What they can't censor, they "fact check," right? You hit the nail on the head here: "When vaccines were working well, no one was complaining about denominators and incorrect counts of vaccinated people."
Keep your eyes on the fact checkers. I recognize their language: it is the imperious, overly confident tone of the person who has never taken an advanced math or hard science course but has spent some time (perhaps in a "studies"-type major) writing papers that use selective evidence to prove the point they want to prove. Their propaganda would be a lot better if these people were more intelligent and less clever.
Calling these services "fact checking" is fraud of the first order. At the very least the term should come with a warning label "Cannot be demonstrated to contain any facts," and probably should be subject to restrictions in the same way that we don't let anyone call themselves a Doctor.
You both hit (separate) nails there on their heads.
Igor made me think that the same happened in my country about a month ago. For more than half a year, denominators and counts were the same and A-OK, then suddenly they paused the publishing of data for about a week to restructure and recount everything.
Your description of a typical "fact-checker" made me reminiscence of college, how a typical humanities course rests upon an overproduction of papers and essays with dubious actual knowledge of the subject and frequent use of selective evidence or argumentation to prove a fictional point.
They would be more believable if they signed their assessment snd gave their credentials and their references. They jump very quickly on any post that does not provide evidence and acceptable and accredited sources. Why should posters Tahoe any notice of u known fact checkers.
Not too verbose. Another fine article Igor. The potential confound that jumps out at me is the Simpson's paradox everyone knows about by now, but if you see the effect hold up when you stratify by age, that is totally off the table as far as I can see.
Eric, thank you for your encouragement. Yes, Simpson's paradox definitely is real, as you said, and this is exactly why the UKHSA data is so valuable, as it is stratified by age.
US CDC purposely gives incomplete statistics, so thank God for UKHSA.
Boosters may reverse the VE drop, but they do raise other complications. In addition to AEs associated with the booster, if one member of family gets a booster, that booster eventually causes him to shed virus. That boosted family member then goes home where he lives with other vaxxed family members. If the other family members did not get simultaneously boosted (often the case) they tend to get infected by the boosted member’s viral shedding. This may cause case numbers to rise.
HenriO - Even if this shedding idea turns out to be correct, the boosted will be shedding just the spike, not the whole virus. So I suppose it could theoretically be argued that they get sick from the spike, but they wouldn't actually have COVID.
PW, plus we need to add the vaxx risk which is non-associated to covid. That is, quite aside from the effect on covid-risk, the vaxx 's non-covid risks include death from blood-clots, myocarditis, stroke, etc.
What Henri may be alluding to is that recently vaccinated can also carry virus, but completely asymptomatically. I actually do not know if this is true, I am just saying how I understood his statement.
the claim the vaxxes prevent hospitalization/death is about equal to masking claims.
usa excess death 2021 summer surge, bit later, higher than 2020 summer surge, and i do not know it is bottomed. cdc excess death data is usually 6 weeks late.
If you do not vax, you get covid and this is it. (good or bad)
If you vax, you are beginning a long journey. You may suffer from bad side effects on the first jab and discontinue (and get covid). You may suffer bad side effect on second jab. You may get breakthrough covid. You will need a third booster, then the 10th booster, repeat ad infinitum, a long journey to misery and declining health.
This nurse in ICU states that she wasnt even aware that there was a way to report AERs on a state level- and neither did her colleagues. I, for one, would question why that might be! https://twitter.com/4Patrick7/status/1460034616811659266?s=20
Nice story again - interesting that they have a database of known individuals, so it's impossible to debunk. Have a look at this, just found it today, have not checked the veracity of it though;
This is suspicious. However, I looked at total deaths minus covid deaths and didn't see this signal. Flat at about 55,000 per week. I would have expected this to show up.
I guess it depends how you define "covid" death. The authorities have so many ways to fiddle the figures. I'm sure many or most vaccine deaths will just be categorised as covid
It's reassuring for me to discover that negative vaccine efficacy has been picked up by someone else. I had suspected this had occurred in the UK so plotted some graphs using the UK government data that is published daily. Sure enough my suspicions were confirmed. Vaccine efficacy in the England and Scotland (no vaccine coverage data available for Wales and NI) went negative on the 18th August. It's been stubbornly negative ever since despite boosters.
