I have 6 friends, 4 in my small hometown (650 population) who have all dropped dead in the last year. Ages 35 to 62.
4 cardiac arrests and 2 Pulmonary embolisms. I am tired of going to funerals of people who were seemingly health with no known health issues. The other thing that is strange is everyone I know who is vaxed and boosted is sick. I can't prove its the vaccine, and correlation is not cause but it sure is a reason to ask questions. Why are our health officials completely silent?
Which is exactly why we need to do these surveys. No need to rely on the official stats and shoddy, paid for "studies" when we all have all the data we need. We just need to co-ordinate it.
I agree! The other thing that isn’t being taken into account is injury that doesn’t kill. Just because something doesn’t kill you straight away doesn’t mean it’s safe. I have two friends—one who spent three days in the hospital with tachycardia and a small stroke (he was 45 at the time) and another who developed a permanent heart condition immediately post vax. Not safe.
Exactly. I am up to about 15 first-hand accounts (acquaintances, colleagues, friends or relatives of mine) of people who have had strokes, aneurisms, abdominal aneurisms, and heart attacks (two relatives by marriage, both females, both slim and one late 50s, the other early 60s jabbed for sure and likely boostered). I also know of three rapidly progressing cancer, all 50s, one whose cancer was in remission and other for whom it was treated/controlled and another a new dx. All of the above were vaxxed. I have a young step-relative who died suddenly at 28 - I don't know her V status though. Likewise, a colleague, aged 27, who died suddenly but whose V status I don't know. It's getting pretty difficult to ignore that this is unprecedented for me to know so many within a short period of time having these catastrophic life altering medical events.
It boggles the mind how many of these public proclamations by people possessing the power there are, yet there remains so many skeptics to idea that is what is occurring. Reducing the population by "improving health" via effective "vaccines" suggests once and for all unequivocally, that to these demonic denizens of depopulation, the virus is the people.
“The virus is the people” – indeed - that concept does seem to be at the heart of what has been going on.
I was impressed by the themes that were embedded in the first film in ‘The Matrix’ series – (but thought that the two follow-on versions failed). One of the things that made ‘Matrix 1’ so successful was that the screenwriters (the Wachowski brothers/sisters) utilised conceptual themes from several ancient religious traditions as well as philosophical and literary works that touch upon deep questions about the nature of human existence. The end product welded this into a fascinating action tale with compelling philosophical & theological overtones. It was brilliantly done. The downstream effect of the film resonates today by virtue of the fact that the ‘Red Pill – Blue Pill’ metaphor has become common usage in the English language and is in constant use – most recently with regard to recognition of the toxic nature of the mRNA injectables.
One part of the dialogue in “Matrix 1” that really hit me in the face occurred toward the end scenes when the malevolent ‘Agent Smith’ (a sentient computer program) declared that the human race was a stinking virus that needed to be eliminated.
I don’t know how many people who watched the film twenty years ago recognised that Agent Smith was effectively expressing the philosophy of the now-revived Malthusian and Eugenicist movements of the 19th & 20th centuries, that now express themselves politically in the form of ‘Green’ political parties – which ostensibly claim that their objective is to save the Earth. Of course what they don’t say explicitly is that to achieve their objective, their intention is to severely reduce – or even eradicate – most of the human inhabitants of the Earth.
At the moment, the immediate political objective of these anti-human Malthusian ideological movements is to dismantle the industrial civilisation of the West, and that plan is currently being put into practice with the help of their ultra-wealthy backers by convincing governments that the global temperature must be controlled by rapidly reducing the ‘greenhouse gases’ produced by people. Every now and again a prominent person declares that the Earth is ‘overpopulated’ and that action must be taken – but they never quite spell out what that action is, or which of the Earth’s inhabitants must be disposed of.
This theme that it is really ‘people’ who are the virus was alluded to in the opening months of the Covid pandemic when in March 2020, one website said as much. Here is the opening paragraph – which can be found at:
“In a memorable scene from the classic science fiction movie, The Matrix, Agent Smith has caught Morpheus and he is trying to get information from him. A memorable moment comes when Agent Smith is discussing how they have studied the human species and the more they have studied humans that they are not mammals and primates like once thought. Smith states that a much better description of the human species is that of a virus.”
The website goes on to eulogise how clean the environment had become since the Covid lockdowns commenced.
