Actually, there is another way to look at it. When one considers that the soulless meat puppets who have been coldly pushing this just announced that have 25 million doses of this poison ready for 5 - 1 1 year olds across the nation, there is only ONE way to look at it: you're in a war for your existence. At this point, with the data and facts piling up around us like horse manure, there is no other conclusion. Whether its malevolent intent or plain stupidity caused by decades of ever-increasingly evil behavior, reality is what it is: there is a death cult who wants to kill you and your family. Take off the blinders. It's time to fight.
I survived by getting off big pharma drugs and eating a clean, low carb wholefoods diet with some supplements, particularly turmeric and cayenne pepper, Ashwaghanda, Magnolia Bark extract and Apple Cider Vinegar. Came off Insulin, Metformin and Statins.
Great news! Gotta love that cayenne. I am using 180KHU extract and it does wonders for blood pressure. No meds for me, especially statins. Diet is really the key to avoiding health problems.
Given that the West is all about the new technology/never been tried before/1.0 version of a seemingly sketchy technology, it makes me wonder what a certain large/dominant Asian country new as they rolled out a traditional, albeit less effective vaccine to their population?
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
This is what the vaccine advocates have been claiming even as the data continues to move in the opposite direction. It is just impossible to not conclude that these vaccines are not particularly effective with substantial and mounting evidence that are neither safe for individuals nor a safe way to manage the pandemic. We know have most of the theory of action, and the real world data that supports that they are a problem. Until we accept that and realize that we need a better strategy than universal vaccination AND better vaccines as well as therapeutics, we will not be rid of the scourge of covid nor the greater scourge of the demogagues inflicting pandemic pain on the world.
The Vaccined in many country"s couldn't cost in truth for herb immunity which is recreating to many varíaties virus SARC ,we should live like distance social and no vaccine for prevent to risk of infection ôf influenza unstill the research of result of report news to vaccine with the most truth in body at communication.No one child will madate in vaccine at now.
I read the UK report and the cited passage. It is a very interesting remark, and without a good explanation.
The report also goes on to - finally say out loud - that antibody levels are not a good way to measure covid protection, and are probablistic at best. I have always maintained that if antibodies are not the answer; if we maintained antibodies to all viruses we have contracted our blood would be sludge.
Antibodies are measured because they are easy to measure. But that doesn't mean they are very useful to measure. It is our one analytical test, and so we measure and measure and when things get difficult we just say "ok we are gonna measure it HARDER now"
T & B cell measurements are still technologically challenging and difficult to scale.
Our only truly useful tool is observational - seeing who gets sick - and that generates a charged response
The public health bureacracy is once again calling for lockdowns and societal restrictions in the face of "increased cases and hospitalizations". Any sane mind would realize that this will accomplish little, cause a lot of harm, and at best simply prolong the inevitable
It really is controlling the population to control their immune systems via boosters, so antibodies are always "ON", rather than letting the body do its thing *if* it gets infected.
Sadly this only just occurred to me, including how plain old dumb that is as a health initiative.
Its a form of panic. SARS-2 is a real virus and not pleasant, especially if you're in a risk group. In the scramble for "solutions" for a virus - I mean how crazy does that sound - the obvious reality that "people WILL get sick, people WILL suffer, people WILL die - no matter what", because the virus is an objective reality and it seems that the grand battle of SARS-2 vs human immunity will play out in the end more or less the same way as if we did nothing at all.
Humanities victories in the past - against SARS-1, MERS-1 (via NPI measures) and against polio, measles and smallpox (vaccine victories) are mashed together as a form of "comprehensive public health response". But I wonder now how much of the attribution is hubris? Were we just lucky, or smart, or both?
I am vaccinated, and was thrilled to be so, earlier in 2021. I was a strong advocate in the face of strong data. Now; what is clear to me yet unspeakable to those in positions of authority is that "we have no idea what to do".
I know what to do, stop all "vaccinations" and fire up treatment. Throw the kitchen shink at an infection. Start early, and pressure the virus hard. And, continue to recommend people lose weight and exercise and take Vit-D.
"people WILL get sick, people WILL suffer, people WILL die - no matter what"...that is true for every sickness, disease, virus or other illness that plagues mankind. The difference is that we have insane megalomaniacs creating disease for their own nefarious purposes and we are the fodder for those gruesome experiments. All thanks to big pharma's arrogant desire to control the world using medical servitude.
Look at nuclear weapons. Certainly more luck than brains. It is as if someone is waiting for us to understand something before folding the whole thing together.
That is why I don't like vaccines. Unless it is truly a deadly disease and you are in immediate danger of getting it, I think vaccinating is not the right thing to do. Eating healthy and leading a healthy lifestyle, getting sun and moving some every day, and let your body get sick and heal itself now and then. The world nowadays seems to think getting sick is a sin. But I think now and then your body needs to lay down, rest, recuperate. And if you don't do that by yourself, it gets sick and then you MUST step down a bit. I think vaccines forbid your body to live a normal life.
I'm 67 and remember lining up for the polio sugar cube, and having both kinds of measles, and chickenpox. I am grateful for smallpox and polio vaccines. Then I think the medical establishment got carried away, no doubt thanks to the efforts of the pharmaceutical industry who saw mandated vaccines for children as a never-ending manna-from-heaven spigot (ditto statins).
If there was a truly terrible pandemic along the lines of the black death with a 30% fatality rate and no effective treatment, then a vaccination campaign might be called for. But the rest of the time, perhaps trusting an immune system which has been fine-tuned over millions of years might be the wiser course. Our energy would be better spent demonstrating what a healthy lifestyle is (without the current pervasive and toxic influence of financial interests) in order to give the natural biological systems a fighting chance.
I've been reading nutritional research for 12 years and find it almost uniformly abysmal in terms of quality of science, so I don't see much likelihood of that happening. But one can dream.
Totally right. If this were Ebola, I would run for whatever vaccine available, even knowing it could make me sick. But Ebola has a death toll of 90 percent. Compare to covid, which barely makes it to .1 percent.
The reason I trust treatment and preparedness over vaccination *for any and all pathogens* comes down to overall risk of reduced quality of life due to the sum of my choices vs. risk of morbidity/fatality. Vaccinepapers.org makes clear that vaccine manufacturers are never actually concerned with saving lives. They are concerned with diminished neurological function and chronic disease.
In his article, Julius Ruechel discusses the difference between viruses like measles and polio and why immunity with a single shot or "sugar cube" imparts near life-long immunity for them, while the flu and now covid shots immunity is short lived. It has to do with the mutation rates of those different viruses, as well as the mechanism by which they enter the cell. For measles and polio, the mutation rate is very slow, and a mutation often affects how they enter the cell, thereby making that line a dead end.
With corona viruses, the mutation rate is very fast, and often does not affect the way the virus enters the cell, but avoids immune function, and so it is nearly impossible to create a vaccine that will guess what the next iteration might be.
Since most people only understand science at the bumper sticker level, distinctions like this are lost on them. I see some vaccines as beneficial, some not so much, and some as pure profitable snake oil. Thanks for the link.
I agree. To my knowledge, there has never been any independent studies that confirm the vaccinated are any healthier than those who smartly refuse them. I firmly believe the opposite to be true.
I was hospitalized with severe covid back in August, but once I got into the hospital and started receiving care, I recovered very quickly and was discharged within a week. It was an awful experience and I've never come so close in my life to feeling like I was literally dying. I got both Remdesivir and convalescent plasma and one or the the other turned me around. (I'm guessing the CP)
I've known two other people with similar risk factors - also overweight men with in their 40's with families - to me who were also hospitlized. One died and the other is currently in the hospital and slowly deteriorating.
I am struggling mightily with survivor's guilt right now, but I also know that they were both vaccinated and weren't on the same supplement regimen - D3, zinc, Mg, quercetin, K2, C - that I was on when I was infected. I think the combination of those two factors are what kept me from succumbing.
Remdesivir is toxic. It is possibly why one of your acquaintances died and the other is deteriorating; he needs to be switched to FLCCC protocol before the hospital kills him.
In a sane world, this would merit immediate cessation of the catastrophic mass vaccination pogrom. Even the faintest pretense that this is for the “public health” can no longer be sustained with a straight face. Unfortunately, we live in Clown World, and sanity has long since departed this planet.
Geert Vanden Bossche is looking very much like a prophet at this point. It's only a matter of time until Delta mutates and we see complete immune escape. When that happens you'll be happy you didn't get the jab.
Happy? No not happy, watching my family, friends and neighbors fall ill, will not make me happy. Even to those who rolled their eyes at me when I dared suggest this virus probably came from the lab. Continued eye rolls when I mentioned the lockdowns are hurting more than helping, that statistically it’s the old, frail and un-healthy that are getting wiped out by this virus. Exasperated sighs when mentioned children should be playing outside without a mask, that going to a beach to soak up sunshine was healthy, to turn off their damn TV’s and actually look at the data on county/state health departments to see who’s really dying. The list can go on and on. But if what is being suggested, and those who chose to take the jab get very ill, there won’t be happiness, no sense of justification or validation, only true remorse that the majority of humankind can be so easily lead astray.
I suspect the only way out of this is to be proactive in reducing your chances or getting the virus or if you do attenuating it's response. A family member's wife got jabbed unbeknownst to him to be able to go on a cruise with "the girls". He of course was very upset upon finding this out after the fact, but he just spent ~$300 for a consult and Vitamin I (IVM) so he would have available if needed for himself and her. I have a close friend of mine who got suckered in to jab #1 and his kids talked him off the ledge and he skipped #2. Right now, he's taking Quercetin/Zinc and following the FLCCC protocol to avoid as the say "a bad outcome".
