My crystal ball....as Pfizer is pushing for the booster for all adults. Being fully vaxxed will be redefined as being no more than 6 months past shot two, and what have been breakthrough cases in the vaccinated will suddenly be classified as unvaccinated cases.
What's hilarious is that on page 4 they state: "Efficacy was not evaluated for Phase 3 BNT162b2 booster group participants." So people are getting boosters under the assumption that waning efficacy of their original doses means they should get another, but they didn't even evaluate this.
Page 5: "Pfizer is requesting approval of the booster dose for use in individuals 16 years of age and older; therefore, safety and effectiveness of the booster dose in individuals 16 and 17 years of age would be based on extrapolation from safety and effectiveness data in adults." Great science, guys. Because of what we saw in the age group comprised of 18-55 with the average age being 38.3 years, we can just extrapolate the data back to the 16-17 year olds. Why stop there? Why not go as far back as the 5 year olds?
But just like all of their FDA briefings, the most important data of all may be found in Table 3 on Page 14. 312 people received the booster shot, and 30 people or nearly 10% of the participants had important protocol deviations resulting in removal from the study. Why is this important? Because it shows a trend. In the original FDA briefing for EUA, there were 311 protocol deviations in the vaccine arm vs 61 in the placebo, or about 5x more. In the 5 - 11 trial, there were 47 protocol deviations in the vaccine arm vs 4 in the placebo, or about 12x more.
Sure, there's a pattern here about there being significantly large amounts of protocol deviations excluding people from the study, but why should that matter? In the article below he lays out how Pfizer may have gotten away with showing that the vaccines were safe. The important parts: 1) if you do not follow the instructions of the study, the trial doctor or BioNTech/Pfizer can remove you from the study, and 2) if you experience symptoms after vaccination, you must tell the study doctor/Pfizer immediately.
So in this scenario, if you got the vaccine, and woke up in the middle of the night with a heart attack and called 911, if you forgot to call the doctor or if you were unconscious and brought to the hospital for treatment, this would give the study doctor/Pfizer the grounds for dismissing you from the trial because you didn't follow instructions.
Are these vaccines safe? Or did they use a clever way to eliminate all people who experienced severe adverse events from the studies?
It inspired me to look into where he got the data from. Turns out, similarly to the UK government, Ontario has been releasing weekly vaccine surveillance reports, which while they don't break down individual numbers the same way that the UK does, might be even more damning. Here is the page where you can see a number of different reports.
I've always noticed how the media and government would proudly break down case numbers by vaccination status (although recently they started lumping everyone without two doses into the "not fully vaccinated" camp to inflate those numbers), and looking at those two charts, I think I understand why they haven't reported those numbers.
Keep in mind, it wasn't until June 6th that we had 1 million people in Ontario fully vaccinated. In that context, these numbers look really, really bad to me. Pandemic of the unvaccinated! HAHA!
I thought I'd share in case you were interested in doing an article on this, or potentially an extension of your "UK Vaccine Hell" series. There are also reports for Vaccine Adverse Events
As an aside, I must admit that I'm quite happy that my government is collecting data and publishing reports such as "COVID-19 in Ontario – A Focus on Diversity" and "COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage in Ontario by Neighbourhood Diversity and Material Deprivation: December 14, 2020 to September 11, 2021"
I like it in general but it is a lot of hard work. I did save similar data for some states like Illinois. But it does not seem to be easy to do. Maybe you can do it? The data seems to be cumulative which is an issue.
I don’t think I’ll be writing any articles any time soon, but I may undertake it as a personal project. That massive increase in Myocarditis in the latest report is deeply concerning.
Also, looking at it again, not only does it seem like these vaccines don’t do what they were supposed to do: protect the the elderly and immunocompromised, but look at the percentages for the partially vaccinated. They’re almost as high if not sometimes higher than the fully vaccinated, and this partially vaccinated status only lasts for about one month. Am I wrong in interpreting this to mean that being getting the vaccine INCREASES your chance of being hospitalized with COVID?
That would seem to align with the (misrepresented) conclusion of this paper here.
The authors concluded "Increased risks of haematological and vascular events that led to hospital admission or death were observed for short time intervals after first doses of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines. The risks of most of these events were substantially higher and more prolonged after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination in the same population." But if you look at the Appendix, you can see that from the design of the study, that everyone including the COVID cases had received one dose. So their conclusion really says that getting COVID after one dose of the vaccine has worse outcomes than just getting one dose of the vaccine. What a scam.
