I just noticed open in one of my other browsers that Norman Fenton, Martin Neil, and Scott McLachlan published about Simpson's paradox in the UK data. Good statisticians usually make this kind of correction in population data. It's not too uncommon.
“ As the Vaccinated cohort might get slightly younger at the tail end of the week 11-38 time period, the older people who are added to the vaccinated group, while perhaps fewer, add more risk to the baseline than the more numerous younger people subtract from it.”
Not sure that makes sense, as the baseline consisting of solely higher risk cohorts, has an absolute risk number based on 100 percent high risk demographics.
So, while adding in five low risk demographics to that baseline, and the one added high risk counters those five in an unequal manner, the absolute risk factor of the entire demographic still drops.
It would be interesting to compare like demographics. It is amazing to me that the powers that be, disappeared the EUA control groups, AND fail to track all cause morbidity mortality in the current global control group, which, if done, would bring clear answers to these willfully murky waters.
The fact that the don’t do this reflects very poorly on them.
The VSD study suggests that the vaccines are a first boost toward eternal life! Which is clearly absurd.
Without their data, we cannot see for sure what is going on there, but it screams "statistical sieve". Unless you really think getting vaccinated boosts life expectancy by a factor of 3. If that were true, I'd expect everyone on that study to be lining up to ask for another! And another...
The results of that VSD study show the unvaccinated cohort with starkly ordinary mortality results. I suspect survivor bias where those who get vaccinated and die are just not part of any calculation.
The numbers in the VSD also contradict national mortality in aggregate, so whether my guess on what happened is correct, it shouldn't be trusted, and the researchers themselves should have made that observation before publishing.
And I think learning to put the data in a spreadsheet yourself should be higher on your priority list than telling other people what ought to be on theirs. Bye.
Interesting that they excluded "COVID deaths" and did not gather any information about the relative health status of patients in vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. The misclassification of COVID-vaccine induced deaths of the "unvaccinated" according to CDC's classification of only considering people 2 weeks after the 2nd dose to be vaccinated Plus the Medicare payments given to hospitals for labeling patients as having COVID; Plus, the maltreatment of COVID patients in hospitals that tend to kill them; Plus the similarity of symptoms caused by severe COVID disease and vaccine-induced disease - all conspire to make this exclusion of all "COVID" deaths from their "definition" of all-cause deaths - highly unscientific IMO.
The source data should NOT have been merged on age axis "due to low incidence". It should have been the time axis. Due to cautionary principle I'm forced to I suspect they are hiding et harm done to the younger ages in the massive group 10-59. Due to higher mortality at older ages, even a small benefit to ages 50-59 can hide most of large harm done in the younger age groups.
In any case, there is data from Sweden where the 14-day deaths post 2nd dose is higher (3939) than the average 14 day death rate for whole nation (~3000).
There is definitely a motivation behind the selection of 10-59 age group as more granular data must be available to the ONS. They not sharing it which means they're hiding it. Why? because it disproves the official line that the vaxxines are safe for younger age groups and worth the risks. Vax passports are the real objective which explains why the younger groups are being targeted despite adverse effects far outweighing benefits (if there any at all).
Yes, but almost zero% of children under 12 years old have been COVID vaxd and very few under 18 have had 2 doses. The lower the age group, the more drop off there is after dose 1.
I am aware of the Sweden data, and it's on my list. A quick workup shows that the results match my prior mortality analyses in terms of deaths per dose, but I'd like to run through the numbers formally instead of just eyeballing. I think the background death rate will be a bit less than 3000, but I'll take the step of consulting tables if I can find them.
Sweden, data from January 17th (first day with double vaccinated people) to August 5th.
All cause mortality for the whole of Sweden (10.4 million total), for each 14 days, is avg. 3324 (median 3304, max 4319, whole series: 4319, 3703, 3615, 3451, 3399, 3354, 3322, 3304, 3199, 3003, 2989, 2966, 3068, 3113, 3049)
All cause mortality for double vaccinated people (4.035 million total), within 14 days after 2nd dose, is 3939.
The vaccines seem to work well for old people, and one could speculate with declining performance as age goes down. My argument is that there is a cross-over point somewhere around 50, when the net benefit turns to net harm with younger ages. Now if the vaccine works a somewhat in age 50-59, the benefit is multiplied by the above age specific mortality and the total benefit is large enough to hide/cancel any net loss in younger ages.
