A major update for this week’s analysis of the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance report, with corrections to previous data. In our last post on week 5’s data we noted that it appeared the data for infections/hospitalisations/deaths for two doses of vaccine also included data for three doses of vaccine within two weeks of vaccination i.e., people were not counted as triple-dosed until 14 days post-jab. As a result we tried this week to obtain further data on infections/hospitalisations/deaths that might include the missing information. Unfortunately this was unsuccessful, but we did manage to get hold of the vaccination data used by UKHSA in its calculations (this differs from the official ‘vaccinations given’ figures because it only counts people that are still alive and resident in the country). This new data provides some surprising additional information that necessitates revisiting prior data.
The main issue is it transpires that the UKHSA has been using the number vaccinated at the end of the four week period to calculate its rates of infection/hospitalisation/death. As a result, its estimates of the boosted population have been excessively high; it’s been using a boosted population that is higher than the actual boosted population over the four-week data period.
To illustrate this, see the figure below.
The data for the week 4 report is for up to week 3 (indicated by blue vertical line), as there is a delay of a week in their collation of the data. As the data is made up of four weeks’ worth of data, this covers the period between the end of week 51 2021 and the end of week 3 2022 (indicated by purple bar below the graph). However, the data is for 14 days after vaccination, so the relevant vaccination data should be taken from the blue square shown in the figure, from the end of week 49 2021 to the end of week 1 2022. Instead, the UKHSA took its vaccination data as that at the end of this period, shown by the red vertical line. As is apparent from the graph, because of the rush to boost the population during this period, the number vaccinated at the point of the red line is significantly greater than at the start of the period in question (considerably so for younger age groups). Really, the estimate of the population boosted during this period should be a weighted average across the study period; this will lie somewhere within the green rectangle (exactly where is dependent on the shape of the curve between over the period in question).
As a result of this error, the UKHSA rates of infection/hospitalisation/death will have been smaller than they were in reality, giving the impression the vaccines were performing better than they were. Whether this was done on purpose to exaggerate the benefits of the vaccines or was the result of a simple mistake is unclear.
Unfortunately, because our estimate of vaccine effectiveness of dose 2 alone was based on matching existing vaccination data to the UKHSA’s data which used its inflated population estimates, it resulted in our estimates being too pessimistic. So much for trusting official sources of information.
But, of course, if there is a mistake the right thing to do is to try to rectify it – so this week we’ve reanalysed the data for this year using a more appropriate estimate of the proportion of the population that has received two and three doses. As of today we’ve got data for the over-40s population, and next week we’ll aim to expand this.
There is an upside to all this, which is that in obtaining the same vaccinated population data as the UKHSA uses we can also estimate the vaccine effectiveness for those who only received one dose of vaccine.
So, on to the analysis. Vaccine effectiveness against infection first.
This is a busy graph, but it splits broadly into two sections:
- We now have the data for dose 1 – these are shown in the dashed lines near the top of the graph. Those having taken only one dose of the vaccine appear to have approximately 50% more chance of infection compared with the unvaccinated (note that all the values are negative, meaning the unvaccinated had lower infection rates than all the other vaccination categories).
- Data for dose 2 and dose 3 of the vaccines appear to show a somewhat similar level of protection, at around minus-100% – that is, the vaccinated appear to be approximately twice as likely to become infected with Covid as the unvaccinated. The pronounced downward trend in the data is likely a result of the vaccines’ protection being even worse for Omicron variant. There is a hint in the data that in the weeks following the booster (but after the 14 day post vaccine period) there is an increased risk of infection (indicated by the upward trend in the data between the first and second data point for those aged 40-49 and, to a lesser extent, those aged 50-59).
The finding that the vaccine effectiveness isn’t so negative for those with only one dose of vaccine offers some hope that the increased risk of infection might wane with time. Alternatively, the data might simply suggest that two doses ‘seals the deal’ with even more increased risk. It would be nice if there were official investigations into this effect, but, as with all potentially negative aspects of the vaccines, our authorities appear to prefer not to know. It’s worth mentioning that these are unadjusted vaccine effectiveness estimates of course.
The estimate for vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation is shown below.