If you had predicted to educated Germans in 1932 that within 10 years, their country would have conquered half of Europe, and was rounding up millions of men, women, and children and packing them into cattle cars to be transported to death camps for elimination - all in the name of public ‘health’, to ‘cleanse’ the Reich of unwanted ‘useless eaters’ - you simply would not have been believed. And yet it happened – and it happened in a blink of the historical eye! Once more, here we are again, just eight decades after the end of World War II and powerful people are once again talking about cleansing the Earth of ‘useless eaters’.
It really is time for the ordinary people of the West to wake up to themselves and understand the lessons of history of what happens when ideological psychopaths and their grasping, ultra-wealthy backers, achieve political power and then impose control over what ordinary people can say and do. Just believing what the deceivers of the corporate media are telling us cannot be an option.
Thanks for the amazing response, i could not agree more ! As dark as things are it is also a time for tremedous change and growth, i know personally i have 'woke up' and so i know millions more must also be, we wll not back down, we will not surrender, in fact their tyranny only makes us more free !! Here is part of the clip you mentioned which was spot on - This is how ''the elite'' see us ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5foZIKuEWQ&ab_channel=Sebs.Knowledge
Probably a coincidence but some of Sparta's antivaccine imbedded videos in his tweets seem like they don't load fully on my computer. Another form of shadow banning?
HEY!!! Joel, I was listening but not looking and I said to myself...this sounds like some kind of monte carlo simulation....and I looked and I saw the words on the screen!!
I will probably get smacked down for the hubris of this, but I was really pleased with myself that I can
Here in UK similar result or not ! As less than 10%yellow card reports are accepted. As someone who has worked in care services and homes throughout every person who was vaccinated became ill some seriously,some miscarriages, some fatally. We lose 5 residents to every booster and I'm going in to cover colleagues sickness again tonight. I'm not vaccinated I was sacked and had to get a legal exemption certificate but it ws hard. I lost two jobs along the way. A law suit still pending and to ice the cake both my parents died after vaccination of blood clots heart failure and severe renal failure. The truth is out there but the powers aren't interested on taking an iota of responsibility.
The test of the hypothesis that the vaccine is safe but ineffective is by observation from experience - whether the reality matches the prediction.
Observation: many thousands of reported deaths and serious injury post vaccination - the recognition that reported adverse reactions are likely to be only 10% of actual; reported adverse reaction rates for CoVid vaccines Worldwide in two years far exceed reported adverse reactions for all vaccines accumulated over the past decade; symptomatic infection, hospitalisations, deaths in vaccinated exceed these in unvaccinated, and between vaccinated cohorts by multiples depending on how many doses received.
Observation falsifies the hypothesis. Perhaps the assumptions used are unsafe?
This survey, or rather collection of surveys, will overcome the limitation of under-reporting in VAERS and formally consolidate those anecdotal observations.
I'm in Canada and almost all adults are jabbed (I'm not but have suffered much scorn and shunning). I know of nobody with a serious adverse event immediately following their multiple jabs (some are on #5 already) but I do know of lots of people now getting diagnosed with cancer, auto immune diseases, and getting sick over and over with colds etc. They never think it is their jabs though. Canada is lost.
My question lies in the definition of vaccinated vs unvaccinated. At least in the US (Washington State), those definitions were muddied. For example. “vaccinated” = 2 weeks past injection. So if you happened to die within those two weeks, you were “unvaccinated”.
I’m assuming the UK has better, standardized data…but wherever I see these kinds of charts, I have to wonder about the definitions being used.
(Same for “covid deaths”. The CDC definition was any death within 28 days of positive PCR test. That meant we counted both gunshot victims and a local guy who fell off his roof, suffering a brain bleed as “covid deaths”.
There was no differentiation between dying WITH covid vs dying FROM covid.)
Having watched that play out, it’s hard to really trust any data sets at this points. Let’s hope you’re right in your analysis.
It's important to note that this BS definition of vaxxed leads to a 100% "VE", because if you catch covid on day 39 you go into the unvaxxed bucket. That means only the people who didn't get covid during the 40-day worry window actually count as 'vaccinated' -- and there's your 100% VE.
Where the black line goes below the red one means that the vax is saving people? Because, as I understand, vaxed people are dying less. But I guess we all understand that the cohort is not matched and other limitations of the study. We cannot make conclusions from this video. I am pretty sure Joel knows that, he is only explaining the methodology.
