I'm sure the UKHSA would appreciate your work too, Paula. Why don't you go bug them to include your photos in their next report? That would definitely increase your, uh, "exposure". 🙄
Thanks for keeping the data-purveyors honest—or if that’s not possible, as is evidently the case, alerting us to the continued manipulations.
“vaccinated and unvaccinated women have essentially identical rates of stillbirth, low birthweight births, and premature births”—oh yeah? What do they make of these reports, then?
Clearly a propaganda hit piece as evidenced by telltale framing like “anti-vax,” ad hominem attacks like “absurd,” and the insertion of his financial status (“multi-millionaire”) at the outset as a way of prejudicing the audience against him.
I don’t have time to assess the data analysis, but I would encourage you to share this with Steve as I believe he and his team of experts would enjoy debunking the debunker :-)
I wonder if the previous years are available. How can they expect a certain number of deaths in a certain year? And for one year it is way higher than for this year. I compared the deaths in the Netherlands and they had a whole lot more deaths 5 years ago than the years before and after till 2019. So I don't think these statistics work.
Someone who has his head in the sand. Did not look up VAERS and EMA numbers. Did not keep up with any of the press articles, even in WP and NYT who state the jabs are not working (one had an article on Iceland and the other on Israel where all the vaxxed had the virus)
Throwing a wrench in the works: The vaxxed need to be subdivided between those who were poison-death-shot, and those placeboed. In a standard experiment, the PDS to placebo ratio would be 50:50, but there is nothing standard about this operation. Going by paramagnetism surveys of the jabbed alone, the ratio would seem to be ca 60:40 (small samples). Yet the English undertaker John O´Looney empirically estimated placebo to be at 85%; this would very much make sense in case of a controlled cull, stretched out over several years. The complexity increases with every booster round - who is to know who gets what?
They will have to pray long and hard and hope the gods listen. In the meanwhile, the French speaking Belgian press states 'more infections in the heaviest vaccinated communities'. Not a question mark. They finally put their glasses on. I hope the rest of the country wakes up. 88% of population vaxxed yet the highest infection rates and ALL the patients on the ICU vaxxed in Antwerp last week. People MUST start to see that! That local station is heavily watched, by about a million people, a tenth of the population ! I read an article that in Ireland, heavily vaxxed too, more women have stillbirths. They were going to look into it. I hope they have their glasses on.
Ingrid - no doubt the UK added their own pregnancy data in order to counter the growing concern over stillbirths, premature birth, miscarriage, and birth defects.
Also - prepare to see a lot more kids affected this winter. They'll get their vax and then they'll get covid. Funny how that pattern happens worldwide.
Herr Eugyppius, a question: The "bad numbers" you refer to are the higher case-rate numbers
found among the vaccinated than those found among the unvaccinated for age 30-79. Why are these case-rate numbers so significant? To interpret them meaningfully we'd have to know what proportion of each group, vaccinated and unvaccinated, is getting tested. The case-rate numbers are "bad" only if the proportion of the vaccinated population getting tested is roughly comparable to the proportion of the unvaccinated population getting tested. That may be so, but it's an assumption, and unless I have missed it in reading your weekly presentations of these data, you haven't said why that assumption is a reasonable one to make.
UKHSA addresses this issue in its footnote by saying, "people who are fully vaccinated may be more health conscious and therefore more likely to get tested for COVID-19." If instead of "more health conscious" we say "more afraid of being infected with the Sars-Cov-2 virus" the UKHSA statement doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me, since they (the vaccinated) have already demonstrated that fear by choosing to get jabbed in the first place.
You respond, however, in your post of October 29, that "They [UKHSA] really, really don’t want to argue that 'people who are fully vaccinated' are 'more health conscious.' That would suggest prior differences in the health of the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, which would in turn suggest that worse outcomes in the unvaccinated are to some unknown degree the result of statistical confounding." But "health conscious" doesn't necessarily mean "healthier in general," especially if it is amended as I suggested to mean simply more afraid of getting this disease.
It seems to me that the "worse outcomes in the unvaccinated" you refer to are more important than the case-rate numbers you have been focusing on in these weekly UKHSA reports. I've looked at the numbers in each of the reports you have linked in your archive and for all of them, in all age groups, outcomes among the unvaccinated are worse than those among the vaccinated by a ratio of at least 3:1, often 4:1 or more. The outcome being measured here, as defined in the tables, is "Cases presenting to emergency care (within 28 days of a positive test) resulting in overnight inpatient admission"--that is, hospitalization. According to the UKHSA data, then, the risk of an illness serious enough to require hospitalization is much greater in the unvaccinated (by a factor of at least 3x-4x) than it is in the vaccinated. Isn't that more important than case-rate numbers of unknown significance? This benefit of the vaccine is clearly borne out by the last two graphs you present in your post, regarding death rates. Death is ultimate "worse outcome," which is why all reasonable commentators, yourself included, have always been in favor of vaccinations targeted at those most at risk.
