Thank you Mathew for tying some good threads together. The evidence for HUB in the cases you describe appears strong.
I have the US county data in hand and have been able to reproduce the nice mortality trend graphs (yearly, with blue points) and those from T Coddington (which I presume are for 2022). However I remain puzzled by the leading graph with correlations floating between -0.1 and 0.1. Are they really much different from zero and isn't the mirroring just what we would expect from these well-known demographic variables? How are you computing theses correlations? The graphs with the blue points suggest correlations more like -0.55 or -0.6 (roughly taking square root of R^2). Also, fwiw for 2022, my state-level graphs for each month all look like your Q1 graph with no shifting trend later in the year.
Moving forward, with HUB well-recognized, the question then becomes how to best adjust for it and proceed to causal inference on key questions of interest such as a reasonable estimate of causal effect of the vax on excess mortality. This requires adjusting for all potential confounders, including those capturing HUB and spatial-temporal biases driving Simpson's paradox cases you have mentioned in the past (e.g. excess death spike in Aug-Sep 2021 in the South). This certainly seems doable although very few analysts appear to be pursuing really well-principled causal modeling. Denis Rancourt has some interesting work along these lines.
"Are they really much different from zero and isn't the mirroring just what we would expect from these well-known demographic variables?"
They are floating between -0.1 and 0.1 against the COVID morality series.
Yes, those of us who understand the relationships between the variables expect this. Those in the middle or opposition who understand stats are going to stop and that graph and think. This is a slow bomb for them. It's going to creep into their brain and disrupt them until they resolve it.
"This requires adjusting for all potential confounders, including those capturing HUB and spatial-temporal biases driving Simpson's paradox cases you have mentioned in the past (e.g. excess death spike in Aug-Sep 2021 in the South). This certainly seems doable although very few analysts appear to be pursuing really well-principled causal modeling. Denis Rancourt has some interesting work along these lines."
Can you point to Rancourt's work on this specifically. I've read some from him, and from what I can tell he and I agree on many topics.
Thanks for citing some of my stuff. This prompted me to update a dashboard I created awhile back. In the below (best viewed on a large monitor, in full screen mode), you can plot county level outcomes (deaths, cases, hosp) vs. several health factors (vaccination, obesity, smoking, life expectancy, physical activity & income). Hope this can be helpful:
If every initial statistic relating to COVID is tainted and the PCR tests are at best unreliable and at worst a deliberate scam, then it conveniently makes it difficult to accurately detect if the massive fatalities and injuries are directly associated to the experimental mRNA toxin. This uncertainty gives big pharma and the security state hoodlums as well as all their other cohorts such as the state-run mainstream media the ability to take cover by lying with impunity and brazenly say all death and disability is caused by the actual virus and "not" the injection. This biosecurity nightmare will never end unless the COVID criminals are held accountable.
Yes, it seems clear that muddling all the waters was planned from the start.
Meanwhile, the continued operation seems to be to promote Steve Kirsch and his further muddling, while making invisible the people trying to sort it all out.
Criminals of what? What if the mrna does not produce spike toxin? What if there was no sars? What other things can we accuse them of doing?
What if big pharma does not even exist anymore, and ther are just Potemkin companies? Who is really running the show, Toto? Do you see a curtain that can be pulled, dear Toto?
Who is him and what has he done?
Was it all a bad dream, or did people really die because of the actions of this hypothetical man behind the curtain?
I am glad to have read this article. I really think that the way forward is to show lack of effectiveness. It’s just too hard to tell people they’ve taken a dangerous treatment ... I have this problem with relatives: I was so horrified that they were taking the latest booster that I did ask them not to take it again because of the heart problems (which are starting to be known about in the uk outside the skeptic community). However all All I ended up doing was making them upset with me. I don’t feel I can bring up the subject again, because they won’t accept it and I don’t want to lose the relationships. Even if they don’t believe me that the thing isn’t effective, at least they won’t be too scared even to consider it, and maybe, just maybe, they’ll have their eyes a little more open when things come out publicly.
