This is a guest post by Mike Hearn, a software engineer who between 2006-2014 worked at Google in roles involving data analysis.
The Daily Sceptic has for some time been reporting on the apparent negative vaccine effectiveness visible in raw U.K. health data. Despite some age ranges now showing that the vaccinated are more than twice as likely to get Covid as the unvaccinated, this is routinely adjusted out, leading UKHSA to un-intuitively claim that the vaccines are still highly effective even against symptomatic disease. A recent post by new contributor Amaneunsis explains the Test Negative Case Control approach (TNCC) used by authorities and researchers to adjust the data, and demonstrates that while a theoretically powerful way to remove some possible confounders, it rests on an initially reasonable-sounding assumption that vaccines don’t make your susceptibility to infection worse:
A situation where this assumption may be violated is the presence of viral interference, where vaccinated individuals may be more likely to be infected by alternative pathogens.
Chua et al, Epidemiology, 2020
Amanuensis then compares results between the two different statistical approaches in a Qatari study to explore whether violation of this assumption is a realistic possibility and concludes that the multi-variate logistic regression found in their appendix supports the idea that viral interference can start happening a few months after initial vaccination.
What other angles can we explore this idea through? One way is to read the literature on prior epidemics.
H1N1
Between 2009-2010 there was a pandemic of H1N1 influenza, better known as Swine Flu. In April 2009 a small outbreak was detected in northern British Columbia. Researchers from Canada’s public health agencies researched the outbreak by doing interviews, testing and sero-surveys of the affected population. They were especially interested in the question of how effectively the routine trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) was protecting people against H1N1.
The effect they saw was unexpected and previously unknown: people who had taken the flu vaccine had a more than doubled chance of getting sick with flu during the H1N1 outbreak:
We present the first observation of an unexpected association between prior seasonal influenza vaccination and pH1N1 illness … participants reporting pH1N1-related ILI during the period 1 April through 5 June 2009 were more than twice as likely to report having previously received seasonal influenza vaccine.
Janjua et al, Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2010
This result was shocking to the researchers. They were well aware of the impact these results could have on public support for the influenza vaccine programme and thus they didn’t merely double check their results, or request another team replicate their findings. They waited a year and a half, until six different investigations were all saying the same thing:
Canadian investigators thus embarked on a series of confirmatory studies… these showed 1.4–2.5- fold increased risk of medically attended, laboratory-confirmed pH1N1 illness among prior 2008–2009 TIV recipients… 6 observational studies based on different methods and settings, including the current outbreak investigation, consistently showed increased risk of pH1N1 illness during the spring and summer of 2009 associated with prior receipt of the 2008–2009 TIV
After the sixth study they seem to have accepted that the effect they were seeing was real.
One reason for their hesitation was that studies reported in other countries were inconclusive. Some suggested protective effects; nearly as many suggested no effect at all, and one other report showed increased risk. However, there was a very real risk of the so-called ‘file drawer’ problem, where inconvenient research simply doesn’t get published at all, and the Canadians had by this point made an enormous effort to make the conclusions go away via further research. The follow-up investigations left them with a high degree of confidence in what they were seeing, thus they explained contradictory foreign studies as being likely a result of either Canada-specific factors or flawed studies:
Findings of pH1N1 risk associated with TIV – consistent in Canada but conflicting elsewhere – may have been due to methodological differences and/or unrecognised flaws, differences in immunisation programs or population immunity, or a specific mechanistic effect of Canadian TIV. High rates of immunisation and the use of a single domestic manufacturer to supply >75% of the TIV in Canada may have enhanced the power within Canada to detect a vaccine-specific effect.
Quality analysis
How robust is this research? This is an epidemiological study and by now it’s worth being extremely sceptical of such papers, even if they run counter-narrative. Surprisingly, this paper seems quite good. It’s not written by epidemiologists and bears little resemblence to the sort of modelling papers that now dominate policy making. In particular, it:
- Makes no predictions, only studies past events to learn from them.
- Puts actual boots on the ground to gather the data they need.
- Correlates self-reported symptoms with a sero-survey.
- Makes restrained use of statistical methods (the primary results are a standard logistic regression).
- Controls for age, chronic conditions, Aboriginal status and household density, a selection which looks reasonable (the epidemic affected an Aboriginal reserve and they differ from the normal Canadian population health wise in several aspects).
- Stratifies by age. Note that Swine Flu was the opposite of COVID: it affected the young worse than the elderly.
- Honestly discusses the weaknesses of their study, which are primarily due to the small size of the epidemic rather than anything they could have addressed.
If there are errors in this work they are of a type that aren’t easily spotted by outsiders. Although we should give a tip of the hat to this team, after reading so many absurd public health papers over the past two years it’s nonetheless hard to escape the feeling that when researchers are about to violate some tenet of vaccine dogma they suddenly become model scientists, presumably in the hope that by applying higher standards they’ll find a reason why their results are wrong.
Other investigations
In 2018 Rikin et al published a study in the journal Vaccine designed to solve “the misperception that inactivated vaccine can cause influenza” which was acting as “a barrier to influenza vaccination“. They concluded that the folk intuition they were fighting wasn’t actually wrong in any meaningful way, due to the presence of viral interference:
Among children there was an increase in the hazard of [acute respiratory illness] caused by non-influenza respiratory pathogens post-influenza vaccination compared to unvaccinated children during the same period. Potential mechanisms for this association warrant further investigation. Future research could investigate whether medical decision-making surrounding influenza vaccination may be improved by acknowledging patient experiences, counseling regarding different types of ARI, and correcting the misperception that all ARI occurring after vaccination are caused by influenza.