The data again can be split into two:
- Three doses of vaccine appear to have offered some protection against hospitalisation during the Omicron wave. Interestingly, the data suggest that those aged 40-49 obtained the least benefit. We hope to update this chart with data for those aged under 40 later in the week; it will be interesting to see if this trend is also followed by data for younger age groups.
- Two or one dose of vaccine appears to offer very little benefit against hospitalisation. All of the estimates of vaccine effectiveness for one dose of vaccine are slightly negative (with the data for those aged 40-49 at minus-100% possibly an outlier – we should find out more with this Thursday’s update); the estimates of vaccine effectiveness for two doses of vaccine are slightly positive.
Again, an interesting aspect of the graph is the pronounced downwards trend, possibly due to Omicron’s vaccine evasion.
On vaccine effectiveness against death, there is an important additional consideration. While the UKHSA data for infections and hospitalisations refer to ‘by specimen date’, the data for deaths refer to ‘by date of death’. Thus for the deaths data we also need to consider that people currently infected don’t get vaccinated, and that the time from infection to death is usually at least 14-21 days. As a result, it is necessary to consider the vaccination figures not at the point of death, but at a point some weeks earlier. We are undertaking a sensitivity analysis to work out the ‘right’ delay to use, but for now the data shown is for a delay between infection and death of two weeks – thus it has somewhat but not fully compensated for this effect and as a result the estimates given will likely be slightly too high.
With that in mind, data for the protection offered by the vaccines against death shows a similar trend as seen in the hospitalisation data:
Three doses of vaccine appear to offer a reasonable protection against death, two doses show significantly reduced protection (especially for those aged 70-79 where it is negative), while a single dose appears to result in an increased risk of death, compared with the unvaccinated. Again, the downward trend in the data suggests that Omicron variant has made the vaccines’ job much more difficult.
I should explain why I concentrate on ‘deaths within 60 days’ rather than the more conventional ‘deaths within 28 days’. There is some evidence that the time course of infection in the vaccinated is more drawn out than in the unvaccinated. It isn’t clear whether this is a delay between infection and serious symptomatic Covid or between hospitalisation and eventual death, although data on hospital beds taken up by Covid patients suggests the former (there are fewer than you’d otherwise expect). Up until now the evidence has been limited to the deaths within 28 and 60 days of infection data in the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance report. However, in recent weeks a new source of supporting evidence has emerged – the official deaths data published every day by the U.K. government:
An aspect of the Omicron wave I found disturbing was how the deaths didn’t decline in synchrony with the case numbers; there was a clear lag of about two weeks before deaths started to rise, but they didn’t fall as might be expected and remained elevated. In the past week they have declined rather steeply, which has resulted in the exclamations of ‘vaccine success’ by the usual suspects, but note that the precipitous decline in deaths has tracked the decline in cases with a lag of around 28 days (it appears to be between 25 and 31 days; close enough). Is this, however, because Covid deaths in fact remain elevated, but they’re not counted as Covid deaths as they’re beyond 28 days after the original infection appeared? We should know more about this effect in the deaths data from the Vaccine Surveillance reports over the next few weeks, as they include data for deaths within 60 days of vaccination.
Amanuensis is an ex-academic and senior Government scientist. Find him on his Substack page, Bartram’s Folly.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Trees, woods, tyrannies…
I introduce the Omicron booster. A fix for mankind. Probably. If there was anything to fix… and even then actually…
Haven’t been any new ‘variants’ for a while.. ‘Omicron’ is a bit like Fairy Liquid, just one drop to clean all these dishes!
I want to know what happened to the 70% more contagious Kent variant. It just ‘mutated’, did it? Everyone is now an expert on viruses, telling me they mutate and become less deadly. Well, after 2 years of mutations why is everyone still wearing face masks and having ‘vaccines’?
My granddaughter (at med school) confirmed to me that the teaching she received confirmed what was already understood in classic medicine which was that a virus basically gets a first ‘exponential hit’ (survival of the fittest) and then basically bumps along the ‘x’ time axis as it mutates and evolves for its own survival thus achieving endemicity and reduced pathogenicity. I guess that If this wasn’t the case, the human race would have been wiped out long ago.
So where did Omicron with a massive increase in mutations come from. Heard it appeared and disappeared earlier. Was it designed to be a cure or an attempt at more virulence that went wrong?