It's going to take some time to figure out of the innate immune damage that seems to be happening self corrects since we already know that there is no B-cell activity for the synthetic spike antibodies and they fade quickly and are not replenished from a future infection challenge. What we need to do is disseminate this information as far and wide as possible in an effort to stop the madness which is about to harm the 5-11 year olds.
Edna, I totally understand your frustration, desperation, and anguish at the difficulty of awakening the willfully ignorant as well as your concerns about the bleak future to come as a result of that gullibility. I do think Laurence did not mean being happy about the overall situation but rather “happy you didn’t get the jab”—in other words, relieved that you didn’t succumb to the propaganda. It doesn’t make watching our loved ones who did succumb suffer any less painful, though.
Thank you, I know we all have our own personal journey through this mess. I so thought the American public would have decided to just get on with life. I mistakenly thought the medical community would have a real medical protocol to successfully treat COVID by now. Instead there’s a splintering among everything and everyone. Its painful to watch. I appreciate the kind words.
Edna, it is disheartening to see how readily Americans have submitted to tyranny. Regarding the medical protocol for treating COVID—many highly successful early treatment protocols *do* exist (https://c19protocols.com/), but BigPharma/Big Medicine/Big Media/Big Tech are doing everything they can to smear and suppress those protocols. See the latest entry in my Letters series, Letter to a Scientifically-Minded Friend (case study on the Ivermectin disinformation campaign) for more details: https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-a-scientifically-minded
Do know that you’re not alone in your feelings and that many of us are doing everything in our power to unmask totalitarianism and shake the sleeping awake before it’s too late. Participating in that resistance is inspiring and energizing, despite the darkness surrounding us. I do hope reason will ultimately prevail, but we have a lot of zombies to wake up in the meantime.
Taking the road less traveled is always tougher just ask Jesus. You will be vindicated I have told my kids how I feel they don't agree with me but they respect my position and that is all I can ask. I ordered ivermectin early on and took it preventatively have had no problems. Have given it to friends and been rejected by others. It saved one of my friends life for which I am thankful to God for. Another friend rejected it and went into the hospital and died. I feel bad about that one I wish I had pushed harder. I told my kids as I always did actions have consequences mine and yours. I hope and pray that they do not get sick from this jab. But I fear they will!
"People are right now worried about AY.4.2, which is AY.4 + Y145H. The suspicion is that with the Y145H mutation it has gained a sialic acid binding site, and thus potentially a new mode of cell entry.
If true, this will be another example of viral evolution completely blindsiding us."
I would like to know how they are determining what is delta or anything else. I don't think any of these tests can tell the difference between a delta and a smelta.
I've heard a few dissident doctors say that mass vaccination during the middle of an epidemic is colossally stupid, precisely because this kind of stuff (and ADE) is likely to happen. Much better to let the epidemic burn itself out and THEN vaccinate to prevent future epidemics.
But the worldwide govt-media establishment fanned the flames and just HAD to get rid of Trump and they appear have had no other choice to try and turn down the panic but to pump out these "vaccines".
We have doctors in positions of power that don't actually treat patients and focus narrowly on one goal approaches. Oh, Pfizer's study says that the jab saved 1 person versus the placebo group- vaccinate everyone!
I wish this site had some expert, pro-vaxx readers willing to engage. As it is, each side is speaking in a sealed bubble and there is no genuine debate.
This is not a criticism of your post. Rather, I want to hear both sides but it's hard to find responses from pro-vaxxers on very specific issues like these.
there isn’t really another side, is the thing. the pro-vaxx position is an ultimately indefensible propaganda construct, engineered not for purposes of correct analysis but to justify the vaccination policies. it was the same with lockdowns, and masks and everything else.
over the past year, whenever any of the covidian modellers or virologists would emerge to defend obviously absurd containment policies, you got a taste of how limited and barren their perspective was.
this doesn’t automatically mean we’re right, btw, just that they’re working from a disingenuous inflexible script that makes reasonable discussion impossible. a good response to the above, for example, would be “yes that’s concerning but remember that antibodies aren’t the same as immunity. we only track them because they’re easy to measure”. which is true, but all the time they’ve been insisting that antibodies *are* equivalent to immunity because it’s an easy metric on which the vaxx can win.
That's one of my biggest concerns, the suppression of legitimate scientific discourse. I hesitate to throw around words like "censorship" and "cancel culture" because it's just as easy for genuine nutjobs to make the same accusations. But science isn't science anymore, it's become dogma. This isn't new—in some fields it's been happening for a long time. It's just that now it's visible to more of the generally oblivious population.
Very insightful comment and point well taken, nevertheless, a sad state of affairs when reasonable discussion becomes impossible. I've been reading your substack for months now and you're one of my favourites . Recently I came across how antibiotic use and exposure during early childhood development (up to age 3) can alter the gut microbiota (dysbiosis) and establish a predisposition to obesity in children and adults. Studies in the last decade have pointed to this disruption in our flora due to antibiotics, which contribute to promoting certain bacteria that "affects energy harvest from the diet and energy storage in the host". So what does this have to do with Covid? Well, since obesity is a major factor in a severe coronavirus outcome, if anyone can connect the dots between antibiotic (overuse), obesity and Covid infections - it's you, Eugyppius!
While considering the possibility of a pro-vaxx ‘person’ on this board, consider, we get pro-vaxx propaganda 24/7 on every news outlet and from every so-called medical “authority” in our corner of the world, and country. In Canada, we’re very aware of Fauxci and his endless pretzel logic and lies, and most American talking heads. In Canada, we have our versions too, that continue the same nonsense and emotional blackmail to the easily manipulated. People, like me are here because we’re sick and tired of the endless gaslighting by TPTB. Our BS meters are at 11.
I’m glad I found this sub stack, it complements my other frequent flier sites, El GATO, Berenson, Chris Martensen, Bigtree, GVB. Yes, danger if confirmation bias, but this is Our Tribe now.
This is what happens when you no longer recognize the madness and delusional minions in a country that you no longer know, Canada in my case, one step away from Oz.
It's hard to believe there's not a single, pro-establishment virologist or epidemiologist willing to comment on a site like this. Maybe they could do so as anon. I write this in the hope there may be one out there hate-reading right now.
If not, perhaps the best you could do is steelman opposing arguments.
I can't recall reading one comment here strongly going against your arguments. That's a problem.
Misunderstandings are common so let me clarify before the pile-on starts: I'm against mass Covid vaccinations. They should be offered to the vulnerable and that should be the end of the matter. However, there are some too willing to believe every piece of bad news about the vaccines because it suits their existing notions. I'm thinking more of some of your commenters than yourself.
If the other side won't debate and be critical, we should be extra careful to remain skeptical on this side.
Anyway, if a pro-vaxxer pipes up here, commenters please be extra nice. Mostly they'll shit and leave but a few might hang around for an in-depth discussion.
Before August, you saw a lot more flexibility in the pro-vaccination side, and their ranks weren't just bureaucrats and other officials. Then everyone realised vaxx fade was happening, which destroyed all hopes that this would solve Corona forever. In response, vaxx arguments became frozen for all time in the mould of the same 5-7 talking points.
The same thing happened to lockdown/containment discourse sometime after May 2020, when it became clear that lockdowns were a bad idea and didn't have much upside. All the dynamism went out of the lockdown discussion and it became the same tired eternally unchanging Lockdown Doctrine.
Often in war, and in other ultra-high stakes endeavors, when things are going to sh*t, the leadership will enter a sort of willfully chosen fantasy world. You see this depicted nicely in the Chernobyl mini series from a few years ago. You also see it in people who may have cancer, and delay getting tested. The lust to drag out the fiction that everything's fine is strong. These people are buying themselves an extra nine months in which they don't look like world-historical fools who injected 2 billion people with ineffective, dangerous shots.
I think the fact that the pro-vax side doesn't engage in honest debate is telling. If you're side has weak evidence and cannot accurately predict future events or unintended results, as well as your opponent, you will realize you have the weaker side of evidence.
So then we add in self-preservation, and that includes psychological self-preservation. To willingly engage in a debate which may indicate to you that your position is wrong, and then you extrapolate that out to all the harm your position has caused ... well, you're' not going to do it. It's a quick assessment most (all?) of us make, subconsciously, continuously.
Finally, I think some of the people pushing this have risen beyond their level of competence. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, they still wield power and they, like most people, equate their level of power to competence. The fact that the brains behind these leaders aren't coming out (willingly or by edict) to support the vaccine is also telling.
"To willingly engage in a debate which may indicate to you that your position is wrong, and then you extrapolate that out to all the harm your position has caused ..."
HERE'S SOME HONESET DEBATE. LITERALLY FROM THE REPORT BEING MINIMALLY REFERENCED FOR THIS PAGE'S AND COMMUNITY'S ANTI-VAXX BIAS:
PAGE 12:
Results
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
I would love to see that as well. At the present time, I'm concluding that there are no such people - experts who believe this is anything but a train wreck, and can back that assertion up with evidence.
Any time they cite effectiveness, they point to the early outcome of the original trials. Our response is, well, how do explain the facts on the ground?
To be fair, Joe is also an accomplished stand up comic and MMA fighter. Whereas Dr. Gupta's primary skill is not understanding things he's not paid to understand.
Fully agree. Those who want them can go for them. Those who do not want them, can leave them be. But now this whole thing has turned into a hate thing. All of a sudden, I can grasp what it must be to be black in a country that wants to be white. To be on the side of the scolded, the suppressed. And this is nothing compared to what they get every day of their lives.
