Yesterday I wrote about the new data from Public Health England that allows us to make a (rough) calculation of vaccine efficacy during the Delta surge. Using data from technical briefings 17 and 20 I calculated that vaccine efficacy against infection with the Delta variant in the over-50s was a disappointing 17%. Vaccine efficacy against mortality was a better (if lower than expected) 77%.
The Daily Expose also published a piece looking at the new PHE data and argued that it showed vaccination was actually increasing the risk of hospitalisation and death. Their analysis did not break the results down by age, however, and so did not take into account that most of the infections are in the young, who are less vaccinated, and most of the deaths are in the old, who are much more vaccinated. That’s why my analysis focused on the over-50s, and when you do that you find the vaccines reduced mortality during the Delta surge in that age group by around 77%.
The Daily Expose article helpfully drew attention to the fact that in a recently published document, the Government advisers on SAGE themselves appear to admit that the vaccines do not prevent infection and transmission. In paragraph eight, they write:
While we feel that current vaccines are excellent for reducing the risk of hospital admission and disease, we propose that research be focused on vaccines that also induce high and durable levels of mucosal immunity in order to reduce infection of and transmission from vaccinated individuals. This could also reduce the possibility of variant selection in vaccinated individuals.
This being the case, why is SAGE not advising the Government to cease all aspects of the vaccination programme based on the idea of reducing transmission and protecting others (vaccine passports, the coercion of young people, vaccination of children and so on) as its members clearly don’t believe that these things are backed up by sound scientific evidence?
The Daily Expose article also highlights that there is another way of using the data in the PHE report to calculate the vaccine effectiveness against death. This is by calculating the case fatality rates (CFRs) in the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups respectively and taking the ratio.
Doing this for the over-50s, between June 22nd and August 2nd there were 339 deaths from 17,926 cases in the double vaccinated, giving a CFR of 1.9%, and 167 deaths from 2,464 cases in the unvaccinated, giving a CFR of 6.8%. One minus the ratio of these gives a vaccine effectiveness against death of 72% (1-(1.9%/6.8%)). Unlike the figure I calculated yesterday using population vaccination coverage, this is the vaccine effectiveness against death once infected, so doesn’t include any protection the vaccines provide against infection in the first place, meaning it is not surprising that it is lower. That it is not much lower is a further indication that the vaccines do little to prevent infection.
Because with this method we don’t need to worry about vaccination coverage in the population, we don’t need to restrict ourselves to the period June 22nd to August 2nd, which I selected because it was when the vaccination programme in the over-50s was basically complete. This means we can use all the Delta cases up to August 2nd as found in technical briefing 20. Again, for the over-50s, up to August 2nd there were 389 deaths from 21,472 cases in the double vaccinated, giving a CFR of 1.8%, and 205 deaths from 3,440 cases, giving a CFR of 6%. One minus the ratio of these gives a vaccine effectiveness against death (once infected) of 70%. So vaccine effectiveness against death in the over-50s rose slightly during the recent surge.
We can also use this method for the under-50s. Up to August 2nd there were 13 deaths from 25,536 cases in the double vaccinated, giving a CFR of 0.05%, and 48 deaths from 147,612 cases in the unvaccinated, giving a CFR of 0.03%. Strikingly, the CFR in the vaccinated here is higher than in the unvaccinated. In fact, it is 57% higher, meaning the vaccine effectiveness is negative 57%, i.e., in the under-50s the vaccine increases the risk of death once infected by 57%. This is in line with the Daily Expose‘s report, albeit the effect is found only in the younger population.
One caveat is that this doesn’t allow for any protection the vaccine might offer against infection, which may be higher in the under-50s (I haven’t attempted to calculate this as the vaccine coverage in that age group is constantly rising meaning I can’t pin down a figure). But even so, the fact that the case fatality rate among the vaccinated under-50s is 57% higher than among the unvaccinated under-50s is not just disappointing, it is alarming.
