Much food for thought here, as always with your analyses. BUT... The PCR test is faulty and is to be withdrawn. Just how faulty might it be? I've read that it cannot differentiate between COVID and other similar viruses (flu, common cold...). Might it also not be able to distinguish between COVID infection and post-vax spike protein disease, thus the widely noticed post-vax rise in "infections" actually cases of vax-caused disease? I see the published studies' methods frequently report that the PCR test was used, without any qualification of number of cycles used... How reliable can statistical analyses be with such uncertainty?
Also, recommended approach that multiple samples be run in batches and only investigate single samples if certain conditions make it even more false positive prone. At nearly every step there has been wilful leeway introduced that maximizes findings, but can be chalked up to "per protocol" process error. It's tailor made to paint a fraudulent picture
There is a chance it's not a conspiracy....but it's vanishingly small
A PCR test can have 99% with a false positive rate that can literally range from 1 to 100 percent under different conditions. That is the problem. PCR is better for lab assays under controlled conditions.
"Are ‘Vaccines’ Spreading Covid-19 Faster? But one would not be off-base to ask whether the data indicates heavy vaccination rates may actually be INCREASING the spread of Covid-19"
Big mystery? Not if it is PCR detecting post-vaccine disease AS IF they were COVID "infections".
My second mortality analysis is suggestive that something about introducing vaccines into nations may increase spread (or alternatively that all the cases in places like Vietnam and Cambodia are vaccine injuries, but I feel like somebody in my sphere would have sent me information along those lines were that true...but it's hard to know how well communication lines are compromised---some of my overseas sources in Asia went dark a few months ago).
It is also possible that lockdowns stopped a superimmunity feedback loop, and I'm planning an article on that.
I do hope you will continue these investigations, as difficult as they are. If you should have the opportunity in discussion with one of your contacts who should know, ask whether the fallibility of the PCR test which "cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments" (see https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/ ) might indicate that [resurgence of cases] = [mRNA injection induced spike protein disease]. It does seem a more parsimonious hypothesis than that, by some unknown mechanism, "introducing vaccines into nations may increase spread". Especially in nations that initially had such low numbers of actual infections before the vax.
The linked article to "announced plans to vaccinate its entire adult population" described only the purchase of enough doses to do so, without an actual mandate. That is an important distinction. I do not know the level of coercion there by means of employment or access to services, but notably they do not require vaccination, testing, or quarantine for entering the country.
Matthew Crawford. I was turned on to you by Robert Barnes, and found your articles both enlightening and and interesting. They are hard for me to follow as I am an average guy with no formal education. I find myself googling whole articles just to understand one sentence you write in some cases. I figure, what the he'll at least I'm learning something.
Anyway below is a link to an article someome threw at me in a discussion that seems to point to a differing conclusion about Isreal than what you've reached, and I simply cannot understand what's being said. Can you maybe address it?
While waiting for a sharper tack than me to address it...
He certainly goes to great pains to explain confounding factors (Simpson's Paradox!), and then carefully directs your attention to one possible confounding factor: age. He ignores another confounding factor that does not work in favor of his reassurances about vaccine efficacy in the over-50s: frailty. Who are the 10% of over-50s who are unvaccinated? Why do they remain unvaccinated?
Likewise, we stop seeing raw numbers of the unvaccinated over-50s who are hospitalized, after he has carefully moved us to look at rates per 100k, before he starts stratifying by age.
Later, he goes on to carefully point out that "By the way, earlier reports on vaccinated cases at Israeli hospitals when there were 152 hospitalized breakthrough infections showed that a full 40% of these cases were immunocompromised, and 96% had co-morbidities including hypertension (71%), diabetes (48%), congestive heart failure (27%), chronic kidney and lung diseases (24% each), dementia (19%) and cancer (24%). At that time point, virtually none of the active serious breakthrough infections in Israel were in individuals without significant pre-existing conditions..." While he does NOT perform the same courtesy for the hospitalized unvaccinated over-50s upon whose shoulders rest the calculation of vaccine efficacy.
Jeffrey makes a good point with the Simpson's paradox, but doesn't bother to consider the possibility of new testing bias, survivor bias, or the system vs the individual question. That's pretty unforgivable since I had emailed with him about at least two of the three before he wrote the article!
can you explain testing bias, survivor bias etc? I am not a statistician but am eager to understand what the data might be saying. Its just hard for us on the other end of the degrees :)
COME ON MATTHEW. MAKE THE CHARTS BETTER BY CLEARLY INDICATING ON THEM WHEN VACCINATIONS BEGAN. COME ON. SHOCKING THAT YOU WOULD HAVE LEFT THAT OUT. DAMAGES YOUR CREDIBILITY IN MY OPINION
Jab them till you slab them. Still plenty of money to be made!
Much food for thought here, as always with your analyses. BUT... The PCR test is faulty and is to be withdrawn. Just how faulty might it be? I've read that it cannot differentiate between COVID and other similar viruses (flu, common cold...). Might it also not be able to distinguish between COVID infection and post-vax spike protein disease, thus the widely noticed post-vax rise in "infections" actually cases of vax-caused disease? I see the published studies' methods frequently report that the PCR test was used, without any qualification of number of cycles used... How reliable can statistical analyses be with such uncertainty?