"All correlation between vaccine uptake and COVID-19 mortality rates by county appears to be completely explained by income and education status."
Yes, but aren't education and income trivial because they each include lots of far more specific and therefore far more meaningful variables?
I'll bet looking at countries' income and education, rather than counties, will reverse that correlation because pharma-healthcare is more entrenched in the richer countries. What other variables are at play?
Consider that US COVID deaths are 3.9 times the global average while African deaths are way below the global average. Let’s not throw them out as outliers because outliers are good data.
Thanks for another great analysis. You’ve put some meat on the bones of a lot of things that have crossed my mind over the last year and a half. I’ve long suspected most of the apparent effectiveness is a form of statistical illusion. Possibly you’ve just confirmed my existing bias with your HUB/ZEH hypothesizes and that’s why I think you’ve done a great job 😀
I look forward to hearing from those that can add to your ideas and even more so those that disagree with your analysis. Nothing like a healthy respectful debate to sharpen the mind.
P.S. Does the ranked scatter plot have a formal name definition or explanation? It’s something I do myself but have never seen anyone else use it. I thought it was just something I made up myself to “eyeball the data”.
That optical illusion did FASCINATING things with my vision. I perceived all of the squares to almost randomly (but probably related to micro-movements shifting my point of focus) alternate convex and concave curves in a sort of pulse.
Great insights about the relationship between health and wealth--a little disconcerting too as it doesn't look like it's easy to be wealthy, and healthy without education. Bummer as it does seem there are a lot of unemployed educated people...in fact too many. So many great lines in your article, and I can't remember them all. Clearly, mixing in wealthy people to obscure statistics is one of the tricks the CDC has been playing on us to keep us blinded by their statistical analysis.
Sixty years ago, it was ordinary for a substantial portion of high income earners not to have a college education. And it is well known that only in a few sectors does it relate to the ability to perform the job.
What happened?
I think that corporations turned the university system into indoctrination factories where people get dinged in a way labeled "conscientiousness" if and when they aren't down with, or lose energy from the indoctrination process.
On the other side of that change, we have corporate jobs that pay vastly more while noncorporate jobs are offshore, and the corps rarely hire the unindoctrinated. This leads to a stronger signal between education and all physical rewards than would naturally be the case.
I’m skeptical of this HUB theory when it comes to these injections. I think HUB can only apply when the choice is voluntary which it wasn’t for a large percentage of people. I mean sure they may not have injected people who were on death’s door, but I’ve got to think also that there is a subset of people who are not too healthy and believed the injections would save them from Covid death. I for one am quite health conscious and was already well aware of Pharma misdeeds to know to stay far away from anything they were peddling. There was not ever a question in my mind. I believe a large chunk of the uninjected fall in this category.
Still , there is the healthy subset of those who received exemptions, got false cards, quit or retired to avoid the shots, or or already retired or are self-employed, like me.
Remember, during the initial trials they quickly eliminated the control groups. Caution was thrown to the wind, once the scoundrels secured a non-indemnity clause.
"The idea that vaccination to generate antibodies in the blood stream has an effect on respiratory viruses has long been a controversial one. And as we've seen, it appears that the influenza vaccines never worked, which bolsters the argument that such antibodies fail to work at the right location—the mucosal membrane. This has been pointed out by Dr. Richard Urso, Dr. Ryan Cole, and others. Dr. Joseph Lee puts it thusly,
Never mind, I'll let you off the hook. No bet. The COVID antibody was barely present in 2020. The COVID antibody doesn't seem to have a path through the lung barrier into the lung alveolar cell area. The lung barrier can stop water molecules that are 18 Daltons in size and the COVID antibody is a gargantuan 145,000 Daltons in size. The lung barrier can stop WATER molecules. This barrier MUST be passed by the COVID antibody in order to reach the lung alveolar cells. But, this barrier WILL stop the COVID antibody.