A trip to the comments in the ABC post demonstrates that pro-Covid-vaxxers haven't lost their appetite for being misled by obvious propaganda.
"Mr Wayne: The unvaccinated are causing those who need care to do without the medical care they need."
"El Misti: Not being vaxxed is the primary reason people are getting sick enough to be hospitalized with COVID_19."
How many Americans were going through life, circa 2019, secretly yearning to spend the rest of their days in an obviously failing dictatorship that spammed them with falsehoods every second? The numbers are apparently staggering. Note that the article doesn't even mention the word "unvaccinated" - the mere false insinuation that the virus is driving the crunch is enough to whip the mob into kill mode.
In the general theory of information warfare, to take over a country or a group, it is not necessary to convince regular people, but instead to convince the elite. So yes, regular people are quite naturally brainwashed, but we need to address not only them, but also opinion makers. Even small opinion makers, like church pastors or company managers, are so much more important for turning the tide around.
I personally spend at least 15 minutes a day reachout out to people I do not know, like #GetVaccinated twitter tag, and post my opinions. I am actually far from alone there. No BS by vaccinators should go unchallenged.
I was waging that fight in NR comments section all summer, including taking a lot of self-declared physicians to task for their ignorance of the mRNA platform. But the comments have been predominately anti-cvax for a couple months now - and now it seems like twitter is even turning, despite the censorship (not that I would engage there).
I "don't have permission" to view the link named "right here" in the article, but I've been watching hospitalization for Illinois which is at https://dph.illinois.gov/covid19/data/hospitalization-utilization.html. Statewide, we're not experiencing much increase in hospital occupancy. You can see that Covid patients, however they're defined, are <7% of total. From time to time some of our depopulated counties have experienced temporary bed shortages, which the legacy media play up.
Thanks a lot. I took a look at these charts. Sliding my mouse through them, it seems that non-Covid hospital bed use has been steadily growing, from about 19k last year to about 23k right now. This is not "numerical" as I cannot download underlying data, but it is my best read of the chart with the mouse. This is a significant 20% increase.
Looking at non-Covid ICU beds, we are looking at increase from about 1800 last year, to about 2200 this year. Increase started in March and coincided with vaccination campaign. It is also about 20% increase.
Illinois may have more hospital capacity than, say, UNM. And it is a good thing that we have this capacity here. But its usage has also increased significantly.
What is behind it, we do not know. I wish I had the underlying data.
I'm not getting what Arizona has to do with UNM Hospital. UNM is in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Maricopa is the most populous county in Arizona. New Mexico and Arizona are two different states.
We have offices in both Maricopa and Bernalillo counties and yes, it seems like we're hearing a lot of anecdotal evidence over the last couple weeks about hospitals being over capacity, but I think your first point is still an important one: covid is clearly not responsible for the surge in hospitalizations.
And my guess is, as you allude to in your post, that when you get the vaccination rate data from Bernalillo county you'll find a big uptick in the vaccinations over the previous few weeks.
Look forward to your follow up with the Bernalillo county jab rates!
That’s a really interesting data set. Bed occupancy is fairly even and doesn’t move with the covid inpatient peaks. I think if you put control limits on it it would be mostly in control
Admissions and in patients track quite closely so it looks like the length of stay isn’t that long (not including icu and paediatric in this).
Covid ED visits against covid admissions track quite close at times but bear no relation at others. Interesting but too small to draw any conclusions really
It might be. Or they might be placing "suspected covid" into a separate covid ward and so count them as covid? Darn good question. Why count confirmed flu patients as covid????? You caught something interesting!
Can you point me to the part where it says the Pfizer booster drops to 50% efficacy after 3 months? A friend of mine is thinking of getting it. She lives in MN and the current surge there is scaring her. She's late 60s, thin and healthy. She has a tiny bit of skepticism about the vax but is also scared of Covid.