I saw a video about a month ago put out by a pretty, 40 something year old black woman from NY. She was in her home and talking about what it is like to be unvaccinated in NY: closed out of theatres, restaurants, on and on, etc. Then she said something along the following: “It is much, much easier to be black. I could do what I want, go where I wanted. Sure there was discrimination sometimes but this is far worse.”
I fully understand that black Americans have faced racism in this country, even recently at times. But no one supported forcibly injecting them or barring them from grocery stores, getting health care or a job. This is on a whole different level. It’s inexcusable. Inhumane. And what is most weird is the white people who have been insisting we all support BLM 110% are now supporting excluding anyone from society who is not vaccinated.
Thank you for pointing this out. You are right. I live 3 miles outside a small town in rural US and did not go out prior to the crisis. But for people in the city it must be terrible. They probably can hardly go out at all, like this lady states. For me the difference is hardly noticeable. Just a few chain stores that require masks, that is about it.
This is not a vaxx/anti vaxx debate necessitating both sides as far as i can tell. It’s a let’s work out wtf is going on and try to find out what is going on based on the facts.
There's no effort by these people to speak as though they are talking about a dynamic probability distribution, no cautioning, hedging, sounding like a researcher interested in getting it right, and avoiding looking the fool. They are all-in, in a creepy way. Set to go down with the ship, no fear of looking like thalidomide or lobotomy apologists x10,000.
The debate is on the skeptic side. ADE vs no-ADE, blood-clot hyper death vs blood-clot micro death. To the skeptic, it's provisionally true that the vaccines failed, probably won't have a revision on that, and now the interesting question is "what have they done to the inoculated?"
I had never met brainwashed people before, but that is what they are. If you seldom or never hear a discording voice, you go with the flow and don't look any further I presume. But when I read that the shots contained PEG my red flag went up there and then. And they were made in such a hurry. And then I read about the tests with ferrets with the first Sars and how they all died. If you count that up, how can you be brainwashed to the other side, is beyond me.
Biggest mistake that was ever made was to lift liability for the pharmaceutical companies. It became open season for corruption, state sanctioned corruption!
I think you are right. I got several pro jab friends, some of them in the biology-medical field, who walked into the story with open eyes. Even early on, when it was clear the jabs could not prevent sickness nor spread, they did not agree with me. One said, even one person saved from infection is worth it. That person was themselves, because that was all the jab promised. And now even that promise does not hold, as more and more vaxxers get sick. I have not talked to them in over 2 months now. They don't want to see me, as I am not vaxxed.
As Ayn Rand pointed out, what is the benefit for white to debate black? For good to debate evil? The reason that "pro-vaxxers" lie, manipulate and censor vs debating is simple: they know that their position can't be debated or defended. As the evidence continues to pile up that this is the single largest act of criminal negligence (or outright murder/fraud) in human history, the guilty have only one choice: bathe daily on cognitive dissonance to avoid the reality of their crimes. This isn't a scientific debate ... it's a crime scene.
This is a huge driver of the propaganda and the religious belief. You cannot change your mind and take it back.
I considered this when I first was notified back in the spring that I was eligible for the shot, but a lot of people did not and just did it impulsively. And now I'm sure many of them regret that decision and want to force it on others in order to feel better about themselves.
I reluctantly got vaccinated because I live in a tiny community of elderly people, and acquiesced mostly to reassure my neighbors. I regret it now, even though at the time I wasn't so worried about immediate side effects as long-term fallout such as the subject of this post.
I'm not going to get the booster, and if people ask me about it I'll tell them, but there's no point being militant. It's like arguing religion. And annoys the pig.
My attitude was slowly changed (about masking and lockdowns at first) starting in the summer of 2020 not by people yelling and screaming, but by a few very smart people that I respect calmly and cogently presenting facts and reasonable arguments. People on the Humble Plateau, of which there aren't many. https://theredqueen.substack.com/p/dunning-kruger-power-effect
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
Or to ally their fears about their personal decision. Or in other words, they are projecting their fears on to you, lot easier than dealing with their internal demons.
Excellent point. One that I struggle with as many of my family have gotten the jab. One older sister unwillingly, due to pressure from her daughter. And she has definitely been negatively affected (low energy, low tolerance for exertion).
I believe this to be one of the largest factors that engulfs the entire dialogue (to the extent a dialogue even takes place). It is not just the fact the the vaccinated now have remorse, many of them have been roused and encouraged to blame the ongoing misery on the unvaccinated. This has lead to many fractures in the social order, even among family and friends and this is a psychological barrier that is extremely difficult to overcome.
To use just one extreme example, there are doctors that have justified not treating or offering medical services to the unvaccinated. How does one come to grips with such a revolting view when forced to confront the grim reality that the unvaccinated were not only prudent to take a "wait and see" approach but who also have proven to have superior health instincts than that of the doctor that spent over ten years in training to attain his/her lofty professional and social status of "doctor"? This is a bridge too far for many to accept but the cruel reality (for them) is that their mental state of mind cannot alter the facts on the ground.
The catharsis that is sure to follow will not be pleasant for them or for us.
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
Their only choice now is to defend the indefensible. The more narcissistic they are, the less likely they'll be to admit error. Does that sound like anyone in the news? The medical profession imho is notorious for this. We're the smartest people in the room, my grades say so, so shut up! Just look at the error of the lipid hypothesis for heart disease and the statin drug industry that it spawned. And now, increasing evidence is pointing to insulin resistance as the primary cause of many metabolic diseases. Heart disease, Type II, Obesity, hypertension, alzheimer's and even cancer are all potentially caused by the wrong nutritional recommendations. And the evidence is all around you. 50 years ago, you never saw so many pot bellied 20 somethings. Yet AMA and AHA aren't even beginning to back off the low fat, statin approach. Now that there is a massive investment in the MRNA vaccine approach to the pandemic, don't expect the infectious disease bureaucrats and Big Pharma to cede any territory. They're not constitutionally capable of it.
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
It is true, like other vaccines, this one is less than 100% effective. And as time goes on, and the vaccine stimulated antibodies diminish, that percentage number will get smaller and smaller. Along with the added bonus of attenuating the natural immunity of the individual. A twofer.
Absolutely. I'm reminded of the flying saucer cult in California years ago whose leader convinced them to divest of all their worldly possessions (give them to him) because the mother ship would arrive on a certain date and pick them all up to wisk them away to a Nirvana like planet. The day came and went and the saucer was a no show. Did that destroy the cult's belief? Absolutely not. Leader decided that the calculations were just off a bit and they planned for the next visit. Not one member quit the group. I believe the human brain is designed to protect itself from humiliation as vigorously as it tries to protect our bodies from physical danger and harm.
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
When you are on the pro-vax side, you can make as many egregious math errors as you like because of your position and nobody will challenge you or bat an eyelid, let alone check your working.
eugyppius beat me to it, but yes, all you need do is turn on cable television or any other source of mainstream news to get the "pro-vaxx" narrative. No legitimate scientists, medical professionals, or others are engaging in any sort of rational debate. The propaganda is simply poured down a chute and all the Covidians line up to lap it up.
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
Ahh yes, much more rational to obsessively copy/paste irrelevant nonsense. Be a dear and go bring us some firsthand data on playing in traffic would ya
Listen to the Joe Rogan podcast with Dr Sanjay Gupta on Spotify to discover how shallow their arguments really are. Defense of the vax in the face of a lot of concerning evidence before this study was really just based on emotion and fear, even for Dr Gupta. Vax-holes don't worry about any of this, all that matters to them is protection from dreaded covid, at any cost. No evidence will "move the needle" for them on the wisdom of the vax. Stunning cognitive dissonance.
The most useful conversations come when all parties are more interested in what is true than their own fixed positions - like pro-vaxx or anti-vaxx. Generally speaking I find debates between 'pro'-whatever and 'anti'-whatever, rather boring, somewhat confusing and ultimately untrustworthy.
antivaxers are less than 0.1% of the people choosing not to get vaccinated or disagreeing with the mandates.
there is something far more fundamental at play, which is bodily autonomy, and quite frankly, calling that a fixed position as if it's somehow bad is part of the problem.
Disagree. Most I know are avoiding that poison with everything they've got. Anti-mandate is the bodily autonomy issue, with vaxxed and unvaxxed concerned about autonomy of original shots and endless boosters.
The "antivaxer" label is part of the propaganda. It's quite possible to be pro-science, pro-evidence, to evaluate each of the available vaccines, and decide that the risk-benefit balance doesn't favor taking some or all of them. All of the aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines are dangerous, for example. Read vaccinepapers.org, or get Prof Exeley's excellent book, Imagine You Are An Aluminum Atom. His team of researchers has shown extraordinary levels of aluminum in the brains of people with Alzheimer's -- and with autism.
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
Stoichastic, I don't think having a fixed position is inherently bad (or good). I find conversation where there is more interest in what is true than all the fixed positions at play, are interesting. Dialogue like that has a natural curiosity at play that is shared between all willing participants. I find it a very creative process to be involved in. I am not particularly fantastic at it, as I have tendency to be pathologically attached to many of the conscious (and unconscious) ideas and conclusions about self, other and reality that I hold. But that in of itself is not a problem either, as curiosity applied to that allows a way of navigating through.
Please, tell me how you feel about abortion lol. Also, pandemics aren't about freedom of choice. They are a public health crisis that require people to sacrifice freedoms in respect to the people they live around. I get that you are so far stuck up your ass to figure that out, but come on.