These are the hypotheses for the black line falling below the red one:
1. The COVID vax stops you dying of other things than COVID (we should all get it).
2. Vaccinated people are less likely to die (it's a cohort bias that should be controlled for in any analysis).
3. The vaccinated population estimate is wrong (it should be corrected otherwise any analysis is erroneous).
4. The black line only (but always) falls below the red line in the same inverse rate to the prevalence of COVID deaths (the vaccine is effective but you should consider your own risk of dying from COVID and the adverse event risk of the vaccine before taking it).
Indeed, this video was not to conclude anything except that my methodology is solid, that assumptions are important and that many independent studies can be conclusive (i.e. reduce survey bias and sampling noise).
Chances are anyone dying of Covid now might be unjabbed because they were too ill/old for the jab anyway.
Seems to me the jabbed are dropping like flies from non-Covid things in unexpected and tragic ways at ages where they should be running around with years ahead of them.
Sorry - but you are no longer arguing in good faith. Plenty of people disagreed with your analysis and gave reasonable reasons for doing so. I found their arguments more compelling than yours.
My own is that your very first premise is not a given. The currently accepted science (and I admit I am skpetical of this myself, but you cannot simply ignore it as you do) is that some vaccines absolutely can provide a general protective effect and substantially reduce mortality from causes other than the one they are designed to protect against. There are multiple papers showing this.
Therefore your very first premise - that this is impossible - is not valid. Or at least you must argue why it is valid and the existing medical literature is wrong - but you cannot simply ignore it entirely.
I have provided Steve with links to the medical literature previously and he has just ignored them. I just tried to google them again to re-provide them here - but sadly they are no longer easy to find because the results for any search involving the word vaccine are now so curated one can only find recent propaganda articles on covid-19 vaccines :-(.
PS I don't even think your conclusion is incorrect. But I find your argument less than watertight even so. Making claims which are stronger than the evidence supports does not achieve anything useful.
PPS You can find references to what I am talking about in this nature article. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-021-01054-5. You will have to download the article pdf from the link to read it. Here is some of the relevant text:
"SVE studies have mostly examined the measles vaccine (MV), Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG), oral
poliovirus vaccine (OPV), whole-cell diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine (wDTP) and measles–mumps–rubella vaccine (MMR)2. Peter Aaby and Christine Benn introduced epidemiologic evidence
for SVEs, including an early observation that the introduction of MV in low-income countries (1970–1980s) resulted in mortality reductions that were too large to be solely explained by prevention of measles deaths alone 3. Subsequent studies did not find the same association for high-titer MV (HTMV), for which RCTs in children from West Africa reported full protection against measles but also a two-fold higher female mortality rate than the standard MV 4. A later reanalysis of the
data, however, suggested that the mortality changes previously attributed to HTMV may have been confounded by off-setting effects of wDTP given after HTMV. These associations motivated suggestions to explore a change in vaccination schedule4. These results, and others, also suggest that
live-attenuated vaccines lead to different SVEs than inactivated vaccines. Aaby and Benn also presented a variety of beneficial SVEs associated with BCG from RCTs and observational studies, including: decreased susceptibility to non-tuberculosis (TB) respiratory infections 5,6; reductions in
fatal neonatal sepsis7; and reductions in respiratory infections in elderly populations revaccinated with BCG 8. Evidence for SVEs associated with OPV included a double-blind RCT comparing OPV and inactivated poliovirus in infants in Bangladesh that found an association between OPV and a nonspecific reduction in days of bacterial-induced diarrhea for males9. Stanley Plotkin presented an overview of how SVEs fit into the larger field of vaccinology — pointing out that SVEs are real effects of certain vaccines, yet the conditions under which they occur and their potential impact on public health remains uncertain. Past attempts to analyze the potential impacts of SVEs include a 2013–
2014 review commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO) to evaluate whether updates to the Expanded Program on Immunization were necessary. The report highlighted evidence suggesting beneficial effects of immunization with BCG and MV on mortality in high-risk populations10.
You might examine the studies discussed here and make valid arguments as to why they are incorrect. But you must address them.
Extreeeeeemly false! You have to know the context of vaccine research in general. For decades studies have said vaccines are safe and effective for all kinds of things, including things they have absolutely nothing to do with. The pervasive issue there is that the cohorts are NEVER matched. Vaccinated people are almost as a rule healthier than unvaccinated people. Epidemiologists have failed miserably find a way to fix this. Just see the citation at the end of this comment which says that vaccinated people have 60 to 70% lower *non-covid mortality*. And this is the CDC’s super-duper dataset with tons of background data on 11 million people. Yet with all that they can’t create a matched cohort. Don’t make the mistake of thinking you can.