Rikin et al, Vaccine, 2018
Although the paper claims that the mechanisms warrant further investigation, in reality at least one mechanism had been hypothesised as far back as 1960. In a seminal paper Thomas Francis Jr. coined the term “original antigen sin” to describe the way the immune system appears to prefer re-manufacturing antibodies for antigens similar to those it’s seen before, versus developing new antibodies customised for a slightly different invader. The odd name may be due to Francis Jr. having a Presbyterian priest as a father, thus OAS is sometimes summarised as “the first flu is forever”. This imprinting process can cause the immune system to misfire when challenged with a similar but different virus.
Some evidence for this comes from a 2017 review paper in the Journal of Infectious Diseases titled “The Doctrine of Original Antigenic Sin”, which stated:
Approximately 40 years ago, it was observed that sequential influenza vaccination might lead to reduced vaccine effectiveness (VE). This conclusion was largely dismissed after an experimental study involving sequential administration of then-standard influenza vaccines. Recent observations have provided convincing evidence that reduced VE after sequential influenza vaccination is a real phenomenon.
Monto et al, Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2017
Amusingly, the paper also states that, “Hoskins et al concluded at that time that prior infection is more effective than vaccination in preventing subsequent infection, an observation that remains undisputed.” How times change.
Speculating for a moment, viral interference might explain why despite influenza vaccines being advertised as having positive efficacy multiple studies have failed to find any impact on mortality at the population level (effectiveness). For example, in 2004 a U.S. government study concluded that they “could not correlate increasing vaccination coverage after 1980 with declining mortality rates in any age group” and “observational studies substantially overestimate vaccination benefit”. This is difficult to reconcile with trials and studies showing efficacy at sizes smaller than overall population, but could be explained if vaccines merely redirect immune resources towards one pathogen away from equally dangerous variants. The same phenomenon was found in Italy.
There are also counter-studies. By 2018 awareness was growing of the problem of viral interference and the impact it can have on TNCC effectiveness metrics. In 2020 Wolff published a study of flu outbreaks in the U.S. military. It opens by confirming the problem highlighted by Amanuensis:
The virus interference phenomenon goes against the basic assumption of the test-negative vaccine effectiveness study that vaccination does not change the risk of infection with other respiratory illness, thus potentially biasing vaccine effectiveness results in the positive direction.
Wolff, Vaccine, 2020
This time “receipt of influenza vaccination was not associated with virus interference among our population”. However the results of this study are rather contradictory and confusing, e.g. it also says “Examining non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of both coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals (OR = 1.36 and 1.51, respectively)”. Overall, Wolff seems to have found a mixed bag of effects in which the vaccines worked against influenza, but made some other viruses easier to catch and still others harder.
Analysis
Despite the institutional pedigree of the Canadian public health researchers reporting the problem, other researchers have struggled to accept it. They are subject to the same systematic social conditioning as everyone else, which is why the HSA’s explanation of why they use the TNCC methodology starts by simply saying “vaccines work”, even though their raw data actually shows the exact opposite – for the original definition of “work”, at least.
As a consequence researchers sometimes hide this problem when it arises by deleting negative effectiveness from data sets or models. Recently UCL modellers responded to the changing UK data by simply imposing a zero lower bound. No justification was given for this, and as the above papers show, presumably no literature survey was done to sanity-check this “fix”. The Qatari study initially also did this, and thus their key results (see table 2) vary wildly between initial and final versions. Fortunately, they realised that this was not scientific and changed their approach before publication.
The problem seems to go like this: everyone knows vaccines work, thus data showing they don’t must be in error and in need of fixing. Different adjustments are tried for confounders (sometimes real, sometimes hypothetical) until the data comes good, at which point the results are published and the idea that vaccines work is reinforced, leading to a greater propensity to view opposing data as flawed and in need of correction… ad infinitum.
The raw data now departs so seriously from the conclusions drawn from it that it would require a staggeringly huge behavioural change between the two camps to explain, one which stretches credulity past breaking point. The argument that the data requires adjustment/replacement due to speculated behavioural differences has another problem: that’s a sword that cuts in both directions. UKHSA is keen to stress that its raw data shows some effectiveness against hospitalisation. But that data is hopelessly confounded at this point by the fact that vaccine recipients are being told, in no uncertain terms, that while they might well get sick with Covid after taking it, the vaccine means their case won’t be “severe” and they definitely won’t need to go to hospital. “Severe” is a vague standard. Because Covid has a wide range of severities there will be many borderline cases where going to hospital is effectively a choice that could go either way.
Opinion polling shows consistently that governments and media have catastrophically failed to educate the population about Covid correctly: people routinely estimate that the unvaccinated infection:fatality ratio is orders of magnitude higher than it really is. In a recent French survey the population estimated the IFR at an astounding 16% (the true level is closer to 0.1%-0.3%) and their understanding of severity has got worse over time. If you previously believed that you had a 16% chance of dying if you got Covid, you were very likely to rush to hospital immediately on presentation of more or less any Covid-like symptoms. If you now believe that the vaccine reduces this risk to negligible levels then you’re very unlikely to bother unless you become quite seriously sick indeed, because to do so would effectively be a repudiation of the advice of government, scientific and medical authority. And if there’s one behavioural difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated that is more plausible than any other, it’s that the vaccinated are self-selecting for strong faith in scientific claims by authority figures. I’ve not yet seen any recognition by public health that this confounder exists – they are literally telling people what to do, and then declaring victory when people do it. If hospitalisation was 100% a force of nature that involved no element free will this wouldn’t matter, but the 50% drop in A&E admissions at the start of lockdown showed quite clearly that it’s not.
Conclusions
Negative effectiveness is important because if a vaccine halves your risk of getting one virus but doubles your risk of getting a closely related virus, you can end up back at square one. In fact, you’d end up in a worse position than when you started because vaccination programmes aren’t free: they consume enormous resources, both financially and in terms of public health staffing, and cause collateral damage via vaccine injuries (hence why vaccine manufacturers refuse to accept liability for harm caused by their products). It’s therefore of critical importance to understand the gestalt effect of vaccination on the immune system, and not merely on the specific variant of a virus that was originally targeted.