However, the virus itself can effectively penetrate lung epithelium by infecting those cells, being replicated therein, and coming out the other side with replicated virus, which presumably the antibodies produced by the mRNA could stop, if the virus were the same, or very nearly so, as the original wild type virus - which has been extinct since a month after the rollout - the vaccines might have had an effect on virus which got out into the blood. Same case for the fourth shot, the virus for which it might have been effective went extinct soon after rollout, leaving those spike protein variants for which it was not effective, and leaving the door open for systemic infection. In the case of broad-based natural immunity, T-cells would be produced which would produce antibodies for nucleocapsid, membrane, ORF, and non-structural proteins - which tend not to mutate (and if they did, the variant would most likely be not replication competent), and those antibodies would destroy the infection as has been seen, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8253687/ and https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z.
There is a vaccine which promises to produce this sort of broad-based immunity - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8791831/ - but testing was halted for lack of money to perform the Phase III trials... pharma wasn't interested, for some reason or other.
Nature. 2022; 601(7894): 617–622.
Published online 2021 Nov 23. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04232-5
PMCID: PMC8791831
PMID: 34814158
"A COVID-19 peptide vaccine for the induction of SARS-CoV-2 T cell immunity", Walz, J. et al.
All of this extensive statistical analysis isn't needed, and it can be a huge distraction. All that needs to be known is that the vaccines were no more effective during trials than placebo, and that lots of vaccinated people got infected with the virus. If 92% of the hospital inpatient population with COVID were vaccinated, then that's all you need to show that the vaccines didn't work. If this were TB, and 92% of hospitalized TB patients were vaccinated against TB with a certain sort of vaccine, it would be obvious that that vaccine didn't work, and that it should be taken off the market. The fact that the medical and "public health" establishments aren't picking up on this is astounding, they need to have their licenses to practice revoked and sent back to school and retake their medical boards...
Where you said "which tend not to mutate" did you mean all 4 components tend not to mutate? So they designed the gene therapy around the virus's one component that does mutate? I didn't think this could get worse.
You also said the vaccines were no more effective than placebo, but my understanding is they don't use placebo. That's a lie. One of the studies classified adverse events according to 3 levels of severity. The control (placebo) group had roughly half the adverse events of each severity classification as the experimental (targeted for death) group. This made people look like complete idiots for getting sick over nothing. But later we found out that some of the trials used the gene therapies intact except with the mRNA instructions having been removed. And, in the entire history of vaccine testing they've never once used a true control group that got saline, like most of us have assumed (they use previous vaccine data). Unfortunately, I've never tracked down really strong evidence for this claim so it could be bunk, but I doubt it.
"So they designed the gene therapy around the virus's one component that does mutate?" Yes, that's the case, the original jab was designed to produce antibodies for a long-extinct variant of the virus, as was the second jab and the first booster. The second booster produced antibodies for a variant of the Omicron spike which had gone extinct months before. Due to the mutability of spike, it was easily predictable that the vaccines would not work from the outset, see https://nextstrain.org/ncov/gisaid/global/6m?animate=2019-12-22,2023-03-04,0,0,30000 and hit "play" in the column on the left for a graphic illustration of this. It's essentially a long chain of boosters which reliably fail to hit the target, the only thing which this quarterly shot in the arm protects is pharma profits.
I asked the following question in an earlier article (The Challenge of Quantifying the Healthy User Bias), and it was not answered:
How can there be a relationship between all-cause mortality and income by county in the pre-COVID era, unless there are also age distribution differences and/or people keep moving to other counties to skew the age distributions? Since the probability of each person dying is 1, how can some counties consistently have lower all-cause mortality based on income alone?
And, by the way, "thusly" is not a proper word. The word "thus" (meaning "in this way") is sufficient.
