The only data that cannot be "massaged" is that for total mortality from all causes, divided into unvaccinated and vaccinated. Even there they are manipulating the data by classifying "vaccinated" as being only from 14 days after the second dose.
The reason being that most deaths occur in the period between the first dose and 14 days after the second dose. So the classification now used will (deliberately) increase the number of "unvaccinated" deaths and decrease the number of "vaccinated" deaths.
Many countries that previously provided raw data to be able to allocated deaths to the latter 3 (not 2) groups now seem to be getting more "economical" with the data updates and others (including the US) (again deliberately) do not produce such data at all. I'm sure they just overlooked it?
Mathew, glad you stopped at Oct 20. For some reason that I do not know, Burkina stopped their reporting of cases, deaths, and no. of vaccinations after Oct. 20. I have tried to search elsewhere on line, but it seems all other places give the latest statistics for Oct 20. Burkina has never done this before. I am trying to figure out who to ask here in Burkina, who might know, or who might be able to find out. Is the person in charge sick? Is it an unannounced policy shift? In order to shift our attention to the growing terrorist attacks, or in order for people not to get alarmed by the growing CFR in October? Were they mixing vax deaths with un vax covid deaths? If I get any clues, I will let you know. It's a good place to be if you are unvaxed, though. Only restrictions are international travel to certain countries.
I found that people now blame the delta variant. Eugypius seems to think that delta is basically a vaccine escape variant. Therefore, I wonder how vaccine doses correspond to share of delta infections.
From what I concluded from the same data source, there are many countries where the data is not collected properly, not reported consistently and/or timely, sometimes not reported at all. Also, the disease itself is obfuscating the effects of "vaccinations" in the majority of countries. To that, add the “randomness in effect” observed from batch to batch in mRNA “vaccines”. Nevertheless, there are enough clear-cut cases to be able to come to some definite conclusions. Please read https://live2fightanotherday.substack.com/p/falling-into-place-like-dominoes/comments and the related articles.
You may already be aware of the data in this Telegram post, but if not, this is from Peter Dobromylskyj's latest Hyperlipid blog post.
"Controversial addendum: This link is to a less-than-preprint conversational musing piece from someone who has access to NHS data of a detail beyond anyone's wildest dreams in Twitterland, hence it's on Telegraph. So some serious caveats have to be applied but his conclusion is that the vaccines do absolutely nothing. At all. An interesting idea."
A friend who's just as skeptical as I am in the narrative pushers on these vaccines shared an article from the economist that claims covid19 jabs reduce other causes of deaths....
My first suspicion is that its a weak attempt to try to convince the unvaccinated to receive the shots for reasons OTHER than its intended purpose (efficacy of which is questionable). Or its a punt, "while the job can't protect well from covid19 it will protect from other things! Just take it. One of us, one of us gooble gobble gooble...." You get the point.
I suppose the response to these findings, namely the increase in deaths worldwide after the vaccine rollout, and to the suggestion that the vaccines are not very effective will be something along the lines of: you haven't distinguished between vaccinated and unvaccinated and so it could be from the time of the vaccines rolling out, transmissions have continued to increase so there are simply more deaths. In other words, they'll argue that this data doesn't suggest anything one way or another about the efficacy, or lack thereof, of the vaccines because it could just be that the virus has continued to spread and cause these deaths. It's true that if you zoom out, it would be very odd indeed to observe an *increase* in deaths worldwide *after* the vaccines have rolled out (assuming the vaccines worked at all), but -- they will argue -- one needs to look at who is dying (vaccinated vs unvaccinated) in order to infer anything about the efficacy of the vaccines. Am I looking at this wrong?
I'm glad to see that you are not trying to handle the confounder of testing rates (did testing surveys change following the start of the vaccine rollout?) when talking about the changes in "cases". They never did this for the public when they created the casedemic so why do it now?
Case rates don't seem very useful as they vary, up to a point, with the amount of testing done. Test more, and case rates rise. What we really need to measure is infection rate, perhaps from random testing.
Is there evidence that the vaccines decouple cases and deaths, or at least reduce CFR over time? That would be consonant with the idea of the vaccine as a therapeutic, not a real vaccine. Granted, this winter will probably be the big test of that, so the data might not be in yet.
The only data that cannot be "massaged" is that for total mortality from all causes, divided into unvaccinated and vaccinated. Even there they are manipulating the data by classifying "vaccinated" as being only from 14 days after the second dose.
The reason being that most deaths occur in the period between the first dose and 14 days after the second dose. So the classification now used will (deliberately) increase the number of "unvaccinated" deaths and decrease the number of "vaccinated" deaths.
Many countries that previously provided raw data to be able to allocated deaths to the latter 3 (not 2) groups now seem to be getting more "economical" with the data updates and others (including the US) (again deliberately) do not produce such data at all. I'm sure they just overlooked it?
