It is honestly depressing to see that we've reached a point at which a post like this that helps begin to sort away the bad takes, and sort into the good takes, is one of the least popular.
Hydras are made of graphene? If you answer no, then it is not thrilling and people will lose interest.
Just lie a little and say the Hydra King of the Galaxy of Hydra has invented graphene oxide to take over the minds of the leaders of the human race to kill everyone, and then you will get the attention of the public.
I am to a large extent sheltered from the gnashing of teeth over the specs of the skimpy, corrupted data because of my own real experience seeing morbidity and mortality in a clinic setting where the vaccines were given.
Those of us who are lucky enough (and by lucky I mean the weird kind of “get hated and then fired” kind of lucky) to have had personal experiences of the patterns of vaccine damage need to figure out a way to communicate this meaningfully.
This experience made me absolutely certain of 3 things:
1) the shots flat out killed a bunch of (mostly) elderly folks within a couple weeks of injection #2,
2) masses, just unbelievable numbers of people suffered nasty adverse effects which were absolutely never in any way associated by their healthcare team (in fact rigidly and dogmatically ignored) as being from the vaccine and
3) it would be a stretch to say 1% of these adverse events and deaths were reported to VAERS. Essentially none of them were. If VAERS shows a spike, it’s the tip of the iceberg.
All the comments I see about likelihood of reporting now vs then or at some future point based on psychology and “normal” behaviors, about how physicians are *reQUIred* to report adverse events (lololol) etc. just do not in any way align with my vivid personal experience. Nothing was normal around these vaccines and nothing ever will be. The psychosis, ideologically polarized condition and the mass propaganda coalesced to create a totally irrational and dangerous blinding to reality amongst physicians and patients.
I saw people develop sudden onset severe and disabling conditions, seek medical help for those conditions, ask their physicians if it could be from the vaccine and be told flatly “no”. I saw those same patients plead for exemptions from second doses, still reeling from their first gruesome experiences, be flatly denied exemptions.
My knowledge of statistics is limited and I was born without a graphing function in my brains, but I know these things. These are the things I take to the few remaining cage matches I enter around the vaccines. It would be super cool (in a grim, dystopian horror show type of cool) to see these bits of personal experience validated by real world data, no doubt. But back on planet lies where we actually live, it’ll probably never fully happen in the mainstream.
For emotional reasons I want to blame the shots for all the under-70 people I've lost already and am losing, probably this year. Shocking increased morbidity. Can those stats be teased out? So many. Too young. Previously healthy or stable with a condition well managed or resolved years ago. Some in prime of life. Developed something new and aggressive, or deteriorated dramatically for no apparent reason other than the second or third or fourth shot. I feel wronged when their illnesses are called unrelated and deaths called expected.
Of course, a large part of the problem here is that CDC STILL will not release all the data they have regarding events by vaccination status, which would end the debate. At the same time that does raise suspicions as to WHY they will not release the data. Surely, if there is any doubt that the gene therapies are "safe and effective", the best way to end that debate would be just to release all the data?
Nah, most of their data relies on voluntary and inconsistent reporting from private healthcare entities. It's absolute crap data and not necessarily all their fault. Need to focus on data from countries with nationalized healthcare.
That's true to the extent that, as Niorman Fenton pointed out very early on, the only data that is difficult to manipulate is ACM and excess deaths. That said, the Medicare/Medicaid data available to CDC is reasonably clean (whilst again acknowedging that the definitions of terms such as "Case" and "unvaccinated" can be manipulated) because there are financial consequences underlying it. And it's a very large series.
Mathew, my hope is that you don't give up trying to keep Steve honest. My reading of him through his videos is that he listens to you, even when he doesn't act on your input in the way you hope. (I don't know him otherwise, although I am his age, and am connected in a distant friend-of-a-friend sort of way that makes me think I know a something about him. Enough to trust that his motivations are legitimate.)
If instead of spending my time getting the crafty data interpretations right, I wrote up a post about how Steve had been silenced for crushing the narrative with charts that don't mean anything without addition data and work, I'd get 400 shares instead of 5.
This is concerning on many levels because it means that the large majority of the people pushing back are in their own mass formation, and can be steered by an influencer network. Heck, some of those influencers may simply be doing that job out of ignorance, happy to get more attention and income for bad takes.
“it means that the large majority of the people pushing back are in their own mass formation”
Yes, this is depressing. It is why, as memeplexes about what to do evolve, there is selection pressure that favours the idea of using a false flag. False flags outcompete truth. Truth is a lonely warrior.
