That last line was a perfect ending. There is no doubt in my mind they will stop publishing the data entirely soon. Say it with me, “safe and effective. Safe and effective. Safe and effective. The leader is good. The leader is great. We surrender our will as of this date.”
Unfortunately the "safe and effective" line is still being spewed by conservative pols, including Governor DeSantis, who is fighting the tyranny harder than anyone.
The recent OSHA regulations mandating vaccinations in companies with more than 100 people reads like a propaganda piece utilizing the "safe and effective" mantra constantly. The second favorite phrase was the "grave danger" of the workplace for the unvaccinated.
The best part about the guidelines from OSHA is the admission that there will be virtually no enforcement unless agents are already on-site for something else
The damn thing is almost 500 pages and there’s a separate Doc. More Gov. Health care ie Medicare Medicaid that comes in just under 250 pages. I’m sure dirty pant wrote the whole thing on his travels to see the poop.
The UK Times, once a more decent paper, now another ruined under Gates money, said in a piece that the Government should stop publishing data, because of conspiracy theorists…..yes that old trope….it’s getting desperate, pathetic and a disgrace
One must ask themselves: is rank stupidity & incompetence a recent thing, or has it always been this way? It would seem that one of the great lessons being taught here is that those who seek power & control do so because they are deficient in actual skill and/or intellect. And, throughout history, they have used the ability to lie, cheat, steal, manipulate & con to survive. A unique feature of our beloved America is that for the first time in history, men acknowledged that our rights as individuals are supreme ... and that we only hold our nose and tolerate a limited government for the purpose of protecting those individual rights. Dare I say that once again, we begin to understand why our forefathers were willing to risk everything for a chance to carve out a meaningful life, free from the vermin that have wormed their way back into control because we took it for granted? We need an awakening in this world. One that does not end with a new generation of mindless brutes claiming to right all wrongs by "representing the people", but one that understands that we all have a duty to our children & grandchildren to mitigate the effects of the destructive elements of human society.
Government not held in check quickly becomes a cancer. I sat down with an engineer of the local government construction permitting department. I asked him what he did….he had had a few beers…..when he finished it amounted to little to nothing because the department was over staffed. He came in at 10 and went home at 2. He had a second job to keep him busy. To top it off he said his boss just put in the budget they needed to hire more people. That’s just local……multiple that by 1000 for Swamp. What did Grandma used to say about idle hands?
Parkinson's law of 2000 says organizations of that size grow regardless of the job - British Wooden Ship Ministry well after the last wooden ship was built.
Martin Gurri, a former media analyst at the CIA and the author of the 2014 book The Revolt of the Public, was way ahead of the curve on this problem. The 'elites', through the use of the net, will be fully exposed to be rather incompetent and intelligent citizens will see this incompetence fully demonstrated time and again.
I agree with Eugyppius that Mr. Humpherson appears to be a genuinely stupid man!
Humpty is only stupid if it doesn't work. It will probably work, because his audience is stupid. When stupid becomes ubiquitous, it becomes the new smart.
I'm really troubled by the first sentence of the UKHSA site - "Vaccines work".
It's such an over simplification of what should be part of a complex system. It reads more like a religious statement, or an adolescent temper tantrum.
It's a 'magic' word. All you have to do is label something a vaccine and it just magically works. It could be experimental or lack long-term data regarding its efficacy or safety -- doesn't matter because it's called a vaccine and vaccines work. Why? Well, because it's a vaccine.
I had someone with a PhD in Chemistry vehemently say pretty much this to me the other day. Not the exact words, but an exasperated "of course it's a vaccine" when I dared to challenge the credentials of the charlatan concoction. With an annoyed "how dare you question the science, I haven't got time for you, you mad person" look on his face to cap it off.
I don't think anyone is seriously challenging the technology (mRNA for example.) Technically they are not vaccines. But that might have been overlooked, IF they had proven effective and safe. They have already proven they are neither. The science is sound enough. It's the lack of efficacy and the dangers of the product that are the concern.
I've had arguments with people who pretty much say exactly this. Maybe add on a 'are you an anti-vaxxer?".
When I ask them why the swine flu vaccine didn't work or why the sars-cov-1 vaccine killed all the ferrets, I get blank stares. It gives me the creeps.
Tommy - can you point me to the ferret study where they *all* died? I can't find it, although I've read a bunch of SARS vaccine failed experiments on cats, mice, rats, and baboons, and some of these reference the failure in ferrets but I can't find the original article.
My favorite part had to be, "Extra caution should be taken in proposed human trials of SARS vaccines (9) due to the potential liver damage from immunization and virus infection."
So, I guess "extra caution" to the NIH and CDC and FDA means, 'just go ahead and turn the entire population of the earth into a clinical study, but with no control group'?
Yeah, I get chills when I read sentences like that, from people years ago warning about things we're fighting over today. Have you seen this, about the PCR test (which they've been using to measure 'cases')?
Many media narratives rely more heavily on the repetition of particular words, and on associating those words with vague emotional connotations, than on framing an clear, specific, internally-consistent, empirically-based argument. In a way, it IS "word magic." Rhetoric > dialectic.
One notable example of the way this technique is employed in the context of the hegemonic COVID narrative is the consistent use of the word "hesitancy" as a label for skepticism about the efficacy or safety of the COVID vaccines. Take a look at what happens when you do an image search for the word "hesitancy" -- just that word, with no mention of "COVID" or "vaccine":
Huh. Hard to believe that's just the accidental emergent product of many thousands of individual decisions. Looks a lot more like a top-down PR/ psychological warfare campaign. It's a carefully-chosen word. "Hesitancy" is just indecisiveness/ difficulty getting going for no particular reason. You don't have any rational objection, and you'll get there eventually, you just "need" a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory">nudge</a>.
"Hesitancy" is used in the context of trying to "sell" the vaccines to people who are more or less passively resisting the mass forced vaccination campaign. Perhaps for this reason, they seem to <a href="https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hesitant&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images">steer clear</a> of targeting individuals as "hesitant," and stick to targeting "hesitancy" as a quasi-abstract phenomenon. But for a more pejorative frame targeted at people who openly and actively question the rationale for forced COVID vaccination, it's "anti-vaxxers" or "COVID denialists" or perhaps "conspiracy theorists" -- all of which link to older, established negative associations, and DO target people as individuals.
I've found the "hesitant" label surprising. I would've expected them to pick something harsher and more pejorative, but perhaps it's a relic of when they were trying a more carrot based approach.
Sure, could be partly that they started with more of a soft power approach, and are shifting to more open coercion as the pool of unvaccinated "targets" gets smaller, but I think a lot of it is that "hesitancy" is used in a different context:
1. It's used mostly to characterize those passively resisting the vaccine
2. Many of the "hesitancy"-based narratives are what might be called "meta-propaganda" -- not targeted at the general population, but intended to frame the issue for those promoting/ administering the vaccine. For example:
3. The goal of "hesitancy" narratives is mostly to get more people vaccinated.
They use more openly-pejorative terms largely in targeting those who are openly/ actively questioning the dominant narrative, rather than simply avoiding the vaccine. The goal when doing that is more a combination of crushing "heretics"/ silencing dissidents... and scapegoating them for the complete failure of the COVID eradication campaign.