I know this is an old article relative to when I read it (21 April 2022). However, I want to amplify this idea a little... I have been tracking COVID case count and death in Air Force military members since reporting began in March 2020. In the 72 weeks after reporting began to when the vaccine was mandated for military (24 August 2021), there was 1 reported COVID death (January 2021). In the 5 weeks following the vaccine mandate, there were an additional 5 deaths. Then the Air Force shut off reporting for a month and a half and buried the information in a different web page. Then on 30 December 2021, the Department of the Air Force started offering a pass (free leave) for taking a booster shot. Then in the February 2022 report, with the impotent Omicron variant dominating, 10 additional "COVID" deaths were reported. How is it, that the least fatal strain of COVID (Omicron, the globally dominant strain since July 2021) is responsible for the most deaths in the most healthy and vibrant demographic of humans in North America? Answer: COVID is not responsible, the mandated COVID shot is. Period.
See for yourself: Prior to 23 August 2021, 1 AF death.
With every shot push, there is a corresponding spike in "COVID" deaths. With the DMED down, and data altered, there is no way to see the spike in injury now. This is criminal. This is evil.
My crystal ball....as Pfizer is pushing for the booster for all adults. Being fully vaxxed will be redefined as being no more than 6 months past shot two, and what have been breakthrough cases in the vaccinated will suddenly be classified as unvaccinated cases.
This will instantly make vaccines seem so much more effective. Because science!
What's hilarious is that on page 4 they state: "Efficacy was not evaluated for Phase 3 BNT162b2 booster group participants." So people are getting boosters under the assumption that waning efficacy of their original doses means they should get another, but they didn't even evaluate this.
Page 5: "Pfizer is requesting approval of the booster dose for use in individuals 16 years of age and older; therefore, safety and effectiveness of the booster dose in individuals 16 and 17 years of age would be based on extrapolation from safety and effectiveness data in adults." Great science, guys. Because of what we saw in the age group comprised of 18-55 with the average age being 38.3 years, we can just extrapolate the data back to the 16-17 year olds. Why stop there? Why not go as far back as the 5 year olds?
But just like all of their FDA briefings, the most important data of all may be found in Table 3 on Page 14. 312 people received the booster shot, and 30 people or nearly 10% of the participants had important protocol deviations resulting in removal from the study. Why is this important? Because it shows a trend. In the original FDA briefing for EUA, there were 311 protocol deviations in the vaccine arm vs 61 in the placebo, or about 5x more. In the 5 - 11 trial, there were 47 protocol deviations in the vaccine arm vs 4 in the placebo, or about 12x more.
Sure, there's a pattern here about there being significantly large amounts of protocol deviations excluding people from the study, but why should that matter? In the article below he lays out how Pfizer may have gotten away with showing that the vaccines were safe. The important parts: 1) if you do not follow the instructions of the study, the trial doctor or BioNTech/Pfizer can remove you from the study, and 2) if you experience symptoms after vaccination, you must tell the study doctor/Pfizer immediately.
So in this scenario, if you got the vaccine, and woke up in the middle of the night with a heart attack and called 911, if you forgot to call the doctor or if you were unconscious and brought to the hospital for treatment, this would give the study doctor/Pfizer the grounds for dismissing you from the trial because you didn't follow instructions.
Are these vaccines safe? Or did they use a clever way to eliminate all people who experienced severe adverse events from the studies?
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/08/sloppy-pfizer-booster-clinical-trial-consent-form-provides-way-to-exclude-reactions-that-require-emergency-care.html
This is a total outrage and it is amazing how this is kept from the public.
It's criminal.
Hey Igor, today this tweet came up on my feed, and the chart he posted looks pretty damning.
https://twitter.com/rubiconcapital_/status/1459253184833146891?s=20
It inspired me to look into where he got the data from. Turns out, similarly to the UK government, Ontario has been releasing weekly vaccine surveillance reports, which while they don't break down individual numbers the same way that the UK does, might be even more damning. Here is the page where you can see a number of different reports.
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/data-and-analysis/infectious-disease/covid-19-data-surveillance
Take a look at Figures 7a and 7b in this one
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-epi-confirmed-cases-post-vaccination.pdf?sc_lang=en
I've always noticed how the media and government would proudly break down case numbers by vaccination status (although recently they started lumping everyone without two doses into the "not fully vaccinated" camp to inflate those numbers), and looking at those two charts, I think I understand why they haven't reported those numbers.
Keep in mind, it wasn't until June 6th that we had 1 million people in Ontario fully vaccinated. In that context, these numbers look really, really bad to me. Pandemic of the unvaccinated! HAHA!