So, to be clear, I am not making an argument for the vaccinate-everyone-from-now-to-the-end-of-time insanity you have so ably dissected and refuted from the start. I think it's quite likely that mass vaccination has injured and killed many more people than otherwise would have been injured and killed by Sars-Cov-2. Certainly it's sheer idiocy to try beat a quickly evolving virus with the kind of vaccines we have. It is now plain for all to see that the more we vaccinate the worse things get, period.
My comment is directed narrowly to the reasonable interpretation the UKHSA weekly reports. If I've gone off the rails on that question, please let me know how.
here i am more interested in lampooning the hypocrisy of health authorities who were happy to publish these statistics as long as they showed higher rights of infection in the unvaccinated, but developed grave misgiving when the statistics went the other way.
as for negative efficacy against infection, though, we also have public health scotland data (shows same thing, less pronounced effect) and the matched swedish cohort study (less pronounced effect).
without knowing prior seropositivity of both vaccinated and unvaccinated, and their relative health, age and other characteristics, it's hard to be sure about any of this. i agree there's strong evidence for a (fading) protective effect against severe outcome. if, however, the vaccines drive transmission higher, it's easy to see how population-wide vaccination could wash out benefits here. and all of this is in addition to OAS and effects on the evolution of the virus.
"without knowing prior seropositivity of both vaccinated and unvaccinated, and their relative health, age and other characteristics, it's hard to be sure about any of this." Very true. I would only add to your list of unknowns, apropos of your latest post, the relative proportions of vaccinated and unvaccinated being tested. There are some plausible hypotheses regarding the latter in these comments, but as with so much else corona-wise, nobody knows nuthin'.
At the start of this catastrophe a "case" was somebody already in a hospital with a Sars-Cov-2 infection. The state and its mouthpieces preferred that definition early on so we might have fatality rates approaching 3%, or even more, and so justify the self-destructive path of containment. Once that rationale had been established, a "case" magically turned into someone, sick or not, who merely tested positive for the virus; they performed this sleight of hand very quickly in order to generate the numbers necessary to perpetuate the new regime. And that is where we remain, with the heavy hand of the state using its favored phrase, "cases are spiking in [fill in the blank]" as a cudgel to enforce an endless cycle of lockdowns, masking, vaccinations, and so on--while anyone with a functioning brain knows that those raw case numbers, unadjusted for the factors you mention, among many others, are essentially meaningless for the purposes of forming public policy. My point is this: let us not, on the other side, the side of truth, make the same mistake.
A clear explanation of the evolution of defining cases, thank you.
I would add to your comment about anyone with a functioning brain knowing that raw case numbers are essentially meaningless—that there appears to be a disappointingly small number of functioning brains in the population.
Great comment. Herr Eugyppius is pulling back the onion past what those with extreme agendas are publishing but is not without assumptions and confounding factors. I am in regular communication with some of the people that pulled together most of the vaccine studies you have read. The most basic question was, did you do a serology test to see who had antibodies in your cohorts? Shockingly the only one was the fine people at the Cleveland Clinic who actually was studying that phenomenon with the 53,000 workers at the Cleveland Clinic. It seems no one is brave enough to sign up to peer review that study.
My local corner testing facility has seen a massive surge of vaccinated getting rapid PCR testing as breakthrough stopped being rare. Something that is new for them which is to your point. They have a prescreening form that asks if you already had covid and or if you already had the vaccine and which one, so information is being gathered but I believe it is being sold to the actuaries and not really being used for published research.
Self-reporting past covid illness is not accurate, as a study found (Swedish iirc) that half who had antibodies had no idea they'd ever been covid positive.
Mike, you are perfectly right that in order to make a final conclusion one needs to know the number of tests per vaccination status.
In my opinion the numbers are rather biased towards the unvaccinated as they are required to do these tests in many situations where the vaccinated are not.
Regarding the vaccinated being afraid and hence testing themselves more: if I am afraid that I am infected I will rather buy a rapid test kit for 2-3 pounds and test myself. I will not go to a test site and pay 60-80 pounds for an official PCR test (or the half for an official rapid test). You purchase the expensive ones only if you have to, and the unvaccinated are the ones that need to do more of those because they are required in many situations.
The same goes for the more serious outcomes - covid trumps everything and since the unvaccinated are tested more often then also the emergency admissions/deaths will be biased towards them.
The only way to know this is however to know how the tests are distributed with respect to vaxx status.
I was at a Thanksgiving dinner and the host made all the unvaccinated people get tested, and allowed the vaccinated to skip the test. This seemed strange to me since we now know that the vax doesn't help that much. But it validates your theory about the numbers being biased towards the unvaccinated.