I think it has also increasingly been used to imply "cowardice" - a form of goading to imply that those who refuse are cowards or "snowflakes". A calling out to fight by righteously vaccinated belligerents. Bullying 101.
It insinuates that they'll eventually come around. And I figure if they started off with something derogatory it would have crystallised negative sentiment. Remember they genuinely thought they could get just about everyone to accede.
Valid observation, say I. Actually, it may be more insidious than that. The Left insists upon redefinition when it suits their purpose (e.g. "vaccine"). But in the "novel therapeutics" case (or "gene therapy", more accurately), what they've done is hijack the traditional image of what the public understood vaccines to be: carefully researched, exhaustively tested, and highly effective and very safe. (I know there are exceptions, but I'm speaking of the great confidence the public has (had?) in traditional vaccines. Not so much polishing a turd, but 24K gold plating one.
What you said! I was thinking the same thing today about the “New” oral medication. They are pushing it out like it’s just another drug in the arsenal. I’m betting it’s ivermectin rebranded. Or maybe some other patten Fouci had tucked away in his underwear drawer.
Smallpox and others appear to be monumental achievements. Polio, I'm not so sure about.
I don't know how much is true, but it's an interesting story, and given the events of the past 18 months I wouldn't put it past the medical establishment to pull this kind of shenanigans.
Thanks for the link, Tommy. Good point. Also, I remember at one time I was researching 'Fibromyalgia', and found a correlation of symptoms between 'Fibromyalgia' and 'Post-Polio Syndrome'. Interesting.
On another note, it gave me a chill reading about the DDT. I am old enough that I remember those sprayer trucks. I remember my dad punishing my youngest brother when he and his friend from down the block had gone out and stood under the trees in the yard when the trucks were spraying. My brother and his childhood friend died within 6 months of one another, at age 63, both from liver and pancreatic cancer. Might be a coincidence. I'm glad I never went out in the spray, myself. though.
Hmmm. Wonder when they'll start working on a national debt 'vaccine'. They'll need one if they pass any of those lovely bills the current admin and House are trying to ram through congress.
Propaganda always works as long as there are people ignorant or lazy enough to accept it. Driving it with fear increases the acceptance. Fear makes stupid people more stupid. It always continues until we force it to stop. Twit and face are major drivers of the propaganda and the fear, and should be forever banned, and shunned, by every honest person.
a) practises its own 1st amendment (far better than UK FoS rules)
b) stops herding people into echo chambers.
I'm prepared to listen to what people from a wide range of backgrounds say, i.e. as in normal scientific or medical discourse. Some of course aren't.
Recently, a statistician blocked Norman Fenton, i.e. presumably he found the conclusions of a Professor of Mathematics at QMUL 'awkward'. In the 1970s, some lecturers at univ. stressed the need always to report one's findings honestly. When did that go by the board?
Doncha know, what has been traditionally known as 'science' is actually institutionalized R-word-ism, since it relies on 'de-bunked' R-ist concepts such as 'logic'.
It demonstrates their bias. They're invested in selling vaccines, both for maintaining their waning credibility as well as likely financial benefits. They have to push the vax train as long as even a few passengers remain.
Calling it a vaccine is a brilliant piece of branding (even if it wasn't originally intended to be purely branding, though I have my doubts about that). Even people who admit that it doesn't stop transmission at all and only partly prevents infection (i.e., the very things a vaccine is supposed to do) will still often mentally categorize it as a vaccine and proceed from that paradigm, which treats vaccines as modern miracles and emphasizes "public health" over individual medical need. Imagine the exact same drugs, except not presented as vaccines but as more typical prophylactics: do you think there'd be such support for mandates and widespread use?
It wouldn't be the first time Pharma has marketed a drug as a vaccine in the hopes of the polio/smallpox/measles halo lending some shine to it. There's a veterinary "rattlesnake vaccine," which is not really a vaccine and doesn't work all that well, but that's how it's marketed.
As a counterexample, PrEP does more vaccine-like things than the covid shots, but it's not presented as a vaccine, and the messaging around it is entirely different. Yes, a big part of this is that the public is not currently spun up into a hysteria about HIV, but I can't imagine the narrative isn't also having an effect.
On the contrary, I think language has shown itself to be quite important. See what's happened with "woman," which has had real consequences for females.
Whatever their intended purpose and method of action, these drugs fail at actually being vaccines. They don't produce any sort of reliable immunity for any significant length of time. They do nothing to stop transmission if you do get infected. They don't do, or don't do properly, the things that define vaccination.
I don't think it's unreasonable to call them prophylactics AND failed vaccines, just like I don't think it's unreasonable to call an intended antibiotic that barely works a failed antibiotic. That's also not what's happening, unfortunately. They're simply being called vaccines, implying in the minds of the general public that they're basically the same as the miracle drugs that eliminated polio and smallpox.
Reliable isn't part of the definition. I agree these vaxes suck, even for a vax. But they do produce antibodies, the cornerstone of immune response. Don't overthink it. Doesn't help. Quite reasonable to argue its a dangerous vax, and a limited effectiveness vax, but not that it's not a vax. It would be like arguing fauxi is not human because he's an asshole.
As this fraud becomes more widely known it undermines confidence in the medical system, even beloved and revered family doctors. Which is a good thing, since medical errors have always been a major cause of deaths throughout history. Less Medicine More Health is a good description of how the struggles with complexity by learned professionals undermines outcomes.
Doctors, and their pills and procedures, do provide useful services. But overreliance on them produces the same outcomes as if we give our car to a mechanic and say "something is wrong." The car might be returned in better condition, might not. But your bill will likely be much bigger than necessary. Doctors are our employees and deserve the same supervision as any other employee. Probably more, since outcomes can be terminal.
There is one large confounder that is not being accounted for - the average health of the people in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations.
It is extremely important to account for the possible difference in overall health of the elderly in the vaccinated/unvaccinated populations. For instance, a very healthy 85 year old might have a 98% chance of surviving one more year, while an 85 year old with stage four cancer might have less than 10% survival within the year. The older one gets the more uneven the distribution of survival becomes.
Healthy 22 year olds have > 99.9% chance of surviving one year, while severely obese 22 year olds still have > 99% chance of survival one year. The distribution is much more uniform for the young. Far less than 1% of 22 year olds have a high chance of dying within one year. While 5-10% of 85 year olds have very high chances of dying within a year.
The point of covering these dramatically different distributions of survival is that the rate of vaccine uptake between each of these groups makes an enormous difference and will completely overwhelm (and thus confound) any calculated "efficacy" numbers.
Let's divide the 85 year old population into two groups, the 10% that are unhealthy and have a high chance of dying within a year and the 90% that are healthier and far less likely to die within the year. If vaccine uptake is 90% in the unhealthy group and 98% in the healthy group, then the overall unvaccinated population would be composed of around 36% unhealthy 85 year olds, while the vaccinated group would only have 9%.
This small difference (90% vs 98%) in the percent vaccinated amongst healthy/unhealthy populations leads to a substantial 4x increase in the unhealthy in the unvaccinated population.
