"Comparing case rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection.”
-I know it's not new but let's just enjoy this moment once again (UK HSA's statement, quoted by The Daily Sceptic. Can anyone imagine them saying such a thing if the numbers were in their favor?
I can ban commenters, but these evil bots take advantage of some glitch so it doesn’t work. I delete the comments when I find them. I’m working on this, also in touch with substack about it.
It would be more credible if they actually gave some reason to back up their claim that the comparison is invalid. Merely proclaiming ex-cathedra that you shouldn't do it deserves to be treated with derision.
it’s hilarious because in their failed attempts to argue why these statistics are meaningless, they reveal they have no idea what it is that might be wrong with them. they just don’t like the numbers.
I think they know it’s bollocks. It can be translated as “get all the way off my back now, Mr Cuthbertson” (or whatever that tool from the ONS was called)
"Comparing case rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection...”
"...because it might lead to conclusions we don't like."
This was exactly the method used to get the vaccines their EUA status--their supposed 95% effectiveness in reducing cases. But now that that's been debunked, we should no longer use that stat to evaluate effectiveness... 🤦♀️
They never made any specific claims if I recall. I think the only metric they looked at was antibody production - which normally I would think is fair enough but nowadays who knows?
Funny… I recently saw that exact quote from a fact checker (minus the second quote, of course). And that’s how they defended their argument. They didn’t offer anything else. Absolutely pathetic!
so the first three waves killed all the vulnerable people. Now the left over vulnerable people got vaxxed early on and the vax protective effect is wearing off and the virus has mutated and "escaped" the vax protection. The unvaxxed are in general in better health and more likey to survive ( even the older unvaxxed) and the older at risk vaxxed people are in general in much worse underlying shape and now they are dying because the vax protection has worn off. So what do to? Maybe boost ONLY the vulnerable? Leave everyone else alone? If you keep vaxxing healthy not at risk people we will create superstrains which will hurt the at risk already vaxxed people even more.
I agree with you part of the way, but if vaccine protection is wearing off for the vaxxed shouldn't their death rate be a lot higher? The data show the opposite. Maybe as time goes on that will change.
Yes, it shows that more of the unvaxxed are dying per 100k, so the "vaccines" do seem to help lower the death rate (excluding deaths from adverse effects). But there's still a lot of vaccinated people dying too, so it's not that good at preventing death.
I think we'd all like to know that. That's what those adverse effects databases are supposed to help with, but so many of those reports are dismissed as "coincidence" or unrelated to the vaccine.
"Mr Smith's heart practically exploded 3 days after taking his 7th Pfizer shot. Cause of death: heart explosion. No causal link between explosion and vaccine."
Regardless of the substance and attribution of these reports, the mere fact that the number of VAERS reports have literally exploded in the past year should be sufficient to put a stop to the death shots.
Furthermore, the Pfizer clinical study showed more total death in the vax group than in the placebo group, and showed more heart related deaths. In general, this study was inconclusive, but if one takes it as conclusive, than the only possible outcome should have been to refuse the emergency authorization.
Ah! If you die of decapitation, but unvaxed, you be dead of the mighty 'Rona. Die of anything after the vax, and you died of anything but nothing related to covidiocy, or a new pandemic disease called "inexplicably", sometimes pronounced as "unexpectedly"or "suddenly".
This issue of the vaccine increasing infection rates about 9 mos. post vaccination is so serious that it’s of utmost importance that it’s validity be determined. The UK public health officials say that it is only due to the inaccuracy in the knowledge in the number of the unvaccinated.
However, the number of the vaccinated and unvaccinated are in the millions. Then it would be quite easy to take a random sample of large size of both groups and therefore answer the question to a high degree of statistical certainty.
Perhaps those with statistical expertise can prevail on the public heath agencies to conduct such statistical studies?
we know it’s a real effect because the swedish matched cohort study showed the same thing, and the independent public health scotland data also show it.
one of the reasons i post these charts every week, and will continue doing so until they stop making them available, is that the mechanism is crucial. people should be trying to figure out what is going on, and - most importantly - if the efficacy against severe outcome will also go negative. because if that’s the case, we need to stop vaccinating, yesterday.
Should have. Several scientists who are now blocked everywhere told this would happen. Inject people with poison and see what happens, is my idea of this whole mess.
