This seems eerily similar to the way election result came down in the U.S. about a year ago: Simply proclaim the outcome that TPTB desire, then stay up all night manufacturing supporting details. Vaxx-dissidents should now refuse vaxx simply on a basis of knowing that it is all agitprop now. "If it was such a great plan, why do governments insist upon lying, lies upon lies?" Indeed, it is this growing understanding within the population that may be driving vaxx-refusal. I very much hope so.
This CDC study (as well as the Kentucky study) are disturbing presentations of cherry-picked random data with no explanation, written incoherently, and makes my brain hurt. They should have better data than this. I still need to read through it several more times just to understand what they did because it's so oddly constructed. One thing I did come across was the glaring conflicts of interest mentioned in the beginning (Pfizer, and other Pharmeceutical companies). This is unacceptable. Are these studies peer reviewed? I can't tell. Either way; < 10 studies vs >90 studies on the Vax immunity vs N.I battle= Still a landslide in the N.I direction with more convincing data. And by the looks of it, this study also points me in that direction with the huge difference in vaxxed population numbers.
Hi. I share all your frustration, however the CDC inadvertently released extremely damning data that shows vaccines drive hospitalizations for Covid-Like-Illness (CLI). Basically pneumonias, oxygen deficiency etc, desperate vaccinated people lining up hospital halls with pneumonias due to regular colds, etc.
This is what my article is discussing. The premise of the CDC article is stupid, but the data in Table 1 proves that vaccination drives illness, misery and death.
Any article or scientific paper you read, which in order to understand requires you to do mental gymnastics, is not science. It’s a deliberate obfuscation.
The fact that they have to stoop to these low levels is a sign that things are not going as well for them as they want. If the data were in their favour, they wouldn’t need to twist it.
It would also be enlightening if we knew the CT used for vax and unvaxxed testing with PCR. And also, what the definition of vaxxed is...is it two weeks after the 2nd shot to be considered fully vaxxed.
Anecdotal, everyone I work with who has been vaxxed have come down with a terrible cold, cough, sneezes, hard to breath, lungs full, etc. etc. etc. But they are vaxxed and insist on coming to work regardless.
Check out Dr Shane Huntington's twitter account, the most enthusiastic Pfizer shill of them all. But it's OK, his son now is safe from covid, just has a little case of "rare and manageable" cardiac problem. It really is a cult for these nutcases
Had a bout of curiosity and got S-antibody tested at labcorp yesterday. 595 U/mL, 10 months after covid. No PCR test at the time, just told by a friend that they tested positive as we were starting to get mildly sick. No known exposure since. Screw the Vax.
What I want to know is, how does this compare to unvaccinated? They are simply claiming success in boosting the efficacy of the vaccine when comparing 2 jabs to 3 jabs. Care to pull it apart Igor? I am thinking the results don't look so great if compared with those who never had any jab at all....
Do you have a PubPeer account? If not consider making one and offering these same opinions there where they will have to be dealt with as a matter of public record (unless PubPeer has brainwashed jannies now, hopefully not).
By February 1, only 1.81% of people were fully vaccinated, and even by March 4 (the fully vaxxed date needed to be eligible for the June numbers) it's only 8.47%. (https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states/). Interestingly, this is about the time when the fully vaxxed numbers and official case counts are about the same (27~ million vs 29~ million).
Therefore, the only reason I can see to include January-May in the study is to skew the results.
And I just realized I should have said mid-March, not mid-February, in my first paragraph *SMH* But correcting my statement only makes their study look worse.
Hah! That lil' CDC post is so full o' shi*t. Virtually ALL of the "infected" unvaxxed can be explained by the crappy, crappy PCR test and the now standard cycle threshold of 35 and higher for unvaxxed and only 28 for the vaxxed. As y'all remember, more cycles, WAY higher false positives. As Igor points out, look at the bottom line #'s for who is hospitalized. Vaxxed lose.
Hello, AFAIK there is no Table 5 in the CDC report, only in the UK-HSA reports? Please confirm and clarify this. Awesome reporting Igor, thanks for the great insight.