I am not afraid to admit I am an anti-vaxxer. That is my burden and I couldn't care less who disagrees. I have nothing against those who choose vaccination. Freedom of choice is most paramount. Getting these horrid mRNA injections was and is never anything I might give a smidgen of thought to. Considering all the big pharma lies over the last 40 years, I have no doubts that the lies are perpetuating the false mantra that vaccines are a success and save lives. The current tsunami of lies and propaganda says otherwise. The demands of pharma for ever increasing profits says the same.
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
So what if some of us are anti-vaxxers? That is our choice and while I couldn't care less if you are injected or not, it's your decision but you nor anyone else on this earth have the right to make choices for me. What is your problem? As long as you are injected with mRNA spike proteins, you are protected against all diseases, right? If you don't believe that to be so, then what is your reason for getting these injections?
I think for a lot of vaxxed people the issue is settled whereas ,due to the incessant mainstream propaganda, the anti-vaxx side constantly needs to reassert its position.
Unvaccinated people may influence their surrounding in not taking the jab and thus feel some responsibility if something goes wrong.
Incorrect. The pharma paid government corruptocrats are imposing fascist penalties on any unable or unwilling to comply with their fraudulent science vaccination mandates. The vaxxed will soon be the " unvaxxed" as their alleged immunity subsides and the next round of dangerous booster shots becomes mandatory. The ruling cult has 7 boosters on its planned mandate list and vaxpass apps.
There is data and critical thinking and historical precedents and that is that. This is not about ideas. It’s about facts. Things that can be measured and analysed. There is what is, and there is what can be done. What is cannot be argued. What can be done, can. But what is, IS. It’s about working out what is. And then what can be done.
I've engaged it. The top comments are literally disinformation anti-vaxx bullshit lol. I'm not even an expert but the whole page is bullshit. Why would a rational person come to a anti-vaxx propaganda page to look for credible information? If there was an expert here this page wouldn't exist. The author literally cherry picks information for their bias. You people are helpless lol. You can't see your own bias and it's insane.
PAGE 12 OF THE REPORT:
Results
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
I think you should look at Figure 3 instead of Figure 5 from the UKHSA 42 week report. Note the S and N levels are the same at time of vax campaign starting.
You're whole page is anti-vaxx propaganda bullshit. Get help before you lead a bunch of sheep off a cliff. You literally make an argument by cherry picking data without even considering other factors because you are too obsessed with your incredibly wrong bias.
Please at least acknowledge that the following (literally page 12 of the report) exists and that your readers should read it:
Results
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
He recommended his readers read the whole report. Pro-vax propaganda relies on a cherry picked page and boringly repeating it, as if it was important and accurate. Honest advocates defend their analysis, not just regurgitate someone else's.
Jill Job, could you stop posting a repeat of the same stuff over and over on this thread please. It looks like you are just cut and pasting the same (long) post over and over. I find it is getting in the way of reading other posts. I am finding that rather inconvenient.
Check out this whopper I saw on page 26 of that report.
"Estimates suggest that 127,500 deaths and 24,144,000 infections have been prevented as a result of the COVID19 vaccination programme, up to 24 September.
Neither of these models will be updated going forward. This is due to these models being
unable to account for the interventions that would have been implemented in the absence of
vaccination."
So what if they went back and "performed interventions (AKA like early treatment like MAbs and IVM, etc) that would have been implemented in the absence of vaccination" on those infected from the beginning of this pandemic? Might the model not support this broad citizen-wide vaccination program? You bet your arse they wouldn't!
Yeah, they aren't updating that number because it would hasten the day of the vax's discrediting. They could easily come up with a plausible no-vaccine scenario, put some + and - error bars around their estimate, but everyone is in full ass-covering mode.
So the screeching fanatics accusing us of being potential burdens to the medical system are more likely to get sick again and again in the long term and become potential burdens to the medical system? *Emperor Palpatine Voice* Ironic.
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
So what we're really getting at here is that unless our public health officials own up to their errors, we're going to be in an endless pandemic, and even if they do, they may have created a monster in that most of the population will forever be susceptible to COVID. This all works out very well for the already-bloated Pharma and Med industries and power hungry politicians and bureaucrats, but not so well for the rest of us.
Thank you Jen! It may sound cold in some ways, but when I hear someone say, "I just have to get tested once a week to keep my job instead of getting the shot" I come uncorked. Testing, IMHO, is just as bad as a shot. We lived for a long time without getting tested to work or go to a concert. If we allow the testing it's just a door to more and more invasion into our bodies! Those of us who still believe we own our bodies have to say no to ALL of this. This is not a time where we can just accept a few things to "go along to get along." There is way too much at stake.
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
Interestingly, my quote was from his poem, "Litany For Dictatorships" . Our "Western Democracies" have easily and fluidly elided into Totalitarian States.
Here is the full last stanza of that prophetic poem.
We thought we were done with these things but we were wrong.
We thought, because we had power, we had wisdom.
We thought the long train would run to the end of Time.
We thought the light would increase.
Now the long train stands derailed and the bandits loot it.
Now the boar and the asp have power in our time.
Now the night rolls back on the West and the night is solid.
Actually, I correct myself because for a parent to tell a child to record such a thing, well that is bad. (My anger at the situation that the kids are living through got the best of me.)
However, sharing such poetry with the young, is more appropriate.
I suspect that the attenuation of immune response is very real, but not yet borne out by the first graph you show. As far as I remember my high school biology classes, the body only produces antibodies when it detects an infection. Once the infection clears, immune cells in the bone marrow add the antibodies' design to their "library", so they can recall them quickly, but then stop producing them. Therefore over time, you will always see flattening levels until you get reinfected with a similar looking disease agent.
But I might be totally wrong, would appreciate your comment.
antibodies of course fade after infection when b cells stop producing them, llpcs in marrow will often still produce them in the longer term post-infection.
Note in the last paragraph of the last page of the PHE report (page 26), "Neither of these models will be updated going forward. This is due to these models being unable to account for the interventions that would have been implemented in the absence of vaccination. Consequently, over time the state of the actual pandemic and the no-vaccination pandemic scenario have become increasingly less comparable. For further context surrounding this figure and for previous estimates, please see previous vaccine surveillance reports."
I saw that too, and after studying it decided the models they're talking about are the ones that estimate how many lives have been saved due to vaccination, etc. Not really relevant to the topic at hand, because who believed that stuff anyway?
Actually, there is another way to look at it. When one considers that the soulless meat puppets who have been coldly pushing this just announced that have 25 million doses of this poison ready for 5 - 1 1 year olds across the nation, there is only ONE way to look at it: you're in a war for your existence. At this point, with the data and facts piling up around us like horse manure, there is no other conclusion. Whether its malevolent intent or plain stupidity caused by decades of ever-increasingly evil behavior, reality is what it is: there is a death cult who wants to kill you and your family. Take off the blinders. It's time to fight.
Malevolence or incompetence? I'm going to circle "malevolence" on that test question.
Coercion to take jabs, coupled with demonization of those refusing to do so, indicate bad-faith actors.
Doc H is one of my favorites from the wild west. No doubt you have survived all these years thanks to big pharma drugs! Cheers.
I survived by getting off big pharma drugs and eating a clean, low carb wholefoods diet with some supplements, particularly turmeric and cayenne pepper, Ashwaghanda, Magnolia Bark extract and Apple Cider Vinegar. Came off Insulin, Metformin and Statins.
Great news! Gotta love that cayenne. I am using 180KHU extract and it does wonders for blood pressure. No meds for me, especially statins. Diet is really the key to avoiding health problems.
Given that the West is all about the new technology/never been tried before/1.0 version of a seemingly sketchy technology, it makes me wonder what a certain large/dominant Asian country new as they rolled out a traditional, albeit less effective vaccine to their population?
I'm going with the biggest medical blunder in human history.
Results
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
This is what the vaccine advocates have been claiming even as the data continues to move in the opposite direction. It is just impossible to not conclude that these vaccines are not particularly effective with substantial and mounting evidence that are neither safe for individuals nor a safe way to manage the pandemic. We know have most of the theory of action, and the real world data that supports that they are a problem. Until we accept that and realize that we need a better strategy than universal vaccination AND better vaccines as well as therapeutics, we will not be rid of the scourge of covid nor the greater scourge of the demogagues inflicting pandemic pain on the world.
Polly want a cracker?
The Whole of Denmark Strongly Disagrees with you. The Sleeper Must Awaken.
The Vaccined in many country"s couldn't cost in truth for herb immunity which is recreating to many varíaties virus SARC ,we should live like distance social and no vaccine for prevent to risk of infection ôf influenza unstill the research of result of report news to vaccine with the most truth in body at communication.No one child will madate in vaccine at now.
I read the UK report and the cited passage. It is a very interesting remark, and without a good explanation.
The report also goes on to - finally say out loud - that antibody levels are not a good way to measure covid protection, and are probablistic at best. I have always maintained that if antibodies are not the answer; if we maintained antibodies to all viruses we have contracted our blood would be sludge.
Antibodies are measured because they are easy to measure. But that doesn't mean they are very useful to measure. It is our one analytical test, and so we measure and measure and when things get difficult we just say "ok we are gonna measure it HARDER now"
T & B cell measurements are still technologically challenging and difficult to scale.
Our only truly useful tool is observational - seeing who gets sick - and that generates a charged response
The public health bureacracy is once again calling for lockdowns and societal restrictions in the face of "increased cases and hospitalizations". Any sane mind would realize that this will accomplish little, cause a lot of harm, and at best simply prolong the inevitable
It really is controlling the population to control their immune systems via boosters, so antibodies are always "ON", rather than letting the body do its thing *if* it gets infected.