Mathew, glad you stopped at Oct 20. For some reason that I do not know, Burkina stopped their reporting of cases, deaths, and no. of vaccinations after Oct. 20. I have tried to search elsewhere on line, but it seems all other places give the latest statistics for Oct 20. Burkina has never done this before. I am trying to figure out who to ask here in Burkina, who might know, or who might be able to find out. Is the person in charge sick? Is it an unannounced policy shift? In order to shift our attention to the growing terrorist attacks, or in order for people not to get alarmed by the growing CFR in October? Were they mixing vax deaths with un vax covid deaths? If I get any clues, I will let you know. It's a good place to be if you are unvaxed, though. Only restrictions are international travel to certain countries.
I found that people now blame the delta variant. Eugypius seems to think that delta is basically a vaccine escape variant. Therefore, I wonder how vaccine doses correspond to share of delta infections.
From what I concluded from the same data source, there are many countries where the data is not collected properly, not reported consistently and/or timely, sometimes not reported at all. Also, the disease itself is obfuscating the effects of "vaccinations" in the majority of countries. To that, add the “randomness in effect” observed from batch to batch in mRNA “vaccines”. Nevertheless, there are enough clear-cut cases to be able to come to some definite conclusions. Please read https://live2fightanotherday.substack.com/p/falling-into-place-like-dominoes/comments and the related articles.
You may already be aware of the data in this Telegram post, but if not, this is from Peter Dobromylskyj's latest Hyperlipid blog post.
"Controversial addendum: This link is to a less-than-preprint conversational musing piece from someone who has access to NHS data of a detail beyond anyone's wildest dreams in Twitterland, hence it's on Telegraph. So some serious caveats have to be applied but his conclusion is that the vaccines do absolutely nothing. At all. An interesting idea."
From https://t.me/JohnDeesAlmanac/639
An interesting tidbit - Our World In Data is supported by grants from:
- Gates Foundation
- Susanne Klatten (BMW heiress, richest woman in Germany and one of richest persons in the world)
- Quadrature Climate Foundation, launched in 2019 by a private equity firm directed by Dmitri Chernyshenko ... Deputy Prime Minister of Russia.
Interesting times, indeed. Nothing is as it seems. Including 'data'.
You're probably going to want to check this out, which is insane:
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635
Thanks for this.
A friend who's just as skeptical as I am in the narrative pushers on these vaccines shared an article from the economist that claims covid19 jabs reduce other causes of deaths....
My first suspicion is that its a weak attempt to try to convince the unvaccinated to receive the shots for reasons OTHER than its intended purpose (efficacy of which is questionable). Or its a punt, "while the job can't protect well from covid19 it will protect from other things! Just take it. One of us, one of us gooble gobble gooble...." You get the point.
Link to the article:
https://archive.ph/qau4s
I suppose the response to these findings, namely the increase in deaths worldwide after the vaccine rollout, and to the suggestion that the vaccines are not very effective will be something along the lines of: you haven't distinguished between vaccinated and unvaccinated and so it could be from the time of the vaccines rolling out, transmissions have continued to increase so there are simply more deaths. In other words, they'll argue that this data doesn't suggest anything one way or another about the efficacy, or lack thereof, of the vaccines because it could just be that the virus has continued to spread and cause these deaths. It's true that if you zoom out, it would be very odd indeed to observe an *increase* in deaths worldwide *after* the vaccines have rolled out (assuming the vaccines worked at all), but -- they will argue -- one needs to look at who is dying (vaccinated vs unvaccinated) in order to infer anything about the efficacy of the vaccines. Am I looking at this wrong?
I'm glad to see that you are not trying to handle the confounder of testing rates (did testing surveys change following the start of the vaccine rollout?) when talking about the changes in "cases". They never did this for the public when they created the casedemic so why do it now?
Case rates don't seem very useful as they vary, up to a point, with the amount of testing done. Test more, and case rates rise. What we really need to measure is infection rate, perhaps from random testing.
Matt I don’t know if it was you who wrote the defense of Berenson's ‘ Why Athletes matter’ …I wholeheartedly agreed with the criticism
of his post. I changed my mind after reading your defense of it ( and Berenson’s of course)
And that’s as it should be. When people can lay out an argument well and leave out the personal attacks it really works. Makes
Me think and see different points of view. Don’t be like Twitter. It works.
More suspicious data: vaccines AEs and deaths are concentrated in a few lot numbers, across all vaccine brands.
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?blog=Market-Ticker-Nad
Is there evidence that the vaccines decouple cases and deaths, or at least reduce CFR over time? That would be consonant with the idea of the vaccine as a therapeutic, not a real vaccine. Granted, this winter will probably be the big test of that, so the data might not be in yet.