1. Thusly is in the dictionary. It's an adverb, as used appropriately.
2. Your question involves so much confusion about data that it would take a several hour response with embedded lessons. I'm sorry that it doesn't fit my schedule, but perhaps somebody here or elsewhere will take the time to answer.
OK. The term "all-cause mortality" can have different definitions, and does not necessarily mean the same thing as the "crude death rate" as defined by the CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson3/section3.html), which is what I (and presumably many others) would initially assume. The term, as used in your statistical analysis, must mean an "age-adjusted" or "age-standardized" mortality rate, which already takes into account the population distribution. That at least makes sense.
And while the word "thusly" is actually in the dictionary, the "-ly" is superfluous, and the word is sometimes used for comic effect.
It used to be the Governments of wealthy nations scammed and exploited the poorer nations. They have reduced their plunder of the poor nations, and have decided to crank up the always running plunder at home.
Do these pirates even have a home?
Isla Tortuga? Jamaica? Monkey Island?
Do they have undead monkeys there?
A debate between LeChuck and Guybrush Threepwood on the merits of fractional reserve banking?
Magufuli had the papayas and the goats tested. He was smart!
Wealthy people are unsmart and entitled. A little poverty now and then is good for the soul.
Ukrainians and Romanians and Moldavians, and other countries who used to be under the sphere of influence of the USSR are kinda poorer compared to western European people. Quite a few of these didn't take the bait, but Western Europeans are still wearing masks (voluntarily!!!) in public transport, stores and libraries. Four clotshots, blind on one eye, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer and walking with a crutch and yet they still won't admit they are victims of the greatest medical scam and financial heist in recorded history.
Western Europeans are extremely proud people without any merit, and that baseless pride will be the final cause of their ruin. I don't know if I'll survive this, but I have resolved to die laughing, when my time comes.
I personally think this (efficacy) is and will continue to be the most difficult aspect of COVID19 and the MRNA vaccines for people to understand.
I had a friend this weekend demand of me whether I thought the MRNA vaccines saved lives or not, after getting frustrated with my insistence that the MRNA vaccines were causing the health troubles that some friends within our circle are experiencing. It was a very difficult discussion for my friend as he is convinced that his decision to get vaccinated was a righteous one (yes, righteous).
In my experience, while many are willing to believe there are or will be side effects to the MRNA vaccines, very few are willing to even entertain that the purported efficacy isn't true. Even when I point out all of the previously "known" facts that are now failures, this efficacy theology is a very difficult one to dismantle.
As a non-expert factory worker I wonder if there was some benefit in having suppressed immune systems which prevented immune system overreactions in some. Though the benefit would gave been short lived, the victims would have had to catch Covid at just the right time, and they're likely all worse off now. But nevertheless they'd figure out how to conflate this with the salvation of humanity.
Thank you Mathew for tying some good threads together. The evidence for HUB in the cases you describe appears strong.
I have the US county data in hand and have been able to reproduce the nice mortality trend graphs (yearly, with blue points) and those from T Coddington (which I presume are for 2022). However I remain puzzled by the leading graph with correlations floating between -0.1 and 0.1. Are they really much different from zero and isn't the mirroring just what we would expect from these well-known demographic variables? How are you computing theses correlations? The graphs with the blue points suggest correlations more like -0.55 or -0.6 (roughly taking square root of R^2). Also, fwiw for 2022, my state-level graphs for each month all look like your Q1 graph with no shifting trend later in the year.
Moving forward, with HUB well-recognized, the question then becomes how to best adjust for it and proceed to causal inference on key questions of interest such as a reasonable estimate of causal effect of the vax on excess mortality. This requires adjusting for all potential confounders, including those capturing HUB and spatial-temporal biases driving Simpson's paradox cases you have mentioned in the past (e.g. excess death spike in Aug-Sep 2021 in the South). This certainly seems doable although very few analysts appear to be pursuing really well-principled causal modeling. Denis Rancourt has some interesting work along these lines.