In any case there data leaves this question open to be interpreted either way. That is why the recent data from Sweden is so crucial as it allows for eliminating the effect MC suggests is distorting this data.
It's efficient way to muddy the waters by mixing these non-linear categories.
Think it through: why would they work well for one age group and be useless in others? They're not mucosal, so the virus still enters...everyone. All the resulting antibodies do is sift for virions already deep through the passageways (the harm is already being done), creating potential for age-grouped serial passage, pushing variant evolution in a way that selects for virus that *can* infect younger populations. This keeps the pandemic going.
Mat, there was a big spike in elderly mortality, followed by a survivor bias dip in a majority of countries when the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly. I would not characterize that as working well for the elderly.
Aren't influenza vaccines thought to be less efficacious in the elderly?
"Because infection-battling B-cells become blunted with age, making them less equipped to fight off the flu and other illnesses in our advanced years. And because most vaccines rely on a B-cell response to work, the finding may explain why the influenza vaccine is less effective in this population."
I'm pretty sure influenza vaccines are as efficacious in everyone as is the COVID- vaccine -- that is to say, not at all. It is my understanding that certain types of causes of illness cannot be vaccinated against. Having taken prior influenza vaccines put people at higher risk for severe COVID. Search on this page for some of the studies: http://www.kathydopp.info/COVIDinfo/AtRisk/FluVaccines
We have similar data showing up in our VAERs system where the death rate in the first week to ten days is far far higher than the usual daily death rate for the same age group, but more of the immediate deaths occur post dose 1 than post dose 2. See this work by Jessica Rose: http://www.kathydopp.info/COVIDinfo/Vaccines/Doses1and2
I applaud both you and Alex but there are still mistakes here. If, like the ONS, you are using the population by vaccination status during the same week as the death then you are overstaing unvaccinated deaths and understaing vaccinated deaths.
My plan was to play by "their rules" in this article, but I have a followup article planned where I will summarize all the many data problems, including the Fenton argument (same as yours if I'm understanding you):
This was just a five hour exercise on a weekend when I'm trying to get into a house. At first it was an exercise in checking Berenson's basic observation. Perhaps it should just be that, but the convergence of the trends was dramatically perfect.
Also, I think most of the extra deaths were likely prior to the time period described here because the elderly were already largely vaccinated by this period.
Joel, you're doing great work. It is noted and appreciated in my circles. When all this is done, I'm seeking you out to buy you beer.
Yes, it is important to have all the correct data, and to fight for that so that we can put the pieces together perfectly. At this point, I worry that's the data that is sparking Moloch's World War.
Are you referring to the 'Covid' deaths which are triggered by an infection ~3 weeks prior to the date of death. This, presumably, would have big effect on the denominator particularly in the early stages of the vaccine rollout.
Yes. Whatever the time period, it is the vaccination status at point of infection that matters, not death. It seems quite a few people are picking up on this now and yes, it makes a massive difference, especially in January when most of the deaths occurred and when most of the vaccinations were taking place. In fact it turns the ONS analysis on its head, i.e. their spurious vaccine effectiveness turns into negative for all ages, except the over 80s that become neutral.
Mathew plotted all-cause deaths above, not COVID deaths, but do understand people die a few weeks after being infected by COVID IF they don't get any effective treatment and go to a hospital that follows the CDC's murderous maltreatment protocols.
In a baseball game, if two five and five teams play each other, the post game record is guaranteed to be 6 and 5 for the winner and 5 and 6 for the loser. The situation guarantees a double swing.
If during the six week period (from first jab to 14 days post 2nd jab) all cause morbidity and mortality spikes, as VAERS indicates, due to the vaccines, then this possible vaccine caused mortality is ofte
Mathew sorry but this is a little bit above my level intelligence wise. So please forgive a stupid question. Are you saying that the vaccinated are not dying at twice the rate? In fact the difference is small? Therefore the vaccine causes many injuries but not many deaths?
What I'm saying is that after *correcting for age*, the twice vaccinated and the unvaccinated in the 10-59 age group are dying at the same rate during weeks 11-38 in the UK. It's just that the unvaccinated group within that subset are younger, so it appears the vaccinated are dying more.
