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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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!!!
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?
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.
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.
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.