Yes, and it's a big change. I'm doing what I can, which isn't much, but you can never know what can be achieved until you try. It's good to see you trying so hard yourself.
Does anyone believe that the DOD, FDA, CDC, WHO, big pharma and all the other provocateurs of the current pandemic and fake vaccines are going to allow REAL all-encompassing data to be revealed? Is it even being collected? How efficient is VAERS? All these graphs and stats are mostly guesswork using very incomplete data sets.
The covid pandemic and resulting mRNA injections are not subject to investigation or question. This is the only way this farce can be perpetrated on the entire planet. It is meant to be kept as a BIG SECRET for 50 years...or until the next fake pandemic is thrown at us by billy g and his moronic cohorts.
We could do an end-run around this & all future pandemics by pointing out that all disease is caused by malnutrition, parasites, and/or toxins (and EMF radiation is TOXIC), or any combination of those. We peons are screwed as long as the "infectious disease" boogeyman continues.
It's not clear to me why people are so focused on trying to find a signal on short timeframes, when the primary 'vector' for excess mortality is more likely to develop more slowly.
The main PREDICTABLE consequence of repeated dosing with a non-sterilising 'vaccine', is the shift in the immune response: over-production of the 'wrong' types of immunoglobulin and virtual cessation of production of the 'right' types. Effectively making the immune system to respond as if it's facing pollen or bee venom, and simultaneously downregulating cytotoxicity.
This 'immune tolerance' in hundreds of millions of people is where the 'meat' will be. It's also been a 'known known' since 1989. The Puppy-Torturer co-authored a paper on it in 2015.
As Rintrah points out, the "immune tolerance" issue might have much broader implications.
In other interesting news: the Puppy-Torturer is also coauthor on a recent paper which basically lays out why EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that the mRNA shots wouldn't work.
That's in "Cell Host & Microbe" and is basically a suicide note for the Narrative.
"Initial thinking"--e.g., the fact that nobody yet has isolated the alleged CoVID virus from the rest of creation, or shown it to be either harmful or infectious? Yes, that would shed A LOT of light on the whole subject.
Those of us who lived through the 90s have been inoculated regarding that sort os thing; Peter Duesberg landed himself in all sorts of bother when he suggested that the HIV virus was an opportunistic, but largely benign, virus that infected some people whose immune systems basically shut down because of constant behaviour-based challenges (namely chronic drug abuse of amyl nitrite, excessive use of antibiotics to treat constant minor STIs resulting from hyper-promiscuity).
It shocks people to hear that more than a quarter of all people diagnosed with AIDS are not infected with the HIV virus.
I haven't followed that controversy since the mid-90s, so I'm not aware of what 'epicycles and deferents' the HIV-centrists claim as the evidence - all that mattered to me (as a non-promiscuous heterosexual male) was that Fauci's claim that 20% of straight people would contract AIDS was clearly bullshit.
Since I don't care what other people do if it has no consequences for me, I moved on; shows the 'amygdala hijacking' of the modern Web seems to have prevented me from doing the same thing about the new Fauci-bioweapon... although I largely restrict my blather to expressions of scahenfreude - the Mudbloods can all keel over, for all I care.
Sure, the notion that the planets revolve around the sun was similarly shocking, not so long ago, and a few ppl got in big, big trouble from having the nerve to say so. But ppl got used to it, in time, and tyrants no longer use that as an excuse to tyrannize the non-rich. Possibly, because they've found more profitable/more effective ways to tyrannize the non-rich, e.g., pretending that there's an invisible, deadly boogeyman which ONLY THEY can detect, and from which ONLY THEY can save you (at the expense of your own regressive tax dollars, of course).
Part of the trouble is that people seeking to prove something with statistics tend to assume their conclusion - then draw a graph which is an argument in favor of that conclusion. My bet is that the breakdown goes like this: Immediate/short term deaths due to anaphylaxis, PEG allergic reactions, cytokine storms; medium term due to autoimmune disorders/ADE; long term due to biasing immune reaction to IgG4 antibodies, which train the body to tolerate large viral loads resulting in cellular damage from virus and cumulative damage with little or no symptoms, until the person reaches a tipping point and drops dead. In only the first case can the deaths be directly attributed to the vaccine, the rest are indirect effects. Pure death stats tell nothing in the latter two cases. "I can't show you my data" should automatically serve as a red flag, because it's impossible to replicate any analysis or conclusions drawn, If I were peer-reviewing a paper (been there, done that, my research prof for my PhD was the editor of Tetrahedron), I'd reject out of hand any paper where the author tried this. Replicability is a big thing in science - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201218 and https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/11/12/1011944/artificial-intelligence-replication-crisis-science-big-tech-google-deepmind-facebook-openai/
Thanks for taking a look at this Mathew! I was really disappointed by Steve's post and also found it unconvincing. How about the following idea: Create a control group of unvaccinated individuals with suitable matching criteria (age, gender, location, medical history) and plot the same mortality curve assuming fake shots on the same days for comparison.