Listening to Geert Vanden Bossche, yes. What you are seeing is continued infection in the vaccinated, while infection rates drop in the unvaccinated (with greater impact in younger age cohorts, once vaccine induced antibodies wane), as they train their innate immune systems to fight off the infection.
This is the most likely mechanism I can think of that accounts for the greatest delta in infection rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated being in the younger age cohorts (once the vaccine short term impact has washed out). We will see a greater delta in the 20-30 cohort in a month or two most likely.
The other consideration is honesty in diagnosis. The at-risk groups are not just "Vaxxed" and "Unvaxxed." You have to separate the recovered, both asymptomatic and symptomatic. Then your "diagnosis" with a PCR test with Ct over 40 is at best debatable.
The "vaccine" injured will distort your analysis as well. The mechanism of injury could be ADE, or endothelitis from thee spike or the virus.
There is growing evidence that the modern, injected vaccine, has always been meant as a mass weapon. The first mentions of this, dates from the late 1880's.
So, no, nothing novel at all, just waaaaay more effective.
I think the bottom line is, the mRNA vaccines were built around 1 of the 29 proteins in coronavirus, the Spike protein. It triggers the body's immune system around Spike, but natural immunity is better because then the body is exposed to all of the proteins, not just one. Furthermore, Spike may have negative effects on the body, i.e. I think there was a paper suggesting it interferes with the cell's repair mechanisms, which is not good.
The pushback against the unfortunate case data is always that the jabs are protective against hospitalization and death, but every week about four out of five of the actual people who actually died were fully vaxxed. This narrative might appease their overlords, but it misleads and reassures the fully vaxxed, especially those at higher risk.
Thanks for the graphs. I definitely appreciate the visuals, and also the link to T. Coddington's site-- as a homeschooler I use all this raw data for our "real world math" and have since the beginning. It's an inoculation against fear. (Ironically, the Washington Post recently published an opinion piece entitled "Covid misinformation spreads because so many Americans are awful at math." We can rest assured the fact checkers won't be going after that anytime soon.)
The numbers for Belgium now need a ladder. Still the government and some people ask for more shots, lockdowns, and even lock up and force vaxx. I did not know the median Belgian was that stupid. Glad I am now in US
In both cases, vaccination seems to offer some protection (first proportion is larger than the rest), but protection against really bad outcome or even death is on the same level only as protection against hospitalisation.
The overall levels of the proportions, however, are very different (vaxx rates: > 90% UK, 87.6 Germany). Does this have to do with the bad data we are offered in Germany (lots of data points with "unknown vaxx status" etc.), or would you expect the German numbers to converge to the UK ones (vaccination in Germany started much later)?
As William Briggs is constantly reminding us, one should run models in predictive mode. Will we reach UK level proportions, and when (the proportions, according to the RKI data, have been rising all the time, and faster than vaxx rates, but at that speed it might still take months)?
the key is, how many of the most at-risk we have vaccinated in Germany. if the answer is “far fewer than in the UK,” there may be no real convergence with the UK numbers.
Even with the use of semantic games played by fact checkers, this argument does not work. “Fact Check-UK vaccine report did not remove chart comparing COVID-19 rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated”. A table is not a chart. They could have at least replaced “chart” in the title with “data”.
Isn’t it curious that we live in the modern age, yet we still require interpreters of the truth just as people could not make their own interpretations of the Bible during the dark ages. Heaven forbid we think for ourselves
This should really lead to an immediate stop of that 'vaccination'!
"A shocking new article in Circulation, a main stream medical journal just published(also quoted by Malone’s twitter) an American Heart Association journal .This article must have an enormous impact as it explains the clear risk for cardiac events in vaccinated. This is not only myocarditis risk. Any person with already coronary risk with previous myocardial infarctions has a clear risk of increased risk of myocardial infarction with the mRNA vaccines.This puts clearly a complete new risk assessment for vaccines and mass vaccination. These results must be known to UK and FDA.
This article is from a group which has a coronary disease prevention clinic and assess patients with coronary disease and trying to estimate risk for future coronary events using laboratory markers.