Sadly this only just occurred to me, including how plain old dumb that is as a health initiative.
Its a form of panic. SARS-2 is a real virus and not pleasant, especially if you're in a risk group. In the scramble for "solutions" for a virus - I mean how crazy does that sound - the obvious reality that "people WILL get sick, people WILL suffer, people WILL die - no matter what", because the virus is an objective reality and it seems that the grand battle of SARS-2 vs human immunity will play out in the end more or less the same way as if we did nothing at all.
Humanities victories in the past - against SARS-1, MERS-1 (via NPI measures) and against polio, measles and smallpox (vaccine victories) are mashed together as a form of "comprehensive public health response". But I wonder now how much of the attribution is hubris? Were we just lucky, or smart, or both?
I am vaccinated, and was thrilled to be so, earlier in 2021. I was a strong advocate in the face of strong data. Now; what is clear to me yet unspeakable to those in positions of authority is that "we have no idea what to do".
I know what to do, stop all "vaccinations" and fire up treatment. Throw the kitchen shink at an infection. Start early, and pressure the virus hard. And, continue to recommend people lose weight and exercise and take Vit-D.
"people WILL get sick, people WILL suffer, people WILL die - no matter what"...that is true for every sickness, disease, virus or other illness that plagues mankind. The difference is that we have insane megalomaniacs creating disease for their own nefarious purposes and we are the fodder for those gruesome experiments. All thanks to big pharma's arrogant desire to control the world using medical servitude.
Look at nuclear weapons. Certainly more luck than brains. It is as if someone is waiting for us to understand something before folding the whole thing together.
Glad you woke up and hope the jabs don't work against you.
That is why I don't like vaccines. Unless it is truly a deadly disease and you are in immediate danger of getting it, I think vaccinating is not the right thing to do. Eating healthy and leading a healthy lifestyle, getting sun and moving some every day, and let your body get sick and heal itself now and then. The world nowadays seems to think getting sick is a sin. But I think now and then your body needs to lay down, rest, recuperate. And if you don't do that by yourself, it gets sick and then you MUST step down a bit. I think vaccines forbid your body to live a normal life.
I'm 67 and remember lining up for the polio sugar cube, and having both kinds of measles, and chickenpox. I am grateful for smallpox and polio vaccines. Then I think the medical establishment got carried away, no doubt thanks to the efforts of the pharmaceutical industry who saw mandated vaccines for children as a never-ending manna-from-heaven spigot (ditto statins).
If there was a truly terrible pandemic along the lines of the black death with a 30% fatality rate and no effective treatment, then a vaccination campaign might be called for. But the rest of the time, perhaps trusting an immune system which has been fine-tuned over millions of years might be the wiser course. Our energy would be better spent demonstrating what a healthy lifestyle is (without the current pervasive and toxic influence of financial interests) in order to give the natural biological systems a fighting chance.
I've been reading nutritional research for 12 years and find it almost uniformly abysmal in terms of quality of science, so I don't see much likelihood of that happening. But one can dream.
Totally right. If this were Ebola, I would run for whatever vaccine available, even knowing it could make me sick. But Ebola has a death toll of 90 percent. Compare to covid, which barely makes it to .1 percent.
The reason I trust treatment and preparedness over vaccination *for any and all pathogens* comes down to overall risk of reduced quality of life due to the sum of my choices vs. risk of morbidity/fatality. Vaccinepapers.org makes clear that vaccine manufacturers are never actually concerned with saving lives. They are concerned with diminished neurological function and chronic disease.
thanks for the link. I certainly will check it out
In his article, Julius Ruechel discusses the difference between viruses like measles and polio and why immunity with a single shot or "sugar cube" imparts near life-long immunity for them, while the flu and now covid shots immunity is short lived. It has to do with the mutation rates of those different viruses, as well as the mechanism by which they enter the cell. For measles and polio, the mutation rate is very slow, and a mutation often affects how they enter the cell, thereby making that line a dead end.
With corona viruses, the mutation rate is very fast, and often does not affect the way the virus enters the cell, but avoids immune function, and so it is nearly impossible to create a vaccine that will guess what the next iteration might be.
See Julius Ruechel: https://www.juliusruechel.com/2021/09/the-snake-oil-salesmen-and-covid-zero.html
Enjoying the Reuchel site, thanks! This one addresses topics near and dear to me: https://www.juliusruechel.com/2021/01/crimes-against-science-my-grandfather.html
Since most people only understand science at the bumper sticker level, distinctions like this are lost on them. I see some vaccines as beneficial, some not so much, and some as pure profitable snake oil. Thanks for the link.
I agree. To my knowledge, there has never been any independent studies that confirm the vaccinated are any healthier than those who smartly refuse them. I firmly believe the opposite to be true.
Actually, there is a very well designed study from the UK that shows the influenza vaccine is useless!
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32120383/
Thanks, I will check it out.
I was hospitalized with severe covid back in August, but once I got into the hospital and started receiving care, I recovered very quickly and was discharged within a week. It was an awful experience and I've never come so close in my life to feeling like I was literally dying. I got both Remdesivir and convalescent plasma and one or the the other turned me around. (I'm guessing the CP)
I've known two other people with similar risk factors - also overweight men with in their 40's with families - to me who were also hospitlized. One died and the other is currently in the hospital and slowly deteriorating.
I am struggling mightily with survivor's guilt right now, but I also know that they were both vaccinated and weren't on the same supplement regimen - D3, zinc, Mg, quercetin, K2, C - that I was on when I was infected. I think the combination of those two factors are what kept me from succumbing.
Remdesivir is toxic. It is possibly why one of your acquaintances died and the other is deteriorating; he needs to be switched to FLCCC protocol before the hospital kills him.
In a sane world, this would merit immediate cessation of the catastrophic mass vaccination pogrom. Even the faintest pretense that this is for the “public health” can no longer be sustained with a straight face. Unfortunately, we live in Clown World, and sanity has long since departed this planet.
ICYMI, el gato malo dug into this data and the concept of original antigenic sin today as well: https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/original-antigenic-sin
Margaret Anna,
Narcissists NEVER admit they are wrong. They double down on their position.
Wish we lived in Clown World (notice how the humor has left the other side?) then it would be easier to extract ourselves.
The irony in this comment.
Geert Vanden Bossche is looking very much like a prophet at this point. It's only a matter of time until Delta mutates and we see complete immune escape. When that happens you'll be happy you didn't get the jab.
Happy? No not happy, watching my family, friends and neighbors fall ill, will not make me happy. Even to those who rolled their eyes at me when I dared suggest this virus probably came from the lab. Continued eye rolls when I mentioned the lockdowns are hurting more than helping, that statistically it’s the old, frail and un-healthy that are getting wiped out by this virus. Exasperated sighs when mentioned children should be playing outside without a mask, that going to a beach to soak up sunshine was healthy, to turn off their damn TV’s and actually look at the data on county/state health departments to see who’s really dying. The list can go on and on. But if what is being suggested, and those who chose to take the jab get very ill, there won’t be happiness, no sense of justification or validation, only true remorse that the majority of humankind can be so easily lead astray.
I suspect the only way out of this is to be proactive in reducing your chances or getting the virus or if you do attenuating it's response. A family member's wife got jabbed unbeknownst to him to be able to go on a cruise with "the girls". He of course was very upset upon finding this out after the fact, but he just spent ~$300 for a consult and Vitamin I (IVM) so he would have available if needed for himself and her. I have a close friend of mine who got suckered in to jab #1 and his kids talked him off the ledge and he skipped #2. Right now, he's taking Quercetin/Zinc and following the FLCCC protocol to avoid as the say "a bad outcome".
It's going to take some time to figure out of the innate immune damage that seems to be happening self corrects since we already know that there is no B-cell activity for the synthetic spike antibodies and they fade quickly and are not replenished from a future infection challenge. What we need to do is disseminate this information as far and wide as possible in an effort to stop the madness which is about to harm the 5-11 year olds.
I sure wish we could edit out the typos. !@!$%!
Gotta proofread.
I will pray for your friend!
Edna, I totally understand your frustration, desperation, and anguish at the difficulty of awakening the willfully ignorant as well as your concerns about the bleak future to come as a result of that gullibility. I do think Laurence did not mean being happy about the overall situation but rather “happy you didn’t get the jab”—in other words, relieved that you didn’t succumb to the propaganda. It doesn’t make watching our loved ones who did succumb suffer any less painful, though.
Thank you, I know we all have our own personal journey through this mess. I so thought the American public would have decided to just get on with life. I mistakenly thought the medical community would have a real medical protocol to successfully treat COVID by now. Instead there’s a splintering among everything and everyone. Its painful to watch. I appreciate the kind words.
Edna, it is disheartening to see how readily Americans have submitted to tyranny. Regarding the medical protocol for treating COVID—many highly successful early treatment protocols *do* exist (https://c19protocols.com/), but BigPharma/Big Medicine/Big Media/Big Tech are doing everything they can to smear and suppress those protocols. See the latest entry in my Letters series, Letter to a Scientifically-Minded Friend (case study on the Ivermectin disinformation campaign) for more details: https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-a-scientifically-minded
Do know that you’re not alone in your feelings and that many of us are doing everything in our power to unmask totalitarianism and shake the sleeping awake before it’s too late. Participating in that resistance is inspiring and energizing, despite the darkness surrounding us. I do hope reason will ultimately prevail, but we have a lot of zombies to wake up in the meantime.