Is there any way you could share the data?
Proper statistical causal inference is possible if care is taken to adjust for confounders and make appropriate causal assumptions. There are great books by Hernan and Robins https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/miguel-hernan/causal-inference-book/ , Judea Pearl, and Imbens and Rubin. along with some infighting on the best ways to go about it.
HUB is a "constant" underlying distortion and it will always be there in both "real life" data and in clinival trials also.. But I think the point that is being missed here is that IF HUB is taken into consideration, the differences in outcomes between the unvaccinated and vaccinated cohorts are being flaterred by it. Which in part explains why CDC will not release their data.
Sorry, at a more basic level, HUB means that "sophisticated middle class humans with full health insurance cover" will always be the first to go for any "safe and effective" intervention.
And in certain demographic compaisons that MIGHT be correct, BUT I'm not entirely convinced it holds true with Covid injections. In my circle of friends and contacts - a highly intelligent and successful group - almost NONE have been vaccinated because they took the time to understand, do their research and apply some critical thinking. They then decided that the rissk/benefit calculation didn't look good.
Now, this is the very group which is supposed to represent the "Healthy User Bias" because they are ALL wealthy and healthy but also smart and informed, not stupid shhep.
Despite all of the above and taking into full account HUB, where it has been available Mostly the UK) data for vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts has shown far higher rates of cases, hospitalisations and deaths in the vaccinated cohort. So this data could still be useful, whilst recognizing that the definitions involved could be manipulated. In fact, according to the above, this data, were it not for HUB, would show an even greater slant towards the incidence of these events in the vaccinated group?
So my point again was, why is CDC,k an agency charged with public health, treating this data as though it were a national security asset? Perhaps it is?
Well-established causal inference methods exist to adjust for biases like HUB and allow retrospective comparisons of treatment versus control groups in observational data. For example, propensity scores can be estimated, which in this case are probabilities of receiving the vax. These are then used to reweight the data and make valid causal estimates of vax effect under typically reasonable and defendable assumptions.
To me Steve's graphical analysis does not even get off the ground because we do not know what a "normal" curve even looks like for a comparably healthy unvaccinated cohort with proper adjustments made for at-risk person-days.
There is a control group that many of us registered for check it out! :~)
Welcome to the Control Group An independent, worldwide, long-term study of the health outcomes of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-free. A citizen led initiative, open to anyone who has chosen not to be jabbed. Join In 300,000+ participants in over 175 countries...
Thanks a lot Pamela, I just signed up. I'm an analyst; how can I access the control group data? For now at least I posted my info on the volunteer page. If I can somehow also obtain Steve's Medicare data (which I thought was supposed to be public as along as it is anonymized), I could try doing the matching as I proposed and provide a control group curve to compare to the three that Steve shows. Not sure if this will work though because guessing most everyone who signed up for vaxcontrolgroup is still alive!
Because medicare said each of these deaths were vax-associated, you don't need a control group, right? Because each death is a vax death, the baseline is the control. If, on the other hand, you compared to n people, and in that group a guy had a chainsaw accident and a lady overdosed on drugs, wouldn't you be adding more variables and more confusion to the mix? Matthew did mention normalizing , but I don't think normalizing to the number of vaxes given was mentioned.
My understanding is that the data do not explicitly say the deaths are vax-associated, but rather Steve is trying to infer/show this by looking at times between vax and death.
My bad, I thought the header even said it was associated - that's from the comments in Matthew's article. VAERS has criminal penalties for false reporting, and that's my answer to the idiots who say, look at all the potential car wrecks and lightning strikes.
I believe the deaths are vax associated, but I didn't dig further than this article.
I think you mentioned in another post about being an analyst, and I have some links of sources of data that I haven't used, and am happy to share.
Also, I've downloaded VAERS and cleaned it and loaded to SQL server (free) twice and if you're interested will do it again and zip it all up and send it over.