They have measured in their coronary patients several laboratory markers which indicates inflammation etc in their patients. This was to create an index of risk of coronary heart disease in the future. They have done this test for their coronary patients for several years .Dramatic increases when these patients were vaccinated.
mRNA vaccines lead to a dramatic increase of all these values and higher risk for coronary event in the future, even the authors say a direct warning. The increase was still there 2.5 months after second mRNA vaccine dose. These coronary patients increased their risk by the vaccine having a coronary infarction in 5 years time from 11 %to 25%
This article must be known to FDA.Millions of people with coronary disease have got these vaccines. You would think evidence of more than doubling the risk for coronary event in 5 years time could lead to new risk assessment for vaccines. And injecting these vaccines in healthy children/adults below 30 with now known risk of myocarditis and unknown but plausible risk of coronary events in the future?"
Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning
“These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac.We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.”
I cannot fathom how third dose safety could possibly be established without an RCT comparing three doses to two doses. Ideally also comparing to unvaccinated. Even then, all the same problems would come up. Healthy people who tolerated first two doses fine are the ones who would enroll and data would not be transparent.
I mean, the second dose has more side effects than the first. The third might have more than the second. How can anyone be confident enough to say this is not the case, and therefore RCT is not needed?
Yes, indeed. Add Covid mortality within 14 days of vaccination to death from all other cause within 14 days of vaccination and it should paint a compelling picture.
Can we get a breakdown for RAW deaths by percentage of the jabbed population vs RAW deaths by percentage of the unjabbed? Because if 90% of the population is jabbed, then of course the numbers of deaths will be higher by that same percentage. Just trying to steelman the argument here.
The graphs are based on "rate per 100k" so population percentages are already factored in. But vaccine coverage is on Page 14. Unfortunately it's in chart form, rather than raw % figures.
OliveTrees, thank you for responding. Is the 100K from the “general population” or is it 100K of each criteria (jab-status) group. I’m just making sure, because that’s not clear to me.
Fact checkers are infamous for using the straw man argument or the bait and switch. This works with the hypnotized masses since most don’t bother reading the full fact check explanation; just the words True or False.
Articles such as this irk the hell out of me. They dance all around the issue, but refuse to address what I consider to be solid unadulterated fact, specifically that asymptomatic unvaccinated people have NEVER, not once, been proven to be contagious. To me, that point, and ONLY that point, should be the primary central locus around which we construct each and every single argument against this tyranny.
It is the only thing on which the vaxx tyrants are basing their lockdowns and coercive policies. They all make the assumption that the asymptomatic unvaccinated are guilty of contagion until proven innocent, and due process is suspended so they don't even get to prove their innocence. Does nobody see that this assumption must be directly confronted? Where are the studies, data, medical explanations about immune system responses? Everyone just sweeps the issue under the rug. Somebody explain this to me please, how arguments about hospitalization rates and everything else under the Covid sun, somehow counter the tyrants' basic faulty assumption. I'm anxious to know, because meanwhile the tyrants keep tightening the screws on us, and nobody is doing anything effective to stop it.
"Comparing case rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection.”
-I know it's not new but let's just enjoy this moment once again (UK HSA's statement, quoted by The Daily Sceptic. Can anyone imagine them saying such a thing if the numbers were in their favor?
they didn’t for months and months when the numbers *were* in their favour. i will just never get over how blatant their motivated reasoning is.
As Mel Brooks said in Blazing Saddles: "Gentlemen, we've got to protect our phoney baloney jobs!"
TCM just ran Blazing Saddles the other night - great timing on their part. :)
I wonder if they ran the original or the edited version?
Substack badly needs a ban hammer for spammers...
I can ban commenters, but these evil bots take advantage of some glitch so it doesn’t work. I delete the comments when I find them. I’m working on this, also in touch with substack about it.
It would be more credible if they actually gave some reason to back up their claim that the comparison is invalid. Merely proclaiming ex-cathedra that you shouldn't do it deserves to be treated with derision.
it’s hilarious because in their failed attempts to argue why these statistics are meaningless, they reveal they have no idea what it is that might be wrong with them. they just don’t like the numbers.
I think they know it’s bollocks. It can be translated as “get all the way off my back now, Mr Cuthbertson” (or whatever that tool from the ONS was called)
There's enough material for a new season of Yes Minister by now, surely?
I love commentors like you, teaching me new words and phrases: "ex-cathedra" Keep it up.
"Comparing case rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection...”
"...because it might lead to conclusions we don't like."
This was exactly the method used to get the vaccines their EUA status--their supposed 95% effectiveness in reducing cases. But now that that's been debunked, we should no longer use that stat to evaluate effectiveness... 🤦♀️
They never made any specific claims if I recall. I think the only metric they looked at was antibody production - which normally I would think is fair enough but nowadays who knows?