Taking the road less traveled is always tougher just ask Jesus. You will be vindicated I have told my kids how I feel they don't agree with me but they respect my position and that is all I can ask. I ordered ivermectin early on and took it preventatively have had no problems. Have given it to friends and been rejected by others. It saved one of my friends life for which I am thankful to God for. Another friend rejected it and went into the hospital and died. I feel bad about that one I wish I had pushed harder. I told my kids as I always did actions have consequences mine and yours. I hope and pray that they do not get sick from this jab. But I fear they will!
I'm happy now :-)
Has Delta mutated already? Saw this comment made by "GM" on https://www.nakedcapitalism.com a few days ago.
"People are right now worried about AY.4.2, which is AY.4 + Y145H. The suspicion is that with the Y145H mutation it has gained a sialic acid binding site, and thus potentially a new mode of cell entry.
If true, this will be another example of viral evolution completely blindsiding us."
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/10/officials-double-down-on-let-er-rip-strategy-placing-undue-faith-in-vaccines-as-regions-with-high-vaccinations-suffer-infection-spikes.html
Yea, they're calling it "Delta Plus". Accounts for 8% of infections in the UK.
I would like to know how they are determining what is delta or anything else. I don't think any of these tests can tell the difference between a delta and a smelta.
Supposed genomic sequencing. Who knows what they're sequencing though. I doubt they even know.
I think much of the time it's more CYA than narcissism.
CYA is narcissism!
I've heard a few dissident doctors say that mass vaccination during the middle of an epidemic is colossally stupid, precisely because this kind of stuff (and ADE) is likely to happen. Much better to let the epidemic burn itself out and THEN vaccinate to prevent future epidemics.
But the worldwide govt-media establishment fanned the flames and just HAD to get rid of Trump and they appear have had no other choice to try and turn down the panic but to pump out these "vaccines".
The first person I know of who warned about mass vaccination in the middle of a pandemic was virologist and vaccinologist Geert Vanden Bossche.
Nobel prize winner Luc Montaigner did so as well.
Yes I heard him early in and more importantly believed what he was saying! Thankful for the man!
We have doctors in positions of power that don't actually treat patients and focus narrowly on one goal approaches. Oh, Pfizer's study says that the jab saved 1 person versus the placebo group- vaccinate everyone!
Actually, it was the reverse!
True! 14-15 deaths, right?
I wish this site had some expert, pro-vaxx readers willing to engage. As it is, each side is speaking in a sealed bubble and there is no genuine debate.
This is not a criticism of your post. Rather, I want to hear both sides but it's hard to find responses from pro-vaxxers on very specific issues like these.
How can we entice them to come over and discuss?
there isn’t really another side, is the thing. the pro-vaxx position is an ultimately indefensible propaganda construct, engineered not for purposes of correct analysis but to justify the vaccination policies. it was the same with lockdowns, and masks and everything else.
over the past year, whenever any of the covidian modellers or virologists would emerge to defend obviously absurd containment policies, you got a taste of how limited and barren their perspective was.
this doesn’t automatically mean we’re right, btw, just that they’re working from a disingenuous inflexible script that makes reasonable discussion impossible. a good response to the above, for example, would be “yes that’s concerning but remember that antibodies aren’t the same as immunity. we only track them because they’re easy to measure”. which is true, but all the time they’ve been insisting that antibodies *are* equivalent to immunity because it’s an easy metric on which the vaxx can win.
That's one of my biggest concerns, the suppression of legitimate scientific discourse. I hesitate to throw around words like "censorship" and "cancel culture" because it's just as easy for genuine nutjobs to make the same accusations. But science isn't science anymore, it's become dogma. This isn't new—in some fields it's been happening for a long time. It's just that now it's visible to more of the generally oblivious population.
Any time money gets involved things become corrupted. That is why the love of money is the root of all evil!
Very insightful comment and point well taken, nevertheless, a sad state of affairs when reasonable discussion becomes impossible. I've been reading your substack for months now and you're one of my favourites . Recently I came across how antibiotic use and exposure during early childhood development (up to age 3) can alter the gut microbiota (dysbiosis) and establish a predisposition to obesity in children and adults. Studies in the last decade have pointed to this disruption in our flora due to antibiotics, which contribute to promoting certain bacteria that "affects energy harvest from the diet and energy storage in the host". So what does this have to do with Covid? Well, since obesity is a major factor in a severe coronavirus outcome, if anyone can connect the dots between antibiotic (overuse), obesity and Covid infections - it's you, Eugyppius!
While considering the possibility of a pro-vaxx ‘person’ on this board, consider, we get pro-vaxx propaganda 24/7 on every news outlet and from every so-called medical “authority” in our corner of the world, and country. In Canada, we’re very aware of Fauxci and his endless pretzel logic and lies, and most American talking heads. In Canada, we have our versions too, that continue the same nonsense and emotional blackmail to the easily manipulated. People, like me are here because we’re sick and tired of the endless gaslighting by TPTB. Our BS meters are at 11.
I’m glad I found this sub stack, it complements my other frequent flier sites, El GATO, Berenson, Chris Martensen, Bigtree, GVB. Yes, danger if confirmation bias, but this is Our Tribe now.
This is what happens when you no longer recognize the madness and delusional minions in a country that you no longer know, Canada in my case, one step away from Oz.
Bingo!
It's hard to believe there's not a single, pro-establishment virologist or epidemiologist willing to comment on a site like this. Maybe they could do so as anon. I write this in the hope there may be one out there hate-reading right now.
If not, perhaps the best you could do is steelman opposing arguments.
I can't recall reading one comment here strongly going against your arguments. That's a problem.
Misunderstandings are common so let me clarify before the pile-on starts: I'm against mass Covid vaccinations. They should be offered to the vulnerable and that should be the end of the matter. However, there are some too willing to believe every piece of bad news about the vaccines because it suits their existing notions. I'm thinking more of some of your commenters than yourself.
If the other side won't debate and be critical, we should be extra careful to remain skeptical on this side.
Anyway, if a pro-vaxxer pipes up here, commenters please be extra nice. Mostly they'll shit and leave but a few might hang around for an in-depth discussion.
Before August, you saw a lot more flexibility in the pro-vaccination side, and their ranks weren't just bureaucrats and other officials. Then everyone realised vaxx fade was happening, which destroyed all hopes that this would solve Corona forever. In response, vaxx arguments became frozen for all time in the mould of the same 5-7 talking points.
The same thing happened to lockdown/containment discourse sometime after May 2020, when it became clear that lockdowns were a bad idea and didn't have much upside. All the dynamism went out of the lockdown discussion and it became the same tired eternally unchanging Lockdown Doctrine.
Often in war, and in other ultra-high stakes endeavors, when things are going to sh*t, the leadership will enter a sort of willfully chosen fantasy world. You see this depicted nicely in the Chernobyl mini series from a few years ago. You also see it in people who may have cancer, and delay getting tested. The lust to drag out the fiction that everything's fine is strong. These people are buying themselves an extra nine months in which they don't look like world-historical fools who injected 2 billion people with ineffective, dangerous shots.
I think the fact that the pro-vax side doesn't engage in honest debate is telling. If you're side has weak evidence and cannot accurately predict future events or unintended results, as well as your opponent, you will realize you have the weaker side of evidence.
So then we add in self-preservation, and that includes psychological self-preservation. To willingly engage in a debate which may indicate to you that your position is wrong, and then you extrapolate that out to all the harm your position has caused ... well, you're' not going to do it. It's a quick assessment most (all?) of us make, subconsciously, continuously.
Finally, I think some of the people pushing this have risen beyond their level of competence. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, they still wield power and they, like most people, equate their level of power to competence. The fact that the brains behind these leaders aren't coming out (willingly or by edict) to support the vaccine is also telling.
"To willingly engage in a debate which may indicate to you that your position is wrong, and then you extrapolate that out to all the harm your position has caused ..."
<cough> dietary guidelines <cough>
Oh god, don't get me started on the hornets nest.
Cheerios are healthier than eggs and ground beef, pleeease.
<cough> Climate Change <cough> <cough>
HERE'S SOME HONESET DEBATE. LITERALLY FROM THE REPORT BEING MINIMALLY REFERENCED FOR THIS PAGE'S AND COMMUNITY'S ANTI-VAXX BIAS:
PAGE 12:
Results
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
Not only wrong but criminal with potential liability!
I would love to see that as well. At the present time, I'm concluding that there are no such people - experts who believe this is anything but a train wreck, and can back that assertion up with evidence.
Any time they cite effectiveness, they point to the early outcome of the original trials. Our response is, well, how do explain the facts on the ground?
Response: crickets
The original trials were extremely flawed.
Yes that is an excellent explanation that we do not ever hear.
Sanjay Gupta debated Joe Rogan for 3 hours. I find it amusing that a talk show host beat a neurologist.
To be fair, Joe is also an accomplished stand up comic and MMA fighter. Whereas Dr. Gupta's primary skill is not understanding things he's not paid to understand.
You mean he displayed more ignorance which aligns with your bias.
You are talking about Gupta?
Fully agree. Those who want them can go for them. Those who do not want them, can leave them be. But now this whole thing has turned into a hate thing. All of a sudden, I can grasp what it must be to be black in a country that wants to be white. To be on the side of the scolded, the suppressed. And this is nothing compared to what they get every day of their lives.
I saw a video about a month ago put out by a pretty, 40 something year old black woman from NY. She was in her home and talking about what it is like to be unvaccinated in NY: closed out of theatres, restaurants, on and on, etc. Then she said something along the following: “It is much, much easier to be black. I could do what I want, go where I wanted. Sure there was discrimination sometimes but this is far worse.”