Without the ability to measure the underlying health conditions of the elderly population and find the percent vaccinated by these conditions, then it will be impossible to calculate vaccine efficacy.
yes, exactly these kinds of selection effects are what make flu shots seem effective against all-cause winter mortality. when you correct for them, it emerges that flu shots don't do very much.
the problem is of course trying to get reliable data on demographic characteristics of the unvaccinated.
A nuanced and accurate argument. The problem is that if the vaccines were anywhere near as effective against infection as the general public has been led to believe, the numbers wouldn't even be close. And we can see from Humpherson's letter that the last thing they want is transparency. I would hope we all want the vaccines to work, but whether they do or not is an empirical question, and there is no reason to believe the powers that be are being honest with us.
Exactly. But one thing that can't be hidden or misconstrued is full hospitals - and that's what we're seeing right now in Colorado, one of the more vaxxed US states. The governor is resorting to increasingly extreme rhetoric to blame it ALL on the unvaccinated, but it simply doesn't make any sense. Covid deaths here are running 4x what they were last year at this time - despite having 0% of the population vaxxed then, and 70% now. It just doesn't add up, and the public is starting to question the official narrative more and more (or at least the people I've been talking to).
Honest question: you are actually seeing full hospitals? I ask this because if you actually look at hospital utilization numbers in the US, a lot of the stories about hospitals being crammed have turned out to not be so true, or to be somewhat misleading.
In the US, you can easily check this with a site run by HHS, which has fairly detailed information on hospital use (including ICU use, and the percentage of covid patients), updated weekly:
(Apologies if you already knew this! I say this not to be condescending, but because that site is a great resource that not many people seem to know about, and the difference between what the numbers say and what the media and officials are saying can be stark.)
Of course all hospitals are never 100% full, but the situation is serious enough here that crisis standards of care is in effect. Essentially meaning hospitals have the right to turn away patients if they don't feel they can adequately care for them. That (of course) is not at all normal and only happens when the health care system is overburdened. My nurse friends attest to this.
Now, not all of this is due to covid. More people in general are hospitalized than this time last year, for all sorts of things. And staffing shortages are making things worse. But just the fact that the covid death toll is so much higher than last fall so far demonstrates that high vaccination is not having the desired effect, at all.
Never 100% full... Depends. Private hospitals that receive ed patients who can't pay send them to city/county hospitals that are all ways full by design.
1) in the USA hospitals/ICU's are run at 85-90% capacity, have a bit of "surge" capability. American hospitals went bankrupt in 2020 due to lockdowns, restrictions, and curtailment of (profitable) elective surgery.
In Canada hospitals run at 105% capacity, hallway patients, I haven't seen bunk beds yet. We get more "management" to control the problem, as each province is a monolithic bureaucratic monopoly .
2) The "Covid Patients" are vaccine injured. The viral treatments which have proven successful worldwide (see Uttar Pradesh in India) have been forbidden. They likely wouldn't work on the vaccine damaged, because they are antivirals. The "Vaxxed" get endothelitis, myocardiopathy, hyperimmune reactions, and likely ADE type responses and within the 2 week interval when they are deemed "non-Vaxxed." The "PCR" tests should show good positives from most customers, as they react with the toxic "Spike" antigen, or almost anything else if run at Ct over 40. Recall that CDC advised only running PCR to Ct 28 in the spring on "Double-Vaxxed" subjects. This acts to underestimate the "Vaxx" failures. Good luck in getting useful raw data to assess. Endothelitis likely needs Kawasaki Disease treatment, hyperimmune needs strong steroid and antihistamine therapy.
Kostoff,RN et al, doi.org/10/1016/j.jtoxrep.2021.08.10 gives a very good picture of the mortality from injection- the hospitalised are the stronger half-dead.
3) Watch Rand Paul's Committee hearing wit US HHS Sec. Becerra. Watch at least the full 6 1/2 minutes, not the truncated versions. Ask yourself, "Whose numbers are more trustworthy, a hooker's tax return or Becerra's (or Fauci's) Covid statistics?"
When you talk about hospital/ICU capacity, I assume you mean the number of beds based on available staff. For example, an ICU has 20 beds, but due to staff shortages can only support 10 beds. If 8 beds are being used, you are actually at 80% capacity, not 40%.
We present our numbers differently. If we say we are 110% over census, then we are 110% over. Your analysis would be correct, but recall that Charles Dodgson was a mathematician.
As we become "disemployed" and reduce the available staff, the "over census" should increase, and will continue to be blamed on the "Selfish UnVaxxed."
Couple of shameless plugs... I've thought the same thing and have posts on the hospital ED visits increasing for non-COVID (www.shorturl.at/pzBJN ) & how the COVID deaths and VE don't make any sense (www.shorturl.at/ehEOU)
With the increasing pressure and threat of mandates - for a vaccine that would remain dangerous even if it were effective - no I don't want them to work. The more they fail, the easier the essential job of opposing mandates becomes. It's sad that this is the case, but that's how I and I suspect many others feel.
What's also so frustrating is that there are literally thousands of us out here (an Army of Davids as Glenn Reynolds calls it) who are begging for more data and are qualified to analyze it & do it for free! Meanwhile, the US CDC has thousands of employees and the data and analysis coming out of it are absolute garbage. I would love to look into the confounders you mention!
It would seem that this confounder, if it exists as you describe it, would only confound the data in the older age groups.
The surprising results that require an explanation are the drop in VE across practically all age groups. This cannot be explained or discarded on the basis of a confounder in older age groups alone. And although I may be misinterpreting your comment, it seemed like that was what you were implying.
There is another big problem: the reason for taking these tests. Are they based on symptoms, on contact tracing or just personal suspect in an equal measure for both groups? I doubt it. Right now there are no covid pass abuses in UK but from November 15th we'll see a lot of extra tests in one group, without any indication of risk, immediately dropping the rate. In Italy, in the first week after the "work permit" mandate we saw an increase of 40% in the number of test compared to the previous week but an increase in the cases of 0.05% only.
"you need to address more comprehensively the risk that it misleads people into thinking that it says something about vaccine effectiveness."
-----------------
You need to address more comprehensively the risk that telling people the truth about our grain production might mislead people into thinking that it says something about communism's ineffectiveness.
OMG, you weren’t kidding about the “fairly hilarious” bit. I couldn’t get through the first paragraph without guffawing—and feeling nauseous.
I’m curious how they’re defining the “unvaccinated.” Do they clarify that anywhere? There has been so much data manipulation throughout this entire facade that I certainly don’t trust it at face value. Sometimes, “unvaccinated” includes people who’ve received one shot; other times, it includes double-shot people who got their injections outside the particular hospital system (this info came from a medical professional at our local hospital and is partly how they inflated the number of ICU beds occupied by the unvaxxed). And now that they’re on the verge of redefining “fully vaccinated” to include three primary shots (e.g., in Israel), are they going to count double-injected subjects as “unvaccinated” now? 😆
indeed. as ongoing vaccinations plateau that becomes less of an option for manipulation (there just aren't that many people <14 days out from dose 1), but as child vaxx begins in more and more places, that will change.
Fully injected (vaccinated)? There will never be anyone that fits that category because these mRNA injections will be ongoing for eternity since the only thing they are effective at is making gargantuan profits for big pharma.