It’s worth bearing in mind that we are dealing with very small numbers here. There were only 61 deaths in these two groups (double vaccinated and unvaccinated under-50s) and only 13 of them were in the double vaccinated. One possible explanation is that these 13 deaths are highly vulnerable people who were vaccinated to try to protect them, while the CFR in the unvaccinated was driven down by the high infection rate among socially active young people. A more reassuring statistic, using data from the same report, is that the vaccine effectiveness against A&E attendance (once infected) among under-50s is 35%, and against an overnight hospital stay is 43%. These are not exactly stunning results, but do at least indicate a positive effect. Interestingly, the same statistics for the over-50s are a vaccine effectiveness against A&E attendance once infected of 71% and against an overnight hospital stay of 73%, indicating again an unexpectedly higher efficacy in the older population. Is this an artefact of higher risk younger people being vaccinated first?
Since, then, the disturbing statistic arises from just 13 deaths, perhaps the most sensible course of action would be for PHE to investigate these 13 deaths and publish a report assessing what role if any the vaccine may have played in them. More generally, given that the number of Covid deaths in vaccinated under-50s is small, a report filling out details on each would be illuminating. It would help to address what is otherwise a worrying sign that the vaccines may be counterproductive for younger people.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
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.
With respect, when I see the Daily Expose, I assume that it’ll be yet another deceptive piece of clickbait that switches back and forth between a kernel of evidence, editorial speculation, and outright fiction without warning or pause for breath.
I appreciate the intentions, but I’ve had to pick apart their articles so many times now that I consider them an anti-source.
A weird category/figure is the “Unlinked” column. 31841 cases which they don’t know if they were vaccinated or not? Really? With just 7 registered deaths in all age groups? What if those cases are mostly unvaccinated? According to the briefing, 97% of those ‘over 50s’ did not need hospitalization. Just 0,7% of the total cases needed hospitalization for at least one day. Then,household attack rate of Delta is… 10,8%. Just like the other variants. So infectious, right? Delta’s CFR is 5 times less than Alpha (0.2% to 1%). Mortality has dropped 5fold. Can you imagine what the IFR is? 10 times less like WHO suggests or 20 times less according to the CDC? Delta has a CFR to those below 50s of 0,26%. Come on people, what are we talking about?
Why indeed Will Jones, why indeed. (THIS IS A RHETORICAL QUESTION IN CASE YOU DIDN’T CATCH THAT BY THE WAY).
Meanwhile, more (non-mainstream, obvs) coverage of the German pathologist mentioned here a couple of days back:
“Dr. Schirmacher performed autopsies on 40 people who had died within two weeks of receiving a Covid jab. Of those, 30%-40% could be directly attributed to the “vaccines.””
Media Blackout: Renowned German Pathologist’s Vaccine Autopsy Data is Shocking… and Being Censored
Can DS please start writing about ADE. It’s VERY IMPORTANT that this particular message gets out because :
1) if it does happen, people have the right to know why it is happening
2) if it doesn’t happen, people have to right to know the game of Russian Roulette they have been tricked into playing by the deceivers in the criminal government and medical establishment and media
The stakes are high now. Silence is not an option. Please cover this vital issue.
Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33113270/
Results of the study: COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured… Read more »
Whilst I can see where you are coming from, I would make two observations, one of which you point out yourself. Firstly, the numbers of those dying in this age group are just too small to draw statistically significant conclusions from. Secondly, by lumping all the 18-49 year olds together you will fail to take into account the fact that vaccination rates drop off with age. If I may quote:
‘Up to August 2nd there were 13 deaths from 25,536 cases in the double vaccinated, giving a CFR of 0.05%, and 48 deaths from 147,612 cases in the unvaccinated, giving a CFR of 0.03%. Strikingly, the CFR in the vaccinated here is higher than in the unvaccinated.’
i would expect to see this as if you were to take the average age of the vaccinated cohort and compare it with the average age of the unvaccinated cohort, the latter would doubtless be much lower and hence even less clinically vulnerable.
That’s two days in a row you prefixed your headline with a fear inducing adjective. Yesterday you used “disturbing” today, “alarming”. It’s unnecessary and readers of the daily sceptic deserve better. Just state the facts and let us decide whether we are “alarmed”, “unsurprised”, or indifferent.