I would have expected hospitalisations from Covid to decline as a consequnce of the less serious nature Omcron to, but there appears to be no way of differentiating between the diffeent strains in the data.
That’s exactly my thoughts when reading this.
There is also no way to know those who are admitted to hospital with or acquired once in there for something else .
In December my neighbour (Early 70’s, otherwise healthy active guy with a border collie, always out walking) was told by our local NHS trust to have his jab otherwise they wouldn’t operate on his hand.
He didn’t want it but ‘had to have it’. Anyway he got jabbed.
He said to me in the weeks after that he felt awful
Few weeks after that there was an ambulance outside their house. My wife and I look out for them so I went over after the Ambulance had gone to see if his wife was OK.
She said he’d not felt right since the jab nearly a month earlier. He eventually couldn’t get out of bed as he struggled to breathe.
He’s been in ICU ever since. Yesterday she came over distraught as the consultant had told her to get the family over as they were going to turn his life support off. She’d not been allowed to visit him for those three weeks.
They told her the cause of death was likely Covid as his lungs were badly damaged.
This 100% is happening over the road right now.
Straight after the vaccine…but it’s now another Covid death.
Another ‘success’ for the Fauci junk juice.
The real “success” is yet to come with the adjusted world population figure and the sky-rocket level of vaccine acquired immune deficiency.
Pushing jabs to “fix” the global problem they have created should send Pfizer profits into the stratosphere – they wil be able to buy the UK!
This must be the greatest public health scam for power and profit at he expense of human life and health ever conceived!
Pity there may be no-one left with the brain to write the history.
Do micro-chips write history?
I thought they already had bought the UK…
Reducing the average/remaining life expectancy of the plebs, without getting blamed for it.
The real goal and sole effect of every single intervention.
Yes| “Life Expectancy” post endless jabs – two minutes, ten minutes two days, ten days, six months, twelve months, two years, five years, ten years – who knows? Fauci?
Then there are the permanently sick dosed with more of their Gene Thearpay mRNA vaxxes and magic Pharma drugs until the tap is turned off when they have had their quota .
For more worries take a look at their dark ‘plans’ for the NHSS!
They saved the money on his operation then…that will go down as a plus on the NHS Balance Sheet!
“Just think how bad it would have been if he hadn’t had the jab”
But his wife didn’t catch this ‘highly infectious disease’…………
Adelaide Uni Abandons Vaccine Mandates
Sort of. The Vice Chancellor isn’t saying ‘forever’, and he still seems inclined to employ masks and RAT tests.
Still, it’s a start.
The letter is hilarious. The knots these people twist themselves into. And it’s always the smartest, the most educated, the most intelligent who are so certain they are correct and vaccines are the most wonderful perfect helpful praiseworthy thing ever devised by the mind of man. But, gosh aren’t we good, we aren’t going to force you to have one to get an education.
This does not look like any kind of victory to me. The VC has decided to adopt a Policy that gives him the opportunity to issue a “Direction” (not defined, I notice); but obviously feels that he can’t provide a sufficient argument to issue that Direction just at this moment. But he will no doubt bide his time and wait for another chance. He is clearly a believer in universal jabbing and will use the power to mandate it in his university when he thinks he can get away with it.
Thank you for this analysis. It must have been a lot of work.
We know a lot of people in hospital have “incidental Covid”. They tested positive, but they were in hospital for other reasons. Presumably some die from the other reasons, and get counted as Covid deaths if this happens within 28 days, so I expect you’re right about why the peak in Omicron deaths is 28 days wide.
Hospital is where 25% of Covid infections are acquired.
Of course, they also have their 97% ‘false positive’ 45 cycle PCR tests to help keep the numbers up.
How are PCR test showing a 97% FPR and prevalence about 4%?
These numbers cannot coexist…
FPR MUST be less than the prevalence shown by the results of systematic testing.
Your statement is nonsense.
It’s because the 45 cycle idiocy is run in some places not others.