"Are they really much different from zero and isn't the mirroring just what we would expect from these well-known demographic variables?"
They are floating between -0.1 and 0.1 against the COVID morality series.
Yes, those of us who understand the relationships between the variables expect this. Those in the middle or opposition who understand stats are going to stop and that graph and think. This is a slow bomb for them. It's going to creep into their brain and disrupt them until they resolve it.
"This requires adjusting for all potential confounders, including those capturing HUB and spatial-temporal biases driving Simpson's paradox cases you have mentioned in the past (e.g. excess death spike in Aug-Sep 2021 in the South). This certainly seems doable although very few analysts appear to be pursuing really well-principled causal modeling. Denis Rancourt has some interesting work along these lines."
Can you point to Rancourt's work on this specifically. I've read some from him, and from what I can tell he and I agree on many topics.
Haha, well that corr graph is having the desired effect on me, and I am on your side.
Here is Rancourt's site: https://denisrancourt.ca/categories.php?id=1&name=covid Papers on Australia, Israel, India, Canada, and US.
Thanks for citing some of my stuff. This prompted me to update a dashboard I created awhile back. In the below (best viewed on a large monitor, in full screen mode), you can plot county level outcomes (deaths, cases, hosp) vs. several health factors (vaccination, obesity, smoking, life expectancy, physical activity & income). Hope this can be helpful:
https://public.tableau.com/shared/YSFN6KP68?:display_count=n&:origin=viz_share_link
Thank you for this and the work you're doing.
If every initial statistic relating to COVID is tainted and the PCR tests are at best unreliable and at worst a deliberate scam, then it conveniently makes it difficult to accurately detect if the massive fatalities and injuries are directly associated to the experimental mRNA toxin. This uncertainty gives big pharma and the security state hoodlums as well as all their other cohorts such as the state-run mainstream media the ability to take cover by lying with impunity and brazenly say all death and disability is caused by the actual virus and "not" the injection. This biosecurity nightmare will never end unless the COVID criminals are held accountable.
Yes, it seems clear that muddling all the waters was planned from the start.
Meanwhile, the continued operation seems to be to promote Steve Kirsch and his further muddling, while making invisible the people trying to sort it all out.
18 and 45 doubling cycle PCR "tests" aren't remotely comparable. (134 million fold different.) It's not a "the" PCR test.
Criminals of what? What if the mrna does not produce spike toxin? What if there was no sars? What other things can we accuse them of doing?
What if big pharma does not even exist anymore, and ther are just Potemkin companies? Who is really running the show, Toto? Do you see a curtain that can be pulled, dear Toto?
Who is him and what has he done?
Was it all a bad dream, or did people really die because of the actions of this hypothetical man behind the curtain?
I am glad to have read this article. I really think that the way forward is to show lack of effectiveness. It’s just too hard to tell people they’ve taken a dangerous treatment ... I have this problem with relatives: I was so horrified that they were taking the latest booster that I did ask them not to take it again because of the heart problems (which are starting to be known about in the uk outside the skeptic community). However all All I ended up doing was making them upset with me. I don’t feel I can bring up the subject again, because they won’t accept it and I don’t want to lose the relationships. Even if they don’t believe me that the thing isn’t effective, at least they won’t be too scared even to consider it, and maybe, just maybe, they’ll have their eyes a little more open when things come out publicly.
"All correlation between vaccine uptake and COVID-19 mortality rates by county appears to be completely explained by income and education status."
Yes, but aren't education and income trivial because they each include lots of far more specific and therefore far more meaningful variables?
I'll bet looking at countries' income and education, rather than counties, will reverse that correlation because pharma-healthcare is more entrenched in the richer countries. What other variables are at play?
Consider that US COVID deaths are 3.9 times the global average while African deaths are way below the global average. Let’s not throw them out as outliers because outliers are good data.