Thank you. This is but the latest (?) example of "moving the goalposts." Ah, how much things can change in the just under a year the jabs were made available to a credulous public! First two jabs (one for J&J) would give 95% immunity. Well, no, they had to revise that after a few months. So now, as you have described, those who were "fully vaxxed*" a month or three ago now find themselves, through no fault of their own, demoted to the great unvaxxed. But not to worry! A single booster will restore all your privileges....for perhaps six months (again, that is a yet-to-be-moved goalpost...)
* I prefer to NOT use the term "vaccine" or its variants for these products. They are NOT vaccines, and I dislike redefining words, yet another aspect of what has gone awry with our medical system.
The biggest confounder is the propensity to hospitalize the unvaccinated. This leads to hospital acquired infection (bacteria and fungal) and over-treatment with ventilators, which go hand in hand with bacterial infection. This explains all of the "hotspots for death" in the pandemic...New York, Italy, specific nursing homes, etc. All of these places likely had uncontrolled outbreaks of bacterial and/or fungal infections. John Ioannidis spoke to this early on, but he has been silenced. Also, it's important to know that known breakouts at hospitals in the U.S. are monitored by the Joint Commission, but it is not made public, due to the obvious problems it would cause in patient management, fear, etc. Being admitted to a hospital with a viral infection is risky business and increases your risk of severe infection and death. Counter-intuitive, I know.
I am so puzzled by this global phenomenon in western countries to lie to the public and ignore facts. One of the most disturbing aspects of this is here in the USA and the child vaccination push and child masking. It doesn’t make sense. In fact it is so senseless that it’s leading some to believe in some very dark conspiracies - depopulation.
I don’t think it’s that well thought out. These guys posted this vaccinated and unvaccinated data set initially to boast about how amazing the vaccines were. They stumble over themselves routinely. I think they have gone down the rabbit hole so far that all they can do is dig. Or at least they feel that all they can do is dig deeper.
Excellent insights again! Yes, government statistics regarding covid have become nothing more than fairy tales. I am sure that many here follow closely what is happening in their locations. Perhaps even engaging local media regarding their errant statistical analyses and resultant conclusions. For example, here in Vermont fully 90% of those eligible are vaccinated, yet today we had the largest one day total of covid diagnoses since the start of the pandemic. What is going on? Well, clearly, the vaccines don’t work. Really they never have if one studies the original Pfizer dataset. Back to Vermont... It appears, that in an almost homogeneous population with respect to vaccination status, that the vaccines are the CAUSE of the spike in cases. Let me explain. Because, for all intents and purposes, ‘everyone’ is vaccinated, covid should be eradicated not rampant as it is now. Instead it is a disease spreading among the vaccinated. The damage that the vaccines did, because they never did work, was to postpone the inevitable development of full spectrum herd immunity that will stop the spread. The fully vaccinated populations in Israel and Vermont, to mention two, have become the guinea pigs in this failed experiment. What is truly amazing is that these two fully vaccinated groups have become the CONTROL groups in a sick experiment demonstrating the effects of interfering with the development of natural immunity with a population-wide snake oil vaccination. In other words, the vaccination, because it clearly doesn’t work or provide complete protection, is actually the saline injection while exposure to the virus is the experimental treatment...the treatment that actually works! Until these foolish vaccinations are halted this epidemic will continue to fester.
Hello! I am also in Vermont, but remaining stubbornly unvaxxed as long as possible. I live in a farming community where people fly "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Trump!" and "F--- Joe Biden!" flags in their yards. I can't believe THEY are all vaccinated. I don't understand the Vermont statistics at all. They seem impossible. Any other Vermonters here? Maybe we can all meet up IRL and have a chat. lol.
The only trend I can rely upon is that in my own circle...people I know or people I know who know others. So far, no one has died from any covid or any injections or even gotten terribly sick. But I don't believe they can prove anyone has covid anyway because their main test, the PCR testing, is highly subject to tampering and control to obtain desired results.
It would be difficult to know. I have spoken with two men this week , one whose wife has an ischaemic leg, non-smoker ,67, no vascular risk, assured it was not "Vax-related." Another , sister-in-law, upper lab thrombosis, not vax-related. I recall two cases of upper limb thrombosis in forty years of practice, one a young man with leukaemia in 1980, and one recurrent after an injury in 2005. See my note above, you are right about the reporting.
You have to look if you want to see. If you are forbidden to look, you will not.
Another Vermonter here. Tried sharing info from the Vermont Daily Chronicle about "breakthrough " infections/deaths with my sister next door. Nothing is credible to her unless it comes from VPR/NPR or WCAX. 🤦♀️ In the meantime, Dr. Levine's hero worship of Fauci is vomit-worthy.
Hi fellow Vermonter! I don’t talk to anyone about this here—what’s the point? They have such blind faith that the CDC is compassionate and competent. Very sad.
You are very right about the statistics being "fairy tales." I've written an informal piece elsewhere with more detail; it's not worth repeating here. There are so many flaws in the stats that a book could be written about them. What is worth noting is the failures fall into two broad categories: technical (e.g. the unreliable PCR test; rubber definitions and metrics) and the political (incentive to minimize or inflate numbers or totally lie.) My current "one-stop" illustration of this are the by-country reported totals. Just look at how wildly those per-capita numbers are. My guess is that this is explained by an almost total lack of standards, of consistency of documenting cases, and a thousand other details.
Would it be appropriate to ask Mr Humpherson why he is so certain the data are misleading, and it is not the case that the vaccines might be ineffective? Has he considered this as a possibility and if so, why is it being comprehensively dismissed?
That last line was a perfect ending. There is no doubt in my mind they will stop publishing the data entirely soon. Say it with me, “safe and effective. Safe and effective. Safe and effective. The leader is good. The leader is great. We surrender our will as of this date.”
Unfortunately the "safe and effective" line is still being spewed by conservative pols, including Governor DeSantis, who is fighting the tyranny harder than anyone.
We still don't have a definition for "effective"
The recent OSHA regulations mandating vaccinations in companies with more than 100 people reads like a propaganda piece utilizing the "safe and effective" mantra constantly. The second favorite phrase was the "grave danger" of the workplace for the unvaccinated.
The best part about the guidelines from OSHA is the admission that there will be virtually no enforcement unless agents are already on-site for something else
The damn thing is almost 500 pages and there’s a separate Doc. More Gov. Health care ie Medicare Medicaid that comes in just under 250 pages. I’m sure dirty pant wrote the whole thing on his travels to see the poop.
Thanks! I hadn't heard about the 250 page document...
The UK Times, once a more decent paper, now another ruined under Gates money, said in a piece that the Government should stop publishing data, because of conspiracy theorists…..yes that old trope….it’s getting desperate, pathetic and a disgrace
Agreed. This data is kryptonite to the vaxx-to-the-maxx narrative. It can't last.
One must ask themselves: is rank stupidity & incompetence a recent thing, or has it always been this way? It would seem that one of the great lessons being taught here is that those who seek power & control do so because they are deficient in actual skill and/or intellect. And, throughout history, they have used the ability to lie, cheat, steal, manipulate & con to survive. A unique feature of our beloved America is that for the first time in history, men acknowledged that our rights as individuals are supreme ... and that we only hold our nose and tolerate a limited government for the purpose of protecting those individual rights. Dare I say that once again, we begin to understand why our forefathers were willing to risk everything for a chance to carve out a meaningful life, free from the vermin that have wormed their way back into control because we took it for granted? We need an awakening in this world. One that does not end with a new generation of mindless brutes claiming to right all wrongs by "representing the people", but one that understands that we all have a duty to our children & grandchildren to mitigate the effects of the destructive elements of human society.