In Germany this stupidity to test only the unvaccinated is simply the official policy. Has nothing to do with science but has all to do with punishing the non-compliant. Even for the kids in school: the unvaccinated are tested 3 times a week while the jabbed are not tested at all. I traveled to UK this September and needed to do 2 tests upon arrival (2nd and 6th day) while if you are vaccinated you need to take only the day 2 test.
Exact same here in Italy. 3 test per week to go to work, and they're thinking if making validity go from 48 to 24 hours...that means EVERY GIVEN DAY!! ..Impossible to pull off..ifvthis is not punishment and/or hidden mandate, I don't know what is...AND we have Austrian-like unvaxxed lockdown between 6th Dec and 15th Jan..BUT it could be extended if numbers are bad...don't tell me...an now, just on time with this Omicron s*it..it'about time to end this absolute madness..I can't anymore
"The only way to know this [how the raw data are biased] is . . . to know how the tests are distributed with respect to vaxx status." Exactly. And since we don't know, the case-rate numbers are hard to interpret.
This is a very good question and the way you phrased it was most excellent.
To me, though, the even bigger question is:
If vaccinated people are just as likely (or more so) to contract SARS-CoV-2 than unvaccinated people, and if they, once infected, are just as likely to pass on the infection, then how can vaccinating the whole population make sense? Indeed, what need is there for vaccine passports et al?
wouldnt one guess that the unvaccinated are being tested more than the vaccinated? Not sure but it seems to me that they are often required to test at leasst in the US, not sure about the UK>
German Alexa tells me in the one minute news that it’s not clear how effective the vaccine is against the Botswana variant.
I am again being optimistic but I think this might be the way in which governments begin to shut down the vaccine program in favour of a magic pill. That uk cardiologist on GB news yesterday He confirmed that he and colleagues are in agreement with that cardio paper by Grundy which confirms increased rates of heart issues post vaccination. The ‘new’ variant is governments plausible opt out.
They won't take but instead triple down on vaccines, border closing and why not some good old lockdown action! Maybe if Pfizer tells them that it's time to switch....... I guess they need some more booster uptake for <50s first.
Speaking of heart issues, the player Fleck who went down recently was pretty good and well-known to those who follow football. His team was in the premier league until last season. Matt LeTissier (retired top player) has called for an investigation. The Daily Mail published a long story (not touching vaccines) that heart issues in footballers is commonplace and a long standing problem.... sigh. But LeTissier cited that "FIFA players" have a 5 fold increase in heart issues in 2021.
Is ok. Pfizer will twiddle around a bit. Maybe swop out an adenine for a guanine or a uracil or a cytosine. Scatter a little pixie dust, and voila! the new, tailored vax for mu or nu or omicron or pi or wherever the heck we're at. Is all gonna be alright. Close your eyes, roll up your sleeves, and I'll sing you a lullaby....
Honestly, when you look into how governments around the world define COVID deaths (for example in these reports from England a COVID death is a death within 28 days of a positive PCR test (doesn't matter the cause) OR a diagnosis of COVID-19), you begin to realize that none of this really means anything. It's a pandemic of False Positive PCR tests, and governments instilling fear.
In my opinion, the only numbers worth paying attention to are all-cause hospitalization and mortality compared with previous years, then compared with 2020, and then from the rollout of the vaccines and onwards. Using the ONS data, 2020 was nothing remarkable, but 2021 is already showing concerning signs.
Many thanks. Isn't it actually very reassuring though that there doesn't seem to be any evidence of the vaccine causing adverse effects for pregnant women / their babies? I have seen many concerns raised about this - this would appear to refute those concerns?
Many thanks. That spike in that chart is worrying. And interesting that the UKHSA analysis is only in the period Jan-Aug, i.e. pre the spike in your chart.
That Canadian situation looks pretty sketchy. Not the first time deliberate misinformation was circulated there. We need to be careful about lies emanating from both “sides”.
And what with the surviving babies? Are they healthy? What will become of them in a few years? How will they fare? We know nothing of that. But the results in adults are not promising, and I just read here that already 108 sports people have died, most probably linked to the jabs.
I have seen that too, and anecdotally it does appear worrying. I haven't yet seen though any robust statistical analysis showing that the number this year is statistically significantly higher than normal levels.
Thanks! I'm not a subscriber of his so I can't see the actual statistical analysis unfortunately. I should probably subscribe. Kind of feel such supposedly damning evidence should be made as freely available as possible though.
Sorry, I’m a bit dense today. Can someone explain the last two graphs and why they’re so different between the data and the raw data? I don’t have the context here to understand what’s going on. Thanks.