Also, I screen captured the data from the "realSciencing.com" people where they had athletic people who died that Dr McCullough quoted on Tucker Carlson, and you're welcome to that as well. I've been working on an app to load into that, because they had some issues in their data. (like 223 instead of 23 for a year, for example)
Thank you Todd. I already have VAERS and several other common public data sets, but if you have anything hard to come by like the athletes, please do share. My ideal format is a de-normalized (flattened) .csv or .xls file with headers.
I’ve been part of that control group for half a year. Perhaps you could get their data and look at disabilities vs. vaxxed Medicare patients. I don’t know if Steve has access to that.
I could always do the work Steve wants to do. That's a great way to be a tool and miss the bigger picture.
Why are people following the sensationalists who misunderstood everything for 16 months, rather than those of us who recognized the problems from the start, and can still manage emotional neutrality while doing the work?
I could become a clown show and be 10x more popular over night.
Since 2018, I only laught at the commentary of other people who follow the News, or the commentary about the commentary of people who follow the News. It is so much healthier! Everyone should try removing the news from their lives!
Understand one thing: it is difficult to win the presidential race against an incumbent bag of doritos, but it is even more difficult to win the primaries and then the presidential race, which is what Steve is trying to do with RFK Jr.
Very challenging and very exciting to transform the Democratic party in the AntiVax(Tm) party.
I think it is impossible to win anything in politics by telling the truth.
My friends at the terrain theory side are against Kennedy pretty much. That means that basically anyone who does not want to be considered an evil denialist of viruses who wants to spread aids and make the iron lungs great again must go to Kennedy's soft pseudo-antivax pseudo-antifascist side whether they like it or not.
And I doubt anyone in any other party will ever move from the pro-vax position. Not the Republicans, who probably think vaccines were invented by Jesus Christ. Not the green party, who want to use vaccines to reduce human population to save the planet. Not the libertarians, who are like 13 year old girls worried about what everyone else is gossipping about them, not realizing that no one is gossipping about them.
So, yeah, the demagogery of Kirsch is all about winning the presidency, in my opinion. Then he would become Der König das Silicon Valley.
Glad it helped but I have no clue about data access. I registered at the outset as one more way to resist and stand in solidarity as a group to push back.. they must have some media contact or inquiry to ask about the data sets & their analysis done to date. :~)
That's real science, but by this time anyone who has not fallen for the propaganda and already taken the jab, no way in hell is going to volunteer for Russian Roulette with a death shot.
How many deaths are being coded as vaccine side effect related deaths. Very few I’m guessing... we can’t even get a Dr to admit the jab caused my moms health issues.
If they are NOT correctly categorizing deaths by vaccine .. how are you separating them
'This is going to be tough, but here is something I would do: divide each data point (total mortality) by the number of person-days (people who survived to at least that day) to get the proportion of the living people who died each day. The distribution of that ratio will be more telling, and its comparisons to other vaccines given to the elderly might tell us an interesting story.'
Is this similar to the methodology Florida used to say there was a safety signal like 6 months ago? I remember they did some interesting maneuver using a previous period of time to set the control group for the comparison.
It is honestly depressing to see that we've reached a point at which a post like this that helps begin to sort away the bad takes, and sort into the good takes, is one of the least popular.
I really appreciate you responding to Steve's post so quickly and providing a forum to constructively move forward.
Add hydras?
Hydras are made of graphene? If you answer no, then it is not thrilling and people will lose interest.
Just lie a little and say the Hydra King of the Galaxy of Hydra has invented graphene oxide to take over the minds of the leaders of the human race to kill everyone, and then you will get the attention of the public.
I am to a large extent sheltered from the gnashing of teeth over the specs of the skimpy, corrupted data because of my own real experience seeing morbidity and mortality in a clinic setting where the vaccines were given.
Those of us who are lucky enough (and by lucky I mean the weird kind of “get hated and then fired” kind of lucky) to have had personal experiences of the patterns of vaccine damage need to figure out a way to communicate this meaningfully.
This experience made me absolutely certain of 3 things:
1) the shots flat out killed a bunch of (mostly) elderly folks within a couple weeks of injection #2,
2) masses, just unbelievable numbers of people suffered nasty adverse effects which were absolutely never in any way associated by their healthcare team (in fact rigidly and dogmatically ignored) as being from the vaccine and
3) it would be a stretch to say 1% of these adverse events and deaths were reported to VAERS. Essentially none of them were. If VAERS shows a spike, it’s the tip of the iceberg.
