Excellent. Here is another way to put it: Let’s take a contained set of folks aka population of a city with 1,200,000 inhabitants. 1% of all die every year that is to say that every month you have 1,000 leaving us, sadly. Now, we take a very mild poison and administer it only to those who have 30 days to live. What could happen? Well, instead of losing 33 people per day, every day, we lost all 1,000 in the first 15 days while there were no deaths in the second 15 days. An objective measure, alone the total 30-day timeline, of the poison would be to say that it is only marginally murderous as it has not caused any additional deaths that month. But if we start looking starting on the 16th, we can come to a completely opposite conclusion, i.e. that the poison, instead of killing people quicker, actually saves everyone 100% of the time.

Now, let’s consider the Pfizer (and Moderna, and AZ, and JJ) trials. You give folks shot; something happens. In fact, “whatever happens” seems to affect the vaccinate folk in much greater measure that the unvaccinated bit. Then you give them another shot and then wait 14 days. During these 14 days, something happens. In fact, “whatever happens” seem to affect vaccinated slightly more than unvaccinated. Upon the completion of the 14-day period, something happens. In fact, “whatever happens” seems to affect the vaccinated folk less than the unvaccinated group.

You stop the trial and voila – We Have 95%!!! A Miracle Is Born!!

Expand full comment

Okay, okay...we can share this Nobel Prize.

Expand full comment

This reminds me of when my mother goes gambling. She always tells us how much she "won", but never mentions how much it cost her to get to those winnings...

Expand full comment

Sometimes a statement that is so simple and accurate is actually amazing because it is simpler than you ever though possible.

Good on you ;)

Expand full comment

Back in the day, I was the developer of the Heart and Lung Transplant Registry. We claimed a 96% survival rate, if you could make it through that first 30 days. It was then that I learned if you remove a window after treatment, regardless of the treatment, you could easily accomplish two things:

1. You can fudge the efficacy of the treatment up.

2. You can fudge the side effects of the treatment down.

Add that 30 day window back, the survival (Yes, Kaplan-Meier), was closer to 50%.

For a disease that is 99% survivable to start with, removing that 2 week (actually 4 week if you count from the first shot) is completely unethical. They are not stupid, they are hiding something.

Expand full comment

Thank you for that case in point.

Expand full comment

Quite correct ~ "The responsible thing to do is to downplay such an efficacy number, and demand that the work be done to achieve meaningful data that would allow for the computations necessary for an even modestly meaningful risk-benefit analysis."

But that i contrary to the Enron accounting methods that are the foundation of captured regulatory systems. Allowable limits, study criteria and MSM treatment of facts are more flexible than Olympic gymnasts which makes honest analysis priceless, thank you! :~)

Expand full comment

It frustrates me the number of people that are trying to do the honest leg work to look at the data and understand it and present it to the public in a nuanced manner and the people who look to and go "but is it peer reviewed."

Science is not peer review. If you can take someone else's experiment, run it again, and get the same results baring having learned any errors made in first test, then that is good enough. If flaws are noticed, add to the experiment to see what that results then might be.

But that is too much work. "These prominent poster-professionals may have looked at none of your data but they say this is wrong and they are in the media therefore they are the correct ones."

Its mind numbingly stupid.

Expand full comment

Mathew - I knew Morris when I was helping the EDRN sort out rigorous biomarker discovery analysis data analysis. I think he'll get the important point! Whether he's able to admit it or not, or even address it detail or not, remains to be seen. Imagine if they ARE counting all of the deaths from vaccines as "unvaccinated" due to a delayed class group designation! At the same time, causality requires that the deaths/adverse events happen soon after vaccine exposure. So we need to change the group designations to "Exposed" and "Not Exposed".

Expand full comment

In a dozen conversations we've had to this point, he stops talking any time the conversation walks up to the point of observing the obvious corruptions. I'd love for him to break through the fog, and would congratulate him on the other side. There are a few reasonable ways to assign group labels, but in the end, we are ethically obliged to observe the missing data, track down its root prior to supporting conclusions, and make full mention of it (missing or found) in any endpoint analysis.

Expand full comment

I've been playing close attention to some of the recent "whistleblower" videos. This one is a doozy, hard to say it's not genuine, or well informed from a particularly ignored-so-far perspective (like where's the autopsy reports?)