2nd one is number of deaths per vaxx status, so people dying. 1st one adjust that the number of people per 100k people. So, more vaccinated people are dying, but the rate of death appears lower. Not surprising, as you can really only see the daya for older people anyway, and if there is one group of people that may benefit from the vax it is older people.
Unless the only people unvaccinated in the oldest groups are actually very ill Ie their health status precludes them from being vaccinated. A point made in one of Alex Berensons posts.
The first is the rate of death per 100k , the second is the absolute number of deaths. Since most old people have been vaccinated the second graph is what you would expect.
I read this real cute response to the Belgian decision to lock down etc. again, and urge the people to vaxx. (En die 10% niet-gevaccineerden, zijn die aan het rond gaan om de schoolkinderen, de kindjes in de crèche en alle mensen te besmetten? Alle maatregelen, vaccins en volgzaam gedrag heeft dus niets uitgehaald? Wanneer gaan de virologen en beleidsmensen daarover eens eerlijk zijn? En nu op naar de volgende variant!) And these 10 percent of unvaccinated, are they supposed to go round in the schools to infect our children, the babies in the daycares, and all other people? All vaccines, all masks, all lockdowns, have done nothing? When are the government people and virologists be honest about all that? Now up to the next variant !
I thought she hit the nail on the head. And all reactions I could get on the screen said about the same in other words. Belgians are waking up by the numbers.
Same story here in Ontario,Canada. The health agency just released a report showing the exact same thing. High cases in hospital or fatalities in group 60+ regardless of vaccine status. Every time there is a public address they only talk about people below 60, completely ignoring the most impacted group as that wouldn't meet their agenda. In the mean time we started to vaccinate kids for no reason at all, but people have been scared senseless that that they line up to put the useless and maybe dangerous vaccine into kids.
slightly off topic, but still relevant to this discussion are the writings of Ethical Skeptic. I was reading the lenghty article most recently posted on his/her (?) website last night about the origins of the virus which ES posits goes back to March 2018 in China. It provides an explanation for the apparent immunity in Asia and Africa and how we should expect mutliple waves lasting upto 32 months due to the slow progression of this type of virus, which ES also posits is mostly spread feacaly; which explains infections in animal polpulations due to spreading of sewage waste on farmland. There's so much to unpack over as ES (also on Twitter); I have been following the writer for the best part of the year; super interesting, although I know that I don't have the intellect to grasp a lot of what's written there.
The latest out of England is that they are doing better because of Astra Zeneca because it creates long lasting T cells. (Sigh....) The reality is of course that they had lots of infections in 2020 before the vaccine circus started. Same for Sweden, which is doing very well compared to is neighbors (both Nordic and of more so central Europe) despite earlier seasonal onset of cold weather. Anrell predicted in ca. May 2020 that the neighbors would catch up when he was getting heat from abroad about not doing lockdowns. This is of course playing out now.
The UKHSA appreciates your work, as we do, and decided to fit the colours in the table to the diagrams you are producing.
LOL
btw, Norman Fenton is reading your substack (9:22):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6umArFc-fdc
I'm sure the UKHSA would appreciate your work too, Paula. Why don't you go bug them to include your photos in their next report? That would definitely increase your, uh, "exposure". 🙄
Thanks for keeping the data-purveyors honest—or if that’s not possible, as is evidently the case, alerting us to the continued manipulations.
“vaccinated and unvaccinated women have essentially identical rates of stillbirth, low birthweight births, and premature births”—oh yeah? What do they make of these reports, then?
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/latest-devastating-news-on-the-vaccine
https://www.eastonspectator.com/2021/11/18/15-stillborn-deaths-in-24-hours-rallylions-gate-hospital/
thanks for the link
what do you think? https://medium.com/microbial-instincts/debunking-steve-kirschs-latest-claims-97e1c40f5d74
Clearly a propaganda hit piece as evidenced by telltale framing like “anti-vax,” ad hominem attacks like “absurd,” and the insertion of his financial status (“multi-millionaire”) at the outset as a way of prejudicing the audience against him.
I don’t have time to assess the data analysis, but I would encourage you to share this with Steve as I believe he and his team of experts would enjoy debunking the debunker :-)
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/latest-devastating-news-on-the-vaccine/comment/3766806 I asked him here...
Oh, great! Will be interesting to see the response. He’s a wee bit busy so might take a bit ;-)
He had already answered and I sent his answer to Medium.
Excellent! I assume you’ve seen his latest piece fact-checking the fact-checkers (https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers)?
Medium. On Gates paylist, so that you know.
For enlightenment, check out this search list:
https://healthimpactnews.com/?find=covid+fetal+deaths
https://www.usmortality.com/excess
But it's not the infamous 20%! Only +13.6% so far. Christmas is coming.