Related resources :
Nosocomial rate in the second wave was 64%
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Fwzv4UlyWE0T/
This video shows how the 45 cycle rate requires homeopathic levels of virus to be in the sample:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/UpRgsrn3ZEIk/
PHE’s own data invalidated their numbers: The PCR cycle thresholds were analysed in the video
https://www.bitchute.com/video/5sbf52nVQbNK/
A great techincal insight into the manipulation our government servants are pulling on us. It’s the statistical equivalent of hiring someone to help you wash and they keep pouring shampoo on your head as you rinse it off blindly trusting them to make sure your hair is clean.
Couple of things that interest me. 1) what is the performance of the control group over time… in theory as all those who were not jabbed because they were too frail die off, the performance of the healthy remainder (those I like to call vaccine free) should improve each week.
2) Another thing is I see articles telling me about the risks of the mRNA experiments, and then articles telling me they’re no good in terms of their stated objectives – is there a sensible way of detailing both – i.e. not only increasing your risk to known side affects but also negatively impacting your ability to a) fight off infection and b) deal with the infection you have now made your body twice as susceptible to with 0 additional protection afforded.
Yep, us refuseniks are going to be top dog soon.
Maybe that’s the plan….
Woof
[wags tail]
We will be the only dogs that are still standing.
So …one little word comes to mind , the one they have been so worried about and determined to ridicule, assault and ban from the outset of the scamdemic… the word ‘conspiracy” devised on a vast, monumental, previously unimaginable Global scale.
Once we can bring ourselves to accept this little word as fact , everything makes sense and the response becomes clear.
If people still ask “why?” then once again they are directed to the well documented and recorded utterances of Gates and the widely publicised objectives of Schwab’s WEF and their “Great Reset “- nothing could be clearer.
“Covid and Vax” a duo used as a means to an end …our ‘end’ it seems.
Does anyone left still capable of independent thought really still believe all this is just an “accident” of nature? Sadly, still far too many.
Gates is actually on record saying he plans to “reduce the world’s population with vaccines”
He said this on video in 2010 and that he was looking for a reduction of 1 to to 2 billion. I suspect that he has got a lot greedier since 2010 and that we will be very lucky to have one or two billion left after Bill’s vaccine cull is over.
I think he has simply become ten or eleven years older and that closer to his own demise hence more desparate to achieve his perverted ambition.
I can report my control group from work: 50 International colleagues regularly commuting through different countries to work:
2020-21 before vaxx: 3 cases
2021-22 after vaxx but mostly december of 21: around 30 catched covid of which 1 was unvaccinated! Now I have vaxxed colleague on 2nd round of covid within 3 weeks.
Thank you, Amenuensis. Excellent work and clearly described.
You wonder if this mistake is intentional or a mistake – I would say this is a mistake. In my experience, people rarely handle well multiple layers of “time logic”, and worse – the “analysts” working only in Excel (mostly), without a proper RDBMS layer, just don’t imagine it as a pitfall, as they are too busy wrestling the relating of data on the basis of positions on the page, rather than how the data (both disparate and subsets of the same “raw” data) relate in reality.
I speak as a self-taught Microsoft SQL Server Business Intelligence Developer of 11 years professional experience.
See the Phantom Downvoters are at it again.
I’m keeping my mouth shut.
To what? My slight of Excellers? I hope not, I use it all the time – but only in certain ways!
I’m keeping my mouth shut about the Phantom Downvoter.
Maybe they only like Open Source Software like Java and Postgres
It’s no mistake.
Can’t claim to understand all this. But I’m sure Amanuensis is giving the Govt. Stats Benders a few sweaty nights.
Well, it’s all been smoke and mirrors for a very long time. Shame about the deaths and unutterable misery but hey ho! Someone’s happy!
He will soon have a wooden heart
More fake news
‘Princess Camilla has covid’
We know from President Biden that the vaccinated cannot get covid
Therefore they were lying when they said Mrs C was fully the jabbed, or they are lying about her having the rona
Where are the fat checkers when you need them?
Yes …but who any longer cares?
I do hope all have seen the PoW’s pitch on Schwab’s WEF Great Reset website ( posted I think in spring 2020) wholeheartedly backing the dark Globalist Project of his old friend Klaus of Davos ( Klosters)?
I am a die hard royalist, he will turn me overnight into a republican
I have been turned…..
when I heard Camilla had corona I thought ‘what a pain having to isolate’ rather than ‘oh god, I hope she’s alright’.
is anyone gathering outside her home with candles?
no-one believes this any more
“Error”? When do we start laughing?