Don't worry about speaking the truth. We love the truth in the UK and welcome everyone around the world speaking it rather than our MSM which now censors free speech and does not report the truth of the dangers of the jabs.
Thank you, I just wanted to underscore that I am not somehow trying to badmouth your country. It is a great country. It just has an agency that honestly reports bad news. (which is also a good thing). Other countries are doing just as badly, or worse, but pretend that they are doing better.
Great analysis. Can you add, please, the definition of "fully vaccinated" and "unvaccinated" in the UK? I ask b/c here in the US CDC defines "fully vaccinated" as greater than 14 days after the final jab in the regimen (one or two as the case may be), which of course leaves out the 14 days in which most adverse events from the jabs generally occur. So by definitional fiat CDC has made determining the impact of the jabs very difficult. I suspect it's the same in the UK since public health policies are so similar between our nations.
What they can't censor, they "fact check," right? You hit the nail on the head here: "When vaccines were working well, no one was complaining about denominators and incorrect counts of vaccinated people."
Keep your eyes on the fact checkers. I recognize their language: it is the imperious, overly confident tone of the person who has never taken an advanced math or hard science course but has spent some time (perhaps in a "studies"-type major) writing papers that use selective evidence to prove the point they want to prove. Their propaganda would be a lot better if these people were more intelligent and less clever.
Yeah. The objective of fact checkers, is to keep people from looking at alternative points of view. "Move on, nothing to see here"
Calling these services "fact checking" is fraud of the first order. At the very least the term should come with a warning label "Cannot be demonstrated to contain any facts," and probably should be subject to restrictions in the same way that we don't let anyone call themselves a Doctor.
You both hit (separate) nails there on their heads.
Igor made me think that the same happened in my country about a month ago. For more than half a year, denominators and counts were the same and A-OK, then suddenly they paused the publishing of data for about a week to restructure and recount everything.
Your description of a typical "fact-checker" made me reminiscence of college, how a typical humanities course rests upon an overproduction of papers and essays with dubious actual knowledge of the subject and frequent use of selective evidence or argumentation to prove a fictional point.
Kudos to both!
They would be more believable if they signed their assessment snd gave their credentials and their references. They jump very quickly on any post that does not provide evidence and acceptable and accredited sources. Why should posters Tahoe any notice of u known fact checkers.
This is exactly what they did.
Wow... Really? Is there a link to that somewhere?
https://twitter.com/wakeupfromcovid/status/1457829975680245769?s=20
Yes I saw the vid of Brianne dressen yesterday. This is so sad and outrageous! It makes me so angry!!
Not too verbose. Another fine article Igor. The potential confound that jumps out at me is the Simpson's paradox everyone knows about by now, but if you see the effect hold up when you stratify by age, that is totally off the table as far as I can see.
Eric, thank you for your encouragement. Yes, Simpson's paradox definitely is real, as you said, and this is exactly why the UKHSA data is so valuable, as it is stratified by age.
US CDC purposely gives incomplete statistics, so thank God for UKHSA.
Boosters may reverse the VE drop, but they do raise other complications. In addition to AEs associated with the booster, if one member of family gets a booster, that booster eventually causes him to shed virus. That boosted family member then goes home where he lives with other vaxxed family members. If the other family members did not get simultaneously boosted (often the case) they tend to get infected by the boosted member’s viral shedding. This may cause case numbers to rise.
I agree.
HenriO - Even if this shedding idea turns out to be correct, the boosted will be shedding just the spike, not the whole virus. So I suppose it could theoretically be argued that they get sick from the spike, but they wouldn't actually have COVID.
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/why-vaccinated-covid-deathshospitalizations
He made a great point that's for sure. We need to count them properly as vaccine victims, not as "ignorant antivaxers".
PW, plus we need to add the vaxx risk which is non-associated to covid. That is, quite aside from the effect on covid-risk, the vaxx 's non-covid risks include death from blood-clots, myocarditis, stroke, etc.
is this actually true?
Kirsten - in my opinion, Henrio's comment is completely off-base. The boosted, if they shed anything, will be shedding spike only, not SARS-CoV-2.
I agree, I can't imagine that it would be a significant amount
What Henri may be alluding to is that recently vaccinated can also carry virus, but completely asymptomatically. I actually do not know if this is true, I am just saying how I understood his statement.