All the comments I see about likelihood of reporting now vs then or at some future point based on psychology and “normal” behaviors, about how physicians are *reQUIred* to report adverse events (lololol) etc. just do not in any way align with my vivid personal experience. Nothing was normal around these vaccines and nothing ever will be. The psychosis, ideologically polarized condition and the mass propaganda coalesced to create a totally irrational and dangerous blinding to reality amongst physicians and patients.
I saw people develop sudden onset severe and disabling conditions, seek medical help for those conditions, ask their physicians if it could be from the vaccine and be told flatly “no”. I saw those same patients plead for exemptions from second doses, still reeling from their first gruesome experiences, be flatly denied exemptions.
My knowledge of statistics is limited and I was born without a graphing function in my brains, but I know these things. These are the things I take to the few remaining cage matches I enter around the vaccines. It would be super cool (in a grim, dystopian horror show type of cool) to see these bits of personal experience validated by real world data, no doubt. But back on planet lies where we actually live, it’ll probably never fully happen in the mainstream.
Thank You!!!
Thanks for sharing this.
Shocking, interesting to hear your experience. Thanks for sharing this.
For emotional reasons I want to blame the shots for all the under-70 people I've lost already and am losing, probably this year. Shocking increased morbidity. Can those stats be teased out? So many. Too young. Previously healthy or stable with a condition well managed or resolved years ago. Some in prime of life. Developed something new and aggressive, or deteriorated dramatically for no apparent reason other than the second or third or fourth shot. I feel wronged when their illnesses are called unrelated and deaths called expected.
Of course, a large part of the problem here is that CDC STILL will not release all the data they have regarding events by vaccination status, which would end the debate. At the same time that does raise suspicions as to WHY they will not release the data. Surely, if there is any doubt that the gene therapies are "safe and effective", the best way to end that debate would be just to release all the data?
I wouldn't believe their data even if they did. At this point what difference does it make? It's all bad for everyone and should be banned.
"which would end the debate"
-----
Nah, most of their data relies on voluntary and inconsistent reporting from private healthcare entities. It's absolute crap data and not necessarily all their fault. Need to focus on data from countries with nationalized healthcare.
Several nurses have stated they were threatened with firing if they reported to VAERS.
That's true to the extent that, as Niorman Fenton pointed out very early on, the only data that is difficult to manipulate is ACM and excess deaths. That said, the Medicare/Medicaid data available to CDC is reasonably clean (whilst again acknowedging that the definitions of terms such as "Case" and "unvaccinated" can be manipulated) because there are financial consequences underlying it. And it's a very large series.
Mathew, my hope is that you don't give up trying to keep Steve honest. My reading of him through his videos is that he listens to you, even when he doesn't act on your input in the way you hope. (I don't know him otherwise, although I am his age, and am connected in a distant friend-of-a-friend sort of way that makes me think I know a something about him. Enough to trust that his motivations are legitimate.)
But you seem to be in the tiny minority.
If instead of spending my time getting the crafty data interpretations right, I wrote up a post about how Steve had been silenced for crushing the narrative with charts that don't mean anything without addition data and work, I'd get 400 shares instead of 5.
This is concerning on many levels because it means that the large majority of the people pushing back are in their own mass formation, and can be steered by an influencer network. Heck, some of those influencers may simply be doing that job out of ignorance, happy to get more attention and income for bad takes.
“it means that the large majority of the people pushing back are in their own mass formation”
Yes, this is depressing. It is why, as memeplexes about what to do evolve, there is selection pressure that favours the idea of using a false flag. False flags outcompete truth. Truth is a lonely warrior.
False flags only outcompete truth with an anxious and poorly educated populace. That's something that we have to change.
Yes, and it's a big change. I'm doing what I can, which isn't much, but you can never know what can be achieved until you try. It's good to see you trying so hard yourself.
Agree
It is time to unify over our biggest problem: Corruption.
It’s the one thing the people who are doing the corrupting fear most:
https://open.substack.com/pub/joshketry/p/lets-unify-over-our-biggest-problem?r=7oa9d&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
lol i like your handle, i might join ;)
This is fantastic.
Does anyone believe that the DOD, FDA, CDC, WHO, big pharma and all the other provocateurs of the current pandemic and fake vaccines are going to allow REAL all-encompassing data to be revealed? Is it even being collected? How efficient is VAERS? All these graphs and stats are mostly guesswork using very incomplete data sets.