And yet, in essence, you followed the same definition Fauci uses in the US to deceive the public when he calls everyone who's received one dose of the vaccines as "unvaccinated", by ignoring the data that was in the same official table for the partially vaccinated who had just one dose of the injections. Why not use all the data in the spreadsheet that is relevant to make it seem like the COVID shots have not caused an increase in all-cause mortality when they clearly have?
I see now you provided links to the actuarial data you used to calculate your estimate for expected mortality differences in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups.
Not in the actuarial data I linked to. And that makes sense: 10-29 year olds don't die as often as 40-59 year olds, for instance. For all-cause mortality, this correction needs to be made in order to compare the series. We *should* expect for the older (vaccinated in this case) group to die more often.
No time for detail while moving into a new home, but yes, Vitamin D levels are highly meaningful. I give conservative certainty estimates, but I'm at 98% in my "does this matter substantially" meter.
The main message is undoubtedly correct, while the second part of the statement: "COVID-19 mortality risk correlates inversely with vitamin D3 status, and a mortality rate close to zero could theoretically be achieved [..]" should be looked at with reservation.
Vitamin D, if it is missing, can easily turn out to be fatal in case of infection, and makes infection also more likely. But it is only one brick in the wall called immune system. If another brick is missing, the wall may be unstable as well.
But this, be aware of it, is the answer of a layman.
This might be of interest for you: Vitamin D real-time meta study https://vdmeta.com/
They do a lot of other real-time meta studies as well, so take your time to explore them.
Thanks for that. I believe the correlation coefficient suggests that Vitamin D is a reasonable part of the solution but not the complete solution ... so we seem to agree.
I have calculated efficacy, NNT and NNH using Pfizer, Moderna and JNJ's own data submission to the FDA and adjusting the endpoint for "All Cause Morbidity and Mortality". Here it is:
All Cause Severe Morbidity Endpoint
Moderna Control Moderna Control
Risk Risk
Randomized 15210 15210 VE= -322.59%
Day of follow up 56 56 ARR= -20.00%
#Severe Covid Cases 0 30 RRI= 322.59%
#Unsolicited Severe Adverse Reactions 234 202 NNH= 5
#Solicited grade 3 AE, shot1 848 361 one harmed every 5 vaccinations
Great job. Have you posted your work online somewhere I could link to it from my web site? Also would like your post to include links to the original data sources you used please.
Thank you, Kathy. No, I haven't really shared my work...not since I retired. I have a tremendous amount of information. Yes, I have links...somewhere. Actually, I have all the sources but I tend to get caught up in the mathematics and drift away. Recently, I found a follow-up study Pfizer did with additional morbidity/mortality data that will make these calculations much worse. The document had "confidential" printed all over it? I'd be happy to share all the information I have.
Bertram's discovery of the importance of the 3-week delay between infection and death probably affects the curves in the early months, but when vaccination rates drop towards zero the later results will be accurate.
If only we could have known that the most sued companies in existence, paying out many billions in settlements for health product malfeasance, could have anything to do with exaggerating their products benefits, while hiding it's flaws....
Excerpt from one of my favorite studies these days: Pfizer has been a “habitual offender,” persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results.
Great article, but wouldn't it be even more interesting to focus on the category "Deaths 21 days or more after first dose" since there seems to be a VERY intriguing all-cause mortality signal here?
And Simpson's paradox should be less of a concern in this case.
Today I asked ons.gov.uk to give me more precisions about the "second dose" category. I will let you know if I get some but yes, IF "second dose" means "second dose + X delay", that would be an extremely devilish way to hide a "soft genocide"... and would explain why there are so many deaths in the "1 dose + 21 days and more" category.
The UK is not hiding or misrepresenting its very large sample data. If you merely look at the table 3 and 4 itself and add up all the numbers for each week for each of their 4 classifications of unvaxd, partlyvaxd1, partlyvaxd2, and fullyvaxd, you will find that the data is mutually exclusive and sums to the total sum minus the deaths they list - so is very accurate. I.e., they move people from one category to the other each week as reflects reality in accurate, timely fashion.