The fact that papers published as recently as 2018 are talking about negative vaccine effectiveness as a new, not really understood effect should give governments serious pause for thought. Most people in public health are clearly unfamiliar with this phenomenon – as indeed we all are – and are thus tempted to either ignore it, delete it from their data, or try to convince the public that it must be a statistical artefact and anyone talking about it is guilty of spreading “misinformation”. The reports in these papers provide recent evidence that vaccines making epidemics worse is in fact a real phenomenon and that it has been previously detected by serious researchers who took every effort to avoid that conclusion.
Nonetheless, despite my harsh words about IFR education above, we must acknowledge that the UKHSA is so far standing by the basic moral and foundational principles of public statistics. Their answer to the confounders and denominators debate is clearly written, straightforward, reasonable and ends by saying:
We believe that transparency – coupled with explanation – remains the best way to deal with misinformation.
That’s absolutely true. The deep exploration of obscure but important topics by independent parties is possible in the U.K. largely because the HSA is not only publishing statistics in both raw and processed forms, but has continued to do so even in the face of pressure tactics from organisations like Full Fact and the so-called Office for Statistical Regulation (whose contribution to these matters has so far been quite worthless). England is one of the very few countries in the world in which this level of conversation is possible, as most public health agencies have long ago decided not to trust the population with raw data in useful form. While the outcomes may or may not be “increasing vaccine confidence in this country and worldwide”, as the HSA goes on to say, there are actually things more important than vaccines that people need confidence in – like government and society itself. Trustworthy and rigorously debated government statistics are a fundamental pillar on which democratic legitimacy and thus social stability rests. Other parts of the world should learn from the British government’s example.
Many questions now lie open:
- To what extent does negative effectiveness require viruses to be different? For example, is the difference between H1N1 and the flu strains targeted by the Canadian TIV bigger, smaller or the same as the gap between COVID Alpha and COVID Delta, as perceived by the immune system?
- Although highly suggestive, is this genuinely happening with COVID vaccines, or is raw negative effectiveness due to something else, e.g. a temporal artefact caused by splitting waves into two overlapping waves as effectiveness wears off, or indeed, due to lack of adjustments for factors that TNCC fixes even though it may introduce other problems?
- Should this cause health authorities to abandon TNCC as a methodology, despite its speed and cost advantages?
The fact that TNCC can artificially make vaccines appear more effective than they really are, and that this would actually have happened during the Swine Flu pandemic, should really be addressed at the highest levels before anyone uses terms like “misinformation” again.
Thanks to Amanuensis and Will Jones for their review.
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.
Either many thousands of highly qualified doctors and scientists around the world have gone mad and decided to destroy their reputations OR THEY’RE SOUNDING THE ALARM BELLS and being ignored by the ignorant and the guilty…
The inventor of mNRA technology Dr. Robert Malone: Pfizer CEO Knows Vaccine Probably Killed Tens to Hundreds of Thousands Worldwide
https://rumble.com/vp88cg-dr.-robert-malone-pfizer-ceo-knows-vaccine-probably-killed-tens-to-hundreds.html?mref=i2svv&mrefc=5
Was arguing with someone recently who referred to Malone as a “gritter”. A term I’d only every heard being used in American opinion pieces. These people are so see through in their attempts to slur, picking up their orders from the media, passing it off as “look, I’ve done my research” (Google search).
A doctor speaking out loses their licence here, why would you risk that if it wasn’t worth it? Those calling them grifters have no skin in the game.
Another great interview with Malone, he really makes it clear how criminal it all is. A true must watch, prob been posted before but this needs sharing far and wide, Malone can wake up sleeping people, due to his untouchable status in this argument
Dr. Malone: “This is the Largest Experiment Performed on Human Beings in the History of the World.”
https://www.bitchute.com/video/USjnrt3dcmA6/
So, let’s see if I understand. If you give a disease to a person with the intent of preventing them getting that disease, sometimes they actually get the disease.
No, they may become more susceptible to a different viral infection, which, when you vaccinate against a potentially deadly virus, is most likely to be less worrisome than the original. Which of course means that not taking the vaccine is still a stupid choice. But if you want to rationalize your poor decisions, you are of course welcome to keep grasping at straws against the totality of available evidence.
Utter bollocks.
“Available evidence” – is that that the gene editing therapies provide protection from infection? I thought that the manufacturers and even the UK government – on .gov.uk – state that does not happen? Stop transmission? – I think that is a similar lost cause. Prevent the more severe symptoms – I think it is accepted that this may be the case – but would you wish to gamble on further boosters of the same preparation that targets the S1 spike protein of a variant no longer extant in the UK, does nothing to address the S1 spike protein of the – much reduced in pathogenicity by all accounts – Delta variant but have adverse effects that might be more mordid and/or lethal than the mutated variant, and has been minimally ( and some scientists state “barely that”) tested, with unknown long term effects..when you could have access to multiple early treatment regimes, if only HMG/MHRA/UKHSA/SAGE allowed that to happen, which are demonstrably far safer, with statistically unmeasurable known deaths? ( Take a look at VAERS and the UK Yellow Card data for a comparison..)
I was going to put “bollox”, but was too slow; “rationalise your poor decisions” – cannot help thinking that is a key phrase…
Kinda roughly. The immune system gets fixated on the exact virus it’s received in the jab. When a variant of the virus comes along, the immune system attacks it as though it is the first virus – which means it is less effective in fighting it off, or completely ineffective.
A bit like someone replying to what they think you’ve said, because it’s something someone has said to them before, rather than what you actually said.
Didn’t they find this in Northern Italy last year? Those who had received the latest edition of the flu vaccine had the worst outcomes from Covid?
That might be the case. If you have a link to the relevant study it would be interesting to read it.
https://peerj.com/articles/10112/
If I’m reading it correctly concludes a positive association between covid deaths and influenza vax rates amongst over 65’s worldwide.