It's 0 -4% accurate. So 1 in 25 Covid diagnoses is legit at most
US PCR protocol is rutinely run at 40 ct, making it worthless
Also, recommended approach that multiple samples be run in batches and only investigate single samples if certain conditions make it even more false positive prone. At nearly every step there has been wilful leeway introduced that maximizes findings, but can be chalked up to "per protocol" process error. It's tailor made to paint a fraudulent picture
There is a chance it's not a conspiracy....but it's vanishingly small
A PCR test can have 99% with a false positive rate that can literally range from 1 to 100 percent under different conditions. That is the problem. PCR is better for lab assays under controlled conditions.
For instance, at
https://noqreport.com/2021/08/31/ultra-vaxxed-israel-shattered-their-record-for-covid-19-new-cases-today-are-vaccines-spreading-covid-19-faster/
"Are ‘Vaccines’ Spreading Covid-19 Faster? But one would not be off-base to ask whether the data indicates heavy vaccination rates may actually be INCREASING the spread of Covid-19"
Big mystery? Not if it is PCR detecting post-vaccine disease AS IF they were COVID "infections".
My second mortality analysis is suggestive that something about introducing vaccines into nations may increase spread (or alternatively that all the cases in places like Vietnam and Cambodia are vaccine injuries, but I feel like somebody in my sphere would have sent me information along those lines were that true...but it's hard to know how well communication lines are compromised---some of my overseas sources in Asia went dark a few months ago).
It is also possible that lockdowns stopped a superimmunity feedback loop, and I'm planning an article on that.
I do hope you will continue these investigations, as difficult as they are. If you should have the opportunity in discussion with one of your contacts who should know, ask whether the fallibility of the PCR test which "cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments" (see https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/ ) might indicate that [resurgence of cases] = [mRNA injection induced spike protein disease]. It does seem a more parsimonious hypothesis than that, by some unknown mechanism, "introducing vaccines into nations may increase spread". Especially in nations that initially had such low numbers of actual infections before the vax.
they clearly have simply not vaccinated enough people yet
The linked article to "announced plans to vaccinate its entire adult population" described only the purchase of enough doses to do so, without an actual mandate. That is an important distinction. I do not know the level of coercion there by means of employment or access to services, but notably they do not require vaccination, testing, or quarantine for entering the country.
Matthew Crawford. I was turned on to you by Robert Barnes, and found your articles both enlightening and and interesting. They are hard for me to follow as I am an average guy with no formal education. I find myself googling whole articles just to understand one sentence you write in some cases. I figure, what the he'll at least I'm learning something.
Anyway below is a link to an article someome threw at me in a discussion that seems to point to a differing conclusion about Isreal than what you've reached, and I simply cannot understand what's being said. Can you maybe address it?
https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-efficacy-vs-severe-disease-be-strong-when-60-of-hospitalized-are-vaccinated
While waiting for a sharper tack than me to address it...
He certainly goes to great pains to explain confounding factors (Simpson's Paradox!), and then carefully directs your attention to one possible confounding factor: age. He ignores another confounding factor that does not work in favor of his reassurances about vaccine efficacy in the over-50s: frailty. Who are the 10% of over-50s who are unvaccinated? Why do they remain unvaccinated?
Likewise, we stop seeing raw numbers of the unvaccinated over-50s who are hospitalized, after he has carefully moved us to look at rates per 100k, before he starts stratifying by age.
Later, he goes on to carefully point out that "By the way, earlier reports on vaccinated cases at Israeli hospitals when there were 152 hospitalized breakthrough infections showed that a full 40% of these cases were immunocompromised, and 96% had co-morbidities including hypertension (71%), diabetes (48%), congestive heart failure (27%), chronic kidney and lung diseases (24% each), dementia (19%) and cancer (24%). At that time point, virtually none of the active serious breakthrough infections in Israel were in individuals without significant pre-existing conditions..." While he does NOT perform the same courtesy for the hospitalized unvaccinated over-50s upon whose shoulders rest the calculation of vaccine efficacy.
Jeffrey makes a good point with the Simpson's paradox, but doesn't bother to consider the possibility of new testing bias, survivor bias, or the system vs the individual question. That's pretty unforgivable since I had emailed with him about at least two of the three before he wrote the article!
can you explain testing bias, survivor bias etc? I am not a statistician but am eager to understand what the data might be saying. Its just hard for us on the other end of the degrees :)
Each is its own article and my priority list is tall. Doing my best.
thanks. I understand. I will do my best to figure it out until then.
Wow. These country tales are fascinating.
COME ON MATTHEW. MAKE THE CHARTS BETTER BY CLEARLY INDICATING ON THEM WHEN VACCINATIONS BEGAN. COME ON. SHOCKING THAT YOU WOULD HAVE LEFT THAT OUT. DAMAGES YOUR CREDIBILITY IN MY OPINION