Assumption 2 - Accurate vax rate:
Not sure you are actually making this assumption. Could be missing something, but I think the assumption is rather than the normalization of the vax rate curve is effective at dealing with an inaccurate vax rate.
Assumption 3 - Unbiased survey:
Definitely false. It is just a question of magnitude. You can’t put the burden of proof on others to prove it's highly biased. If you are going to ultimately make claims, you are taking on the burden of proof for yourself. If you are just going to raise a hypothesis and say “we can’t exclude this possibility”, then that may be okay.
Assumption 4 – Safe but effective vax:
This isn’t an assumption but a hypothesis.
If surveys are pooled, need to have mechanisms to prevent duplicates, though likely not a big issue. If such a large data collection movement could actually be orchestrated, you should f*** analysis entirely, as that data set would be used for 100’s of things. It should be all about data collection.
Tbh, I think this method of research will just backfire if pursued.
“To assess mortality not associated with COVID-19 (non–COVID-19 mortality) after COVID-19 vaccination in a general population setting, a cohort study was conducted during December 2020–July 2021 among approximately 11 million persons enrolled in seven Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) sites.§ After standardizing mortality rates by age and sex, this study found that COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower non–COVID-19 mortality than did unvaccinated persons. After adjusting for demographic characteristics and VSD site, this study found that adjusted relative risk (aRR) of non–COVID-19 mortality for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 0.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38–0.44) after dose 1 and 0.34 (95% CI = 0.33–0.36) after dose 2. The aRRs of non–COVID-19 mortality for the Moderna vaccine were 0.34 (95% CI = 0.32–0.37) after dose 1 and 0.31 (95% CI = 0.30–0.33) after dose 2. The aRR after receipt of the Janssen vaccine was 0.54 (95% CI = 0.49–0.59). There is no increased risk for mortality among COVID-19 vaccine recipients. This finding reinforces the safety profile of currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in the United States.”
A large part of the difficulty in convincing a larger segment of the population is the problem that the concepts are much too difficult for the average person to comprehend. Most commenters on your blog - and, indeed, most people - are aware that there have been "suspicious deaths", but complex discussion of statistical or medical topics make their eye glaze over.
What's very much needed to gain more traction among the general population is simpler explanations that resonate with the man and woman on the street. Sadly, no one appears to be doing that.
1. The vaccine causes injuries - everyone knows someone, and probably the videos with personal stories helped. This certainly helped us once the coercion lessened.
2. The vaccines don't stop the Covid - everyone who gets one eventually gets Covid. For many Israelis that don't believe it injures they now don't think it helps either.
Disclaimer - I am in a fairly religious community so they aren't as brainwashed by the media (less screen time).
I have 6 friends, 4 in my small hometown (650 population) who have all dropped dead in the last year. Ages 35 to 62.
4 cardiac arrests and 2 Pulmonary embolisms. I am tired of going to funerals of people who were seemingly health with no known health issues. The other thing that is strange is everyone I know who is vaxed and boosted is sick. I can't prove its the vaccine, and correlation is not cause but it sure is a reason to ask questions. Why are our health officials completely silent?
Which is exactly why we need to do these surveys. No need to rely on the official stats and shoddy, paid for "studies" when we all have all the data we need. We just need to co-ordinate it.
ok so once 'we' have surveys, what then? what is the end game?
Genocide.
DEMOCIDE
Some of both, genocide, and some might be more directed.
It's unsafe becauase it's ineffective and therefore can ONLY cause harm. But then again from another point of view it is effective. https://www.christophernunn.net/post/stanley-johnson-the-uk-needs-to-decrease-its-population-to-10-million
I agree! The other thing that isn’t being taken into account is injury that doesn’t kill. Just because something doesn’t kill you straight away doesn’t mean it’s safe. I have two friends—one who spent three days in the hospital with tachycardia and a small stroke (he was 45 at the time) and another who developed a permanent heart condition immediately post vax. Not safe.