I wonder if the previous years are available. How can they expect a certain number of deaths in a certain year? And for one year it is way higher than for this year. I compared the deaths in the Netherlands and they had a whole lot more deaths 5 years ago than the years before and after till 2019. So I don't think these statistics work.
Someone who has his head in the sand. Did not look up VAERS and EMA numbers. Did not keep up with any of the press articles, even in WP and NYT who state the jabs are not working (one had an article on Iceland and the other on Israel where all the vaxxed had the virus)
The data is fading out, like a dystopian novel. What have they got to hide? Except objective data, of course.
Happily, even if they remove the table entirely, we can reconstruct all the data in it from numbers elsewhere in the report.
I hereby condemn Ed Humpherson with the 10 plagues of Egypt for canceling this information.
That is both a fair and a poetic condemnation.
The fading out font reminds me of the photo with Marty McFly's disappearing siblings in Back to the Future. Perhaps they too were unvaxxed.
Soon all the vaxxed older people will die. Then only the unvaxxed will remain ?
Throwing a wrench in the works: The vaxxed need to be subdivided between those who were poison-death-shot, and those placeboed. In a standard experiment, the PDS to placebo ratio would be 50:50, but there is nothing standard about this operation. Going by paramagnetism surveys of the jabbed alone, the ratio would seem to be ca 60:40 (small samples). Yet the English undertaker John O´Looney empirically estimated placebo to be at 85%; this would very much make sense in case of a controlled cull, stretched out over several years. The complexity increases with every booster round - who is to know who gets what?
Lies, damned lies and statistics.
They will have to pray long and hard and hope the gods listen. In the meanwhile, the French speaking Belgian press states 'more infections in the heaviest vaccinated communities'. Not a question mark. They finally put their glasses on. I hope the rest of the country wakes up. 88% of population vaxxed yet the highest infection rates and ALL the patients on the ICU vaxxed in Antwerp last week. People MUST start to see that! That local station is heavily watched, by about a million people, a tenth of the population ! I read an article that in Ireland, heavily vaxxed too, more women have stillbirths. They were going to look into it. I hope they have their glasses on.
Ingrid - no doubt the UK added their own pregnancy data in order to counter the growing concern over stillbirths, premature birth, miscarriage, and birth defects.
Also - prepare to see a lot more kids affected this winter. They'll get their vax and then they'll get covid. Funny how that pattern happens worldwide.
I wonder how many parents are going to have their kids jabbed. I just hurt for these abused children.
Herr Eugyppius, a question: The "bad numbers" you refer to are the higher case-rate numbers
found among the vaccinated than those found among the unvaccinated for age 30-79. Why are these case-rate numbers so significant? To interpret them meaningfully we'd have to know what proportion of each group, vaccinated and unvaccinated, is getting tested. The case-rate numbers are "bad" only if the proportion of the vaccinated population getting tested is roughly comparable to the proportion of the unvaccinated population getting tested. That may be so, but it's an assumption, and unless I have missed it in reading your weekly presentations of these data, you haven't said why that assumption is a reasonable one to make.
UKHSA addresses this issue in its footnote by saying, "people who are fully vaccinated may be more health conscious and therefore more likely to get tested for COVID-19." If instead of "more health conscious" we say "more afraid of being infected with the Sars-Cov-2 virus" the UKHSA statement doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me, since they (the vaccinated) have already demonstrated that fear by choosing to get jabbed in the first place.
You respond, however, in your post of October 29, that "They [UKHSA] really, really don’t want to argue that 'people who are fully vaccinated' are 'more health conscious.' That would suggest prior differences in the health of the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, which would in turn suggest that worse outcomes in the unvaccinated are to some unknown degree the result of statistical confounding." But "health conscious" doesn't necessarily mean "healthier in general," especially if it is amended as I suggested to mean simply more afraid of getting this disease.
It seems to me that the "worse outcomes in the unvaccinated" you refer to are more important than the case-rate numbers you have been focusing on in these weekly UKHSA reports. I've looked at the numbers in each of the reports you have linked in your archive and for all of them, in all age groups, outcomes among the unvaccinated are worse than those among the vaccinated by a ratio of at least 3:1, often 4:1 or more. The outcome being measured here, as defined in the tables, is "Cases presenting to emergency care (within 28 days of a positive test) resulting in overnight inpatient admission"--that is, hospitalization. According to the UKHSA data, then, the risk of an illness serious enough to require hospitalization is much greater in the unvaccinated (by a factor of at least 3x-4x) than it is in the vaccinated. Isn't that more important than case-rate numbers of unknown significance? This benefit of the vaccine is clearly borne out by the last two graphs you present in your post, regarding death rates. Death is ultimate "worse outcome," which is why all reasonable commentators, yourself included, have always been in favor of vaccinations targeted at those most at risk.