I thought I'd share in case you were interested in doing an article on this, or potentially an extension of your "UK Vaccine Hell" series. There are also reports for Vaccine Adverse Events
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-aefi-report.pdf?sc_lang=en
If you were interested in doing a series, you could use this website to find previous versions of the site to get previously published data
https://web.archive.org/
As an aside, I must admit that I'm quite happy that my government is collecting data and publishing reports such as "COVID-19 in Ontario – A Focus on Diversity" and "COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage in Ontario by Neighbourhood Diversity and Material Deprivation: December 14, 2020 to September 11, 2021"
I like it in general but it is a lot of hard work. I did save similar data for some states like Illinois. But it does not seem to be easy to do. Maybe you can do it? The data seems to be cumulative which is an issue.
I don’t think I’ll be writing any articles any time soon, but I may undertake it as a personal project. That massive increase in Myocarditis in the latest report is deeply concerning.
Also, looking at it again, not only does it seem like these vaccines don’t do what they were supposed to do: protect the the elderly and immunocompromised, but look at the percentages for the partially vaccinated. They’re almost as high if not sometimes higher than the fully vaccinated, and this partially vaccinated status only lasts for about one month. Am I wrong in interpreting this to mean that being getting the vaccine INCREASES your chance of being hospitalized with COVID?
That would seem to align with the (misrepresented) conclusion of this paper here.
https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1931
The authors concluded "Increased risks of haematological and vascular events that led to hospital admission or death were observed for short time intervals after first doses of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines. The risks of most of these events were substantially higher and more prolonged after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination in the same population." But if you look at the Appendix, you can see that from the design of the study, that everyone including the COVID cases had received one dose. So their conclusion really says that getting COVID after one dose of the vaccine has worse outcomes than just getting one dose of the vaccine. What a scam.
Worse than a scam. It's a scam put into action.
A trip to the comments in the ABC post demonstrates that pro-Covid-vaxxers haven't lost their appetite for being misled by obvious propaganda.
"Mr Wayne: The unvaccinated are causing those who need care to do without the medical care they need."
"El Misti: Not being vaxxed is the primary reason people are getting sick enough to be hospitalized with COVID_19."
How many Americans were going through life, circa 2019, secretly yearning to spend the rest of their days in an obviously failing dictatorship that spammed them with falsehoods every second? The numbers are apparently staggering. Note that the article doesn't even mention the word "unvaccinated" - the mere false insinuation that the virus is driving the crunch is enough to whip the mob into kill mode.
In the general theory of information warfare, to take over a country or a group, it is not necessary to convince regular people, but instead to convince the elite. So yes, regular people are quite naturally brainwashed, but we need to address not only them, but also opinion makers. Even small opinion makers, like church pastors or company managers, are so much more important for turning the tide around.
I personally spend at least 15 minutes a day reachout out to people I do not know, like #GetVaccinated twitter tag, and post my opinions. I am actually far from alone there. No BS by vaccinators should go unchallenged.
I was waging that fight in NR comments section all summer, including taking a lot of self-declared physicians to task for their ignorance of the mRNA platform. But the comments have been predominately anti-cvax for a couple months now - and now it seems like twitter is even turning, despite the censorship (not that I would engage there).
I "don't have permission" to view the link named "right here" in the article, but I've been watching hospitalization for Illinois which is at https://dph.illinois.gov/covid19/data/hospitalization-utilization.html. Statewide, we're not experiencing much increase in hospital occupancy. You can see that Covid patients, however they're defined, are <7% of total. From time to time some of our depopulated counties have experienced temporary bed shortages, which the legacy media play up.
Thanks a lot. I took a look at these charts. Sliding my mouse through them, it seems that non-Covid hospital bed use has been steadily growing, from about 19k last year to about 23k right now. This is not "numerical" as I cannot download underlying data, but it is my best read of the chart with the mouse. This is a significant 20% increase.
Looking at non-Covid ICU beds, we are looking at increase from about 1800 last year, to about 2200 this year. Increase started in March and coincided with vaccination campaign. It is also about 20% increase.
Illinois may have more hospital capacity than, say, UNM. And it is a good thing that we have this capacity here. But its usage has also increased significantly.
What is behind it, we do not know. I wish I had the underlying data.
I'm not getting what Arizona has to do with UNM Hospital. UNM is in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Maricopa is the most populous county in Arizona. New Mexico and Arizona are two different states.