Government not held in check quickly becomes a cancer. I sat down with an engineer of the local government construction permitting department. I asked him what he did….he had had a few beers…..when he finished it amounted to little to nothing because the department was over staffed. He came in at 10 and went home at 2. He had a second job to keep him busy. To top it off he said his boss just put in the budget they needed to hire more people. That’s just local……multiple that by 1000 for Swamp. What did Grandma used to say about idle hands?
Parkinson's law of 2000 says organizations of that size grow regardless of the job - British Wooden Ship Ministry well after the last wooden ship was built.
Martin Gurri, a former media analyst at the CIA and the author of the 2014 book The Revolt of the Public, was way ahead of the curve on this problem. The 'elites', through the use of the net, will be fully exposed to be rather incompetent and intelligent citizens will see this incompetence fully demonstrated time and again.
I agree with Eugyppius that Mr. Humpherson appears to be a genuinely stupid man!
Humpty is only stupid if it doesn't work. It will probably work, because his audience is stupid. When stupid becomes ubiquitous, it becomes the new smart.
Always.
I'm really troubled by the first sentence of the UKHSA site - "Vaccines work".
It's such an over simplification of what should be part of a complex system. It reads more like a religious statement, or an adolescent temper tantrum.
It's a 'magic' word. All you have to do is label something a vaccine and it just magically works. It could be experimental or lack long-term data regarding its efficacy or safety -- doesn't matter because it's called a vaccine and vaccines work. Why? Well, because it's a vaccine.
Yes exactly!
"It works because it's a vaccine, and it's a vaccine because we say it is"
Define your study and if it doesn't work out for you change and hide the data!
I had someone with a PhD in Chemistry vehemently say pretty much this to me the other day. Not the exact words, but an exasperated "of course it's a vaccine" when I dared to challenge the credentials of the charlatan concoction. With an annoyed "how dare you question the science, I haven't got time for you, you mad person" look on his face to cap it off.
I don't think anyone is seriously challenging the technology (mRNA for example.) Technically they are not vaccines. But that might have been overlooked, IF they had proven effective and safe. They have already proven they are neither. The science is sound enough. It's the lack of efficacy and the dangers of the product that are the concern.
I've had arguments with people who pretty much say exactly this. Maybe add on a 'are you an anti-vaxxer?".
When I ask them why the swine flu vaccine didn't work or why the sars-cov-1 vaccine killed all the ferrets, I get blank stares. It gives me the creeps.
Some people's mental 'algorithm' is really that simple. Vaccine = good. Anything anyone says on the red team = bad.
Tommy - can you point me to the ferret study where they *all* died? I can't find it, although I've read a bunch of SARS vaccine failed experiments on cats, mice, rats, and baboons, and some of these reference the failure in ferrets but I can't find the original article.
Here's the study where they developed severe liver disease: https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JVI.78.22.12672-12676.2004
I find mentions of cytokine storm, but can't find any original paper at the moment.
Oh goodness! Thanks for the link!
My favorite part had to be, "Extra caution should be taken in proposed human trials of SARS vaccines (9) due to the potential liver damage from immunization and virus infection."
So, I guess "extra caution" to the NIH and CDC and FDA means, 'just go ahead and turn the entire population of the earth into a clinical study, but with no control group'?
Yeah, I get chills when I read sentences like that, from people years ago warning about things we're fighting over today. Have you seen this, about the PCR test (which they've been using to measure 'cases')?
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html
"It's a 'magic' word."
Many media narratives rely more heavily on the repetition of particular words, and on associating those words with vague emotional connotations, than on framing an clear, specific, internally-consistent, empirically-based argument. In a way, it IS "word magic." Rhetoric > dialectic.
One notable example of the way this technique is employed in the context of the hegemonic COVID narrative is the consistent use of the word "hesitancy" as a label for skepticism about the efficacy or safety of the COVID vaccines. Take a look at what happens when you do an image search for the word "hesitancy" -- just that word, with no mention of "COVID" or "vaccine":
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hesitancy&iax=images&ia=images
Huh. Hard to believe that's just the accidental emergent product of many thousands of individual decisions. Looks a lot more like a top-down PR/ psychological warfare campaign. It's a carefully-chosen word. "Hesitancy" is just indecisiveness/ difficulty getting going for no particular reason. You don't have any rational objection, and you'll get there eventually, you just "need" a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory">nudge</a>.
"Hesitancy" is used in the context of trying to "sell" the vaccines to people who are more or less passively resisting the mass forced vaccination campaign. Perhaps for this reason, they seem to <a href="https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hesitant&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images">steer clear</a> of targeting individuals as "hesitant," and stick to targeting "hesitancy" as a quasi-abstract phenomenon. But for a more pejorative frame targeted at people who openly and actively question the rationale for forced COVID vaccination, it's "anti-vaxxers" or "COVID denialists" or perhaps "conspiracy theorists" -- all of which link to older, established negative associations, and DO target people as individuals.
I've found the "hesitant" label surprising. I would've expected them to pick something harsher and more pejorative, but perhaps it's a relic of when they were trying a more carrot based approach.
Sure, could be partly that they started with more of a soft power approach, and are shifting to more open coercion as the pool of unvaccinated "targets" gets smaller, but I think a lot of it is that "hesitancy" is used in a different context:
1. It's used mostly to characterize those passively resisting the vaccine
2. Many of the "hesitancy"-based narratives are what might be called "meta-propaganda" -- not targeted at the general population, but intended to frame the issue for those promoting/ administering the vaccine. For example:
https://www.edx.org/course/antivaccination-and-vaccine-hesitancy
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2784480
https://directorsblog.nih.gov/tag/vaccine-hesitancy/
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/952602
3. The goal of "hesitancy" narratives is mostly to get more people vaccinated.
They use more openly-pejorative terms largely in targeting those who are openly/ actively questioning the dominant narrative, rather than simply avoiding the vaccine. The goal when doing that is more a combination of crushing "heretics"/ silencing dissidents... and scapegoating them for the complete failure of the COVID eradication campaign.
I think it has also increasingly been used to imply "cowardice" - a form of goading to imply that those who refuse are cowards or "snowflakes". A calling out to fight by righteously vaccinated belligerents. Bullying 101.
Maybe also giving the 'hesitant' an 'out' -- letting the 'hesitant' know that they can still be accepted back into the virtue-signaling 'norm'.
Kind of like a warning across the bow of a ship.
It insinuates that they'll eventually come around. And I figure if they started off with something derogatory it would have crystallised negative sentiment. Remember they genuinely thought they could get just about everyone to accede.
Valid observation, say I. Actually, it may be more insidious than that. The Left insists upon redefinition when it suits their purpose (e.g. "vaccine"). But in the "novel therapeutics" case (or "gene therapy", more accurately), what they've done is hijack the traditional image of what the public understood vaccines to be: carefully researched, exhaustively tested, and highly effective and very safe. (I know there are exceptions, but I'm speaking of the great confidence the public has (had?) in traditional vaccines. Not so much polishing a turd, but 24K gold plating one.