So, to be clear, I am not making an argument for the vaccinate-everyone-from-now-to-the-end-of-time insanity you have so ably dissected and refuted from the start. I think it's quite likely that mass vaccination has injured and killed many more people than otherwise would have been injured and killed by Sars-Cov-2. Certainly it's sheer idiocy to try beat a quickly evolving virus with the kind of vaccines we have. It is now plain for all to see that the more we vaccinate the worse things get, period.
My comment is directed narrowly to the reasonable interpretation the UKHSA weekly reports. If I've gone off the rails on that question, please let me know how.
here i am more interested in lampooning the hypocrisy of health authorities who were happy to publish these statistics as long as they showed higher rights of infection in the unvaccinated, but developed grave misgiving when the statistics went the other way.
as for negative efficacy against infection, though, we also have public health scotland data (shows same thing, less pronounced effect) and the matched swedish cohort study (less pronounced effect).
without knowing prior seropositivity of both vaccinated and unvaccinated, and their relative health, age and other characteristics, it's hard to be sure about any of this. i agree there's strong evidence for a (fading) protective effect against severe outcome. if, however, the vaccines drive transmission higher, it's easy to see how population-wide vaccination could wash out benefits here. and all of this is in addition to OAS and effects on the evolution of the virus.
"without knowing prior seropositivity of both vaccinated and unvaccinated, and their relative health, age and other characteristics, it's hard to be sure about any of this." Very true. I would only add to your list of unknowns, apropos of your latest post, the relative proportions of vaccinated and unvaccinated being tested. There are some plausible hypotheses regarding the latter in these comments, but as with so much else corona-wise, nobody knows nuthin'.
At the start of this catastrophe a "case" was somebody already in a hospital with a Sars-Cov-2 infection. The state and its mouthpieces preferred that definition early on so we might have fatality rates approaching 3%, or even more, and so justify the self-destructive path of containment. Once that rationale had been established, a "case" magically turned into someone, sick or not, who merely tested positive for the virus; they performed this sleight of hand very quickly in order to generate the numbers necessary to perpetuate the new regime. And that is where we remain, with the heavy hand of the state using its favored phrase, "cases are spiking in [fill in the blank]" as a cudgel to enforce an endless cycle of lockdowns, masking, vaccinations, and so on--while anyone with a functioning brain knows that those raw case numbers, unadjusted for the factors you mention, among many others, are essentially meaningless for the purposes of forming public policy. My point is this: let us not, on the other side, the side of truth, make the same mistake.
A clear explanation of the evolution of defining cases, thank you.
I would add to your comment about anyone with a functioning brain knowing that raw case numbers are essentially meaningless—that there appears to be a disappointingly small number of functioning brains in the population.
Apparently a lot of brains are not fully functional.
Great comment. Herr Eugyppius is pulling back the onion past what those with extreme agendas are publishing but is not without assumptions and confounding factors. I am in regular communication with some of the people that pulled together most of the vaccine studies you have read. The most basic question was, did you do a serology test to see who had antibodies in your cohorts? Shockingly the only one was the fine people at the Cleveland Clinic who actually was studying that phenomenon with the 53,000 workers at the Cleveland Clinic. It seems no one is brave enough to sign up to peer review that study.
My local corner testing facility has seen a massive surge of vaccinated getting rapid PCR testing as breakthrough stopped being rare. Something that is new for them which is to your point. They have a prescreening form that asks if you already had covid and or if you already had the vaccine and which one, so information is being gathered but I believe it is being sold to the actuaries and not really being used for published research.
Self-reporting past covid illness is not accurate, as a study found (Swedish iirc) that half who had antibodies had no idea they'd ever been covid positive.
Mike, you are perfectly right that in order to make a final conclusion one needs to know the number of tests per vaccination status.
In my opinion the numbers are rather biased towards the unvaccinated as they are required to do these tests in many situations where the vaccinated are not.
Regarding the vaccinated being afraid and hence testing themselves more: if I am afraid that I am infected I will rather buy a rapid test kit for 2-3 pounds and test myself. I will not go to a test site and pay 60-80 pounds for an official PCR test (or the half for an official rapid test). You purchase the expensive ones only if you have to, and the unvaccinated are the ones that need to do more of those because they are required in many situations.
The same goes for the more serious outcomes - covid trumps everything and since the unvaccinated are tested more often then also the emergency admissions/deaths will be biased towards them.
The only way to know this is however to know how the tests are distributed with respect to vaxx status.
I was at a Thanksgiving dinner and the host made all the unvaccinated people get tested, and allowed the vaccinated to skip the test. This seemed strange to me since we now know that the vax doesn't help that much. But it validates your theory about the numbers being biased towards the unvaccinated.