Exactly. I am up to about 15 first-hand accounts (acquaintances, colleagues, friends or relatives of mine) of people who have had strokes, aneurisms, abdominal aneurisms, and heart attacks (two relatives by marriage, both females, both slim and one late 50s, the other early 60s jabbed for sure and likely boostered). I also know of three rapidly progressing cancer, all 50s, one whose cancer was in remission and other for whom it was treated/controlled and another a new dx. All of the above were vaxxed. I have a young step-relative who died suddenly at 28 - I don't know her V status though. Likewise, a colleague, aged 27, who died suddenly but whose V status I don't know. It's getting pretty difficult to ignore that this is unprecedented for me to know so many within a short period of time having these catastrophic life altering medical events.
Same here in small area of 4k people. Scroll comments on recent John Campbell video to see scale of vax holocaust.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0n-hUJM5n4&ab_channel=Dr.JohnCampbell
Wow... I did look at the comments. Too much that too many are still boostering up...
you can see the real VAERS CDC V-SAFE adjusted numbers here - https://gettr.com/post/p22eeya35b5
It boggles the mind how many of these public proclamations by people possessing the power there are, yet there remains so many skeptics to idea that is what is occurring. Reducing the population by "improving health" via effective "vaccines" suggests once and for all unequivocally, that to these demonic denizens of depopulation, the virus is the people.
“The virus is the people” – indeed - that concept does seem to be at the heart of what has been going on.
I was impressed by the themes that were embedded in the first film in ‘The Matrix’ series – (but thought that the two follow-on versions failed). One of the things that made ‘Matrix 1’ so successful was that the screenwriters (the Wachowski brothers/sisters) utilised conceptual themes from several ancient religious traditions as well as philosophical and literary works that touch upon deep questions about the nature of human existence. The end product welded this into a fascinating action tale with compelling philosophical & theological overtones. It was brilliantly done. The downstream effect of the film resonates today by virtue of the fact that the ‘Red Pill – Blue Pill’ metaphor has become common usage in the English language and is in constant use – most recently with regard to recognition of the toxic nature of the mRNA injectables.
One part of the dialogue in “Matrix 1” that really hit me in the face occurred toward the end scenes when the malevolent ‘Agent Smith’ (a sentient computer program) declared that the human race was a stinking virus that needed to be eliminated.
I don’t know how many people who watched the film twenty years ago recognised that Agent Smith was effectively expressing the philosophy of the now-revived Malthusian and Eugenicist movements of the 19th & 20th centuries, that now express themselves politically in the form of ‘Green’ political parties – which ostensibly claim that their objective is to save the Earth. Of course what they don’t say explicitly is that to achieve their objective, their intention is to severely reduce – or even eradicate – most of the human inhabitants of the Earth.
At the moment, the immediate political objective of these anti-human Malthusian ideological movements is to dismantle the industrial civilisation of the West, and that plan is currently being put into practice with the help of their ultra-wealthy backers by convincing governments that the global temperature must be controlled by rapidly reducing the ‘greenhouse gases’ produced by people. Every now and again a prominent person declares that the Earth is ‘overpopulated’ and that action must be taken – but they never quite spell out what that action is, or which of the Earth’s inhabitants must be disposed of.
This theme that it is really ‘people’ who are the virus was alluded to in the opening months of the Covid pandemic when in March 2020, one website said as much. Here is the opening paragraph – which can be found at:
https://redsforlifenoblet.medium.com/malthuse-the-matrix-and-the-human-virus-cb08e18c4a3a
“In a memorable scene from the classic science fiction movie, The Matrix, Agent Smith has caught Morpheus and he is trying to get information from him. A memorable moment comes when Agent Smith is discussing how they have studied the human species and the more they have studied humans that they are not mammals and primates like once thought. Smith states that a much better description of the human species is that of a virus.”
The website goes on to eulogise how clean the environment had become since the Covid lockdowns commenced.
If you had predicted to educated Germans in 1932 that within 10 years, their country would have conquered half of Europe, and was rounding up millions of men, women, and children and packing them into cattle cars to be transported to death camps for elimination - all in the name of public ‘health’, to ‘cleanse’ the Reich of unwanted ‘useless eaters’ - you simply would not have been believed. And yet it happened – and it happened in a blink of the historical eye! Once more, here we are again, just eight decades after the end of World War II and powerful people are once again talking about cleansing the Earth of ‘useless eaters’.
It really is time for the ordinary people of the West to wake up to themselves and understand the lessons of history of what happens when ideological psychopaths and their grasping, ultra-wealthy backers, achieve political power and then impose control over what ordinary people can say and do. Just believing what the deceivers of the corporate media are telling us cannot be an option.