Sorry. I screwed up. And I appreciate you pointing out. I will edit this a couple of times to make sure it is correct.
I was thinking the very same thing. been to both states.
Yes I think Igor is not aware that Albuquerque is not in Arizona but rather New Mexico.
I just edited it to only refer to NM. Thanks a lot.
Yes, I fucked up, have to find some other data about boosters
We have offices in both Maricopa and Bernalillo counties and yes, it seems like we're hearing a lot of anecdotal evidence over the last couple weeks about hospitals being over capacity, but I think your first point is still an important one: covid is clearly not responsible for the surge in hospitalizations.
And my guess is, as you allude to in your post, that when you get the vaccination rate data from Bernalillo county you'll find a big uptick in the vaccinations over the previous few weeks.
Look forward to your follow up with the Bernalillo county jab rates!
I tried to find a chart, but could not, if you come across one let me know and Iwill gladly place it there along with credit.
I'm not so sure covid isn't playing a role in the surge. Cases are up 40% in NM in the past couple weeks. Could be even more in the Albuquerque area.
That’s a really interesting data set. Bed occupancy is fairly even and doesn’t move with the covid inpatient peaks. I think if you put control limits on it it would be mostly in control
Admissions and in patients track quite closely so it looks like the length of stay isn’t that long (not including icu and paediatric in this).
Covid ED visits against covid admissions track quite close at times but bear no relation at others. Interesting but too small to draw any conclusions really
Someone could look at 10 hospitals across the country, woud be an interestnig article to write.
Which would be good ones to look at?
On that page with the day you can click on the column headers to see the definition. For the 7 day average of COVID patients this is
“ Patients currently hospitalized in an inpatient bed who have laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Include those in observation beds.
Include patients who have both suspected laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and laboratory-confirmed influenza in this field.”
Isn’t this cheating?
It might be. Or they might be placing "suspected covid" into a separate covid ward and so count them as covid? Darn good question. Why count confirmed flu patients as covid????? You caught something interesting!
Remember that the new multiplex covid-flu pcr test becomes mandatory in January.
It is odd, and openly stated. The admissions though are confirmed COVID at the time of admission.
Page with the data, sorry
Great analysis, as always!
Also, have a look at https://live2fightanotherday.substack.com/p/does-mrna-in-jabs-really-produce
Can you point me to the part where it says the Pfizer booster drops to 50% efficacy after 3 months? A friend of mine is thinking of getting it. She lives in MN and the current surge there is scaring her. She's late 60s, thin and healthy. She has a tiny bit of skepticism about the vax but is also scared of Covid.
I know this is an old article relative to when I read it (21 April 2022). However, I want to amplify this idea a little... I have been tracking COVID case count and death in Air Force military members since reporting began in March 2020. In the 72 weeks after reporting began to when the vaccine was mandated for military (24 August 2021), there was 1 reported COVID death (January 2021). In the 5 weeks following the vaccine mandate, there were an additional 5 deaths. Then the Air Force shut off reporting for a month and a half and buried the information in a different web page. Then on 30 December 2021, the Department of the Air Force started offering a pass (free leave) for taking a booster shot. Then in the February 2022 report, with the impotent Omicron variant dominating, 10 additional "COVID" deaths were reported. How is it, that the least fatal strain of COVID (Omicron, the globally dominant strain since July 2021) is responsible for the most deaths in the most healthy and vibrant demographic of humans in North America? Answer: COVID is not responsible, the mandated COVID shot is. Period.
See for yourself: Prior to 23 August 2021, 1 AF death.
23 August - 28 September 2021 (3 additional deaths): https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2184415/air-force-update-for-covid-19/
October 2021 (AF Deadline for shot was 18 Oct, 2 additional deaths): https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2807229/daf-covid-19-statistics-october-2021/
December 2021 (last report for 2021, still only 6 total deaths): https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2888078/daf-covid-19-statistics-december-2021/
February 2022 (9 additional deaths): https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2919591/daf-covid-19-statistics-february-2022/
With every shot push, there is a corresponding spike in "COVID" deaths. With the DMED down, and data altered, there is no way to see the spike in injury now. This is criminal. This is evil.
Also the military people are like athletes, in super good shape, and vax is terrible for them. What if they collapse during a battle or something
Are you are mixing UNM (New Mexico)hospitals with Arizona data on cases. NM was relatively flatlined on Covid cases in October.