In Germany this stupidity to test only the unvaccinated is simply the official policy. Has nothing to do with science but has all to do with punishing the non-compliant. Even for the kids in school: the unvaccinated are tested 3 times a week while the jabbed are not tested at all. I traveled to UK this September and needed to do 2 tests upon arrival (2nd and 6th day) while if you are vaccinated you need to take only the day 2 test.
Exact same here in Italy. 3 test per week to go to work, and they're thinking if making validity go from 48 to 24 hours...that means EVERY GIVEN DAY!! ..Impossible to pull off..ifvthis is not punishment and/or hidden mandate, I don't know what is...AND we have Austrian-like unvaxxed lockdown between 6th Dec and 15th Jan..BUT it could be extended if numbers are bad...don't tell me...an now, just on time with this Omicron s*it..it'about time to end this absolute madness..I can't anymore
"The only way to know this [how the raw data are biased] is . . . to know how the tests are distributed with respect to vaxx status." Exactly. And since we don't know, the case-rate numbers are hard to interpret.
This is a very good question and the way you phrased it was most excellent.
To me, though, the even bigger question is:
If vaccinated people are just as likely (or more so) to contract SARS-CoV-2 than unvaccinated people, and if they, once infected, are just as likely to pass on the infection, then how can vaccinating the whole population make sense? Indeed, what need is there for vaccine passports et al?
And what need is there for vax, at all? let didn't help the 7951.6 per 100,000 vaxed fatalities in the table, above.
wouldnt one guess that the unvaccinated are being tested more than the vaccinated? Not sure but it seems to me that they are often required to test at leasst in the US, not sure about the UK>
Please, virus gods, make the bad propagandists go away.
I noticed that greying too. It’s only a matter of time now. And the Pregnancy section? I suggest this materialised as a result of the Scottish spike, which I’ve delved into a bit further here: https://truthsleuth.substack.com/p/ukhsa-adds-pregnancy-and-immunosuppressed
German Alexa tells me in the one minute news that it’s not clear how effective the vaccine is against the Botswana variant.
I am again being optimistic but I think this might be the way in which governments begin to shut down the vaccine program in favour of a magic pill. That uk cardiologist on GB news yesterday He confirmed that he and colleagues are in agreement with that cardio paper by Grundy which confirms increased rates of heart issues post vaccination. The ‘new’ variant is governments plausible opt out.
They won't take but instead triple down on vaccines, border closing and why not some good old lockdown action! Maybe if Pfizer tells them that it's time to switch....... I guess they need some more booster uptake for <50s first.
Speaking of heart issues, the player Fleck who went down recently was pretty good and well-known to those who follow football. His team was in the premier league until last season. Matt LeTissier (retired top player) has called for an investigation. The Daily Mail published a long story (not touching vaccines) that heart issues in footballers is commonplace and a long standing problem.... sigh. But LeTissier cited that "FIFA players" have a 5 fold increase in heart issues in 2021.
Is ok. Pfizer will twiddle around a bit. Maybe swop out an adenine for a guanine or a uracil or a cytosine. Scatter a little pixie dust, and voila! the new, tailored vax for mu or nu or omicron or pi or wherever the heck we're at. Is all gonna be alright. Close your eyes, roll up your sleeves, and I'll sing you a lullaby....
They've sped past many off-ramps already, Thelma and Louise style. They can't help themselves.
Just clarification...are those covid associated death rates or all cause death rates?
their deaths within 60 days of a positive covid test.
Thank you
Honestly, when you look into how governments around the world define COVID deaths (for example in these reports from England a COVID death is a death within 28 days of a positive PCR test (doesn't matter the cause) OR a diagnosis of COVID-19), you begin to realize that none of this really means anything. It's a pandemic of False Positive PCR tests, and governments instilling fear.
In my opinion, the only numbers worth paying attention to are all-cause hospitalization and mortality compared with previous years, then compared with 2020, and then from the rollout of the vaccines and onwards. Using the ONS data, 2020 was nothing remarkable, but 2021 is already showing concerning signs.
Many thanks. Isn't it actually very reassuring though that there doesn't seem to be any evidence of the vaccine causing adverse effects for pregnant women / their babies? I have seen many concerns raised about this - this would appear to refute those concerns?
The UKHSA covers reporting England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. But their comforting stats in week 47 refer to English data only. Have a look at Scotland here: https://truthsleuth.substack.com/p/ukhsa-adds-pregnancy-and-immunosuppressed. The chart at the end of the post is intriguing.
Many thanks. That spike in that chart is worrying. And interesting that the UKHSA analysis is only in the period Jan-Aug, i.e. pre the spike in your chart.
The number of stillbirths seems to be rising in several highly vaxx'd countries. Here's an article from Scotland on this. They've now launched an investigation into it. Obviously it's not yet known for certain why this is happening. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19726487.investigation-launched-abnormal-spike-newborn-baby-deaths-scotland/
I just read an article from very high rates in Canada, I think it was in aforementioned link from Steve Kirsch
That Canadian situation looks pretty sketchy. Not the first time deliberate misinformation was circulated there. We need to be careful about lies emanating from both “sides”.