The covid pandemic and resulting mRNA injections are not subject to investigation or question. This is the only way this farce can be perpetrated on the entire planet. It is meant to be kept as a BIG SECRET for 50 years...or until the next fake pandemic is thrown at us by billy g and his moronic cohorts.
We could do an end-run around this & all future pandemics by pointing out that all disease is caused by malnutrition, parasites, and/or toxins (and EMF radiation is TOXIC), or any combination of those. We peons are screwed as long as the "infectious disease" boogeyman continues.
Glad to see you two working together again, however briefly.
It's not clear to me why people are so focused on trying to find a signal on short timeframes, when the primary 'vector' for excess mortality is more likely to develop more slowly.
The main PREDICTABLE consequence of repeated dosing with a non-sterilising 'vaccine', is the shift in the immune response: over-production of the 'wrong' types of immunoglobulin and virtual cessation of production of the 'right' types. Effectively making the immune system to respond as if it's facing pollen or bee venom, and simultaneously downregulating cytotoxicity.
This 'immune tolerance' in hundreds of millions of people is where the 'meat' will be. It's also been a 'known known' since 1989. The Puppy-Torturer co-authored a paper on it in 2015.
Igor Chudov has written quite a bit on this on "Igor's Newsletter" -> https://igorchudov.substack.com/ .
The issue is covered in detail by a chap from the Netherlands "Rintrah Radagast"; the most recent piece is "The trainwreck of all trainwrecks: Billions of people stuck with a broken immune response" -> https://www.rintrah.nl/the-trainwreck-of-all-trainwrecks-billions-of-people-stuck-with-a-broken-immune-response/ .
As Rintrah points out, the "immune tolerance" issue might have much broader implications.
In other interesting news: the Puppy-Torturer is also coauthor on a recent paper which basically lays out why EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that the mRNA shots wouldn't work.
That's in "Cell Host & Microbe" and is basically a suicide note for the Narrative.
"Rethinking next-generation vaccines for coronaviruses, influenzaviruses, and other respiratory viruses" -> https://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/fulltext/S1931-3128(22)00572-8
"Rethinking"? It would have been nice if there had been evidence of some INITIAL 'thinking' that wasn't totally centred on Pfizer's P&L.
"Initial thinking"--e.g., the fact that nobody yet has isolated the alleged CoVID virus from the rest of creation, or shown it to be either harmful or infectious? Yes, that would shed A LOT of light on the whole subject.
Those of us who lived through the 90s have been inoculated regarding that sort os thing; Peter Duesberg landed himself in all sorts of bother when he suggested that the HIV virus was an opportunistic, but largely benign, virus that infected some people whose immune systems basically shut down because of constant behaviour-based challenges (namely chronic drug abuse of amyl nitrite, excessive use of antibiotics to treat constant minor STIs resulting from hyper-promiscuity).
It shocks people to hear that more than a quarter of all people diagnosed with AIDS are not infected with the HIV virus.
I haven't followed that controversy since the mid-90s, so I'm not aware of what 'epicycles and deferents' the HIV-centrists claim as the evidence - all that mattered to me (as a non-promiscuous heterosexual male) was that Fauci's claim that 20% of straight people would contract AIDS was clearly bullshit.
Since I don't care what other people do if it has no consequences for me, I moved on; shows the 'amygdala hijacking' of the modern Web seems to have prevented me from doing the same thing about the new Fauci-bioweapon... although I largely restrict my blather to expressions of scahenfreude - the Mudbloods can all keel over, for all I care.
Sure, the notion that the planets revolve around the sun was similarly shocking, not so long ago, and a few ppl got in big, big trouble from having the nerve to say so. But ppl got used to it, in time, and tyrants no longer use that as an excuse to tyrannize the non-rich. Possibly, because they've found more profitable/more effective ways to tyrannize the non-rich, e.g., pretending that there's an invisible, deadly boogeyman which ONLY THEY can detect, and from which ONLY THEY can save you (at the expense of your own regressive tax dollars, of course).
Part of the trouble is that people seeking to prove something with statistics tend to assume their conclusion - then draw a graph which is an argument in favor of that conclusion. My bet is that the breakdown goes like this: Immediate/short term deaths due to anaphylaxis, PEG allergic reactions, cytokine storms; medium term due to autoimmune disorders/ADE; long term due to biasing immune reaction to IgG4 antibodies, which train the body to tolerate large viral loads resulting in cellular damage from virus and cumulative damage with little or no symptoms, until the person reaches a tipping point and drops dead. In only the first case can the deaths be directly attributed to the vaccine, the rest are indirect effects. Pure death stats tell nothing in the latter two cases. "I can't show you my data" should automatically serve as a red flag, because it's impossible to replicate any analysis or conclusions drawn, If I were peer-reviewing a paper (been there, done that, my research prof for my PhD was the editor of Tetrahedron), I'd reject out of hand any paper where the author tried this. Replicability is a big thing in science - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201218 and https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/11/12/1011944/artificial-intelligence-replication-crisis-science-big-tech-google-deepmind-facebook-openai/
Thanks Matthew. I was wondering what your take on it would be while I was reading Kirsch's article.