Yes, HUB, WUB, and EUB are contextual variables.
Thanks for another great analysis. You’ve put some meat on the bones of a lot of things that have crossed my mind over the last year and a half. I’ve long suspected most of the apparent effectiveness is a form of statistical illusion. Possibly you’ve just confirmed my existing bias with your HUB/ZEH hypothesizes and that’s why I think you’ve done a great job 😀
I look forward to hearing from those that can add to your ideas and even more so those that disagree with your analysis. Nothing like a healthy respectful debate to sharpen the mind.
P.S. Does the ranked scatter plot have a formal name definition or explanation? It’s something I do myself but have never seen anyone else use it. I thought it was just something I made up myself to “eyeball the data”.
I don't know what other people call rank-rank graphs, but I call them Larry.
Thanks. I’ll call mine Bob if they’re symmetric and Larry otherwise 😀
That optical illusion did FASCINATING things with my vision. I perceived all of the squares to almost randomly (but probably related to micro-movements shifting my point of focus) alternate convex and concave curves in a sort of pulse.
The changes in shade among the "pebbles" has the appearance of color changes, with definition, in your peripheral vision.
This is also how modern propaganda works. You have to look directly at each piece to be certain, until you can diagnose the magic trick.
Mathew: Thank you for ". . .there is no "proof" in science or statistics. . . ." I suspect few people know or understand this, but it is crucial.
Great insights about the relationship between health and wealth--a little disconcerting too as it doesn't look like it's easy to be wealthy, and healthy without education. Bummer as it does seem there are a lot of unemployed educated people...in fact too many. So many great lines in your article, and I can't remember them all. Clearly, mixing in wealthy people to obscure statistics is one of the tricks the CDC has been playing on us to keep us blinded by their statistical analysis.
Sixty years ago, it was ordinary for a substantial portion of high income earners not to have a college education. And it is well known that only in a few sectors does it relate to the ability to perform the job.
What happened?
I think that corporations turned the university system into indoctrination factories where people get dinged in a way labeled "conscientiousness" if and when they aren't down with, or lose energy from the indoctrination process.
On the other side of that change, we have corporate jobs that pay vastly more while noncorporate jobs are offshore, and the corps rarely hire the unindoctrinated. This leads to a stronger signal between education and all physical rewards than would naturally be the case.
I’m skeptical of this HUB theory when it comes to these injections. I think HUB can only apply when the choice is voluntary which it wasn’t for a large percentage of people. I mean sure they may not have injected people who were on death’s door, but I’ve got to think also that there is a subset of people who are not too healthy and believed the injections would save them from Covid death. I for one am quite health conscious and was already well aware of Pharma misdeeds to know to stay far away from anything they were peddling. There was not ever a question in my mind. I believe a large chunk of the uninjected fall in this category.
"I think HUB can only apply when the choice is voluntary which it wasn’t for a large percentage of people."
Just the opposite, and I'm getting to this in the next article...
The mandates targeted the healthy, quite clearly. Military. College kids. Corp workers.
It dodged all those too unhealthy to work or study.
And in a prior article I showed that the elderly getting flu vaccines were already suffering from HUB.
Still , there is the healthy subset of those who received exemptions, got false cards, quit or retired to avoid the shots, or or already retired or are self-employed, like me.
And flu vaccines are voluntary for most people.
It may help to read the earlier articles where I covered all this.
Remember, during the initial trials they quickly eliminated the control groups. Caution was thrown to the wind, once the scoundrels secured a non-indemnity clause.