The daily sceptic has an opportunity to provide non fear / “nudge” news, I hope it takes it.
Or will you end up like the newspapers and start your articles “There was alarm last night when it was revealed..”.. where was the alarm, who are the alarmed.
Stay objective, stick to the facts!
Totally agree. It’s red top bollocks
Another interesting quote from page 2 of the SAGE document that confirms the vaccines don’t stop infections or transmission:
“vaccines do not provide absolute sterilising immunity i.e. they do not fully prevent infection in most individuals.“
No idea what “fully prevent” means. It either prevents or it doesn’t.
That’s two days in a row you prefixed your headline with a fear inducing adjective. Yesterday you used “disturbing” today, “alarming”. It’s unnecessary and readers of the daily sceptic deserve better. Just date the facts and let us decide whether we are “alarmed”, “unsurprised”, or indifferent.
The daily sceptic has an opportunity to provide non fear / “nudge” news, I hope it takes it.
Or will you end up like the newspapers and start your articles “There was alarm last night when it was revealed..”.. where was the alarm, who are the alarmed.
Stay objective, stick to the facts!
*state
AND THE FULLY VACCINATED ROCK OF GIBRALTAR CRUMBLES“Fully-Vaxxed Gibraltar Sees 2500 PERCENT SPIKE in COVID-19 Cases Per Day, Initiates New Lockdowns.”https://richardsonpost.com/howellwoltz/22924/and-the-fully-vaccinated-rock-of-gibraltar-crumbles/
a nd still the sheep dont wake up. it s all about lockdowns nothing else. or are they waking up there , any reports ? are there no free people there at all? how can they all be sheep did some escape the island ? any reports ?is like a tv show wish it was only a tv show
The best ‘vaccine’ for the worst viruses is a well sharpened pitchfork.
Interestingly, the Pfizer clinical trials were not designed to measure efficacy against death.
Before the trial was unblinded, the were two Covid deaths in the Placebo group and 1 in the Vaccinated group,
See Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full-text:
and Table S4:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/2021.07.28.21261159/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf?download=true
That cardiac arrest relative risk shoud’ve been worthy of more investigation.
With such small numbers a tiny absolute increase may be a huge relative one, but it doesn’t signify. A while back the positive test rate in my locality went up 100%, which looked alarming until you realised it had gone from 2 to 4. In this pandemic there are so many variables it becomes impossible to disentangle them. Previous exposure, or infection, skews the susceptible population. Genetic makeup, age, obesity, underlying chronic disease, vaccination status all matter so it’s pointless drawing conclusions based on analysis of just one of these variables. By the time you adjust for all of them the numbers are too small to be analysable. Throw in the changing baseline data (with covid or from covid) and you may as well read tealeaves or toss a coin.
It’s like CO2 going from 0.003% to 0.004% being described in relative terms, i tell people it’s an abuse of maths to do that but some people hate the idea they’ve been fooled.
It’s 0.03% and 0.04% but, that aside, try this experiment.
Pour out a glass of clear water. You will be able to see the bottom of the glass. Now add a small drop of milk (e.g. half a teaspoon or less) and stir. The liquid will now be opaque.
less than 0.5% concentration of milk has interacted with the whole visible part of the EM spectrum.
Also note that CO2 increase since 1950 has resulted in a greener planet.
A fair point to make, but perhaps you should try this one afterwards.
Take two separate litres of clear water and then prepare two pipettes of milk, one containing 0.03% of that amount (0.3ml), and one containing 0.04% (0.4ml). (Those really are remarkably small amounts).
Put each into one of the litres of clear water.
Now see if you can tell the difference.
I like this one:
Pour a measure of rum, then squeeze some lime in, and add some coke. Then drink..
Or did a greener planet result in more CO2?
CO2 comes out of warmer water
This piece keeps saying ‘in the over 50s’.
How much over 50? Forty years? Thirty years? Might it be that most of these unjabbed are 80-90-year old people who are so frail and ill that they haven’t been stabbed up?