Actually you skimmed by the bit about the breakdown by age, however look at the numbers again and you will see that the for the unvaccinated, previously infected the numbers decrease as you go up each age cohort. So 313 persons aged 18-49, 243 aged 50-64 etc until you get to aged 85+ with 80 persons. On the other hand the vaccinated naïve show the opposite trend from the youngest cohort to the second oldest, with the trend only reversing for the 85+ vaccinated naïve. Someone would have to do an analysis to see if this pattern is statistically significant but just eyeballing it, what it says to me is that older vaccinated naïve individuals are even more likely to end up in the hospital than their previously infected unvaccinated counterparts.
How much of this is due to the fact that this might reflect the fact that perhaps many of their unvaccinated and previously infected counterparts age 60+ had actually died (thus only leaving those few to be counted anyway) and how much might be due other factors (perhaps vaccine fade and interactions with other illnesses in the 5-6 months after vaccination), who knows?
No explanation as far as I can tell. Ridiculous. This cdc article only perpetuates my skepticism. And I’ve done a full 180 since the start og the pandemic because they aren’t doing real science. anyone taking the time to read past the headlines with a high school level understanding of the scientific method can see this pretty clearly. Unfortunately, not enough are
You are asking a good question. You are also right that the 86% number is not meaningful unless we know how these groups were populated. It is not completely clear to me. My understanding is that they picked a few hospital systems where they had access to health data.
What is "Covid-Like Illness"? To see what other bugs are out there besides Covid19, https://syndromictrends.com/ From a maker of a kit that can diagnose multiple bugs at the same time. USA only. On the right side, you can click on specific names, so you can compare Covid19 (SARS-CoV-2) versus four other Coronaviruses (and not just their sum total as shown in their default graph). Just before Delta hit the USA, there was a lull in Covid19, late spring and early summer, that was partly replaced by two waves of two completely different Coronaviruses (not Covid19 variants), and then Delta hit and the other two mostly vanished. Remember a few months ago, the children in the southern states were hit hard by Delta (according to the news media) and they said that the hospitals were overflowing? Maybe a lot of that was Respiratory Syncytial Virus. Maybe Covid19 and RSV can tolerate each other but Covid19 and Influenza seem to exhibit "viral interference" against each other. The same may be true for Parainfluenza. I just noticed a very recent and very slight uptick in Influenza A, which was mostly missing during the Covid19 pandemic.
A certain talented young man ("a friend of a friend") who was double vaxxed since May, had:
- A Covid-like PCR-negative illness for which I took him to ER when he started having trouble breathing (it went away quickly). It was as Covid-like as you can imagine, except for no loss of smell
- A month later, a minor infection turned into bacterial pneumonia (no ER visit but had to treat with antibiotics).
This seems eerily similar to the way election result came down in the U.S. about a year ago: Simply proclaim the outcome that TPTB desire, then stay up all night manufacturing supporting details. Vaxx-dissidents should now refuse vaxx simply on a basis of knowing that it is all agitprop now. "If it was such a great plan, why do governments insist upon lying, lies upon lies?" Indeed, it is this growing understanding within the population that may be driving vaxx-refusal. I very much hope so.
I am not a fool and I can recognize a propaganda scam in progress. Covid Vaccination is a propaganda scam.
This CDC study (as well as the Kentucky study) are disturbing presentations of cherry-picked random data with no explanation, written incoherently, and makes my brain hurt. They should have better data than this. I still need to read through it several more times just to understand what they did because it's so oddly constructed. One thing I did come across was the glaring conflicts of interest mentioned in the beginning (Pfizer, and other Pharmeceutical companies). This is unacceptable. Are these studies peer reviewed? I can't tell. Either way; < 10 studies vs >90 studies on the Vax immunity vs N.I battle= Still a landslide in the N.I direction with more convincing data. And by the looks of it, this study also points me in that direction with the huge difference in vaxxed population numbers.
Hi. I share all your frustration, however the CDC inadvertently released extremely damning data that shows vaccines drive hospitalizations for Covid-Like-Illness (CLI). Basically pneumonias, oxygen deficiency etc, desperate vaccinated people lining up hospital halls with pneumonias due to regular colds, etc.
This is what my article is discussing. The premise of the CDC article is stupid, but the data in Table 1 proves that vaccination drives illness, misery and death.
See also: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/double-jabbed-brits-suffering-worst-25179317
Any article or scientific paper you read, which in order to understand requires you to do mental gymnastics, is not science. It’s a deliberate obfuscation.