What you said! I was thinking the same thing today about the “New” oral medication. They are pushing it out like it’s just another drug in the arsenal. I’m betting it’s ivermectin rebranded. Or maybe some other patten Fouci had tucked away in his underwear drawer.
Smallpox and others appear to be monumental achievements. Polio, I'm not so sure about.
I don't know how much is true, but it's an interesting story, and given the events of the past 18 months I wouldn't put it past the medical establishment to pull this kind of shenanigans.
https://rodneydodson000.medium.com/what-you-didnt-know-about-polio-26d20cba98e5
Thanks for the link, Tommy. Good point. Also, I remember at one time I was researching 'Fibromyalgia', and found a correlation of symptoms between 'Fibromyalgia' and 'Post-Polio Syndrome'. Interesting.
On another note, it gave me a chill reading about the DDT. I am old enough that I remember those sprayer trucks. I remember my dad punishing my youngest brother when he and his friend from down the block had gone out and stood under the trees in the yard when the trucks were spraying. My brother and his childhood friend died within 6 months of one another, at age 63, both from liver and pancreatic cancer. Might be a coincidence. I'm glad I never went out in the spray, myself. though.
Hmmm. Wonder when they'll start working on a national debt 'vaccine'. They'll need one if they pass any of those lovely bills the current admin and House are trying to ram through congress.
It's astonishing Humpherson would be so obvious in his goal to make the numbers for the narrative. He literally says so.
"We're fudging the numbers to fit our agenda. You can trust us, we're scientists. Follow the science...but keep the narrative going"
Propaganda always works as long as there are people ignorant or lazy enough to accept it. Driving it with fear increases the acceptance. Fear makes stupid people more stupid. It always continues until we force it to stop. Twit and face are major drivers of the propaganda and the fear, and should be forever banned, and shunned, by every honest person.
Twit could be more use if it
a) practises its own 1st amendment (far better than UK FoS rules)
b) stops herding people into echo chambers.
I'm prepared to listen to what people from a wide range of backgrounds say, i.e. as in normal scientific or medical discourse. Some of course aren't.
Recently, a statistician blocked Norman Fenton, i.e. presumably he found the conclusions of a Professor of Mathematics at QMUL 'awkward'. In the 1970s, some lecturers at univ. stressed the need always to report one's findings honestly. When did that go by the board?
Maybe someday they will. Not today.
Doncha know, what has been traditionally known as 'science' is actually institutionalized R-word-ism, since it relies on 'de-bunked' R-ist concepts such as 'logic'.
It demonstrates their bias. They're invested in selling vaccines, both for maintaining their waning credibility as well as likely financial benefits. They have to push the vax train as long as even a few passengers remain.
Calling it a vaccine is a brilliant piece of branding (even if it wasn't originally intended to be purely branding, though I have my doubts about that). Even people who admit that it doesn't stop transmission at all and only partly prevents infection (i.e., the very things a vaccine is supposed to do) will still often mentally categorize it as a vaccine and proceed from that paradigm, which treats vaccines as modern miracles and emphasizes "public health" over individual medical need. Imagine the exact same drugs, except not presented as vaccines but as more typical prophylactics: do you think there'd be such support for mandates and widespread use?
It wouldn't be the first time Pharma has marketed a drug as a vaccine in the hopes of the polio/smallpox/measles halo lending some shine to it. There's a veterinary "rattlesnake vaccine," which is not really a vaccine and doesn't work all that well, but that's how it's marketed.
As a counterexample, PrEP does more vaccine-like things than the covid shots, but it's not presented as a vaccine, and the messaging around it is entirely different. Yes, a big part of this is that the public is not currently spun up into a hysteria about HIV, but I can't imagine the narrative isn't also having an effect.
It is a vax. Vax is a biologic that induces immunity. Some vaxes are better than others, but quibbling over semantics is never useful.
On the contrary, I think language has shown itself to be quite important. See what's happened with "woman," which has had real consequences for females.
Whatever their intended purpose and method of action, these drugs fail at actually being vaccines. They don't produce any sort of reliable immunity for any significant length of time. They do nothing to stop transmission if you do get infected. They don't do, or don't do properly, the things that define vaccination.
I don't think it's unreasonable to call them prophylactics AND failed vaccines, just like I don't think it's unreasonable to call an intended antibiotic that barely works a failed antibiotic. That's also not what's happening, unfortunately. They're simply being called vaccines, implying in the minds of the general public that they're basically the same as the miracle drugs that eliminated polio and smallpox.
I call them failed Gene therapy.
Reliable isn't part of the definition. I agree these vaxes suck, even for a vax. But they do produce antibodies, the cornerstone of immune response. Don't overthink it. Doesn't help. Quite reasonable to argue its a dangerous vax, and a limited effectiveness vax, but not that it's not a vax. It would be like arguing fauxi is not human because he's an asshole.
As in, a leaky boat is still a boat?
I said the same when my doctor refused to do a pap smear and prostate exam on the same visit.
Please excuse my ignorance, but what does "PrEP" stand for?
Pre Exposure Prophylaxis. Advised before intimacy between HIV-discordant sexual partners. Reportedly more efficacious than anti-Covid injections.
Oh, thank you!
During a war, news should be given out for instruction rather than information.
Joseph Goebbels
As this fraud becomes more widely known it undermines confidence in the medical system, even beloved and revered family doctors. Which is a good thing, since medical errors have always been a major cause of deaths throughout history. Less Medicine More Health is a good description of how the struggles with complexity by learned professionals undermines outcomes.
Doctors, and their pills and procedures, do provide useful services. But overreliance on them produces the same outcomes as if we give our car to a mechanic and say "something is wrong." The car might be returned in better condition, might not. But your bill will likely be much bigger than necessary. Doctors are our employees and deserve the same supervision as any other employee. Probably more, since outcomes can be terminal.
Health does not come from a pill or through a syringe.
There is one large confounder that is not being accounted for - the average health of the people in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations.
It is extremely important to account for the possible difference in overall health of the elderly in the vaccinated/unvaccinated populations. For instance, a very healthy 85 year old might have a 98% chance of surviving one more year, while an 85 year old with stage four cancer might have less than 10% survival within the year. The older one gets the more uneven the distribution of survival becomes.
Healthy 22 year olds have > 99.9% chance of surviving one year, while severely obese 22 year olds still have > 99% chance of survival one year. The distribution is much more uniform for the young. Far less than 1% of 22 year olds have a high chance of dying within one year. While 5-10% of 85 year olds have very high chances of dying within a year.
The point of covering these dramatically different distributions of survival is that the rate of vaccine uptake between each of these groups makes an enormous difference and will completely overwhelm (and thus confound) any calculated "efficacy" numbers.
Let's divide the 85 year old population into two groups, the 10% that are unhealthy and have a high chance of dying within a year and the 90% that are healthier and far less likely to die within the year. If vaccine uptake is 90% in the unhealthy group and 98% in the healthy group, then the overall unvaccinated population would be composed of around 36% unhealthy 85 year olds, while the vaccinated group would only have 9%.
