probably so, but I'm not trying to prove anything. I accept Hoffe's data at face value, recognizing a small population of people, and am wondering if that approximate 2 out of 3 statistic holds any meaning compared to what I see amongst my friends and acquaintances, inoculated v. not inoculated.

 

Now with the recent Japanese discovery of contaminated lots of vials, perhaps the reason some show no apparent harm while others are maimed or deceased, perhaps other lots of contaminated product made it to market and were subsequently injected into humans?

Maybe what we're seeing means some were injected with contaminated product and some were not?

Then the question might become 'were some lots contaminated on purpose?'

I guess nobody wants to discuss it but me and Hoosier.

Why am I not surprised?