I fully understand that black Americans have faced racism in this country, even recently at times. But no one supported forcibly injecting them or barring them from grocery stores, getting health care or a job. This is on a whole different level. It’s inexcusable. Inhumane. And what is most weird is the white people who have been insisting we all support BLM 110% are now supporting excluding anyone from society who is not vaccinated.
Thank you for pointing this out. You are right. I live 3 miles outside a small town in rural US and did not go out prior to the crisis. But for people in the city it must be terrible. They probably can hardly go out at all, like this lady states. For me the difference is hardly noticeable. Just a few chain stores that require masks, that is about it.
This is not a vaxx/anti vaxx debate necessitating both sides as far as i can tell. It’s a let’s work out wtf is going on and try to find out what is going on based on the facts.
Strange how strident the pro-vax are. An illustrative example comes from Richard Hananiah's tweeting which you have covered:
https://nitter.eu/eugyppius1/status/1451401536295346176#m
There's no effort by these people to speak as though they are talking about a dynamic probability distribution, no cautioning, hedging, sounding like a researcher interested in getting it right, and avoiding looking the fool. They are all-in, in a creepy way. Set to go down with the ship, no fear of looking like thalidomide or lobotomy apologists x10,000.
The debate is on the skeptic side. ADE vs no-ADE, blood-clot hyper death vs blood-clot micro death. To the skeptic, it's provisionally true that the vaccines failed, probably won't have a revision on that, and now the interesting question is "what have they done to the inoculated?"
I had never met brainwashed people before, but that is what they are. If you seldom or never hear a discording voice, you go with the flow and don't look any further I presume. But when I read that the shots contained PEG my red flag went up there and then. And they were made in such a hurry. And then I read about the tests with ferrets with the first Sars and how they all died. If you count that up, how can you be brainwashed to the other side, is beyond me.
Biggest mistake that was ever made was to lift liability for the pharmaceutical companies. It became open season for corruption, state sanctioned corruption!
Lol sorry to inform you, but this whole comment section is full of brainwashed people. All you need to do is look in the mirror.
You seem to be a shill for Big Pharma but you’re failing. Maybe find another job?
Looking at the frequency of your posts, and their contents , I conclude that YOU are the brainwashed one.
Prove me wrong.
Stupid retort.
Remember the titanic could not sink! A fool in his heart says there is no God!
I think you are right. I got several pro jab friends, some of them in the biology-medical field, who walked into the story with open eyes. Even early on, when it was clear the jabs could not prevent sickness nor spread, they did not agree with me. One said, even one person saved from infection is worth it. That person was themselves, because that was all the jab promised. And now even that promise does not hold, as more and more vaxxers get sick. I have not talked to them in over 2 months now. They don't want to see me, as I am not vaxxed.
As Ayn Rand pointed out, what is the benefit for white to debate black? For good to debate evil? The reason that "pro-vaxxers" lie, manipulate and censor vs debating is simple: they know that their position can't be debated or defended. As the evidence continues to pile up that this is the single largest act of criminal negligence (or outright murder/fraud) in human history, the guilty have only one choice: bathe daily on cognitive dissonance to avoid the reality of their crimes. This isn't a scientific debate ... it's a crime scene.
Once vaxxed, they cannot be unvaxxed, either. Admitting one made this mistake is much tougher, especially in the face of constant propaganda.
This is a huge driver of the propaganda and the religious belief. You cannot change your mind and take it back.
I considered this when I first was notified back in the spring that I was eligible for the shot, but a lot of people did not and just did it impulsively. And now I'm sure many of them regret that decision and want to force it on others in order to feel better about themselves.
I reluctantly got vaccinated because I live in a tiny community of elderly people, and acquiesced mostly to reassure my neighbors. I regret it now, even though at the time I wasn't so worried about immediate side effects as long-term fallout such as the subject of this post.
I'm not going to get the booster, and if people ask me about it I'll tell them, but there's no point being militant. It's like arguing religion. And annoys the pig.
My attitude was slowly changed (about masking and lockdowns at first) starting in the summer of 2020 not by people yelling and screaming, but by a few very smart people that I respect calmly and cogently presenting facts and reasonable arguments. People on the Humble Plateau, of which there aren't many. https://theredqueen.substack.com/p/dunning-kruger-power-effect
Results
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
Or to ally their fears about their personal decision. Or in other words, they are projecting their fears on to you, lot easier than dealing with their internal demons.
Excellent point. One that I struggle with as many of my family have gotten the jab. One older sister unwillingly, due to pressure from her daughter. And she has definitely been negatively affected (low energy, low tolerance for exertion).
I believe this to be one of the largest factors that engulfs the entire dialogue (to the extent a dialogue even takes place). It is not just the fact the the vaccinated now have remorse, many of them have been roused and encouraged to blame the ongoing misery on the unvaccinated. This has lead to many fractures in the social order, even among family and friends and this is a psychological barrier that is extremely difficult to overcome.
To use just one extreme example, there are doctors that have justified not treating or offering medical services to the unvaccinated. How does one come to grips with such a revolting view when forced to confront the grim reality that the unvaccinated were not only prudent to take a "wait and see" approach but who also have proven to have superior health instincts than that of the doctor that spent over ten years in training to attain his/her lofty professional and social status of "doctor"? This is a bridge too far for many to accept but the cruel reality (for them) is that their mental state of mind cannot alter the facts on the ground.
The catharsis that is sure to follow will not be pleasant for them or for us.
Results
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
Their only choice now is to defend the indefensible. The more narcissistic they are, the less likely they'll be to admit error. Does that sound like anyone in the news? The medical profession imho is notorious for this. We're the smartest people in the room, my grades say so, so shut up! Just look at the error of the lipid hypothesis for heart disease and the statin drug industry that it spawned. And now, increasing evidence is pointing to insulin resistance as the primary cause of many metabolic diseases. Heart disease, Type II, Obesity, hypertension, alzheimer's and even cancer are all potentially caused by the wrong nutritional recommendations. And the evidence is all around you. 50 years ago, you never saw so many pot bellied 20 somethings. Yet AMA and AHA aren't even beginning to back off the low fat, statin approach. Now that there is a massive investment in the MRNA vaccine approach to the pandemic, don't expect the infectious disease bureaucrats and Big Pharma to cede any territory. They're not constitutionally capable of it.
Results
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
It is true, like other vaccines, this one is less than 100% effective. And as time goes on, and the vaccine stimulated antibodies diminish, that percentage number will get smaller and smaller. Along with the added bonus of attenuating the natural immunity of the individual. A twofer.
https://theredqueen.substack.com/p/dunning-kruger-power-effect
Absolutely. I'm reminded of the flying saucer cult in California years ago whose leader convinced them to divest of all their worldly possessions (give them to him) because the mother ship would arrive on a certain date and pick them all up to wisk them away to a Nirvana like planet. The day came and went and the saucer was a no show. Did that destroy the cult's belief? Absolutely not. Leader decided that the calculations were just off a bit and they planned for the next visit. Not one member quit the group. I believe the human brain is designed to protect itself from humiliation as vigorously as it tries to protect our bodies from physical danger and harm.
Results
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
There's a great break down of a pro-vax calculation tweet here: https://drrollergator.substack.com/p/damned-lies-and-eric-topol
When you are on the pro-vax side, you can make as many egregious math errors as you like because of your position and nobody will challenge you or bat an eyelid, let alone check your working.
Think "climate science" as well.
Great article. Thanks
Outstanding article. Everyone should read this.
eugyppius beat me to it, but yes, all you need do is turn on cable television or any other source of mainstream news to get the "pro-vaxx" narrative. No legitimate scientists, medical professionals, or others are engaging in any sort of rational debate. The propaganda is simply poured down a chute and all the Covidians line up to lap it up.
You mean Don Lemon is not a doctor!
He thinks he is, but then again, look at how he pronounces “sorbet” ;-) https://www.gq.com/story/don-lemon-anchor
Results
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
Lol you think any comments in here are rational?
Ahh yes, much more rational to obsessively copy/paste irrelevant nonsense. Be a dear and go bring us some firsthand data on playing in traffic would ya
Listen to the Joe Rogan podcast with Dr Sanjay Gupta on Spotify to discover how shallow their arguments really are. Defense of the vax in the face of a lot of concerning evidence before this study was really just based on emotion and fear, even for Dr Gupta. Vax-holes don't worry about any of this, all that matters to them is protection from dreaded covid, at any cost. No evidence will "move the needle" for them on the wisdom of the vax. Stunning cognitive dissonance.
The most useful conversations come when all parties are more interested in what is true than their own fixed positions - like pro-vaxx or anti-vaxx. Generally speaking I find debates between 'pro'-whatever and 'anti'-whatever, rather boring, somewhat confusing and ultimately untrustworthy.
antivaxers are less than 0.1% of the people choosing not to get vaccinated or disagreeing with the mandates.
there is something far more fundamental at play, which is bodily autonomy, and quite frankly, calling that a fixed position as if it's somehow bad is part of the problem.
Disagree. Most I know are avoiding that poison with everything they've got. Anti-mandate is the bodily autonomy issue, with vaxxed and unvaxxed concerned about autonomy of original shots and endless boosters.
antivaxers are anti vaccines. all vaccines. they are a minority. my guess is 0.1% if that.
is that what you are disagreeing with?
The "antivaxer" label is part of the propaganda. It's quite possible to be pro-science, pro-evidence, to evaluate each of the available vaccines, and decide that the risk-benefit balance doesn't favor taking some or all of them. All of the aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines are dangerous, for example. Read vaccinepapers.org, or get Prof Exeley's excellent book, Imagine You Are An Aluminum Atom. His team of researchers has shown extraordinary levels of aluminum in the brains of people with Alzheimer's -- and with autism.