Funny… I recently saw that exact quote from a fact checker (minus the second quote, of course). And that’s how they defended their argument. They didn’t offer anything else. Absolutely pathetic!
How else would even begin to estimate its "effectiveness"? I suppose their method is "because big Pharma said so. Cha-ching."
Nailed it.
so the first three waves killed all the vulnerable people. Now the left over vulnerable people got vaxxed early on and the vax protective effect is wearing off and the virus has mutated and "escaped" the vax protection. The unvaxxed are in general in better health and more likey to survive ( even the older unvaxxed) and the older at risk vaxxed people are in general in much worse underlying shape and now they are dying because the vax protection has worn off. So what do to? Maybe boost ONLY the vulnerable? Leave everyone else alone? If you keep vaxxing healthy not at risk people we will create superstrains which will hurt the at risk already vaxxed people even more.
Exactly what is happening. And the horses that pull this wagon not only have eye protection on, but are totally blind.
I agree with you part of the way, but if vaccine protection is wearing off for the vaxxed shouldn't their death rate be a lot higher? The data show the opposite. Maybe as time goes on that will change.
Doesn't the chart show its mostly the unvaxxed dying, per 100k?
The raw data says otherwise though….
Yes, it shows that more of the unvaxxed are dying per 100k, so the "vaccines" do seem to help lower the death rate (excluding deaths from adverse effects). But there's still a lot of vaccinated people dying too, so it's not that good at preventing death.
I'd like to know how many of the vulnerable vaxxed died from the vax before the virus could get them
I think we'd all like to know that. That's what those adverse effects databases are supposed to help with, but so many of those reports are dismissed as "coincidence" or unrelated to the vaccine.
"Mr Smith's heart practically exploded 3 days after taking his 7th Pfizer shot. Cause of death: heart explosion. No causal link between explosion and vaccine."
Regardless of the substance and attribution of these reports, the mere fact that the number of VAERS reports have literally exploded in the past year should be sufficient to put a stop to the death shots.
Furthermore, the Pfizer clinical study showed more total death in the vax group than in the placebo group, and showed more heart related deaths. In general, this study was inconclusive, but if one takes it as conclusive, than the only possible outcome should have been to refuse the emergency authorization.
Ah! If you die of decapitation, but unvaxed, you be dead of the mighty 'Rona. Die of anything after the vax, and you died of anything but nothing related to covidiocy, or a new pandemic disease called "inexplicably", sometimes pronounced as "unexpectedly"or "suddenly".
I was wondering where all these new visitors to my substack were coming from :) Thank you sir for the link!
sorry it took me a while to get to this - busy posting schedule.
Fantastic work!
This issue of the vaccine increasing infection rates about 9 mos. post vaccination is so serious that it’s of utmost importance that it’s validity be determined. The UK public health officials say that it is only due to the inaccuracy in the knowledge in the number of the unvaccinated.
However, the number of the vaccinated and unvaccinated are in the millions. Then it would be quite easy to take a random sample of large size of both groups and therefore answer the question to a high degree of statistical certainty.
Perhaps those with statistical expertise can prevail on the public heath agencies to conduct such statistical studies?
Robert Clark
we know it’s a real effect because the swedish matched cohort study showed the same thing, and the independent public health scotland data also show it.
one of the reasons i post these charts every week, and will continue doing so until they stop making them available, is that the mechanism is crucial. people should be trying to figure out what is going on, and - most importantly - if the efficacy against severe outcome will also go negative. because if that’s the case, we need to stop vaccinating, yesterday.
Should have. Several scientists who are now blocked everywhere told this would happen. Inject people with poison and see what happens, is my idea of this whole mess.
basically, yes.
Do you think the mechanism is still most probably an impairment of the innate immune response?
Listening to Geert Vanden Bossche, yes. What you are seeing is continued infection in the vaccinated, while infection rates drop in the unvaccinated (with greater impact in younger age cohorts, once vaccine induced antibodies wane), as they train their innate immune systems to fight off the infection.
This is the most likely mechanism I can think of that accounts for the greatest delta in infection rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated being in the younger age cohorts (once the vaccine short term impact has washed out). We will see a greater delta in the 20-30 cohort in a month or two most likely.
