"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?
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.
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?
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)?
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”.
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?
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.
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?
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 was wondering where all these new visitors to my substack were coming from :) Thank you sir for the link!
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
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.)
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)?
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”.
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)
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.
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.