And what about comorbidities in the group? Do we just assume that all of these deaths in the unjabbed ‘over 50s’ are in previously healthy people? I think not.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
“the Delta surge”
FFS – give up on this imaginary phenomenon, described in panic-friendly terms, which is actually just about the normal evolutionary change in a virus, with certain minor variations becoming the dominant form.
These analyses of observational data, lacking the background of proper controlled studies, are mickey-mouse assumptions.
Bottom line : the results before the testing program was totally blown : ARR ~1%. It was all there.
As said by, among others, Mike Yeadon….but completely ignored, shrugged off, sidelined, but I suspect known as fact, by SAGE…and especially by Whitty/Vallance/van Tamm/JVCI/MHRA.
What did Mike Yeadon say?
Mike Yeadon insisted that the vaccinations (as well as natural infection) would provide immunity against any variant. He tweeted a comment to this effect before he deleted his twitter account.
This suggested to me that Yeadon didn’t really understand how the Covid vaccines worked.
I believe he alluded to the natural development of viruses whereby they become more transmissible/ infectious but less morbidly affecting and less lethal as time passes? But I am sure he can speak for himself and correct me if I have not remembered me correctly, as well as to his understanding of a mRNA experimental gene therapy.
Yes I agree. He tentatively said that the rna “vaccines” could probably be called vaccines because they did elicit “an immune response”, but he made out like he was being generous. He certainly didn’t say they would give immunity.
What he did say was that IF they worked as claimed then they would have no issues with variants, inc those that were significantly more different to the original than the current bunch are. They’re like 99.7% identical (I think) and he said it would still recognise it if it was like 30% different. IF they work as claimed. Which they may well not do. Who knows? There’s so many mysteries even for those who are experts.
Yes he did say that and he was right. If the vaccine is failing for Delta, that’s because it’s failing for Covid, full stop. Latest news from Israel 14 new infections in TRIPLE jabbed…..how many are you going to need before you get the results you want?
ARR during the trial simply measured the risk in a given time (e.g. 3 months) during a period of low prevalence.
While there are a number of issues with the vaccines, it’s clear that they (AZ at least) still currently offer significant protection to the over 50s. How long that lasts may depend on variants – despite your dismissal of them.
“Significant protection”
Well, I am struggling and hope you can help me. I’m over 50, with an episode of auto immune issue in the now fairly distant past, currently in excellent health, no medication.
How do I go about obtaining reliable data that tells me what my risk from covid is over the next 6-12 months (I’ve chosen that timeframe because it seems like this is how long the vaccine effects are claimed to last) compared to the risks from a vaccine?
I will presumably need to repeat this calculation every 6-12 months when being offered boosters.
I won’t ask you factor in the unknown of long term ill effects from the vaccine because no-one knows that – so once one has reliable data on current risks one has to throw the dice for the long term effects.
‘it’s clear that they (AZ at least) still currently offer significant protection to the over 50s.’
Is it clear? Only if you take the government data at face value – and far too many details are omitted, for example, age cohorts and co-morbidities, previous infection and natural immunity, not to mention the unreliability of the PCR test and the 28-day criterion.
I’ve not even been able to find “official” data that tells me what I need to know to make an informed decision.
Delta is every case now. I think we’re a long way from using the term surge
Alex Belfield nails it this morning.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=058kWxv_nQI
Yes. He’s refreshingly forthright.
Aside the dangers of the vaccine (which are more important), the efficacy thing. If it doesn’t prevent making you sick, it is not a vaccine. Technically c19 “vaccines” may work like other vaccines (aside from new mRNA technology employed here), but for all intense and purposes they are not vaccines.
The point of the vaccine is to make you immune to the pathogen, not just to reduce chances of serious illness (hospital or ICU) and death if you get sick (the question is even if these c19 “vaccines” do that). There are other ways to reduce chances of serious illness and death like receiving convalesent plasma (fluids with antibodies from other people) in advance or living healthier and having a better immune system.