The other consideration is honesty in diagnosis. The at-risk groups are not just "Vaxxed" and "Unvaxxed." You have to separate the recovered, both asymptomatic and symptomatic. Then your "diagnosis" with a PCR test with Ct over 40 is at best debatable.
The "vaccine" injured will distort your analysis as well. The mechanism of injury could be ADE, or endothelitis from thee spike or the virus.
Since this is a novel vaccine technique, "what a vaxx is supposed to do" does not necessarily apply.
There is growing evidence that the modern, injected vaccine, has always been meant as a mass weapon. The first mentions of this, dates from the late 1880's.
So, no, nothing novel at all, just waaaaay more effective.
I think the bottom line is, the mRNA vaccines were built around 1 of the 29 proteins in coronavirus, the Spike protein. It triggers the body's immune system around Spike, but natural immunity is better because then the body is exposed to all of the proteins, not just one. Furthermore, Spike may have negative effects on the body, i.e. I think there was a paper suggesting it interferes with the cell's repair mechanisms, which is not good.
You're correct about these new tech, corona virus vaccines being novel in humans but they're not in agriculture.
They've been a disaster with poultry, producing very hot variants and probably making transmission worse.
The pushback against the unfortunate case data is always that the jabs are protective against hospitalization and death, but every week about four out of five of the actual people who actually died were fully vaxxed. This narrative might appease their overlords, but it misleads and reassures the fully vaxxed, especially those at higher risk.
Thanks for the graphs. I definitely appreciate the visuals, and also the link to T. Coddington's site-- as a homeschooler I use all this raw data for our "real world math" and have since the beginning. It's an inoculation against fear. (Ironically, the Washington Post recently published an opinion piece entitled "Covid misinformation spreads because so many Americans are awful at math." We can rest assured the fact checkers won't be going after that anytime soon.)
I think they mean “fear porn works because so many people are awful at math”
They can thank me later.
https://www.hln.be/binnenland/overzicht-aantal-coronapatienten-op-intensieve-zorg-stijgt-naar-603-aantal-besmettingen-gestegen-naar-meer-dan-12-000~ae0f34cf/
The numbers for Belgium now need a ladder. Still the government and some people ask for more shots, lockdowns, and even lock up and force vaxx. I did not know the median Belgian was that stupid. Glad I am now in US
I am trying to compare UK and Germany (https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Situationsberichte/Wochenbericht/Wochenbericht_2021-11-18.pdf?__blob=publicationFile).
UK 60+ fully vaxxed proportions:
- cases: 89.6% (102639 of 114499)
- emergency care: 82.6%
- death 28: 82.3%
- death 60: 82.6%
Germany 60+ fully vaxxed proportions:
- symptomatic cases: 61.6% (30348 of 49280)
- hospitalisation: 44.8%
- ICU: 37.8%
- death: 42%
In both cases, vaccination seems to offer some protection (first proportion is larger than the rest), but protection against really bad outcome or even death is on the same level only as protection against hospitalisation.
The overall levels of the proportions, however, are very different (vaxx rates: > 90% UK, 87.6 Germany). Does this have to do with the bad data we are offered in Germany (lots of data points with "unknown vaxx status" etc.), or would you expect the German numbers to converge to the UK ones (vaccination in Germany started much later)?
As William Briggs is constantly reminding us, one should run models in predictive mode. Will we reach UK level proportions, and when (the proportions, according to the RKI data, have been rising all the time, and faster than vaxx rates, but at that speed it might still take months)?
the key is, how many of the most at-risk we have vaccinated in Germany. if the answer is “far fewer than in the UK,” there may be no real convergence with the UK numbers.
Yes, indeed. I wonder if the RKI has better data than those published (vaccination rates according to only three categories (-17, 18-59, 60+)).
It could be a product of the vaccines themselves? The UK used a lot of AstraZeneca for the first round of stinging, which isn't mRNA.
Even with the use of semantic games played by fact checkers, this argument does not work. “Fact Check-UK vaccine report did not remove chart comparing COVID-19 rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated”. A table is not a chart. They could have at least replaced “chart” in the title with “data”.
Isn’t it curious that we live in the modern age, yet we still require interpreters of the truth just as people could not make their own interpretations of the Bible during the dark ages. Heaven forbid we think for ourselves
Covid vax doubles the risk of acute coronary syndrome
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712
Have you seen this?!
This should really lead to an immediate stop of that 'vaccination'!