-Which is the opposite of an earlier and smaller scale study in Italy!
But, does the flu vax work in the sense that it just keeps you alive so covid gets you instead – or does it adversely affect the immune system?
I’d say the latter – but then again I’m an anti vaxer.
Some of influenza vaccines have already mooted as one of the possible causes of the rush of “care” home deaths in early 2020. Of course, hospital evictions, no treatment, mistreatment, Midazolam, neglect and loneliness also played their part in the “care” home cull. You can’t have a fearsome pandemic without lots of deaths and those in “care” homes were easy targets.
Was it an old Dutch saying which in English was to the effect: trust arrives on foot, but leaves on horseback?
I’d now be seriously asking myself if delivery of the supposed ‘flu jab were becoming betimes, the pseudo-vaxx jab.
John O’Looney has now been interviewed by UK Column – as usual I think it’s reasonable to say, discernment to be exercised:
https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/independent-undertaker-john-olooney-exposes-the-covid-19-pandemic
And another:
https://rumble.com/vov60h-dr.-david-martin-follow-the-patents-then-you-will-understand-covid.html
Dr. David Martin – Follow the Patents, Then You Will Understand Covid
Five people, i.e. Dr Mike Yeadon, Dr David Martin, Dr Chetty (S.Africa, 8th. day protocol), John O’Looney and Dr Vladimir Zelenko now seem to be pushing the darkest theories of all. I can’t send such videos to people who are still ‘Covid believers’ but capable of being ‘de-programmed’ or it’ll just ‘frighten the horses’.
‘Accidental lab. escape’ is still far-fetched to many people.
Can you post the link/s please? I assume this is the allegation that 5% of vaxx lots from all manufacturers have supposedly been linked with excess deaths after administration? If so another name heard in that regard is Karl Denninger / market ticker – I have not had time to investigate so am not in a position to conjecture or substantiate.
It’s indisputable there was a massive increase in deaths in America and around the world beginning in November 2020 and reaching its peak in mid-January 2021. I’ve always thought “what changed” between August, September and October’s numbers? Answer: Huge numbers of people – especially the elderly – had received their flu vaccines.
Has this correlation really been studied? I doubt it. If it was and was proven to also involve “causation,” this would be admission that the flu vaccines actually (or possibly) KILLED tens of thousands of people. This would discredit not only the public health officials giving us our COVID mandates, but also the decades-long effort to get everyone vaccinated for their flu shot.
In short, I would be stunned if any serious investigation into this hypothesis was ever fairly conducted. But it needs to be. Also, right now we are heading back into the winter season when millions of people also got their flu vaccines. So let’s see what happens this winter.
We got jabbed because of a – then – lack of discernment and I am not afraid to say induced fear (I am a long term PTSD sufferer with all its attendant issues, sometimes not kept in the “box” very well) – I am also very severely allergic to one organic substance that I can be exposed to in any number of settings.
Scepticism returned, in very large measure never to go away again, in early Spring 2020 after a long sabbatical; reading multiple reports of ADE/Cytokine/Immune over priming and also that post jab exposure to other endemic viruses might not go well, as well as the references to the deaths in the US you mention and elsewhere, here eg, I have decided not to have the flu jab UFN. Had a massively bad and darn near run thing with ‘flu – the real McCoy – a couple of years ago but dare not poke the bear with a triple or quadruple flu jab.
Like you , I await events this winter, more in trepidation; essential vitamins and minerals being taken at high dose levels and I am thinking of buying Ivermectin…..Booster….my arse.
Here is some research into this ie flu jab death correlation:
The Bait & Switch of Vaccine Deaths With COVID-19 Mortalities
https://www.thebernician.net/the-bait-switch-of-vaccine-deaths-with-covid-19-mortalities/
Criminal Correlation Between Vaxxtermination Roll-Out & ‘COVID Deaths’
https://www.thebernician.net/criminal-correlation-between-vaxxtermination-roll-out-covid-deaths/
Excellent article.
“observational studies substantially overestimate vaccination benefit”.
Apart from the financial benefit to Big Pharma and the revolving door politicians who promote them to the general public via lies, dodgy statistics and propaganda.
A dry American air accident report, once described an aircraft’s nose dive into the ground (killing everyone) as, “A severe height excursion.”
The most important thing always you have to remember is that anyone who criticises the agenda is a bad person https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3099/rr-5
Witness the treatment of NFL quarterback Aaron Rodgers. He correctly predicted he would be in the “cross hairs of a woke mob” for making contrarian comments about COVID vaccines. The woke mob quickly set an example of him.
And this is just a short-term adverse effect. The research starting to surface regarding the intermediate to long-term impact is most unsettling, to say the least. Those responsible for mandating these injections must be tried for crimes against humanity.
An excellent analysis, and a relief after a train of “The Daily Mail Has the Story …” non-stories.
It cannot be repeated too often that a look at the history of the H1N1 saga is well worthwhile. You can see the embryonic outline of so much that has emerged in the SARS-CoV-2 debacle.
… and, yes, this shouldn’t be forgotten :
“there are actually things more important than vaccines that people need confidence in – like government and society itself.”
When this whole pandemic started it gave me immediately flashbacks of the H1N1 story. I never took that one and I will never take this one neither.
I like the ‘The daily Mail has the story…’ stories – I just read the DS selected clip then the mail article ‘best rated’ comments section, its like a pick me up.
If public officials have knowingly lied – or concealed important truths – in the past wouldn’t they do the same in the future? Do they have enough integrity to promote studies or findings that repudiate all their previous claims and mandates? I don’t think so.
If someone exposes lies on important topics, he or she is really telling us these people that have so much power should not be trusted about anything.
This is the key point imo.
Yes, but fashions come, and fashions go. Not limited to the current topic, but all sorts of issues across the purview of the Department for Environment,Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is a good place to start. I’ve even got an older 1930’s encylopedia (aimed at kiddies) that contains an article explaining how good asbestos is, for all sorts of reasons, e.g.