Thanks for taking a look at this Mathew! I was really disappointed by Steve's post and also found it unconvincing. How about the following idea: Create a control group of unvaccinated individuals with suitable matching criteria (age, gender, location, medical history) and plot the same mortality curve assuming fake shots on the same days for comparison.
Is there any way you could share the data?
Proper statistical causal inference is possible if care is taken to adjust for confounders and make appropriate causal assumptions. There are great books by Hernan and Robins https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/miguel-hernan/causal-inference-book/ , Judea Pearl, and Imbens and Rubin. along with some infighting on the best ways to go about it.
Due to HUB, there is no control group.
What does that mean? Even if tracking mechanisms are undermined we unjabbed exist.
But we do not have the same risk profile as the vaccinated. Not even close.
I'm still confused what HUB means and why we care. Isn't the whole point of control groups to show how the intervention performs vs none?
HUB is a "constant" underlying distortion and it will always be there in both "real life" data and in clinival trials also.. But I think the point that is being missed here is that IF HUB is taken into consideration, the differences in outcomes between the unvaccinated and vaccinated cohorts are being flaterred by it. Which in part explains why CDC will not release their data.
Sorry, at a more basic level, HUB means that "sophisticated middle class humans with full health insurance cover" will always be the first to go for any "safe and effective" intervention.
And in certain demographic compaisons that MIGHT be correct, BUT I'm not entirely convinced it holds true with Covid injections. In my circle of friends and contacts - a highly intelligent and successful group - almost NONE have been vaccinated because they took the time to understand, do their research and apply some critical thinking. They then decided that the rissk/benefit calculation didn't look good.
Now, this is the very group which is supposed to represent the "Healthy User Bias" because they are ALL wealthy and healthy but also smart and informed, not stupid shhep.
Despite all of the above and taking into full account HUB, where it has been available Mostly the UK) data for vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts has shown far higher rates of cases, hospitalisations and deaths in the vaccinated cohort. So this data could still be useful, whilst recognizing that the definitions involved could be manipulated. In fact, according to the above, this data, were it not for HUB, would show an even greater slant towards the incidence of these events in the vaccinated group?
So my point again was, why is CDC,k an agency charged with public health, treating this data as though it were a national security asset? Perhaps it is?
Well-established causal inference methods exist to adjust for biases like HUB and allow retrospective comparisons of treatment versus control groups in observational data. For example, propensity scores can be estimated, which in this case are probabilities of receiving the vax. These are then used to reweight the data and make valid causal estimates of vax effect under typically reasonable and defendable assumptions.
To me Steve's graphical analysis does not even get off the ground because we do not know what a "normal" curve even looks like for a comparably healthy unvaccinated cohort with proper adjustments made for at-risk person-days.
There is a control group that many of us registered for check it out! :~)
Welcome to the Control Group An independent, worldwide, long-term study of the health outcomes of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-free. A citizen led initiative, open to anyone who has chosen not to be jabbed. Join In 300,000+ participants in over 175 countries...
https://vaxcontrolgroup.com/
Thanks a lot Pamela, I just signed up. I'm an analyst; how can I access the control group data? For now at least I posted my info on the volunteer page. If I can somehow also obtain Steve's Medicare data (which I thought was supposed to be public as along as it is anonymized), I could try doing the matching as I proposed and provide a control group curve to compare to the three that Steve shows. Not sure if this will work though because guessing most everyone who signed up for vaxcontrolgroup is still alive!
Because medicare said each of these deaths were vax-associated, you don't need a control group, right? Because each death is a vax death, the baseline is the control. If, on the other hand, you compared to n people, and in that group a guy had a chainsaw accident and a lady overdosed on drugs, wouldn't you be adding more variables and more confusion to the mix? Matthew did mention normalizing , but I don't think normalizing to the number of vaxes given was mentioned.
My understanding is that the data do not explicitly say the deaths are vax-associated, but rather Steve is trying to infer/show this by looking at times between vax and death.