If you’re “vulnerable” but not on your death bed then you will have had the vaccine. you’re also far more likely to die than someone else your age. Without knowing the medical history of any of those deaths it’s pointless trying to do these comparisons. I think the best we can conclude at this stage is the vaccine which is not a vaccine is not very effective.
There is a fundamental problem with analysing data in multiple ways until you find a way that supports your position. There were almost always be some way of looking at the data that will support a given position simply by chance. It is vital to either support that position from several different angles or choose your criteria in advance and then see if the data match the criteria.
Indeed. It would be far better just to accept that the health costs of covid simply cannot ever justify the expense and harms of the npi and mass vaccination efforts being used, and halt them all immediately. Move to a conservative approach using normal diagnosis and therapy, and vaccination only of the very highest risk groups.
This has the benefit of avoiding the huge monetary costs, the poisonous social and political costs of totalitarian npi imposition, the significant but unknown and unknowable in the long term health costs of vaccine side effects, and perhaps most importantly the unknown but potentially disastrous risk of mass vaccination driving the evolution of far more virulent strains.
That last alone has the potential to render all those pushing the panic over-reaction to covid responsible for catastrophe on a scale never before seen in human history.
An honest application of the precautionary principle would simply have forbidden this mass vaccination campaign.
No sorry, not profitable enough.
Let’s just say it: the vaccine kills.
Don’t take it unless you’re high risk.
Why would you take it if you’re high risk?
I wish more of the gullibles would grasp that fundamental question.
If I were in my eighties, I would certainly be more interested in making an actual calculation rather than just dismissing it out of hand as I have done in reality, because I would face a risk from covid that is not de minimis, and most of the potential costs of taking the vaccine would be irrelevant.
A lot would come down to personal philosophy along with how much you are prepared to trust the regime, established experts and big pharma. Not much for me, but clearly all of us here are very much in the minority on that score at the moment (or at any rate were a few months back when most of the decisions were being made for the older groups).
If you’re 80 you have about 7 years for “long-term” vaxx problems to emerge.
If you’re under 30 you probably have about 70 years…
That’s 10 times more risk
Exactly. Plus reproductive harms aren’t a concern.
Allegedly the Hunzakuts (before they degraded through increased contact with the outside world) could have centenarians becoming fathers. I forget the age for mothers, but I think it was some way beyond 50.
That’s right, we will see a decrease in life expectancy through this century. I suspect part of the problem in Britain is that we are becoming an increasingly unhealthy population. Of course, that begs the question – why?
But do you actually trust the data that’s been put out there by the government regarding the risk of death with and from “covid” by age group, which is based on more than dodgy pcr test results and medical or care staff opinion (funny how nobody suspected flu despite the similarity of symptoms), and no post mortems, not to mention the lack of medical and social care the very elderly received, and the denial of visitors in care homes? I don’t believe those figures for a moment, and I don’t believe the elderly are at anywhere near the level of risk from “covid” that they’re made out to be. But I do believe that they are very much at risk of harm and death from government policies, mandates and guidelines (and the fear and confusion they have deliberately instilled in the masses). If I was over 80, I would still be saying no to the “vaccine”. I wish my elderly mother had listened to me when I suggested she wait and see how the whole situation panned out. Instead, she’s gone from being someone who could walk for miles at the time of vaccination to being breathless at rest and… Read more »
“But do you actually trust the data that’s been put out there by the government“
I don’t, no, though a lot of the information isn’t put out by the government per se. But as I noted, others will be more inclined to do so.
And I see no reason to doubt that risks increase dramatically with age, and the costs of vaccination decline.
“If I was over 80, I would still be saying no to the “vaccine”.”
In truth I probably would, as well. But I’d definitely give it some thought first. Whereas at my actual age, I concluded before there were any vaccines or quasi-vaccines available that you’d have to be literally irrational at my age or younger to take any supposed vaccine for a disease with such low risks, and nothing I’ve seen since has changed that conclusion.
“But I guess just another one of those MHRA coincidences I mentioned earlier in the comments section.“
#VeryRare
(Hope your mother recovers fully.)