Interesting piece – to my mind, this is the only explanation for the UK’s high Covid cases in Summer and fits the data. I suspect this is particularly relevant to the AZ vaccine when Europe observed a hiatus. My anecdotal observation is everyone who has caught C19 recently has been AZ jabbed. ADE has been observed in the development of SARS vaccines https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-00789-5
Weren’t all of the variants which appeared earlier this year found primarily in the locations where AZ did it’s initial trials: Kent (UK), India, Brazil, South Africa? (Before they were renamed using Greek letters)
Many people with concerns about the COVID ‘vaccines’ have been careful to express these in a way that will avoid them being labelled as anti-vaxxers, as that seems to be widely regarded as the most heinous of sins imaginable.
Perhaps it’s time for some reimagining to take place.
Covering up unwanted side effects and medicinal products that cause more harm than good is also not a new phenomenon.
The technical points are great and require further study to determine whether we are seeing things such as ADE, viral interference or a vaccine that may well be causing the same or worse harm than the virus itself in precisely that group of people it was meant to protect.
But the simple fact that cannot be covered up is that the vaccine roll-out itself has failed. If the vaxx did what was claimed, all the highly vaxxed countries would not be looking at the numbers of infections, hospitalisations and deaths they are looking at. There would not be a need to keep upping the % required to reach herd immunity, and if nothing else, a high % of immunity should result in lower numbers of infections and deaths, even if it is not high enough to curtail new waves as such. Nor would there be a need for a booster, only months after crowing how succesful the first 2 doses were – with zero studies into what a booster with a different experiemental vaxx will mean or even a 3rd shot of the same expiremental vaxx.
It is beyond apparent that the vaxx drive has not produced and will not produce the desired results and the key goal now is for those who recklessly embarked upon this global experiment to extract themselves from this situation as quickly and as unnoticed as possible. Proper scientific procedure was ignored to start with and it is now imperative for those who sanctioned that to ignore it even further at this point.
Own goal to the pro vaxxers here in Lockdownunder.
A 65-year-old elder of the Aboriginal Australian Wakkawakka ethnic tribe in the state of Queensland, died after receiving a second mRNA shot. The tribal elder, Bevan Costello had been persuaded by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) to promote the jab in his community – by taking it himself.
https://freewestmedia.com/2021/11/14/australian-vaccine-promotion-ends-with-death-of-tribal-elder/
The ABC, those well-known immunology experts.
Nearly what happened to That California Governor.
‘Nearly’ in this case meaning ‘Missed it by that much!’
It’s called interference with the body’s natural immune response.
Wow. What a brilliant thought provoking article.
This and Amanuensis’s article have been really quality analyses. And all adds to the excellence and perseverance of Will Jones, who has been doing great things keeping open minded discussion rolling in relation to the positive case rate data from the vaccine surveillance reports.
It’s a good point that UKHSA deserves some credit for continuing to produce the raw data on positive test rates. Raw data is so important.
Don’t the UKHSA have to keep supplying the raw data because it would now be subject to FOI request?
Good point. Hadn’t thought of that. But I guess it would be an issue if they stopped publishing the data but still collected it.
Good article. But its not really news. Some of the people now ‘cancelled’ at the start of this shit show were saying exactly this. We have got to the present position either because certain evil people have made sure they are the only voices heard ( Fauci) or a broad spectrum of people knew about these risks and decided to proceed anyway. Either way the intelligence, and the ethical, moral behaviour of governments has been and still is indefensible.
The pressure to ‘boost’ injections, lock-up unvaxed is not diminishing.
People taking the time to read these articles on this site and a few others are in a very small minority. The vast majority don’t even want to try and in many cases are incapable of considering the implications.
The only reason we are where we are is because, for some reason I cannot understand, most people do not question anything. The media are partly to blame by presenting Covid (and most other topics) in sensationalist over simplistic terms. If you have swallowed the media narrative (and government) over the last 18 months or so, as most people sadly have, then your basic understanding of the situation would be as follows:- Covid 19 is the most lethal disease known to man with a 100% fatality rate, vaccines and in particular the Covid ‘vaccine’ are the elixir of life giving you 100% protection against the deadly Covid and have absolutely no ill effects, anyone who refuses a Covid jab is a simple minded selfish moron spreading disease and death to every single person they come into contact with.
Dr Zelenko shows the FDA slide predicting the side effects of the jab before the rollout, which has a 100pc correlation with the now known side effects of the jab. This is clearly all planned.
The Worst Crime In The History Of Humanity DR. VLADIMIR ZELENKO
https://www.bitchute.com/video/nPfz3PaGlDXL/
A very good article. A lot of thought gone into it, and plenty of implications too.
I posted some ideas on just this subject on a blog belonging to a guy in California, way back in June. It’s probably a bit far-fetched, but I was outlining my ideas of how a malign actor could make use of the unprecedentedly wide roll-out of these drugs in the future:
Paul, Somerset
says:
8 June 2021 at 12:31 am
It’s the next leak of an enhanced coronavirus which concerns me, owing to the Hoskins effect of repeated vaccinations. This is related to the phenomenon of Original Antigenic Sin, which states that a person’s first exposure to a class of virus determines their subsequent reaction to similar viruses.
It means that if you later encounter a virus which hasn’t drifted too much from the original one, you’ll be equipped to combat it. This is probably why most people are barely troubled by the Sars-2 virus – it’s similar enough to one or more of the four other circulating human coronaviruses that as long as your general health and immune system are functioning, you can deal with it, because you’re already primed.
But, if the later virus you encounter has drifted sufficiently from the one which first infected you, then not only will your immune response fail, your body also fails to adapt to combat the new variant, and that’s when you’re in real trouble.