My bad, I thought the header even said it was associated - that's from the comments in Matthew's article. VAERS has criminal penalties for false reporting, and that's my answer to the idiots who say, look at all the potential car wrecks and lightning strikes.
I believe the deaths are vax associated, but I didn't dig further than this article.
I think you mentioned in another post about being an analyst, and I have some links of sources of data that I haven't used, and am happy to share.
Also, I've downloaded VAERS and cleaned it and loaded to SQL server (free) twice and if you're interested will do it again and zip it all up and send it over.
Also, I screen captured the data from the "realSciencing.com" people where they had athletic people who died that Dr McCullough quoted on Tucker Carlson, and you're welcome to that as well. I've been working on an app to load into that, because they had some issues in their data. (like 223 instead of 23 for a year, for example)
Thank you Todd. I already have VAERS and several other common public data sets, but if you have anything hard to come by like the athletes, please do share. My ideal format is a de-normalized (flattened) .csv or .xls file with headers.
I’ve been part of that control group for half a year. Perhaps you could get their data and look at disabilities vs. vaxxed Medicare patients. I don’t know if Steve has access to that.
I could always do the work Steve wants to do. That's a great way to be a tool and miss the bigger picture.
Why are people following the sensationalists who misunderstood everything for 16 months, rather than those of us who recognized the problems from the start, and can still manage emotional neutrality while doing the work?
I could become a clown show and be 10x more popular over night.
Why does the "news" only report "news" with high emotional content? That's easy, it grabs attention and sets off the "fight or flight" response (see https://www.healthline.com/health/stress/amygdala-hijack), and reasoning responses are shunted off to the side or ignored outright. If you want to get known, you'll do attention-grabbing things - https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1618923114
I stopped following news years ago.
Since 2018, I only laught at the commentary of other people who follow the News, or the commentary about the commentary of people who follow the News. It is so much healthier! Everyone should try removing the news from their lives!
Presidential campaign.
Understand one thing: it is difficult to win the presidential race against an incumbent bag of doritos, but it is even more difficult to win the primaries and then the presidential race, which is what Steve is trying to do with RFK Jr.
Very challenging and very exciting to transform the Democratic party in the AntiVax(Tm) party.
I think it is impossible to win anything in politics by telling the truth.
My friends at the terrain theory side are against Kennedy pretty much. That means that basically anyone who does not want to be considered an evil denialist of viruses who wants to spread aids and make the iron lungs great again must go to Kennedy's soft pseudo-antivax pseudo-antifascist side whether they like it or not.
And I doubt anyone in any other party will ever move from the pro-vax position. Not the Republicans, who probably think vaccines were invented by Jesus Christ. Not the green party, who want to use vaccines to reduce human population to save the planet. Not the libertarians, who are like 13 year old girls worried about what everyone else is gossipping about them, not realizing that no one is gossipping about them.
So, yeah, the demagogery of Kirsch is all about winning the presidency, in my opinion. Then he would become Der König das Silicon Valley.
Actually I was replying to and suggesting Russ might do that as he statedheis an analyst. Far be itthatI would add something to yourplate,Mathew!
Glad it helped but I have no clue about data access. I registered at the outset as one more way to resist and stand in solidarity as a group to push back.. they must have some media contact or inquiry to ask about the data sets & their analysis done to date. :~)
Ikeep waiting for their analysis and not seeing any.
thx for the link I just registered.
Why not just simply a doubloe blind RCT? It's the "Gold standard" for a reason. But Big Pharma isn't going to do that. Also for a reason!
That's real science, but by this time anyone who has not fallen for the propaganda and already taken the jab, no way in hell is going to volunteer for Russian Roulette with a death shot.
Which is convenient for TPTB, because--obviously--if TPTB actually wanted to know, they'd have done it.
How many deaths are being coded as vaccine side effect related deaths. Very few I’m guessing... we can’t even get a Dr to admit the jab caused my moms health issues.
If they are NOT correctly categorizing deaths by vaccine .. how are you separating them
'This is going to be tough, but here is something I would do: divide each data point (total mortality) by the number of person-days (people who survived to at least that day) to get the proportion of the living people who died each day. The distribution of that ratio will be more telling, and its comparisons to other vaccines given to the elderly might tell us an interesting story.'
Is this similar to the methodology Florida used to say there was a safety signal like 6 months ago? I remember they did some interesting maneuver using a previous period of time to set the control group for the comparison.
I'm glad you're helping Steve - statistics is not my forte. :)