The fact that they have to stoop to these low levels is a sign that things are not going as well for them as they want. If the data were in their favour, they wouldn’t need to twist it.
Exactly: if we already lost, the propaganda would not be necessary.
Making decent conclusion based in that article is really hard. It feels like it was written by a first quarter stat undergrad.
It would also be enlightening if we knew the CT used for vax and unvaxxed testing with PCR. And also, what the definition of vaxxed is...is it two weeks after the 2nd shot to be considered fully vaxxed.
Anecdotal, everyone I work with who has been vaxxed have come down with a terrible cold, cough, sneezes, hard to breath, lungs full, etc. etc. etc. But they are vaxxed and insist on coming to work regardless.
truly insane and proof "intelligence" and common sense don't always go hand in hand:
https://twitter.com/wakeupfromcovid/status/1454163506777968644/photo/1
Check out Dr Shane Huntington's twitter account, the most enthusiastic Pfizer shill of them all. But it's OK, his son now is safe from covid, just has a little case of "rare and manageable" cardiac problem. It really is a cult for these nutcases
This is how cultists think!
Had a bout of curiosity and got S-antibody tested at labcorp yesterday. 595 U/mL, 10 months after covid. No PCR test at the time, just told by a friend that they tested positive as we were starting to get mildly sick. No known exposure since. Screw the Vax.
This is a really decent level, I should do the same
wow! shocking...
I was shocked also, thanks
This Israeli / US study published Oct 29 claims that a third booster jab is 93% effective in reducing hospitalisation compared to those with only 2 jabs: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02249-2/fulltext?rss%3Dyes
What I want to know is, how does this compare to unvaccinated? They are simply claiming success in boosting the efficacy of the vaccine when comparing 2 jabs to 3 jabs. Care to pull it apart Igor? I am thinking the results don't look so great if compared with those who never had any jab at all....
Maybe I should write about it. First of all, it is dishonest to report the study as "it reduces hospitalization by 93 percent". It is MISLEADING.
The most important finding is that it reduced DEATH by only 81%, and that during the most favorable post-vaccine period.
Btw I have no qualms with you, but with the press who reports the finding in this manner.
Oh yes, totally understand what you mean. This stupid report was published in our national media as "proof" that vaccines work
Yeah, if they "worked" if would be a lot closer to 100% during the best period of effectiveness!
Do you have a PubPeer account? If not consider making one and offering these same opinions there where they will have to be dealt with as a matter of public record (unless PubPeer has brainwashed jannies now, hopefully not).
I had no idea, let me look at that
Why the switch to “Covid-like illness”? To confuse? It seems the U.S. heath departments no longer have anything to do with health.
They tried to confuse us. But they provided extremely damning data.
The vaccinated are the sickest in ANY age group. Look at Table 5 of the CDC MMWR report.
The US vaccine roll out began mid-December, 2020 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55305720), so NO ONE except for trial participants would have been in the 90-179 post-vax window this study is using until mid-February. And yet, the study covers January-September (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w, search for Month of index test date to see breakdown by month).
By February 1, only 1.81% of people were fully vaccinated, and even by March 4 (the fully vaxxed date needed to be eligible for the June numbers) it's only 8.47%. (https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states/). Interestingly, this is about the time when the fully vaxxed numbers and official case counts are about the same (27~ million vs 29~ million).
Therefore, the only reason I can see to include January-May in the study is to skew the results.
You have a point!
And I just realized I should have said mid-March, not mid-February, in my first paragraph *SMH* But correcting my statement only makes their study look worse.
Hah! That lil' CDC post is so full o' shi*t. Virtually ALL of the "infected" unvaxxed can be explained by the crappy, crappy PCR test and the now standard cycle threshold of 35 and higher for unvaxxed and only 28 for the vaxxed. As y'all remember, more cycles, WAY higher false positives. As Igor points out, look at the bottom line #'s for who is hospitalized. Vaxxed lose.
They tried to confuse us. But they provided extremely damning data.
The vaccinated are the sickest in ANY age group. Look at Table 5 of the CDC MMWR report.
Hello, AFAIK there is no Table 5 in the CDC report, only in the UK-HSA reports? Please confirm and clarify this. Awesome reporting Igor, thanks for the great insight.