Thanks for the amazing response, i could not agree more ! As dark as things are it is also a time for tremedous change and growth, i know personally i have 'woke up' and so i know millions more must also be, we wll not back down, we will not surrender, in fact their tyranny only makes us more free !! Here is part of the clip you mentioned which was spot on - This is how ''the elite'' see us ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5foZIKuEWQ&ab_channel=Sebs.Knowledge
Nailed it WE (freedom) are the virus ! We are in world war 3, the war to end all wars.
https://twitter.com/SpartaJustice/status/1605145168579026952
https://twitter.com/SpartaJustice/status/1605144848343916544
Probably a coincidence but some of Sparta's antivaccine imbedded videos in his tweets seem like they don't load fully on my computer. Another form of shadow banning?
Point taken.
you catch my drift ? Very good. https://www.boris-johnson.com/2007/10/25/global-population-control/
I did indeed!!!
Glad to hear it ! https://twitter.com/SpartaJustice/status/1605148936322293762
It's as if the higher people go up the social ladder, the more they are indoctrinated into the Eugenics/depopulation ideology.
https://twitter.com/LegerPhoenix3/status/1604655264275349504?s=20&t=za4sOkIKNYKF_LaHIQZFUQ
https://twitter.com/LegerPhoenix3/status/1604990265860595712?s=20&t=za4sOkIKNYKF_LaHIQZFUQ
https://twitter.com/LegerPhoenix3/status/1580805048283516930?s=20&t=za4sOkIKNYKF_LaHIQZFUQ
Well, I'm one who doesn't need to know all the details as I am aware all injections are not natural, will not help humans as a species over time.
HEY!!! Joel, I was listening but not looking and I said to myself...this sounds like some kind of monte carlo simulation....and I looked and I saw the words on the screen!!
I will probably get smacked down for the hubris of this, but I was really pleased with myself that I can
still vaguely remember what one is!!!
Good work, Duchess!! Top of the class!
Monte Carlo Simulation eh? Does that involve Tony Curtis and a car race?
I think it's bowling for money.
Joel, you're a bloody legend mate and you're 99% right.
Put up or fuck up is what it should be
I am thankful for you and many others putting perspectives out there for critique and discussion. This is the way, the light, and the path.
Here in UK similar result or not ! As less than 10%yellow card reports are accepted. As someone who has worked in care services and homes throughout every person who was vaccinated became ill some seriously,some miscarriages, some fatally. We lose 5 residents to every booster and I'm going in to cover colleagues sickness again tonight. I'm not vaccinated I was sacked and had to get a legal exemption certificate but it ws hard. I lost two jobs along the way. A law suit still pending and to ice the cake both my parents died after vaccination of blood clots heart failure and severe renal failure. The truth is out there but the powers aren't interested on taking an iota of responsibility.
Well attended Twitter Spaces discussing your analysis today Joel 👏
https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1DXxyvMvgNVKM?s=20
Bootstrapping = next stop!
The test of the hypothesis that the vaccine is safe but ineffective is by observation from experience - whether the reality matches the prediction.
Observation: many thousands of reported deaths and serious injury post vaccination - the recognition that reported adverse reactions are likely to be only 10% of actual; reported adverse reaction rates for CoVid vaccines Worldwide in two years far exceed reported adverse reactions for all vaccines accumulated over the past decade; symptomatic infection, hospitalisations, deaths in vaccinated exceed these in unvaccinated, and between vaccinated cohorts by multiples depending on how many doses received.
Observation falsifies the hypothesis. Perhaps the assumptions used are unsafe?
This survey, or rather collection of surveys, will overcome the limitation of under-reporting in VAERS and formally consolidate those anecdotal observations.
I'm in Canada and almost all adults are jabbed (I'm not but have suffered much scorn and shunning). I know of nobody with a serious adverse event immediately following their multiple jabs (some are on #5 already) but I do know of lots of people now getting diagnosed with cancer, auto immune diseases, and getting sick over and over with colds etc. They never think it is their jabs though. Canada is lost.
I appreciate the analysis.
My question lies in the definition of vaccinated vs unvaccinated. At least in the US (Washington State), those definitions were muddied. For example. “vaccinated” = 2 weeks past injection. So if you happened to die within those two weeks, you were “unvaccinated”.
I’m assuming the UK has better, standardized data…but wherever I see these kinds of charts, I have to wonder about the definitions being used.