Results
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
Stoichastic, I don't think having a fixed position is inherently bad (or good). I find conversation where there is more interest in what is true than all the fixed positions at play, are interesting. Dialogue like that has a natural curiosity at play that is shared between all willing participants. I find it a very creative process to be involved in. I am not particularly fantastic at it, as I have tendency to be pathologically attached to many of the conscious (and unconscious) ideas and conclusions about self, other and reality that I hold. But that in of itself is not a problem either, as curiosity applied to that allows a way of navigating through.
This is not about the vax it is about freedom of choice!
Please, tell me how you feel about abortion lol. Also, pandemics aren't about freedom of choice. They are a public health crisis that require people to sacrifice freedoms in respect to the people they live around. I get that you are so far stuck up your ass to figure that out, but come on.
A public health crisis that affects 1 percent of the population a little more than a flu. May God bless you!
Sacrificing freedoms does not prevent the spread of viruses. You are delusional.
That's what I just said.
I am not afraid to admit I am an anti-vaxxer. That is my burden and I couldn't care less who disagrees. I have nothing against those who choose vaccination. Freedom of choice is most paramount. Getting these horrid mRNA injections was and is never anything I might give a smidgen of thought to. Considering all the big pharma lies over the last 40 years, I have no doubts that the lies are perpetuating the false mantra that vaccines are a success and save lives. The current tsunami of lies and propaganda says otherwise. The demands of pharma for ever increasing profits says the same.
Totally agree.
You're all anti-vaxxers bud. Get help.
Results
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
So what if some of us are anti-vaxxers? That is our choice and while I couldn't care less if you are injected or not, it's your decision but you nor anyone else on this earth have the right to make choices for me. What is your problem? As long as you are injected with mRNA spike proteins, you are protected against all diseases, right? If you don't believe that to be so, then what is your reason for getting these injections?
I think for a lot of vaxxed people the issue is settled whereas ,due to the incessant mainstream propaganda, the anti-vaxx side constantly needs to reassert its position.
Unvaccinated people may influence their surrounding in not taking the jab and thus feel some responsibility if something goes wrong.
Incorrect. The pharma paid government corruptocrats are imposing fascist penalties on any unable or unwilling to comply with their fraudulent science vaccination mandates. The vaxxed will soon be the " unvaxxed" as their alleged immunity subsides and the next round of dangerous booster shots becomes mandatory. The ruling cult has 7 boosters on its planned mandate list and vaxpass apps.
There are no "anti-vaxxers"; they are vaccine risk aware; they are vaccine injured or related to the vaccine injured.
That was Jon Stewart's whole argument when he appeared on Crossfire. Shortly there after the show was canceled.
There is data and critical thinking and historical precedents and that is that. This is not about ideas. It’s about facts. Things that can be measured and analysed. There is what is, and there is what can be done. What is cannot be argued. What can be done, can. But what is, IS. It’s about working out what is. And then what can be done.
I've engaged it. The top comments are literally disinformation anti-vaxx bullshit lol. I'm not even an expert but the whole page is bullshit. Why would a rational person come to a anti-vaxx propaganda page to look for credible information? If there was an expert here this page wouldn't exist. The author literally cherry picks information for their bias. You people are helpless lol. You can't see your own bias and it's insane.
PAGE 12 OF THE REPORT:
Results
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
It is clear from your comments you are not an expert.
I think you should look at Figure 3 instead of Figure 5 from the UKHSA 42 week report. Note the S and N levels are the same at time of vax campaign starting.
good idea, updated.
You're whole page is anti-vaxx propaganda bullshit. Get help before you lead a bunch of sheep off a cliff. You literally make an argument by cherry picking data without even considering other factors because you are too obsessed with your incredibly wrong bias.
Please at least acknowledge that the following (literally page 12 of the report) exists and that your readers should read it:
Results
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
He recommended his readers read the whole report. Pro-vax propaganda relies on a cherry picked page and boringly repeating it, as if it was important and accurate. Honest advocates defend their analysis, not just regurgitate someone else's.
Jill Job, could you stop posting a repeat of the same stuff over and over on this thread please. It looks like you are just cut and pasting the same (long) post over and over. I find it is getting in the way of reading other posts. I am finding that rather inconvenient.
Check out this whopper I saw on page 26 of that report.
"Estimates suggest that 127,500 deaths and 24,144,000 infections have been prevented as a result of the COVID19 vaccination programme, up to 24 September.
Neither of these models will be updated going forward. This is due to these models being
unable to account for the interventions that would have been implemented in the absence of
vaccination."
So what if they went back and "performed interventions (AKA like early treatment like MAbs and IVM, etc) that would have been implemented in the absence of vaccination" on those infected from the beginning of this pandemic? Might the model not support this broad citizen-wide vaccination program? You bet your arse they wouldn't!
Yeah, they aren't updating that number because it would hasten the day of the vax's discrediting. They could easily come up with a plausible no-vaccine scenario, put some + and - error bars around their estimate, but everyone is in full ass-covering mode.
So the screeching fanatics accusing us of being potential burdens to the medical system are more likely to get sick again and again in the long term and become potential burdens to the medical system? *Emperor Palpatine Voice* Ironic.
My mind keeps playing out a self-induced mass extinction scenario.
Which is also why I keep thinking that some at the top aren't our A-gamers in terms of future planning.
At what point does the mass extinction (hence, loss in revenue and product production) hit those who "think" they are in control?
Results
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
This is shaping up to be the greatest scientific disaster in human history
Results
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
Can you and Alex do a podcast together please? Thank you.
So what we're really getting at here is that unless our public health officials own up to their errors, we're going to be in an endless pandemic, and even if they do, they may have created a monster in that most of the population will forever be susceptible to COVID. This all works out very well for the already-bloated Pharma and Med industries and power hungry politicians and bureaucrats, but not so well for the rest of us.
This was apparent to a handful of us in April 2020. This ends when we stop funding the testing machine.
Thank you Jen! It may sound cold in some ways, but when I hear someone say, "I just have to get tested once a week to keep my job instead of getting the shot" I come uncorked. Testing, IMHO, is just as bad as a shot. We lived for a long time without getting tested to work or go to a concert. If we allow the testing it's just a door to more and more invasion into our bodies! Those of us who still believe we own our bodies have to say no to ALL of this. This is not a time where we can just accept a few things to "go along to get along." There is way too much at stake.
Results
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
Results
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be
due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.
Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take
into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic
differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.
These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences
between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways
that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness as is
made clear.
NIMS is used as a denominator because it is a database of named individuals eligible for
vaccination in which there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status.
The Darkness of Man's Hubris is a terrifying place where the Edolons of the Id dance in Naked Nightmare.
To quote the American Poets Stephen Vincent Benet: "Our Fathers & ourselves have sowed Dragons' Teeth... Our children know & suffer the Mad Men."
Thanks, this quote sent me searching for more and found this on Mary McCray's Poems for Dictators (sad that it even has to exist).
Except from Listen to the People
by Stephen Vincent Benet (1941)
A VOICE: You can't do this to me. We got laws. We got courts. We got unions.
A VOICE: You can't do this to me. Why, I believe in Karl Marx!
A VOICE: You can't do this to me. The Constitution forbids it.
A VOICE: I was always glad to cooperate.
A VOICE: It looked to me like good business.
A VOICE: It looked to me like the class struggle,
A VOICE: It looked to me like peace in our time.
TOTALITARIAN VOICE:
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Democracy is finished. You are finished. We are the present!
…
Thank you for that follow up.
Interestingly, my quote was from his poem, "Litany For Dictatorships" . Our "Western Democracies" have easily and fluidly elided into Totalitarian States.
Here is the full last stanza of that prophetic poem.
We thought we were done with these things but we were wrong.
We thought, because we had power, we had wisdom.
We thought the long train would run to the end of Time.
We thought the light would increase.
Now the long train stands derailed and the bandits loot it.
Now the boar and the asp have power in our time.
Now the night rolls back on the West and the night is solid.
Our fathers and ourselves sowed dragon’s teeth.
Our children know and suffer the armed men.
Parents need to get their kids to record reading these prophetic words on Tik-Tok.
Seriously.
Heads will explode.
Actually, I correct myself because for a parent to tell a child to record such a thing, well that is bad. (My anger at the situation that the kids are living through got the best of me.)
However, sharing such poetry with the young, is more appropriate.
I suspect that the attenuation of immune response is very real, but not yet borne out by the first graph you show. As far as I remember my high school biology classes, the body only produces antibodies when it detects an infection. Once the infection clears, immune cells in the bone marrow add the antibodies' design to their "library", so they can recall them quickly, but then stop producing them. Therefore over time, you will always see flattening levels until you get reinfected with a similar looking disease agent.
But I might be totally wrong, would appreciate your comment.
S-protein seropositivity levels, by contrast, have plateaued at 96% among the same blood donors.
antibodies of course fade after infection when b cells stop producing them, llpcs in marrow will often still produce them in the longer term post-infection.
Note in the last paragraph of the last page of the PHE report (page 26), "Neither of these models will be updated going forward. This is due to these models being unable to account for the interventions that would have been implemented in the absence of vaccination. Consequently, over time the state of the actual pandemic and the no-vaccination pandemic scenario have become increasingly less comparable. For further context surrounding this figure and for previous estimates, please see previous vaccine surveillance reports."
I saw that too, and after studying it decided the models they're talking about are the ones that estimate how many lives have been saved due to vaccination, etc. Not really relevant to the topic at hand, because who believed that stuff anyway?