"The idea that vaccination to generate antibodies in the blood stream has an effect on respiratory viruses has long been a controversial one. And as we've seen, it appears that the influenza vaccines never worked, which bolsters the argument that such antibodies fail to work at the right location—the mucosal membrane. This has been pointed out by Dr. Richard Urso, Dr. Ryan Cole, and others. Dr. Joseph Lee puts it thusly,
Never mind, I'll let you off the hook. No bet. The COVID antibody was barely present in 2020. The COVID antibody doesn't seem to have a path through the lung barrier into the lung alveolar cell area. The lung barrier can stop water molecules that are 18 Daltons in size and the COVID antibody is a gargantuan 145,000 Daltons in size. The lung barrier can stop WATER molecules. This barrier MUST be passed by the COVID antibody in order to reach the lung alveolar cells. But, this barrier WILL stop the COVID antibody.
However, the virus itself can effectively penetrate lung epithelium by infecting those cells, being replicated therein, and coming out the other side with replicated virus, which presumably the antibodies produced by the mRNA could stop, if the virus were the same, or very nearly so, as the original wild type virus - which has been extinct since a month after the rollout - the vaccines might have had an effect on virus which got out into the blood. Same case for the fourth shot, the virus for which it might have been effective went extinct soon after rollout, leaving those spike protein variants for which it was not effective, and leaving the door open for systemic infection. In the case of broad-based natural immunity, T-cells would be produced which would produce antibodies for nucleocapsid, membrane, ORF, and non-structural proteins - which tend not to mutate (and if they did, the variant would most likely be not replication competent), and those antibodies would destroy the infection as has been seen, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8253687/ and https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z.
There is a vaccine which promises to produce this sort of broad-based immunity - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8791831/ - but testing was halted for lack of money to perform the Phase III trials... pharma wasn't interested, for some reason or other.
Nature. 2022; 601(7894): 617–622.
Published online 2021 Nov 23. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04232-5
PMCID: PMC8791831
PMID: 34814158
"A COVID-19 peptide vaccine for the induction of SARS-CoV-2 T cell immunity", Walz, J. et al.
All of this extensive statistical analysis isn't needed, and it can be a huge distraction. All that needs to be known is that the vaccines were no more effective during trials than placebo, and that lots of vaccinated people got infected with the virus. If 92% of the hospital inpatient population with COVID were vaccinated, then that's all you need to show that the vaccines didn't work. If this were TB, and 92% of hospitalized TB patients were vaccinated against TB with a certain sort of vaccine, it would be obvious that that vaccine didn't work, and that it should be taken off the market. The fact that the medical and "public health" establishments aren't picking up on this is astounding, they need to have their licenses to practice revoked and sent back to school and retake their medical boards...
Where you said "which tend not to mutate" did you mean all 4 components tend not to mutate? So they designed the gene therapy around the virus's one component that does mutate? I didn't think this could get worse.
You also said the vaccines were no more effective than placebo, but my understanding is they don't use placebo. That's a lie. One of the studies classified adverse events according to 3 levels of severity. The control (placebo) group had roughly half the adverse events of each severity classification as the experimental (targeted for death) group. This made people look like complete idiots for getting sick over nothing. But later we found out that some of the trials used the gene therapies intact except with the mRNA instructions having been removed. And, in the entire history of vaccine testing they've never once used a true control group that got saline, like most of us have assumed (they use previous vaccine data). Unfortunately, I've never tracked down really strong evidence for this claim so it could be bunk, but I doubt it.
"So they designed the gene therapy around the virus's one component that does mutate?" Yes, that's the case, the original jab was designed to produce antibodies for a long-extinct variant of the virus, as was the second jab and the first booster. The second booster produced antibodies for a variant of the Omicron spike which had gone extinct months before. Due to the mutability of spike, it was easily predictable that the vaccines would not work from the outset, see https://nextstrain.org/ncov/gisaid/global/6m?animate=2019-12-22,2023-03-04,0,0,30000 and hit "play" in the column on the left for a graphic illustration of this. It's essentially a long chain of boosters which reliably fail to hit the target, the only thing which this quarterly shot in the arm protects is pharma profits.