(Same for “covid deaths”. The CDC definition was any death within 28 days of positive PCR test. That meant we counted both gunshot victims and a local guy who fell off his roof, suffering a brain bleed as “covid deaths”.
There was no differentiation between dying WITH covid vs dying FROM covid.)
Having watched that play out, it’s hard to really trust any data sets at this points. Let’s hope you’re right in your analysis.
There is no question of vaccinated in this scenario. I explained this in the previous video. https://metatron.substack.com/p/is-the-covid-vaccine-safe-or-effective
Thanks…I’ll catch up on that one!
So much fuckery with the numbers the last few years, it’s hard to trust anything at face value.
It's important to note that this BS definition of vaxxed leads to a 100% "VE", because if you catch covid on day 39 you go into the unvaxxed bucket. That means only the people who didn't get covid during the 40-day worry window actually count as 'vaccinated' -- and there's your 100% VE.
Where the black line goes below the red one means that the vax is saving people? Because, as I understand, vaxed people are dying less. But I guess we all understand that the cohort is not matched and other limitations of the study. We cannot make conclusions from this video. I am pretty sure Joel knows that, he is only explaining the methodology.
These are the hypotheses for the black line falling below the red one:
1. The COVID vax stops you dying of other things than COVID (we should all get it).
2. Vaccinated people are less likely to die (it's a cohort bias that should be controlled for in any analysis).
3. The vaccinated population estimate is wrong (it should be corrected otherwise any analysis is erroneous).
4. The black line only (but always) falls below the red line in the same inverse rate to the prevalence of COVID deaths (the vaccine is effective but you should consider your own risk of dying from COVID and the adverse event risk of the vaccine before taking it).
Indeed, this video was not to conclude anything except that my methodology is solid, that assumptions are important and that many independent studies can be conclusive (i.e. reduce survey bias and sampling noise).
Thanks!
This summary is helpful.
Vaxxed people are dying less?
Are they? Dying of what less? Covid?
Chances are anyone dying of Covid now might be unjabbed because they were too ill/old for the jab anyway.
Seems to me the jabbed are dropping like flies from non-Covid things in unexpected and tragic ways at ages where they should be running around with years ahead of them.
I am asking about the methodology. I share your opinion.
Sorry - but you are no longer arguing in good faith. Plenty of people disagreed with your analysis and gave reasonable reasons for doing so. I found their arguments more compelling than yours.
My own is that your very first premise is not a given. The currently accepted science (and I admit I am skpetical of this myself, but you cannot simply ignore it as you do) is that some vaccines absolutely can provide a general protective effect and substantially reduce mortality from causes other than the one they are designed to protect against. There are multiple papers showing this.
Therefore your very first premise - that this is impossible - is not valid. Or at least you must argue why it is valid and the existing medical literature is wrong - but you cannot simply ignore it entirely.
I have provided Steve with links to the medical literature previously and he has just ignored them. I just tried to google them again to re-provide them here - but sadly they are no longer easy to find because the results for any search involving the word vaccine are now so curated one can only find recent propaganda articles on covid-19 vaccines :-(.
PS I don't even think your conclusion is incorrect. But I find your argument less than watertight even so. Making claims which are stronger than the evidence supports does not achieve anything useful.
PPS You can find references to what I am talking about in this nature article. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-021-01054-5. You will have to download the article pdf from the link to read it. Here is some of the relevant text:
"SVE studies have mostly examined the measles vaccine (MV), Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG), oral
poliovirus vaccine (OPV), whole-cell diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine (wDTP) and measles–mumps–rubella vaccine (MMR)2. Peter Aaby and Christine Benn introduced epidemiologic evidence
for SVEs, including an early observation that the introduction of MV in low-income countries (1970–1980s) resulted in mortality reductions that were too large to be solely explained by prevention of measles deaths alone 3. Subsequent studies did not find the same association for high-titer MV (HTMV), for which RCTs in children from West Africa reported full protection against measles but also a two-fold higher female mortality rate than the standard MV 4. A later reanalysis of the
data, however, suggested that the mortality changes previously attributed to HTMV may have been confounded by off-setting effects of wDTP given after HTMV. These associations motivated suggestions to explore a change in vaccination schedule4. These results, and others, also suggest that
live-attenuated vaccines lead to different SVEs than inactivated vaccines. Aaby and Benn also presented a variety of beneficial SVEs associated with BCG from RCTs and observational studies, including: decreased susceptibility to non-tuberculosis (TB) respiratory infections 5,6; reductions in
fatal neonatal sepsis7; and reductions in respiratory infections in elderly populations revaccinated with BCG 8. Evidence for SVEs associated with OPV included a double-blind RCT comparing OPV and inactivated poliovirus in infants in Bangladesh that found an association between OPV and a nonspecific reduction in days of bacterial-induced diarrhea for males9. Stanley Plotkin presented an overview of how SVEs fit into the larger field of vaccinology — pointing out that SVEs are real effects of certain vaccines, yet the conditions under which they occur and their potential impact on public health remains uncertain. Past attempts to analyze the potential impacts of SVEs include a 2013–
2014 review commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO) to evaluate whether updates to the Expanded Program on Immunization were necessary. The report highlighted evidence suggesting beneficial effects of immunization with BCG and MV on mortality in high-risk populations10.