This small difference (90% vs 98%) in the percent vaccinated amongst healthy/unhealthy populations leads to a substantial 4x increase in the unhealthy in the unvaccinated population.
Without the ability to measure the underlying health conditions of the elderly population and find the percent vaccinated by these conditions, then it will be impossible to calculate vaccine efficacy.
yes, exactly these kinds of selection effects are what make flu shots seem effective against all-cause winter mortality. when you correct for them, it emerges that flu shots don't do very much.
the problem is of course trying to get reliable data on demographic characteristics of the unvaccinated.
A nuanced and accurate argument. The problem is that if the vaccines were anywhere near as effective against infection as the general public has been led to believe, the numbers wouldn't even be close. And we can see from Humpherson's letter that the last thing they want is transparency. I would hope we all want the vaccines to work, but whether they do or not is an empirical question, and there is no reason to believe the powers that be are being honest with us.
Exactly. But one thing that can't be hidden or misconstrued is full hospitals - and that's what we're seeing right now in Colorado, one of the more vaxxed US states. The governor is resorting to increasingly extreme rhetoric to blame it ALL on the unvaccinated, but it simply doesn't make any sense. Covid deaths here are running 4x what they were last year at this time - despite having 0% of the population vaxxed then, and 70% now. It just doesn't add up, and the public is starting to question the official narrative more and more (or at least the people I've been talking to).
Honest question: you are actually seeing full hospitals? I ask this because if you actually look at hospital utilization numbers in the US, a lot of the stories about hospitals being crammed have turned out to not be so true, or to be somewhat misleading.
In the US, you can easily check this with a site run by HHS, which has fairly detailed information on hospital use (including ICU use, and the percentage of covid patients), updated weekly:
https://protect-public.hhs.gov/pages/hospital-utilization
(Apologies if you already knew this! I say this not to be condescending, but because that site is a great resource that not many people seem to know about, and the difference between what the numbers say and what the media and officials are saying can be stark.)
Of course all hospitals are never 100% full, but the situation is serious enough here that crisis standards of care is in effect. Essentially meaning hospitals have the right to turn away patients if they don't feel they can adequately care for them. That (of course) is not at all normal and only happens when the health care system is overburdened. My nurse friends attest to this.
Now, not all of this is due to covid. More people in general are hospitalized than this time last year, for all sorts of things. And staffing shortages are making things worse. But just the fact that the covid death toll is so much higher than last fall so far demonstrates that high vaccination is not having the desired effect, at all.
Never 100% full... Depends. Private hospitals that receive ed patients who can't pay send them to city/county hospitals that are all ways full by design.
1) in the USA hospitals/ICU's are run at 85-90% capacity, have a bit of "surge" capability. American hospitals went bankrupt in 2020 due to lockdowns, restrictions, and curtailment of (profitable) elective surgery.
In Canada hospitals run at 105% capacity, hallway patients, I haven't seen bunk beds yet. We get more "management" to control the problem, as each province is a monolithic bureaucratic monopoly .
2) The "Covid Patients" are vaccine injured. The viral treatments which have proven successful worldwide (see Uttar Pradesh in India) have been forbidden. They likely wouldn't work on the vaccine damaged, because they are antivirals. The "Vaxxed" get endothelitis, myocardiopathy, hyperimmune reactions, and likely ADE type responses and within the 2 week interval when they are deemed "non-Vaxxed." The "PCR" tests should show good positives from most customers, as they react with the toxic "Spike" antigen, or almost anything else if run at Ct over 40. Recall that CDC advised only running PCR to Ct 28 in the spring on "Double-Vaxxed" subjects. This acts to underestimate the "Vaxx" failures. Good luck in getting useful raw data to assess. Endothelitis likely needs Kawasaki Disease treatment, hyperimmune needs strong steroid and antihistamine therapy.
Kostoff,RN et al, doi.org/10/1016/j.jtoxrep.2021.08.10 gives a very good picture of the mortality from injection- the hospitalised are the stronger half-dead.
3) Watch Rand Paul's Committee hearing wit US HHS Sec. Becerra. Watch at least the full 6 1/2 minutes, not the truncated versions. Ask yourself, "Whose numbers are more trustworthy, a hooker's tax return or Becerra's (or Fauci's) Covid statistics?"
When you talk about hospital/ICU capacity, I assume you mean the number of beds based on available staff. For example, an ICU has 20 beds, but due to staff shortages can only support 10 beds. If 8 beds are being used, you are actually at 80% capacity, not 40%.
We present our numbers differently. If we say we are 110% over census, then we are 110% over. Your analysis would be correct, but recall that Charles Dodgson was a mathematician.
As we become "disemployed" and reduce the available staff, the "over census" should increase, and will continue to be blamed on the "Selfish UnVaxxed."
Couple of shameless plugs... I've thought the same thing and have posts on the hospital ED visits increasing for non-COVID (www.shorturl.at/pzBJN ) & how the COVID deaths and VE don't make any sense (www.shorturl.at/ehEOU)
i dont see anyone questioning where i live
With the increasing pressure and threat of mandates - for a vaccine that would remain dangerous even if it were effective - no I don't want them to work. The more they fail, the easier the essential job of opposing mandates becomes. It's sad that this is the case, but that's how I and I suspect many others feel.
What's also so frustrating is that there are literally thousands of us out here (an Army of Davids as Glenn Reynolds calls it) who are begging for more data and are qualified to analyze it & do it for free! Meanwhile, the US CDC has thousands of employees and the data and analysis coming out of it are absolute garbage. I would love to look into the confounders you mention!
It would seem that this confounder, if it exists as you describe it, would only confound the data in the older age groups.
The surprising results that require an explanation are the drop in VE across practically all age groups. This cannot be explained or discarded on the basis of a confounder in older age groups alone. And although I may be misinterpreting your comment, it seemed like that was what you were implying.
Really interesting. Thank you!
There is another big problem: the reason for taking these tests. Are they based on symptoms, on contact tracing or just personal suspect in an equal measure for both groups? I doubt it. Right now there are no covid pass abuses in UK but from November 15th we'll see a lot of extra tests in one group, without any indication of risk, immediately dropping the rate. In Italy, in the first week after the "work permit" mandate we saw an increase of 40% in the number of test compared to the previous week but an increase in the cases of 0.05% only.
Ted - I actually understood this! I think you make an excellent point.
"you need to address more comprehensively the risk that it misleads people into thinking that it says something about vaccine effectiveness."
-----------------
You need to address more comprehensively the risk that telling people the truth about our grain production might mislead people into thinking that it says something about communism's ineffectiveness.
OMG, you weren’t kidding about the “fairly hilarious” bit. I couldn’t get through the first paragraph without guffawing—and feeling nauseous.
I’m curious how they’re defining the “unvaccinated.” Do they clarify that anywhere? There has been so much data manipulation throughout this entire facade that I certainly don’t trust it at face value. Sometimes, “unvaccinated” includes people who’ve received one shot; other times, it includes double-shot people who got their injections outside the particular hospital system (this info came from a medical professional at our local hospital and is partly how they inflated the number of ICU beds occupied by the unvaxxed). And now that they’re on the verge of redefining “fully vaccinated” to include three primary shots (e.g., in Israel), are they going to count double-injected subjects as “unvaccinated” now? 😆
they break all of these values out separately; the statistics I placed in the table are the truly unvaccinated vs. those with two doses.