Expand full comment

There is an inherent hazard in believing *literally anything* you hear in the legacy media.

https://www.qiaocollective.com/en/education/xinjiang Xinjiang: A Report and Resource Compilation

https://www.globalresearch.ca/xinjiang-eyes-debunking-lies-anti-china-propaganda-focusing-china-xinjiang-uyghur-autonomous-region/5746431 “Xinjiang in My Eyes”: Debunking the Lies and Anti-China Propaganda Focusing on China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region

https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-biggest-lie-about-chinas-xinjiang.html The Biggest Lie About China's Xinjiang "Internment Camps"

https://thegrayzone.com/2021/03/17/report-uyghur-genocide-sham-university-neocon-punish-china/ ‘Independent’ report claiming Uyghur genocide brought to you by sham university, neocon ideologues lobbying to ‘punish’ China

https://transnational.live/2021/04/27/%F0%9F%9F%A5-breaking-the-xinjiang-genocide-determination-as-agenda/ BREAKING – The Xinjiang Genocide Determination As Agenda, Uyghur

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/03/26/the-entire-world-should-be-laughing-at-america-for-pretending-to-care-about-muslims-in-china/ The Entire World Should Be Laughing At America For Pretending To Care About Muslims In China

https://thegrayzone.com/2021/04/30/xinjiang-forced-labor-china-uyghur/ Xinjiang shakedown: US anti-China lobby cashed in on ‘forced labor’ campaign that cost Uyghur workers their jobs

https://www.globalresearch.ca/pseudonymity-genocide/5742871 Media Allegations of Genocide in Xinjiang

https://dissidentvoice.org/2021/02/does-the-west-repeating-claims-of-china-committing-genocide-in-xinjiang-reify-it/ Does the West Repeating Claims of China Committing Genocide in Xinjiang Reify It?

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/04/04/tankie-conspiracy-theorist-and-other-pejorative-tools-of-narrative-control/ Tankie, Conspiracy Theorist, And Other Pejorative Tools Of Narrative Control

https://thegrayzone.com/2021/03/31/china-uyghur-gun-soldiers-empire/ “Wipe out China!” US-funded Uyghur activists train as guntoting foot soldiers for empire

https://dissidentvoice.org/2021/03/the-watchdogs-of-imperialism-and-the-uyghur-genocide-slander/ The Watchdogs of Imperialism and the Uyghur Genocide Slander

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/04/09/regime-and-ccp-propaganda-tools-for-dissociating-a-targeted-nation-from-its-government/ “Regime” And “CCP”: Propaganda Tools For Dissociating A Targeted Nation From Its Government

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2021/04/08/adviser-to-bc-premier-wont-seek-new-term-as-outrage-spreads-over-his-comments-on-chinas-treatment-of-uyghurs-in-xinjiang-region.html Adviser to B.C. premier won’t seek new term as outrage spreads over his comments on China’s treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang region

https://www.mintpressnews.com/us-was-at-war-uyghur-terrorists-now-claims-etim-doesnt-exist/276916/ In 2018 the US Was at War With Uyghur Terrorists. Now It Claims They Don’t Even Exist

Expand full comment

There is more than meets the eye in virtually every aspect of Sino-Western relationships, and at this point it is easier to trust that media's job is to create a myth, not to properly inform. But if you learn to sift through the noise well, you can pull some truths out of that informational dumpster fire.

Expand full comment

Yes, true, and I know you made the Uyghur comment in jest. I just don't see anything positive in reaffirming malicious, politically motivated falsehoods. China may not be a worker's paradise, but the effect of the concentration camp stories is again, to dehumanize the 'other' and make war permissible.

Expand full comment

Question: has there been any study of any kind that shows the vaccine causes more damage than the virus itself?

A lot of arguments against the vaccines rest on it being safe... But the safety should be compared to being exposed to the virus.

Since both the virus and the vaccine have the spike protein, wouldn't that mean that, worse case, both are equally dangerous and inflammation-causing?

Mind that I have no intention of taking the vaccine for various reasons, but I don't understand why people think the spike protein in the vaccine is any different from that in the real virus...

Expand full comment

Yes, there have been some such comparisons. One study of 12-18 year olds found that _healthy_ 12-16 year olds had 6x likelihood of being hospitalized due to the vaccine compared to mid-level COVID spread for a duration of 120 days. It mimicked the methodology of a similar CDC paper that didn't stratify things the same way. And while 120 days may not seem long enough, things look different when they start pushing regular boosters. For 17-18 year olds, the benefit was more modest, at around 2.5x more hospitalizations due to the vaccine.

I'll post the link if I find it again.

Expand full comment

Assuming the graph shows a vaccine trial where the groups are evenly balanced in cohorts: If you are confused by this atricel, let me explain in the simplist terms (yes I have previously been accused of being simple minded):

Pretend you were 50 years old, in good health, and part of this trial group, starting at point zero on the graph. Then look to point 112 on the X axis but before you do, check what the Y-axis is all about: something about a Covid-19 occurance. Let's assume that means they tested positive. It doesn't say how many died or how sick they got, but, hey, chances were originally better than 100-1 you won't die.

So now you're at point 112 on the X-axis. If you had been given a choice back at point zero, which group would you have rather been in, red or blue?

Expand full comment