Thank you. Unfortunately she won’t, she had some underlying health issues already, but her rate of decline since being vaccinated has been alarming. I’m also noticing that a sizeable proportion of (vaccinated) people at work are off sick at present, more than you’d expect in the summer months. But I guess just another coincidence 😉
I know this doesn’t help, but this is complicated by a number of factors:
With all this uncertainty it would be dangerous to draw conclusions. The sensible move would be, as suggested, for the authorities to investigate the deaths in a lot more detail.
.
It might be a sensible move, but we all know they won’t do it.
I read yesterday that the MHRA (I think) had declared that all the vaccine deaths that had been registered on the Yellow Card system were not caused by the vaccine. The person who reported that said that they knew it wasn’t possible to declare that as there hadn’t been enough time to fully investigate every death to make that determination. This may have been on TCW, but I read so much I can’t remember precisely where I read that.
Dr. Robert Malone also talked about a long conversation he’d had with a Canadian doctor, where the latter had been registering a lot of vaccine deaths and they’d all been taken off the Canadian adverse events database, without investigation.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9E2UkhCWosg
Dr. Robert Malone, Inventor of mRNA technology discusses the Spike Protein | Interview (54 mins)
The sensible conclusion would be to abandon the program.
There is a long history of the capture of government and other agencies being captured by big pharma.
This is brave analysis but I am always sceptical of small percentages being applied to large denominators on what is observational data rather than a randomized control group.
The big picture is that very little that has been implemented by governments has made much impact on real world mortality – be that lock downs, masks, social distancing and even vaccines, I believe.
I have also not seen an inter country comparison that makes any convincing case by looking at all the variables that (for example) country x has exited a spike with less mortality than country y because of any of this stuff. Including vaccines. If someone knows of such a study it would be interesting to review it,
However, there is now a cognitive process on the part of politicians almost everywhere and their advisers to try to stay consistent in a way that does not force them to confront the possibility that this has all been in vain. Instead, they will keep doubling down. Lockdowns work but we need more of them. Vaccines work but, ah, we now need boosters, and so forth. “One more heave”, to paraphrase the dithering, lazy and not competent UK… Read more »
“This is brave analysis”
No it’s not. It’s just wrong-headed and misses the fundamentals that undermine any conclusions in terms of proper testing.
Yep, this is where I am too.
“sunk costs fallacy” is the term for this.
“One caveat is that this doesn’t allow for any protection the vaccine might offer against infection, which may be higher in the under-50s”
Vaccines cannot stop infection, their purpose is to prevent the progression of the disease.
I think there is a common misconception that a vaccine is like a suit of armour that viruses will bounce off, whereas for a vaccine to work, as you say, the virus has to actually infect a vaccinated person.
Sterilising vaccines produce immune cells that bind to the virus and stop infection , and of course transmission. Polio injections started with ‘leaky’ vaccines like the SARS2 ones. It made matters worse, so they developed sterilising vaccines which are ingested in the gut. It stopped polio, and no, you don’t get infected with polio.
No-one has ever made a sterilising vaccine for a coronavirus or influenza. Its unlikely to be possible. The current ‘leaky’ vaccines probably will create ADE.
The only sensible solution is to use the various medicines available at little cost that reduce symptoms. Older people with impaired immune systems die all the time , often with a respiratory disease of some sort providing the final nail in the coffin. But if they are refused the use of cheap plentiful alleviating medicines they die quicker, ‘leaky’ vaccines are no panacea.
I read this morning – not sure if it was on here, a Twitter link or FB – that Pfizer are now looking at investing in antivirals and anti parasitic preparations. Prices will be astronomical, no doubt.
Africa has received 91 million COVID-19 vaccine doses so far. About 24 million people, just 1.7% of Africa’s population, are fully vaccinated. The continent needs up to 183 million more doses to fully vaccinate 10% of its population by the end of September and up to 729 million more doses to meet the end of year goal of fully vaccinating 30% of Africa’s population.