Thanks for clarifying/confirming. Apologies for being cynical as this point, but no doubt you understand why :-)
indeed. as ongoing vaccinations plateau that becomes less of an option for manipulation (there just aren't that many people <14 days out from dose 1), but as child vaxx begins in more and more places, that will change.
I weep for the future 😢 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMGz3sXRhvE
What future?
I'm thinking that the constantly changing definition of vaccinated will lead to more pressure for vax passports.
UK is one of the only (so far) honest reporters of the "partially vaccinated" category
vs those with two doses POST 14 D right?
Fully injected (vaccinated)? There will never be anyone that fits that category because these mRNA injections will be ongoing for eternity since the only thing they are effective at is making gargantuan profits for big pharma.
Don’t forget depopulation.
Thank you. This is but the latest (?) example of "moving the goalposts." Ah, how much things can change in the just under a year the jabs were made available to a credulous public! First two jabs (one for J&J) would give 95% immunity. Well, no, they had to revise that after a few months. So now, as you have described, those who were "fully vaxxed*" a month or three ago now find themselves, through no fault of their own, demoted to the great unvaxxed. But not to worry! A single booster will restore all your privileges....for perhaps six months (again, that is a yet-to-be-moved goalpost...)
* I prefer to NOT use the term "vaccine" or its variants for these products. They are NOT vaccines, and I dislike redefining words, yet another aspect of what has gone awry with our medical system.
The biggest confounder is the propensity to hospitalize the unvaccinated. This leads to hospital acquired infection (bacteria and fungal) and over-treatment with ventilators, which go hand in hand with bacterial infection. This explains all of the "hotspots for death" in the pandemic...New York, Italy, specific nursing homes, etc. All of these places likely had uncontrolled outbreaks of bacterial and/or fungal infections. John Ioannidis spoke to this early on, but he has been silenced. Also, it's important to know that known breakouts at hospitals in the U.S. are monitored by the Joint Commission, but it is not made public, due to the obvious problems it would cause in patient management, fear, etc. Being admitted to a hospital with a viral infection is risky business and increases your risk of severe infection and death. Counter-intuitive, I know.
I am so puzzled by this global phenomenon in western countries to lie to the public and ignore facts. One of the most disturbing aspects of this is here in the USA and the child vaccination push and child masking. It doesn’t make sense. In fact it is so senseless that it’s leading some to believe in some very dark conspiracies - depopulation.
How can it be called a conspiracy when Klaus Schwab wrote a book called The Great Reset?
It's not supposed to make any sense. That way they can say whatever they want and it fits the agenda.
I don’t think it’s that well thought out. These guys posted this vaccinated and unvaccinated data set initially to boast about how amazing the vaccines were. They stumble over themselves routinely. I think they have gone down the rabbit hole so far that all they can do is dig. Or at least they feel that all they can do is dig deeper.
No. They never go down a rabbit hole. That's their problem.
Excellent insights again! Yes, government statistics regarding covid have become nothing more than fairy tales. I am sure that many here follow closely what is happening in their locations. Perhaps even engaging local media regarding their errant statistical analyses and resultant conclusions. For example, here in Vermont fully 90% of those eligible are vaccinated, yet today we had the largest one day total of covid diagnoses since the start of the pandemic. What is going on? Well, clearly, the vaccines don’t work. Really they never have if one studies the original Pfizer dataset. Back to Vermont... It appears, that in an almost homogeneous population with respect to vaccination status, that the vaccines are the CAUSE of the spike in cases. Let me explain. Because, for all intents and purposes, ‘everyone’ is vaccinated, covid should be eradicated not rampant as it is now. Instead it is a disease spreading among the vaccinated. The damage that the vaccines did, because they never did work, was to postpone the inevitable development of full spectrum herd immunity that will stop the spread. The fully vaccinated populations in Israel and Vermont, to mention two, have become the guinea pigs in this failed experiment. What is truly amazing is that these two fully vaccinated groups have become the CONTROL groups in a sick experiment demonstrating the effects of interfering with the development of natural immunity with a population-wide snake oil vaccination. In other words, the vaccination, because it clearly doesn’t work or provide complete protection, is actually the saline injection while exposure to the virus is the experimental treatment...the treatment that actually works! Until these foolish vaccinations are halted this epidemic will continue to fester.
Hello! I am also in Vermont, but remaining stubbornly unvaxxed as long as possible. I live in a farming community where people fly "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Trump!" and "F--- Joe Biden!" flags in their yards. I can't believe THEY are all vaccinated. I don't understand the Vermont statistics at all. They seem impossible. Any other Vermonters here? Maybe we can all meet up IRL and have a chat. lol.
Let's Go Brandon!
If I get fired from my job I think I’ll wave a LGB flag on the street corner and see what happens. Probably do that in Rutland for best results.
The only trend I can rely upon is that in my own circle...people I know or people I know who know others. So far, no one has died from any covid or any injections or even gotten terribly sick. But I don't believe they can prove anyone has covid anyway because their main test, the PCR testing, is highly subject to tampering and control to obtain desired results.
Do you just mean the test is too unreliable to tell if someone is truly infected?
I think it's hit or miss...mostly miss.
It would be difficult to know. I have spoken with two men this week , one whose wife has an ischaemic leg, non-smoker ,67, no vascular risk, assured it was not "Vax-related." Another , sister-in-law, upper lab thrombosis, not vax-related. I recall two cases of upper limb thrombosis in forty years of practice, one a young man with leukaemia in 1980, and one recurrent after an injury in 2005. See my note above, you are right about the reporting.
You have to look if you want to see. If you are forbidden to look, you will not.
Another Vermonter here. Tried sharing info from the Vermont Daily Chronicle about "breakthrough " infections/deaths with my sister next door. Nothing is credible to her unless it comes from VPR/NPR or WCAX. 🤦♀️ In the meantime, Dr. Levine's hero worship of Fauci is vomit-worthy.
Hi fellow Vermonter! I don’t talk to anyone about this here—what’s the point? They have such blind faith that the CDC is compassionate and competent. Very sad.
I appreciate your local reporting. Here in my small rural town in western North Carolina the trend of cases is down, as it is in the entire state.
I forgot to say I think my county is about 50% jabbed.
You are very right about the statistics being "fairy tales." I've written an informal piece elsewhere with more detail; it's not worth repeating here. There are so many flaws in the stats that a book could be written about them. What is worth noting is the failures fall into two broad categories: technical (e.g. the unreliable PCR test; rubber definitions and metrics) and the political (incentive to minimize or inflate numbers or totally lie.) My current "one-stop" illustration of this are the by-country reported totals. Just look at how wildly those per-capita numbers are. My guess is that this is explained by an almost total lack of standards, of consistency of documenting cases, and a thousand other details.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
see my note above- there does not seem to be any escape so far. rjt
Would it be appropriate to ask Mr Humpherson why he is so certain the data are misleading, and it is not the case that the vaccines might be ineffective? Has he considered this as a possibility and if so, why is it being comprehensively dismissed?