Now, this phenomenon has been observed with flu vaccinations. Flu vaccines sufficiently similar to the 1918 Spanish flu, for instance, have been found to boost the immune response of survivors of that epidemic. But – and this is the Hoskins effect – repeated flu vaccinations against similar types of flu virus can result in a poorer than normal immune response against a flu virus noticeably different from the one against which you’ve had repeated inoculations. This was especially noticeable in 2009.
This article explains how this phenomenon has been investigated, and is still apparently rather mysterious:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5853211/
Coming back to the current Covid19 vaccines, and their boosters, this paper, from a team at the Mount Sinai Medical Center, were looking at the separate phenomenon of Antibody Dependent Enhancement:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.07.21253098v2
Worryingly they found that the ratio of binding (nonneutralizing) antibodies to neutralizing antibodies increased as the overall antibody titer fell in the weeks past injection with the Covid19 vaccine. So, ADE is still something which is definitely on.
But they also found something which I found disturbing – that there was, in their words, “an original antigenic-sin like backboost to seasonal human coronaviruses OC43 and HKU1.” In other words, the vaccines boosted the immune response to those old coronaviruses in people who’d previously encountered them. Which, on the face of it, is a nice bonus of the vaccines. But, as Hoskins found, these things work both ways. Repeated booster vaccinations against the current Sars-2 virus will leave you in possibly mortal danger if or when the next enhanced coronavirus leaks from a lab. Could it be that your body will recognize a spike protein on a new virus as similar enough to the one you’ve been receiving these repeated vaccinations for to attack it, but fail to neutralize it if it’s been engineered to be sufficiently different? And, at the same time, would it suppress your body from manufacturing the correct, effective antibodies?
To go full tin-foil-hat on this, this would make the vaccines themselves the weapon, and any one of the other lab-enhanced coronaviruses the trigger.
I’d really, really like somebody on here to point out where I’ve misunderstood all this and got it all wrong. Thanks.
Well either those pushing mandatory boosters are as thick as sh*t , or your tin-foil hat may not be misplaced.
This whole discussion about self selecting behaviour re vaccination is surely a joke?
Does your ‘behaviour’ affect whether or not you get vaccinated?
And do the vaccinated behave differently to the unvaccinated?
You could tell who was going to get vaccinated and indeed who was later vaccinated by just looking into their terrified eyes peering out from over their masks.
I mean it has the potential to replace the behavioural question about what bears do in the woods.
So after having self selecting, and coerced, behavioural modifications rammed down our throats and up our noses for two years.
Are we going to deselect “behaviour” as having a potential outcome of a PCR test which is a stand alone joke on its own.
I would never use a [“chemical”] analytical method that was not validated.
And all my published [novel] analytical methods had some form of LOD and LOQ ‘assessment’ otherwise they would never have passed peer review.
That president of Tanzania, who had a real Phd [in chemistry] unlike the ‘inventor’ of the covid PCR test did exactly what should have been done when he sent samples from goats and fruit for analysis.
Oh yes – swine flu.
They say that history doesn’t repeat itself but it does rhyme.
I wonder if Jon Snow remembers this report and if so whether he notices any similarities with recent events?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Wvo57rItOUP3/
This paper is also relevant here. It found that prior influenza vaccination was associated with increased likelihood of infection with coronavirus (this was prior to SARS-COV-2 though).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31607599/
Yep. That’s the Wolff paper which is mentioned in the article.
Ah yes. Thanks.
When I read that paper a while back I thought the first line of the conclusion was a little contradictory with the rest of the contents, which fits with what you wrote above. Almost like they’d written the conclusion in advance.
The table below uses data from P19 (table 4) & P20 (table 5) from week 45 HSA Covid-19 vaccine surveillance report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1032859/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_45.pdf
It shows there is no difference in the percentage of deaths between vaxxed & unvaxxed once they get to hospital. It may not surprise you but it would surprise most people!
https://dailysceptic.org/2021/11/14/norway-study-finds-zero-vaccine-effectiveness-against-death-for-covid-hospital-patients/
This is exactly the same as for Norway.
NickR
No criticism at all, because I agree that there should be a % here that is relevant, but the problem is that the Deaths figures do not necessarily relate to the Hospital Admissions in the same period (i.e. I think it very likely that a significant number of those dying will have been in hospital since before the relevant reporting period).
Mind you, their numbers may also be misleading because they are counting all Covid deaths regardless of where the infection took hold. Nosocomial infections, anyone?
I agree, those counted as hospitalised are not necessarily the same people who subsequently died
I agree, those counted as hospitalised are not necessarily the same people who subsequently died, however, from early/mid Aug hospital numbers, deaths & cases were pretty constant so I think it’s reaonable to compare the deaths to the hospital figures we have.
the bad cat did a brilliant analysis of this on substack
Interesting, informative, article. Thank you.
Viral interference is real, as is negative VE. But I am not sure the Qatar data relate to the former. (BTW, the problem of viral interference in test-negative design may be handled by choice of controls to be negative for other viruses: pan-negative controls. See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28818471/ ).
In the thread, I compare the two methods of controlling confounding in Qatar data (Table 2 vs. Table S11). I don’t think that multivariable logistic regression (Table S11) is addressing viral interference. But I do think its results might be preferred for a technical reason. There is much confusion about matched vs. unmatched case-control studies. https://twitter.com/prof_shahar/status/1459701068334387200
Mike
I think you are confusing negative effectiveness with viral interference (I don’t mean you personally are confused – but the article does not clearly distinguish the two). Viral interference is where the vaccine makes you more vulnerable to an alternative pathogen (with similar symptoms). This would indeed invalidate the TNCC method. However, there is no evidence that I am aware of that any of the current Covid vaccines create viral interference. Negative effectiveness is where the vaccine makes you more vulnerable to the pathogen it is meant to be protecting you from. This can be detected using TNCC – you just get an odds ratio greater than one.
Yes, I wondered if anyone would query this as I was writing it. I tried to keep it clear which one I was talking about at each point but feel the same dissatisfaction as you with the results.