The “Die Hard” Vaxxers like Carol Malone, ranting and talking down opponents on GBNews last night are beyond reason and help as they shill for the vaccination of all our kids while railing against the “fake news” of myocarditis deaths among the young .
The level of hysterical ignorance is now shutting out all verified “facts” and reason and must surely be a manifestation of “Collective Covid Vaccine Hysteria Syndrome”. Is there a new vax coming to deal with it?
Our Government are quite happy to encourage this in pursuit of their ever darker project to get to the children. Wait until they get their ‘in the public interest” and “for the greater good” clauses into their Trojan Horse “Bill of Rights” stealth attack on Bodily Integrity to undermine the protection of the Nuremberg Code!
Will the truth ever penetrate this wall of darkness before our futures are destroyed with ruined immune systems?
The Phantom Raspberry Blower of Old London Town strikes again.
Is there no one in the mainstream media who is capable of questioning the official data? If an undergrad presented this data as a final year project they would be absolutely torn a new one ( at least if i was on the panel) so to think the greatest? Scientific minds in the land go along with it is shocking.
They are under Johnson’s “Emergency Regs” Ofcom censorship – too scared to speak out or totally on-side with project.
Gates’ money is everywhere in the Media
They must imagine themselves as members of the new ‘Saline Elite’ .
Reports from the US suggest that hundreds of US Congressmen and women have been given life -saving Ivermectin ( banned for the plebs of course).
Brilliant analysis as always.
UKHSA currently use NIMS data at roughly the middle of the 4 week period which was reasonable until they switched to reporting the three dose rates.
Week 6’s report (that covers weeks 2 to 5) is based on the numbers from NIMS at week 3 taken from the week 4 spreadsheet that goes up to week 3.
They’ve been doing this since week 43. Prior to that they were using NIMS data for the end of the 4 week period which isn’t so good.
But the mis-match now is from when they switched to the three dose rate after which they calculated the three dose rate as
The number of positive tests for three doses (at least 14 days after vaccination) divided by number of 3 dosed (any time after the third dose).
I mentioned that mis-match when they switched over to the three dose rate. It of course artificially brings down the published three dose figure because it excludes the positives within 14 days of the third dose from the numerator but not the denominator.
I keep a record and check the unvaccinated and double jabbed (now triple jabbed) rates against the vaccination data (so I can work out any dose rates) so I that’s how I know the exact weeks used. When they changed from end of week to mid-period the UKHSA mentioned it in their report. They come from the spreadsheets from here
It’s easy enough to pick up the single jabbed, double jabbed and now triple jabbed populations from the spreadsheets once you understand the pattern.
Here’s a list of the exact weeks used. There were no up to week 41 or up to week 51 spreadsheets so that they used the previous spreadsheets for those weeks as you can see.
Just checked what the UKHSA said when they made the change to using mid-period NIMS population:
Page 12 of the week 43 VSR says
The rate of COVID-19 cases, hospitalisation, and deaths in fully vaccinated and unvaccinated groups was calculated using vaccine coverage data for each age group extracted from the National Immunisation Management Service.
But that quietly changed on p13 of the week 44 VSR, when they switched to using the mid-point to
The rate of COVID-19 cases, hospitalisation, and deaths in fully vaccinated and unvaccinated groups was calculated using vaccine coverage data for each age group extracted at the mid-point of the reporting period from the National Immunisation Management Service
And that’s just about the same wording you now see on page 37 of the latest (week 6) VSR
The rate of COVID-19 cases, hospitalisation, and deaths in fully vaccinated and unvaccinated groups was calculated using vaccine coverage data for each age group extracted at the mid-point of the reporting period from NIMS
Speaking for myself, I strongly suspect that every reporting trick that can be used to show that the vaccines are “effective” will be used. The author is being very generous when he suggests that authorities may have accidentally used reporting quirks to support the authorized narrative.
I will add that data publicized in the UK seems to be much more credible than data reported in the U.S. Said differently, I think U.S. “official” numbers are even more duplicitous.
Assume everything we see and hear from the ‘occupied’ MS Media, Government and their carefully selected and rewarded “experts is” a pack of lies and you can’t go far wrong.