You might examine the studies discussed here and make valid arguments as to why they are incorrect. But you must address them.
Assumption 1- Matched cohorts:
Extreeeeeemly false! You have to know the context of vaccine research in general. For decades studies have said vaccines are safe and effective for all kinds of things, including things they have absolutely nothing to do with. The pervasive issue there is that the cohorts are NEVER matched. Vaccinated people are almost as a rule healthier than unvaccinated people. Epidemiologists have failed miserably find a way to fix this. Just see the citation at the end of this comment which says that vaccinated people have 60 to 70% lower *non-covid mortality*. And this is the CDC’s super-duper dataset with tons of background data on 11 million people. Yet with all that they can’t create a matched cohort. Don’t make the mistake of thinking you can.
Assumption 2 - Accurate vax rate:
Not sure you are actually making this assumption. Could be missing something, but I think the assumption is rather than the normalization of the vax rate curve is effective at dealing with an inaccurate vax rate.
Assumption 3 - Unbiased survey:
Definitely false. It is just a question of magnitude. You can’t put the burden of proof on others to prove it's highly biased. If you are going to ultimately make claims, you are taking on the burden of proof for yourself. If you are just going to raise a hypothesis and say “we can’t exclude this possibility”, then that may be okay.
Assumption 4 – Safe but effective vax:
This isn’t an assumption but a hypothesis.
If surveys are pooled, need to have mechanisms to prevent duplicates, though likely not a big issue. If such a large data collection movement could actually be orchestrated, you should f*** analysis entirely, as that data set would be used for 100’s of things. It should be all about data collection.
Tbh, I think this method of research will just backfire if pursued.
Citation:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm
“To assess mortality not associated with COVID-19 (non–COVID-19 mortality) after COVID-19 vaccination in a general population setting, a cohort study was conducted during December 2020–July 2021 among approximately 11 million persons enrolled in seven Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) sites.§ After standardizing mortality rates by age and sex, this study found that COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower non–COVID-19 mortality than did unvaccinated persons. After adjusting for demographic characteristics and VSD site, this study found that adjusted relative risk (aRR) of non–COVID-19 mortality for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 0.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38–0.44) after dose 1 and 0.34 (95% CI = 0.33–0.36) after dose 2. The aRRs of non–COVID-19 mortality for the Moderna vaccine were 0.34 (95% CI = 0.32–0.37) after dose 1 and 0.31 (95% CI = 0.30–0.33) after dose 2. The aRR after receipt of the Janssen vaccine was 0.54 (95% CI = 0.49–0.59). There is no increased risk for mortality among COVID-19 vaccine recipients. This finding reinforces the safety profile of currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in the United States.”
A large part of the difficulty in convincing a larger segment of the population is the problem that the concepts are much too difficult for the average person to comprehend. Most commenters on your blog - and, indeed, most people - are aware that there have been "suspicious deaths", but complex discussion of statistical or medical topics make their eye glaze over.
What's very much needed to gain more traction among the general population is simpler explanations that resonate with the man and woman on the street. Sadly, no one appears to be doing that.
In Israel we had two points sink in:
1. The vaccine causes injuries - everyone knows someone, and probably the videos with personal stories helped. This certainly helped us once the coercion lessened.
2. The vaccines don't stop the Covid - everyone who gets one eventually gets Covid. For many Israelis that don't believe it injures they now don't think it helps either.
Disclaimer - I am in a fairly religious community so they aren't as brainwashed by the media (less screen time).