I think there are several aspects to this which I’ve numbered for clarity of followup discussion:
The goal of this article was primarily to add colour to Amanuensis’ claims about the TNCC methodology by showing that this isn’t a theoretical concern but rather that viral interference is a real, recognized phenomenon. The closely related question of whether viral interference is happening right now is one I’d love to see a better article than mine address.
You continue to be the best of the regulars on this site (I don’t count ammanuensis as a regular).
What would such proof actually look like? I continue to be extremely skeptical about the supposedly total global disappearance of the flu. We’re constantly told there’s no way a PCR test could possibly confuse these things but the alternative proposed explanations for why flu vanished are all really quite weak and there’s clearly no consensus here – just throwing ideas at the wall in the hope one sticks. It’s thus not at all obvious to me that testing would actually detect alternative pathogens if they were circulating and biasing the results.
I think we can dismiss flu as an alternative pathogen. They are completely different PCR tests and there was regular testing for flu throughout the epidemic (presumably requested by doctors) and they returned extraordinarily low results – quite often zero – see for example: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/960421/Weekly_Flu_and_COVID-19_report_w6.pdf
I would think that proof might consist in measuring vaccine efficacy against overall hospitalisation i.e. not just hospitalisation with Covid. I don’t think that has been done.
what does alternative pathogen mean, precisely?
In the context of Covid I guess it is anything that makes you sick but tests negative.
I want to draw your attention to a broader point which I also made in my comment on ammanuensis article. If you go on looking for examples to support your case long enough then you almost bound to stumble on something by sheer chance with the many, many studies and papers that are being done round the world. Your “colour” is fascinating and relevant but it is vital to bear this in mind when assessing it as evidence. But then I don’t think you are claiming there is evidence.
Yes, I saw that comment on the prior article. In this case I didn’t do a particularly high effort search. It was almost coincidental actually. I noticed some scientists sniping at a 2020 paper on PubPeer whilst looking for something else, which was warning about some things that could go wrong with a COVID vaccine rollout. Their rebuttals were really very weak so I figured the paper was probably worth reading. One section of it mentioned flu vaccines and what happened with H1N1 and provided a set of citations. I then read those citations and realized they were relevant to what amanuensis was talking about, explored that citation network and wrote the article. So, it wasn’t exactly a literature dragnet. There are probably plenty of other relevant papers you could find if you did do a genuine literature search on Google Scholar rather than staying within one little citational graph.
The points you and Paul are making about flu testing are well made, and I’m inclined to accept them. From a strictly logical perspective then we should currently be accepting the UKHSA adjustments as their methodology only appears to be invalid in the presence of a problem for which there’s no real proof, only anecdotes. Nonetheless, the sheer size of these adjustments is staggering and appears to directly contradict my own anecdotal observations, in which I by now know far more people who caught COVID after being vaccinated than before it. It’s very hard to reconcile this with claims of high VE or even positive VE. I’m especially unimpressed by the claim that TNCC is required to account for massive and speculative behavioral differences in test likelihood, but hospitalization is unaffected by any behavioral differences at all. That just doesn’t seem intuitively right.
Where was this regular flu testing in the UK?, at my partners hospital they could not test for flu as all testing capacity used for covid.
I don’t where it was but the national flu and covid reports give the number of tests each week and it is usually several thousand.
Re point 2. Eugyppius did a good post on this back in August:
The flu is gone. This is not an illusion. It’s not down to the wilful or mistaken misdiagnosis of Corona or anything like that. Most countries have long-standing influenza surveillance programs, entire offices of people whose job it is to find and track the flu. These programs are still running, and influenza tests are still widely administered across the world. Despite all of this searching, nobody can find anything but a few outliers. As a seasonal phenomenon in the northern and southern hemispheres, influenza has disappeared.
There are many ways to confirm that flu is missing. To begin with, it has a very characteristic hospitalisation signature. It is dangerous to the olds, just like Corona; but it is also dangerous to infants and the very young, unlike Corona. Flu season has always caused substantial hospitalisations and deaths both in the elderly and in young children. We don’t see the characteristic child mortality in our numbers, and we haven’t since 2020. And then there’s this: When the pandemic started, PCR tests for Corona were hard to come by, and so a lot of places tested manically for influenza to rule it out and establish SARS-2 as a probable diagnosis. Data from various countries thus provides a sharp picture of the atypically steep collapse in flu cases that occurred in March 2020, in perfect tandem with the surge in Corona infections.
https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/the-disappearance-of-influenza
It’s very much worth reading in full, but his explanation is basically that prior to the 1918 Spanish flu we were only guessing at which virus was causing ‘the flu’, and that the assumption that it was always there prior to that, and always will be, is just that – an assumption. Prior ‘flu’ outbreaks might well have been coronaviruses, and influenza ones could have been dormant for decades or even centuries before a gap in the market appeared in 1918. It would at least explain why the Spanish flu was so lethal – no one had any immunity to influenza viruses.
And now a new coronavirus has popped up, and influenza has receded into the background again.
Whether that’s true or not, time will tell, but as a working hypothesis it fits the current absence of influenza more plausibly than blaming misdiagnosis.
Thanks. Eugyppius continues to impress.
I think there is some precedent for strains of flu disappearing from the “Hong Kong flu” outbreak during 1968/9 during which previous strains of flu seemed to have disappeared entirely, only to reappear once HK flu weakened and became endemic.
“I continue to be extremely skeptical about the supposedly total global disappearance of the flu.”
There have been a couple of articles which state that viruses interact and compete with each other and as SARS-CoV-2 is more dominant than flu it is one of the reasons flu had almost disappeared.
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/52/27142
Here is the other article https://medium.com/illumination-curated/the-unexpected-case-of-the-disappearing-flu-64fd1fa5e909
Off topic, but I see that in the Daily Express they are reporting that a hand sanitiser has been recalled due to fears of it causing cancer. Who would of thought that covering your hands with an aggressive solvent ever 5 minutes would cause skin conditions including cancer?