Exactly.
the claim the vaxxes prevent hospitalization/death is about equal to masking claims.
usa excess death 2021 summer surge, bit later, higher than 2020 summer surge, and i do not know it is bottomed. cdc excess death data is usually 6 weeks late.
hard to see population data to support any claim!
I agree. You can either: vax or: not vax
If you do not vax, you get covid and this is it. (good or bad)
If you vax, you are beginning a long journey. You may suffer from bad side effects on the first jab and discontinue (and get covid). You may suffer bad side effect on second jab. You may get breakthrough covid. You will need a third booster, then the 10th booster, repeat ad infinitum, a long journey to misery and declining health.
i will not submit to a booster.
my 'journey' ended when the vaers became suppressed.
they shunned hcq for a tiny fraction less.....
right? like how is that not a bad sign people? discrediting a system that has been in use for decades? bananas. but I'm the crazy one. okay sure.
This nurse in ICU states that she wasnt even aware that there was a way to report AERs on a state level- and neither did her colleagues. I, for one, would question why that might be! https://twitter.com/4Patrick7/status/1460034616811659266?s=20
Nice story again - interesting that they have a database of known individuals, so it's impossible to debunk. Have a look at this, just found it today, have not checked the veracity of it though;
https://vaccinesafety.info/2021/11/10/investigation-official-cdc-data-shows-a-shockingly-large-increase-of-deaths-due-to-abnormal-mystery-causes-since-covid-19-vaccinations-began-the-expose/?fbclid=IwAR1Tq5r4Fm39KYvMyIpDvy-e_3s4PNReieF7qx_899ajxl52QZ-aKp8v1HE
This is suspicious. However, I looked at total deaths minus covid deaths and didn't see this signal. Flat at about 55,000 per week. I would have expected this to show up.
I guess it depends how you define "covid" death. The authorities have so many ways to fiddle the figures. I'm sure many or most vaccine deaths will just be categorised as covid
Love reading your stuff! What can we do about these bloody Factcheckers? Cant we start our own fact checker group?
Yeah, I was thinking about the same thing also!
I just googled 'can I become a factchecker' Just downloaded a doc from FB how to do it.....
Well put. I could not agree more.
http://wijzijntedom.nl/what-if.html#anchor1
It's reassuring for me to discover that negative vaccine efficacy has been picked up by someone else. I had suspected this had occurred in the UK so plotted some graphs using the UK government data that is published daily. Sure enough my suspicions were confirmed. Vaccine efficacy in the England and Scotland (no vaccine coverage data available for Wales and NI) went negative on the 18th August. It's been stubbornly negative ever since despite boosters.
My short video illustrates it beautifully: https://youtu.be/-OC7JAps7LA
Some of the people in the database who never went for their jab could be dead? How recent are the lists?
The UK has great accounting for individual deaths, so I would think this should be covered.
Привет Игорь! Отлично написано. Не ожидал вас здесь найти 🙂🙂
Максим Перх*****, аоёва
Don't worry about speaking the truth. We love the truth in the UK and welcome everyone around the world speaking it rather than our MSM which now censors free speech and does not report the truth of the dangers of the jabs.
Thank you, I just wanted to underscore that I am not somehow trying to badmouth your country. It is a great country. It just has an agency that honestly reports bad news. (which is also a good thing). Other countries are doing just as badly, or worse, but pretend that they are doing better.
another wonderfully readable analysis. thanks again! boost of cocaine--hilarious.
Great analysis. Can you add, please, the definition of "fully vaccinated" and "unvaccinated" in the UK? I ask b/c here in the US CDC defines "fully vaccinated" as greater than 14 days after the final jab in the regimen (one or two as the case may be), which of course leaves out the 14 days in which most adverse events from the jabs generally occur. So by definitional fiat CDC has made determining the impact of the jabs very difficult. I suspect it's the same in the UK since public health policies are so similar between our nations.
Then again, if you’re interested in a fun and rewarding career as a fact-checker…. https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/03/now_hiring_facebook_factcheckers.html
ROTFLMAO
Any UK data about the first two weeks after the shot?
Out of curiousity, could you show the reduction in absolute numbers, not just percentages, as well?