You are right!
ok, sounds real good, thanks.
Maybe, it is Table 2 in the CDC report?
Actually you skimmed by the bit about the breakdown by age, however look at the numbers again and you will see that the for the unvaccinated, previously infected the numbers decrease as you go up each age cohort. So 313 persons aged 18-49, 243 aged 50-64 etc until you get to aged 85+ with 80 persons. On the other hand the vaccinated naïve show the opposite trend from the youngest cohort to the second oldest, with the trend only reversing for the 85+ vaccinated naïve. Someone would have to do an analysis to see if this pattern is statistically significant but just eyeballing it, what it says to me is that older vaccinated naïve individuals are even more likely to end up in the hospital than their previously infected unvaccinated counterparts.
How much of this is due to the fact that this might reflect the fact that perhaps many of their unvaccinated and previously infected counterparts age 60+ had actually died (thus only leaving those few to be counted anyway) and how much might be due other factors (perhaps vaccine fade and interactions with other illnesses in the 5-6 months after vaccination), who knows?
I think that CDC's data contains several mysteries and someone could write a kick-butt article if he or she could unlock some of them.
Too bad the CDC does not honestly give us health care data.
How were 7,348 subjects selected? Was it a random draw from a set of hospitalized patients, or have they oversampled vaccinated group?
No explanation as far as I can tell. Ridiculous. This cdc article only perpetuates my skepticism. And I’ve done a full 180 since the start og the pandemic because they aren’t doing real science. anyone taking the time to read past the headlines with a high school level understanding of the scientific method can see this pretty clearly. Unfortunately, not enough are
Doing that.
Sorry for typos. My emotions make my texting erratic!
What I am trying to say is that the 86% number is meaningless unless we know the selection process.
You are asking a good question. You are also right that the 86% number is not meaningful unless we know how these groups were populated. It is not completely clear to me. My understanding is that they picked a few hospital systems where they had access to health data.
What is "Covid-Like Illness"? To see what other bugs are out there besides Covid19, https://syndromictrends.com/ From a maker of a kit that can diagnose multiple bugs at the same time. USA only. On the right side, you can click on specific names, so you can compare Covid19 (SARS-CoV-2) versus four other Coronaviruses (and not just their sum total as shown in their default graph). Just before Delta hit the USA, there was a lull in Covid19, late spring and early summer, that was partly replaced by two waves of two completely different Coronaviruses (not Covid19 variants), and then Delta hit and the other two mostly vanished. Remember a few months ago, the children in the southern states were hit hard by Delta (according to the news media) and they said that the hospitals were overflowing? Maybe a lot of that was Respiratory Syncytial Virus. Maybe Covid19 and RSV can tolerate each other but Covid19 and Influenza seem to exhibit "viral interference" against each other. The same may be true for Parainfluenza. I just noticed a very recent and very slight uptick in Influenza A, which was mostly missing during the Covid19 pandemic.
To see the other coronaviruses and specific strains of other bugs, click the "funnel' icon
I am shocked that one could summarize my article in three succinct lines... But you did!
A certain talented young man ("a friend of a friend") who was double vaxxed since May, had:
- A Covid-like PCR-negative illness for which I took him to ER when he started having trouble breathing (it went away quickly). It was as Covid-like as you can imagine, except for no loss of smell
- A month later, a minor infection turned into bacterial pneumonia (no ER visit but had to treat with antibiotics).
Nowadays you need to wear a mask specifically around the vaccinated!
Thanks for sharing your personal anecdotes, they are important and relevant.
To add to this line of discussion, I recall reading that there is a subvariant (or subvariants) of SARS-CoV-2 Delta strain that was found to be returning negative results on the PCR and (sometimes) antigen tests (in Belem: https://twitter.com/prefeiturabelem/status/1451700808815452166 and India: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/docs-relying-on-more-tests-as-several-covid-19-patients-get-false-ve-reports/articleshow/82376992.cms and perhaps that "worst cold ever" that has been going around in the UK). Perhaps some of these PCR neg persons (vaccinated and previously infected) actually have a variant of covid that just isn't being picked up by current PCR tests?
Yes, declare victory. If I have learned one thing over the last 18+ months, it's that only COVID suffering and death matters 🙄