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!!
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...
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.
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! :~)
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."
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".
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?)
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...
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?
Gaming Measurement of Vaccine Efficacy
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!!
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...
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.
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! :~)
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.
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".
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?)
https://cairnsnews.org/2021/09/17/funeral-director-john-olooney-blows-the-whistle-on-covid/
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
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...
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?