"A shocking new article in Circulation, a main stream medical journal just published(also quoted by Malone’s twitter) an American Heart Association journal .This article must have an enormous impact as it explains the clear risk for cardiac events in vaccinated. This is not only myocarditis risk. Any person with already coronary risk with previous myocardial infarctions has a clear risk of increased risk of myocardial infarction with the mRNA vaccines.This puts clearly a complete new risk assessment for vaccines and mass vaccination. These results must be known to UK and FDA.
This article is from a group which has a coronary disease prevention clinic and assess patients with coronary disease and trying to estimate risk for future coronary events using laboratory markers.
They have measured in their coronary patients several laboratory markers which indicates inflammation etc in their patients. This was to create an index of risk of coronary heart disease in the future. They have done this test for their coronary patients for several years .Dramatic increases when these patients were vaccinated.
mRNA vaccines lead to a dramatic increase of all these values and higher risk for coronary event in the future, even the authors say a direct warning. The increase was still there 2.5 months after second mRNA vaccine dose. These coronary patients increased their risk by the vaccine having a coronary infarction in 5 years time from 11 %to 25%
This article must be known to FDA.Millions of people with coronary disease have got these vaccines. You would think evidence of more than doubling the risk for coronary event in 5 years time could lead to new risk assessment for vaccines. And injecting these vaccines in healthy children/adults below 30 with now known risk of myocarditis and unknown but plausible risk of coronary events in the future?"
Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning
“These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac.We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.”
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712
FDA has already granted EAU for all adults for Pfizer and Moderna third dose:
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/11/19/1056832774/the-fda-authorizes-covid-19-booster-shots-for-all-u-s-adults
What safety and efficacy data was this based on? The only evidence I can find for safety at this time is this lame preprint study:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.15.21263633v3
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210922/Evidence-for-safety-of-Pfizer-BioNTeche28099s-COVID-19-vaccine-booster-dose.aspx
And then this one for efficacy:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114255
I cannot fathom how third dose safety could possibly be established without an RCT comparing three doses to two doses. Ideally also comparing to unvaccinated. Even then, all the same problems would come up. Healthy people who tolerated first two doses fine are the ones who would enroll and data would not be transparent.
I mean, the second dose has more side effects than the first. The third might have more than the second. How can anyone be confident enough to say this is not the case, and therefore RCT is not needed?
I wonder what the rate of death is within 2 weeks of vaccination. (Still considered unvaccinated)
Yes, indeed. Add Covid mortality within 14 days of vaccination to death from all other cause within 14 days of vaccination and it should paint a compelling picture.
Can we get a breakdown for RAW deaths by percentage of the jabbed population vs RAW deaths by percentage of the unjabbed? Because if 90% of the population is jabbed, then of course the numbers of deaths will be higher by that same percentage. Just trying to steelman the argument here.
Agreed.
The graphs are based on "rate per 100k" so population percentages are already factored in. But vaccine coverage is on Page 14. Unfortunately it's in chart form, rather than raw % figures.
OliveTrees, thank you for responding. Is the 100K from the “general population” or is it 100K of each criteria (jab-status) group. I’m just making sure, because that’s not clear to me.
From each criteria.
Fact checkers are infamous for using the straw man argument or the bait and switch. This works with the hypnotized masses since most don’t bother reading the full fact check explanation; just the words True or False.
Yes, very often they seem to mark things False based on fairly minor technicalities.
Articles such as this irk the hell out of me. They dance all around the issue, but refuse to address what I consider to be solid unadulterated fact, specifically that asymptomatic unvaccinated people have NEVER, not once, been proven to be contagious. To me, that point, and ONLY that point, should be the primary central locus around which we construct each and every single argument against this tyranny.
It is the only thing on which the vaxx tyrants are basing their lockdowns and coercive policies. They all make the assumption that the asymptomatic unvaccinated are guilty of contagion until proven innocent, and due process is suspended so they don't even get to prove their innocence. Does nobody see that this assumption must be directly confronted? Where are the studies, data, medical explanations about immune system responses? Everyone just sweeps the issue under the rug. Somebody explain this to me please, how arguments about hospitalization rates and everything else under the Covid sun, somehow counter the tyrants' basic faulty assumption. I'm anxious to know, because meanwhile the tyrants keep tightening the screws on us, and nobody is doing anything effective to stop it.