When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I very much appreciate the objective and analytical tone of the article, and especially the avoidance of hyperbolic language such as "death jab" and "clot shot." It makes the text much easier to read, and lends an air of credibility overall. The author cites their sources, and makes reasonable extrapolations from the data.
I, of course, have always known that mRNA Covid vaccines were not merely ineffective, but actually posed a higher risk to non-immunocompromised individuals than Covid infection itself. I've been saying this from the beginning, and it seems that only now are a significant number of people coming to accept this.
That is my job, as the Secretary of the Ministry of Truth.
One reason to look at England is that they have a national database. The U.S. does, kinda, but mainly pulls data from fifty states that have different methods and manpower, and some states are frankly more forthright than others about the data (ahem, New York).
The media and our government will memory-hole the biggest story of the century, so far, because the lead-off for every program says "sponsored by Pfizer." Our government officials are sponsored as well.
The really compelling presentation, in my opinion, is the last graph down at the very end. I've cropped and enlarged it to emphasize some details:
First, note the scale of this chart. It is logarithmic, not linear. That's important.
Across all age groups, and particularly among those aged 18-59, all-cause mortality was substantially lower among the unvaccinated than among those with 1 or 2 vaccine doses, and very slightly lower than among those with 3 vaccine doses.
This is interesting, in that we would instinctively expect mortality to steadily increase as the number of doses received increases. What the data shows, however, is that mortality begins to decrease with the third dose, and in certain of the sample, is actually lower amongst the thrice-vaccinated than the unvaccinated.
Of all of the ways in which this can be interpreted, two interpretations seem most plausible to me, and they are, curiously, somewhat at odds with one another.
The first interpretation is that, after the third dose, the protection against Covid finally increases to the point at which it out-weighs the risk of death from the vaccination itself.
The second interpretation, which I suspect is more likely, is that not everyone is equally at risk of death from the harmful effects of the vaccine, just as not everyone is equally at risk of death from stroke, heart-attack, and any number of other natural causes. As such, those people most likely to be killed by the vaccine have already died after receiving one or two doses, and never make it to the third. Effectively, the data are skewed by survivorship bias.
The really compelling presentation, in my opinion, is the last graph down at the very end. I've cropped and enlarged it to emphasize some details:
First, note the scale of this chart. It is logarithmic, not linear. That's important.
Across all age groups, and particularly among those aged 18-59, all-cause mortality was substantially lower among the unvaccinated than among those with 1 or 2 vaccine doses, and very slightly lower than among those with 3 vaccine doses.
This is interesting, in that we would instinctively expect mortality to steadily increase as the number of doses received increases. What the data shows, however, is that mortality begins to decrease with the third dose, and in certain of the sample, is actually lower amongst the thrice-vaccinated than the unvaccinated.
Of all of the ways in which this can be interpreted, two interpretations seem most plausible to me, and they are, curiously, somewhat at odds with one another.
The first interpretation is that, after the third dose, the protection against Covid finally increases to the point at which it out-weighs the risk of death from the vaccination itself.
The second interpretation, which I suspect is more likely, is that not everyone is equally at risk of death from the harmful effects of the vaccine, just as not everyone is equally at risk of death from stroke, heart-attack, and any number of other natural causes. As such, those people most likely to be killed by the vaccine have already died after receiving one or two doses, and never make it to the third. Effectively, the data are skewed by survivorship bias.
The scale is not to scale....wonderful. Raw data easily available? It would be interesting to note the % differences of an affected group, rather than a chart that underplays the results.
The scale is not to scale....wonderful. Raw data easily available? It would be interesting to note the % differences of an affected group, rather than a chart that underplays the results.
Well, yeah. To scale is nice. Scientists and the media play this same game with "AGW". They have 100,000 years of data but then focus on a 100 year piece of the graph.
what this shows me is 1. the vaccine doesn't do **** in general 2. the vaccine gives you blood clots 3. covid never was a big deal if youre young and healthy.
basically the same **** ive been saying for 2 years now since my coworker died immediately after getting his vaccine.
The scale is not to scale....wonderful. Raw data easily available? It would be interesting to note the % differences of an affected group, rather than a chart that underplays the results.
I said, right in the posting: "First, note the scale of this chart. It is logarithmic, not linear."
It is to scale. Log-scale is common when presenting datasets which cover a large range. You just have to understand how to read it.
what this shows me is 1. the vaccine doesn't do **** in general 2. the vaccine gives you blood clots 3. covid never was a big deal if youre young and healthy.
basically the same **** ive been saying for 2 years now since my coworker died immediately after getting his vaccine.
If you're China and your population is aging rapidly and your "one child" policy turned out to be really, really stupid.....how do you fix it? How about an engineered virus that targets the old instead of the young, like the Spanish flu? Just to be certain, fabricate a never-before used vaccine that knocks off a few more percentage points of the elderly.
China has just saved itself trillions in care to their elderly, and has probably repatriated lots of funds and property from the dead. Bill Gates is happy because he still buys into the population bomb nonsense from the 70's.
I get it. I got it. I still think it's on purpose.
That chart did not come from any government source.
It was created by the person who wrote the article which concludes, and I am quoting directly: "There is no other conclusion that can be found for the fact mortality rates per 100,000 are the lowest among the unvaccinated other than that the Covid-19 injections are killing people." (emphasis added by me.)
You are suspicious that the guy who is flat out saying that vaccinations are killing people deliberately manipulated the scaling of the graph to make it looks like they are not.
This is why it's hard to have conversations with laypersons which include actual statistical evidence...
That chart did not come from any government source.
It was created by the person who wrote the article which concludes, and I am quoting directly: "There is no other conclusion that can be found for the fact mortality rates per 100,000 are the lowest among the unvaccinated other than that the Covid-19 injections are killing people." (emphasis added by me.)
You are suspicious that the guy who is flat out saying that vaccinations are killing people deliberately manipulated the scaling of the graph to make it looks like they are not.
This is why it's hard to have conversations with laypersons which include actual statistical evidence...
You're a medical layperson? My original point was about this type of data and England, saying it's a better source. And yes, I'm "projecting" that most of the information that comes out is skewed in favor of the government or Big Pharma. And yes, I get why he used the graph he did, although I don't like it. Perhaps percentages would have been better, yes? Straight out numbers.
04-13-2023, 01:16 PM
0