I’m unjabbed, unmasked, no antisocially distancing and now I’m proud to add to the list never used their hand gunk. (Why am I still alive).
the excellent article (some of which i think i understood) has certainly prompted some healthy intelligent conversation in the comments – what a shame this isn’t going on in the ‘the science’ world
Yup. Again, a brilliant day for the comments section.
Mildly o/t but material to the general government conceit: a letter from the NHS has been distributed subscribed by Maggie Throup, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Vaccines and Public Health; Professor the Lord Darzi, FRS; and Kelly Beaver, MD, Public Affairs, Ipsos MORI headed “Take a test to help the NHS plan for the autumn and winter”.
This the letter states is because “We need to know levels of COVID-19 and flu in the population so the NHS has the information it needs early enough to plan for peaks in the number of people needing services”.
Fair enough. But turning to the reverse side of the page one reads “We will send you a high standard RT-PCR swab test of the nose and throat… The self-administered test takes only a few minutes to complete and may cause some mild short-lived discomfort. Once returned to the laboratory and analysed, the test may show whether you currently have the COVID-19 virus (although test results are not 100% accurate). It does not show whether you have had the virus in the past. The flu test we perform is for research purposes only, allowing us to estimate how many people in England are currently infected with the flu virus…”
Apart from my surprise that Government apparently needs the resources of a private enterprise to conduct this research, I was wondering if anyone knows if the test referred to is now the generally accepted standard or if it is susceptible to manipulation like the (old?) style PCR test by upping the cycles beyond 25 or thereabouts for example. Also, whether the statistical output is at risk of distortion by reason of the fact that past COVID-19 infections (and ongoing immunity) are not detected?
Sue Denim (aka Mike Hearn) rides again and not a minute too soon. Brava and bravo! Your post is breathtakingly ERUDITE and LUCID; qualities which, if anything, have become more rare as the discourse is increasingly dominated by ill-informed and inarticulate commentators.
QUESTION: Further to the issue of viral interference, is the heavily age-stratified susceptibility to COVID-19 attributable to the fact that exposure to prior influenza vaccination is also heavily age-stratified? Thus, infants, children and younger adults who are least likely to get flu vaccines are consequently least likely to develop illness from SARS-CoV-2. Conversely, older adults and particularly the very elderly who are most likely to get flu vaccines are the most likely to succumb to COVID-19?
Whatever the answer to that question, you are hereby implored to resume more frequent posting.
Until later in 2020, the offer of free anti-flu vaccines (or “flu jabs”, as advertised by a local supermarket based pharmacy), was limited to older people in England, but then it was widened out to anyone over 50. So if the offer was popular, it could have increased the risk of cross-negative effects, perhaps.
The ongoing COVID-19 nonsense here in the United States exists solely and exclusively because our governments have failed to use the correct treatment. They used so-called “vaccines” when Japan has just proven, in less than ONE MONTH, that Ivermectin can wipe out the disease. IVM was awarded the Nobel prize for medicine in 2015. One of the 3 most important drugs in human history: Aspirin, Penicillin, and Ivermectin. Get your Ivermectin today while you still can! https://ivmpharmacy.com
You have 3 choices really, 1) vaccines 2) doing nothing and hoping you don’t get Covid 3) my free salt water cure which is 100% effective and has kept me virus free for over 27 years, so far – your life, your choice:
Covid is not ever going away, it is just going to get stronger and more effective in killing you and like the latest variant R.30, it overpowers vaccines easy, it is not a matter of how, but when, it, or something similar, decides to kill YOU.
“Endemic” is a polite way of washing hands of the situation and passing the buck to you, the job has been done, everyone is vaccinated (not me) – now we have to find out why?
What it means to have a Covid jab – never been used in humans before, never been tested in lab animals, not known what the outcome will be, not responsible for whatever it does, your health and financial issues your problem, once in can’t take out, might kill you sooner or later, possibly give you life threatening injuries which will kill you eventually and it lasts for 2-6 months and then you have to have booster shots, for as long as it lets you live and it took a couple of hours to design on a home computer AND you are ordered to take it, bullied, threatened and isolated by your government if you don’t.
Now you have a cure for all viruses, which is free and costs nothing to do, which works 100% and it has not killed or injured anyone, over the past 27 years I/We have been doing it and you can’t ever get Covid or viruses, anything, because that is a physical impossibility AND it is the only way to stop the “Coronavirus” pandemic dead, long before it gets to be Covid AND for free!!
Covid Crusher: Mix one heaped teaspoon of Iodine table or sea salt in a mug of warm clean water, cup a hand and sniff or snort the entire mugful up your nose, spitting out anything which comes down into your mouth. If sore, then you have a virus, so continue morning noon and night, or more often if you want, until the soreness goes away (2-3 minutes) then blow out your nose and flush away, washing your hands afterwards, until when you do my simple cure, you don’t have any soreness at all, when you flush – job done. Also swallow a couple of mouthfuls of salt water and if you have burning in your lungs, salt killing virus and pneumonia there too.
My simple salt water cure, kills all Coronaviruses and viruses, as soon as you think you have an infection, or while self isolating, before the viruses mutate into the disease in your head and body, for which there is no cure.
Richard
I wish we could upvote these pieces. This was better than anything you’ll read in the news at present.
You suggest that the vaccinated are self-selecting for strong faith, and one thing I have asked over at the reddit site is, would this lead to a placebo effect for vaccines? How could it be measured? Is anyone doing anything about finding out?
My mother uses the phrase, “I am an optimist and I am sure the vaccines will work.”
“- for the original definition of “work”, at least” sums it up well!
I have read this three times now, article and comments and the penny has dropped. It is fascinating and worrying in equal measure.
Really excellent piece. Thank you.
do all the vaccines (AstraZeneca, mRNA, Sputnik, etc) have the same issues regarding efficacy?