COVAX aims to deliver 520 million doses to Africa by the end of 2021. Almost 90 million of these doses have now been allocated to African countries and will be delivered by the end of September. The African Union also plans to deliver at least 16 million of the 400 million Johnson & Johnson doses it has sourced for African countries by the end of September.
What a time to have Pharma shares. !!
What a time to be a Pharma CEO…
What a time to be a government advisor/official with Pharma shares! Print your own money.
What a time to be an unsuspecting healthy African.
“ Up to August 2nd there were 13 deaths from 25,536 cases in the double vaccinated, giving a CFR of 0.05%, and 48 deaths from 147,612 cases in the unvaccinated, giving a CFR of 0.03%. Strikingly, the CFR in the vaccinated here is higher than in the unvaccinated. In fact, it is 57% higher, meaning the vaccine effectiveness is negative 57%,”
Come on, that’s an abuse of statistics. You haven’t correct for sample size effects and margin of error.
Let’s not go down that route as it calls into question the other statements made.
That may well be true, but these data are hardly a ringing endorsement of the efficacy of the “vaccines”.
As said previously : there is NO data that is sufficient to declare these concoctions ‘safe’. End of.
Would you care to explain to us how Pfizer arrived at their 95% protection figure?
If I remember from their test data it was something like in control group 0.6% tested positive (90/15000) and in vaccinated group it was 0.03% (5/15000) so vaccine was 95% more efficient than not having it.
At the time my first two thoughts were 1) These numbers are so small there must be massive margins for error. 2) If the number positive in control group was such a small number why do we even care anyway it’s hardly the world’s deadliest disease.
“Lies, damned lies, and statistics” – These are not ‘Vaccines’ – all else is Piffle and Distraction. FIGHT. BACK. BETTER. New website with useful information and links: https://www.LCAHub.org/
What are PHE’s definitions of vaccinated with one, and fully vaccinated in this study? What time periods do they use?
Fully vaccinated, not going to happen.
The SaGe document is well worth saving. They know that the vaccines have zero impact on infection and transmission. I suspect they also know it is worse than that and that, from the moment of the first jab, until two weeks after the second jab, infections and transmissions actually increase relative to the unvaccinated. I think this was what Spector uncovered a couple of weeks ago and he was censored.
I remember when vaccinations first started here in the UK, I heard a voice clip of an NHS whistleblower (think this was on UK Column?) confirming that they knew that there was a 2 week window post jab where the immune system was extremely vulnerable… this was at the very start. They knew about this from the very beginning.
2 week window in most, in some it hasn’t recovered…
I’m speaking about my friend who’s now constantly ill.
Politicians can’t seem to make their mind up. Appearing to be frantic about saving lives then blatantly telling us the vaccines are safe while the Pharma companies who produce them offer no such promise in fact will not accept liablity.
Follow the money.
The Moderna CEO had designed his vaccine by mid-January, before anyone else had really heard anything about the virus. I’m assuming the other pharma companies were in a similar position, i.e. designing their vaccines before there was a pandemic. Government policy was predicated on rolling out the vaccines to the population regardless of efficacy. Didn’t they have contracts signed before lockdown??
Absolutely follow the money, but also “follow the patents”; please see the following unless you have already done so:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/LiSf1T8e0eLJ/
The assumption that “other pharma companies were in a similar position, i.e. designing their vaccines before there was a pandemic” is perhaps better put as the pandemic was planned as a device for the preplanned “vaccines”.
Some highly disturbing information, not least the revelation about the Merck paper. I defy anyone who has not seen this, and then views the following, not to be shocked at what has happened:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/KLPvxnhqCc6s/
Hope it doesn’t spoil your weekend…
The people that rip into Will or the DE’s good and valuable work here are not doing our/their case a favour, even though they too state some good points. Both made good observations, correct calculations and drew valid conclusions. Perfect is the enemy of good.
What you say is correct, politically but there is the counter-argument that free and vigorous debate is the sine qua non of finding the truth.
I beg to differ. I don’t think constantly doubting the sincerity of the DS team is fair or accurate*, but I think it’s absolutely right to challenge whether they are going about this in the way that’s most likely to lead to victory.