I asked the following question in an earlier article (The Challenge of Quantifying the Healthy User Bias), and it was not answered:
How can there be a relationship between all-cause mortality and income by county in the pre-COVID era, unless there are also age distribution differences and/or people keep moving to other counties to skew the age distributions? Since the probability of each person dying is 1, how can some counties consistently have lower all-cause mortality based on income alone?
And, by the way, "thusly" is not a proper word. The word "thus" (meaning "in this way") is sufficient.
1. Thusly is in the dictionary. It's an adverb, as used appropriately.
2. Your question involves so much confusion about data that it would take a several hour response with embedded lessons. I'm sorry that it doesn't fit my schedule, but perhaps somebody here or elsewhere will take the time to answer.
OK. The term "all-cause mortality" can have different definitions, and does not necessarily mean the same thing as the "crude death rate" as defined by the CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson3/section3.html), which is what I (and presumably many others) would initially assume. The term, as used in your statistical analysis, must mean an "age-adjusted" or "age-standardized" mortality rate, which already takes into account the population distribution. That at least makes sense.
And while the word "thusly" is actually in the dictionary, the "-ly" is superfluous, and the word is sometimes used for comic effect.
It used to be the Governments of wealthy nations scammed and exploited the poorer nations. They have reduced their plunder of the poor nations, and have decided to crank up the always running plunder at home.
Do these pirates even have a home?
Isla Tortuga? Jamaica? Monkey Island?
Do they have undead monkeys there?
A debate between LeChuck and Guybrush Threepwood on the merits of fractional reserve banking?
I think part of the reason wealthy nations may have come off worse is because only they could afford to sustain the narrative.
Vaccinated deaths requires people to actually be vaccinated ie vaccines need to be bought.
Covid deaths and cases requires covid testing of the population. Tests need to be paid for.
Deaths in old folks homes requires old folks and homes. Poor countries probably have less old people and little or no aged care sector.
Maybe only the wealthy countries could actually afford to buy into this particular pandemic.
Does anyone know if the Pfizer & Moderna international vaccine contracts were all priced in US$ ?
Not a bad way to drive up demand for US$ if that’s what you wanted to do.
WUP - Wealthy user pandemic.
Magufuli had the papayas and the goats tested. He was smart!
Wealthy people are unsmart and entitled. A little poverty now and then is good for the soul.
Ukrainians and Romanians and Moldavians, and other countries who used to be under the sphere of influence of the USSR are kinda poorer compared to western European people. Quite a few of these didn't take the bait, but Western Europeans are still wearing masks (voluntarily!!!) in public transport, stores and libraries. Four clotshots, blind on one eye, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer and walking with a crutch and yet they still won't admit they are victims of the greatest medical scam and financial heist in recorded history.
Western Europeans are extremely proud people without any merit, and that baseless pride will be the final cause of their ruin. I don't know if I'll survive this, but I have resolved to die laughing, when my time comes.
Isn't EVERYTHING confounded by the two week and longer period during which vaccinees are technically unvaccinated?
Excellent article.
I personally think this (efficacy) is and will continue to be the most difficult aspect of COVID19 and the MRNA vaccines for people to understand.
I had a friend this weekend demand of me whether I thought the MRNA vaccines saved lives or not, after getting frustrated with my insistence that the MRNA vaccines were causing the health troubles that some friends within our circle are experiencing. It was a very difficult discussion for my friend as he is convinced that his decision to get vaccinated was a righteous one (yes, righteous).
In my experience, while many are willing to believe there are or will be side effects to the MRNA vaccines, very few are willing to even entertain that the purported efficacy isn't true. Even when I point out all of the previously "known" facts that are now failures, this efficacy theology is a very difficult one to dismantle.
As a non-expert factory worker I wonder if there was some benefit in having suppressed immune systems which prevented immune system overreactions in some. Though the benefit would gave been short lived, the victims would have had to catch Covid at just the right time, and they're likely all worse off now. But nevertheless they'd figure out how to conflate this with the salvation of humanity.