Yes. We have to watch out for that because they will be fuel on the fire of the needle worshipers.
Yes, but it's only been a year so really who knows? Thankfully, they've only vaccinated SEVERAL BILLION people....
And what with the surviving babies? Are they healthy? What will become of them in a few years? How will they fare? We know nothing of that. But the results in adults are not promising, and I just read here that already 108 sports people have died, most probably linked to the jabs.
I have seen that too, and anecdotally it does appear worrying. I haven't yet seen though any robust statistical analysis showing that the number this year is statistically significantly higher than normal levels.
There is an article stating there are way more sportsmen dying than usual, but I don't remember where I saw it.
https://2ndsmartestguyintheworld.substack.com/p/follow-up-to-fifa-deaths-post?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1Njk5NzA3LCJwb3N0X2lkIjo0NDU3OTU2MSwiXyI6InpBb2xOIiwiaWF0IjoxNjM3OTQzMTA1LCJleHAiOjE2Mzc5NDY3MDUsImlzcyI6InB1Yi00MDA1MzUiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.UBmopg4SdqeS2WqC0F_jicwlNh-BBLYeP5qOiUgRVrw
Found it
Thanks! I'm not a subscriber of his so I can't see the actual statistical analysis unfortunately. I should probably subscribe. Kind of feel such supposedly damning evidence should be made as freely available as possible though.
LOL
Sorry, I’m a bit dense today. Can someone explain the last two graphs and why they’re so different between the data and the raw data? I don’t have the context here to understand what’s going on. Thanks.
2nd one is number of deaths per vaxx status, so people dying. 1st one adjust that the number of people per 100k people. So, more vaccinated people are dying, but the rate of death appears lower. Not surprising, as you can really only see the daya for older people anyway, and if there is one group of people that may benefit from the vax it is older people.
Unless the only people unvaccinated in the oldest groups are actually very ill Ie their health status precludes them from being vaccinated. A point made in one of Alex Berensons posts.
The first is the rate of death per 100k , the second is the absolute number of deaths. Since most old people have been vaccinated the second graph is what you would expect.
I read this real cute response to the Belgian decision to lock down etc. again, and urge the people to vaxx. (En die 10% niet-gevaccineerden, zijn die aan het rond gaan om de schoolkinderen, de kindjes in de crèche en alle mensen te besmetten? Alle maatregelen, vaccins en volgzaam gedrag heeft dus niets uitgehaald? Wanneer gaan de virologen en beleidsmensen daarover eens eerlijk zijn? En nu op naar de volgende variant!) And these 10 percent of unvaccinated, are they supposed to go round in the schools to infect our children, the babies in the daycares, and all other people? All vaccines, all masks, all lockdowns, have done nothing? When are the government people and virologists be honest about all that? Now up to the next variant !
I thought she hit the nail on the head. And all reactions I could get on the screen said about the same in other words. Belgians are waking up by the numbers.
Same story here in Ontario,Canada. The health agency just released a report showing the exact same thing. High cases in hospital or fatalities in group 60+ regardless of vaccine status. Every time there is a public address they only talk about people below 60, completely ignoring the most impacted group as that wouldn't meet their agenda. In the mean time we started to vaccinate kids for no reason at all, but people have been scared senseless that that they line up to put the useless and maybe dangerous vaccine into kids.
There is an easy solution for their obvious conundrum: just label all with two shots unvaccinated. Voila. Problem gone.
slightly off topic, but still relevant to this discussion are the writings of Ethical Skeptic. I was reading the lenghty article most recently posted on his/her (?) website last night about the origins of the virus which ES posits goes back to March 2018 in China. It provides an explanation for the apparent immunity in Asia and Africa and how we should expect mutliple waves lasting upto 32 months due to the slow progression of this type of virus, which ES also posits is mostly spread feacaly; which explains infections in animal polpulations due to spreading of sewage waste on farmland. There's so much to unpack over as ES (also on Twitter); I have been following the writer for the best part of the year; super interesting, although I know that I don't have the intellect to grasp a lot of what's written there.
Red herrings, all. Look up David Martin and hi Fauci Dossier.
The latest out of England is that they are doing better because of Astra Zeneca because it creates long lasting T cells. (Sigh....) The reality is of course that they had lots of infections in 2020 before the vaccine circus started. Same for Sweden, which is doing very well compared to is neighbors (both Nordic and of more so central Europe) despite earlier seasonal onset of cold weather. Anrell predicted in ca. May 2020 that the neighbors would catch up when he was getting heat from abroad about not doing lockdowns. This is of course playing out now.