And here’s the vaccine effectiveness of experimental vaccination (any dose) against testing +ve.
Negative effectiveness in every age group.
This is the comparison we should be doing in my view.
The author’s main point seems to be that government data might not be completely trustworthy or is perhaps manipulated to promote a given narrative.
To this point, I’d highlight an oddity I uncovered in a recent article I wrote (comparing the “effectiveness” of the flu vaccines to the “effectiveness” of the COVID vaccines).
In doing COVID research, I have also done research on the severity of previous flu seasons. The worst flu season in America in recent decades seems to have been the flu season of 2017-2018.
How bad was this flu season? Well, the CDC publishes estimates on the number of flu cases and the number of deaths “from the flu.”
When I first started doing my research abut two years ago, the CDC estimated that 80,000 Americans died from the flu in 2017-2018 (or, more precisely in just a couple of months in 2017-2018). However, more than a year after this flu season, the CDC revised its death estimate to 61,000 deaths. And here it is in 2022 and at some point not too long ago, the CDC revised the death numbers down again – to around 51,400 deaths.
So in roughly four years, the “official” number of deaths caused by this flu outbreak has been reduced by almost 30,000. This makes me wonder if in the future the number of “official” COVID deaths might be reduced by 37 percent via one press release or one little seen website adjustment.
I really don’t know how or why the experts who count flu deaths could have been “off” by 30,000 deaths, but apparently they now think they were.
https://uncoverdc.com/2022/02/14/flu-vaccines-of-dubious-effectiveness-helped-pave-the-way-for-covid-vaccines-of-dubious-effectiveness/
Perhaps, during the “flu season” the pressure is to big up the numbers, to get people to do what you want (get vaccinated, whatever). Later, that pressure has gone, and the numbers are more realistically assessed.
We’ve known this right from the off:
“COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated.”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcp.13795
Will any Canadian deposit or keep money in a Canadian bank knowing the state can seize it at any time?
A run on Canadian banks is only a whisper away
It’s the “Trudeau Effect” – a new deadlier virus!
he should have abolished cash first
Imagine if the contraceptive pill was as effective as the coronavirus “vaccines”.
Men would be having babies right, left and centre.
What statistics are vaccinazis using to “prove” that these jabs are effective? For every person I see online showing the ineffectiveness, there will be someone else claiming they are not. Do “real people” actually still believe this guff, or is it just denizens of bot farms and political “leaders”.
Dear Amanuensis, I admire your work! P.s. small typo in your ve against infection graph
Fergus Walsh disagrees with this article. He has spent a lot of time on all BBC channels this morning, on the back of the Novak Djokovic story, telling us that the vaccines are “extremely effective and safe”.
That’s because they are extremely effective and safe.
Perhaps you could help me out here.
Have the CEOs of the major mRNA thingys (and their spouses) still not had the full complement of jabs? I only ask because the BioNTech’s lead scientist said he hadn’t, and I quote, “for legal reasons”.
Ironically, several people who are receiving awards for their work on the jab, can’t receive them from the Queen, because she has tested positive for you know what, despite having being multi-jabbed, masked up, socially distanced to the max, etc etc.
But she can still prance anout among the zombies, surely. Like Camilla.Royal jab macht lie.
How about this?:
Why bother?
Thoughts?
You’re actually justifying the 60 day classification system? What a joke.
As I commented the other day, someone I know needs urgent heart treatment but is being forced to wait another 8 weeks due to a false positive PCR. If he now dies from heart problems within the next 4 to 8 weeks he’ll be added to the fake covid death toll and make it into your next dataset.
.
MTF and Ammenuis are shills. DS is not our friend and is not interested in establishing the truth.
Who are MTF and Ammenuis? Who are they shilling for, and why?
What makes you think DS is not our “friend” and that they are not interested in establishing the truth? I presume you know what the “truth” is, do you?
Just read the vaccine surveillance report yourselves. Don’t believe the distortions made by the DS article writers…
The above analysis with plenty of others tells us one thing clearly: since we cannot trust a single datum that Government agencies produce, we do not/cannot actually know what has been going on.