For my liking, most of the articles we’ve seen recently are written far too much from within the fantasy world invented by the covidians, rather than pointing out the obvious that their world is fictional. As soon as you accept the parameters of their world, you are in danger of disappearing down rabbit holes.
*I don’t doubt that TY is sincere but found the QPR business pretty dispiriting. As I pointed out, if sceptics like TY are willing to consider getting jabbed so they can watch football, we’re lost for generations to come. The only way we’re going to win this war is to resist vaccine coercion and for the vaxxed to stand shoulder to shoulder with the unvaxxed in refusing to show a covid pass or get tested, unless they are in some compelling situation – and while I appreciate watching football is important to some, if that’s the (low) price of compliance then we’re done… Read more »
“I don’t think constantly doubting the sincerity of the DS team is fair or accurate*, but I think it’s absolutely right to challenge whether they are going about this in the way that’s most likely to lead to victory.”
Indeed.
Though in this case I was under the impression JayBee was talking more about the kinds of arguments raised on this thread about the details of calculations etc.
In that case there are two aspects that are important, imo.
First, it’s better to have a theory or analysis challenged here so we can assess the merits of the challenge and work out how to address them, or even drop that original argument, than to first encounter refutations that are difficult to deal with out in the wild, as it were.
Second, there should be no shame in putting out theories as Will does here, having them challenged and if necessary having to accept that they were insufficiently thought out or supported.
In the political and business world, getting something wrong is discrediting and costly, and arguably rightly so. In the scientific world, getting something wrong should be regarded as contributing to the progress towards understanding.
A lot of our problems… Read more »
It seems to me that one possible reason why the new vaccines are less effective than hoped is that they are based on memory cells being able to recognise one part or component of the virus, the spike protein. The reason that catching and recovering from the virus confers deeper immunity must be that our body’s memory cells are recognising other aspects of the virus’s physical/chemical composition. As I understand it, a virus particle is more than just the protein spike.
My question is, why aren’t we using tried and tested technology? Why not manufacture a vaccine using a deactivated or weakened version of the virus? Wouldn’t that confer greater and more long-lasting immunity? To date, as far as I know, only the Chinese vaccines come into this category. They’re commonly regarded as less effective than DNA/RNA vaccines but are they really?
Another question would be how Chinese scientists were able to create this kind of vaccine when we were not. Are they the only ones with access to sufficient quantities of the virus, courtesy of the lab in Wuhan?
My limited understanding, is that all previous attempts at coronavirus vaccines had been ineffective. So they’ve tried new technologies, which come with a higher “unknown” element and they also appear to be ineffective.
I think the rationale would be that with mRNA technology in particular (and to a lesser extent, DNA vaccines), the technique would allow quicker development and manufacturing than a traditional virus based or antigen based technique.
You can knock up a vaccine candidate fairly quickly with mRNA, while it takes a fair bit longer to identify, isolate and grow your antigen. The Chinese would have had a head start if they’d had the virus sample. And antigen based vaccines are in development with a range of manufacturers (all based on the S1 protein as far as I know). Some have failed as they have not elicited enough of an immune response (too few antibodies), and they generally seem to require adjuvants in order to get enough reaction, which could pose its own risks (cf the swine flu vaccine).
I don’t see that ADE can be ruled out with any approach, either. To be safe, you will always need long term data.
ALSO in the recovered, the virus first interacts with the immune system in the LUNG MUCUS, which is a different immune “pathway” from the jabs which seem to make the clotting spike protein around the whole body….
Google Dr David Martin/US patents relating to SARS; look at The Highwire especially the blogs relating to the “Fauci” emails, NIH funding of Eco Alliance and thence to WIV…amongst others, it is “all there”
Has anyone even isolated the virus?
Isn’t the Sputnik vaccine more traditional?
I think Sputnik is similar tech to AZ and JNJ.
one of the Chinese ones is allegedly whole virus though…so presumably the Chinese were able to isolate some (from the stuff they were brewing in Wuhan)