We don’t know exactly how many deaths from CoVid, how many hospitalisations from it, how man true infections/positive tests. We know from Pfizer initial ‘trial’ that absolute risk reduction is below 1%,we know that the pseudo-vaccines don’t work as vaccines… do not produce immunity; the claim they reduce hospitalisations deaths and hospitalisations is just that, a claim, without any trustworthy, falsifiable data to support it.
We know the pseudo-vaccines and boosters increase susceptibility and opportunistic infections particularly among the vulnerable. We know they cause injury and death but we do not yet know to what extent, short term and longer term.
There isn’t a single thing we have been told that is not a lie, often told to cover up the previous lie.
I get paid more than $90 to $100 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this I have earned easily $10k from this without having online working skills . Simply give it a shot on
the accompanying site…. http://www.cashoffer9.com
162.0.209.87 (162.0.208.0/20)
162.0.208.0/20
NAMECHEAP-NET
Country USA
4 detected malware files communicating with this IP address
Forcepoint ThreatSeeker: newly registered websites
Comodo Valkyrie Verdict: media sharing
Webroot: Questionable
Outgoing links to : 198.50.213.201 (198.50.128.0/17)
AS 16276 ( OVH SAS ) big spam cannon
Outgoing links to :
http://www.signup;-for-online-;work.com/?id=58.6
7 security vendors flagged this URL as malicious
CyRadar: Malicious
Forcepoint ThreatSeeker: Phishing
Fortinet: Phishing
Kaspersky: Phishing
Lionic: Phishing
Lumu: Malware
Sophos: Phishing
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/162.0.232.128/detection
It does raise interesting questions about survival strategies. Given the general collapse of complex systems how much time can you devote to caring for a vaccine injured person. These will be impossible burdens to manage. It will be interesting to see how civilisation decides to carry on under such rigours.
Are the referred to deaths and hospitalisations “with” covid or just any cause? I assume they are not “of” covid?
Is it now disproven that e.g. up to 70% of vaxxed children will be rendered infertile – or was that just “fear-mongering disinformation”? I can’t recall offhand but I think that was John O’Looney citing Dr Dolores Cahill (if wrong pls correct and give proper source if available).
Plus the question of heart issues, etc etc.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-60394709
Covid in Wales: All five to 11-year-olds offered jabs
“…She said it was likely to have been a “very difficult decision for the
JCVI” because “generally, children have a milder illness and fewer
hospitalisation, but, of course, they have to balance that against the
prospect of missing school”….”
CDC data signaling vaccine catastrophe
It took only 32 deaths to halt 1976 shot campaign
https://www.wnd.com/2022/02/cdc-data-signaling-vaccine-catastrophe/
Dr. Robert Malone on posted irrefutable proof of the Ivermectin success story in India. Ivermectin needs to be allowed for medical use and for doctors to prescribe it immediately in United States. It is an act of criminal malfeasance to keep up the sham in the face of overwhelming proof and overwhelming harm to the people of this nation. If you want you can get it from https://ivmpharmacy.com
Is it possible to split the data based on Pfizer v AZ? I had the first dose of AZ then have not had any more due to the very sad death of Lisa Shaw and another lady in the same week. I wont touch MrNA vaccines. I wonder if the “better” outcomes from one dose are attributable to AZ as this was the first to be rolled out?
It is good to have a group of unvaccinated people to act as a control. I wouldn’t refuse anyone a vaccine to make them act as a control, but if they make that choice it is true that they benefit society as a whole by acting as a point of comparison.
There is a very simple potential explanation for this “negative vaccine efficacy”.
If you assume:
then consider that the vaccinated cohort are much less likely to have contracted previous strains (because the vaccines worked well against them).
You are comparing two cohorts:
Cohort 1 – vaccinated and therefore less likely to have contracted previous strains.
Cohort 2 – unvaccinated and therefore more likely to have protection from contracting previous strains.
Cohort 1 has vaccine protection (weak against omicron) but is much less likely to have the good protection of prior infection.
Cohort 2 does not have the (weak against omicron) vaccine protection but is much more likely to have the good protection of prior infection.
If you compare the two cohorts, this will make it appear that the vaccine has negative efficacy, because it prevented immunity being built up by prior infection by the earlier more dangerous strains.
maybe they’ll get it right by the 12th or 13th injection??? beggars belief