Thanks for this comment. But do you know what "2 doses" mean? 2 doses just after the injection or with a time delay (like 2 weeks to consider the vaccine fully effective)? It's strange that they consider 2 possible cases in the definitions tab but give only one in the spreadsheet.
I believe in England most people got the 2nd dose at least 4 weeks or longer after the 2nd dose. The vaccine drastically reduces your own natural immunity for at least 2 weeks after the 2nd dose (if not forever). Don't know what spreadsheet you're referring to.
Exactly! The Fauci/CDC way to mislead everyone and label many of the deaths of the vaccinated "COVID deaths of the unvaccinated". That's why US data cannot be accurately broken out by vaxd and unvaxd like the UK/England data is.
If you could calculate the area between the actual curve and the expected curve (or the sum of differences for each week) to compare overall above expected vaccinated to unvaccinated death rates, that could reveal a difference. However, most important is to also look at the all cause deaths of the partially vaccinated, which England may be the only country that keeps and reveals such records. I don't know what the difference in expected mortality should be but, perhaps, exactly the same as for the vaccinated, however, you estimated those numbers, given the age groups taking up the vaccines each week.
Since I'm spending most of each day trying to get into a house after the flood, I chose to skip the one dose group for this analysis, but I may come back around later and do more.
It would also be interesting to start back at Week 50 of last year. I suspect that the front curve will look something like what Professor Fenton demonstrates in his death lag analysis, with the "immediate deaths" (first 72 hours) essentially scrubbed (or not).
Yes. good luck. A friend here in Mass just had her sewer line break inside her house and she was planning to host Thanksgiving dinner today for all us COVID-truthers - so that's cancelled and she needs to move out of her house until it's fixed and cleaned up too. I agree that the delay by one week curve by Prof. Fenton is *really* interesting but I don't quite understand it yet and wonder does the delay in reporting affect the vaxd and unvaxd equally but just produce different patterns because one group (vaxd) is growing while the other (unvaxd) is shrinking? Agree with beginning earlier too to capture the vaccine-induced allcause deaths of the elderly and hospital staff better. But still believe accurate estimates of the Expected all-cause mortality require getting data from prior years, which the UK also makes available by age categories broken out by single years I believe.
Thank you for putting this together. If I am understanding correctly, all-cause mortality for unvaccinated and vaccinated both remain slightly elevated at about the same level in the U.K. This would seem to dispute both the theory that these vaccines are efficacious and have saved lives AND that they are harmful and have caused unnecessary deaths in the (relatively) short-term. (Unless somehow they are capable of killing those who haven't received them, which would fulfill the darkest wishes of a number of resentful jabbed.) Still damning data for the vaccines, especially for those who are trying to mandate. We are not the ones who have to prove anything.
"If I am understanding correctly, all-cause mortality for unvaccinated and vaccinated both remain slightly elevated at about the same level in the U.K."
That's the way this appears to me, though I cannot for instance know if the health profiles of the groups diverge in a meaningful way.
That number was always useless. Relative risk reduction derived from their suspiciously conducted test is not what really matters, but the absolute risk reduction which is ~1% at best
Even the RRR figure is likely to be far lower than what they claimed it was. Peter Doshi pointed this out in the BMJ:
"All attention has focused on the dramatic efficacy results: Pfizer reported 170 PCR confirmed covid-19 cases, split 8 to 162 between vaccine and placebo groups. But these numbers were dwarfed by a category of disease called “suspected covid-19”—those with symptomatic covid-19 that were not PCR confirmed. According to FDA’s report on Pfizer’s vaccine, there were '3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group.'
"With 20 times more suspected than confirmed cases, this category of disease cannot be ignored simply because there was no positive PCR test result. Indeed this makes it all the more urgent to understand. A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing covid-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, would be a relative risk reduction of 19% (see footnote)—far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization set by regulators. Even after removing cases occurring within 7 days of vaccination (409 on Pfizer’s vaccine vs. 287 on placebo), which should include the majority of symptoms due to short-term vaccine reactogenicity, vaccine efficacy remains low: 29% (see footnote)." [source: https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-we-need-more-details-and-the-raw-data/#comment-5223894971
Any wonder why the RRR is the only thing reported in the media? If they discussed ARR everyone would want a whole lot more information on the risks involved with vaccination before agreeing to it.
It's such a meaningless number, but pointing it out is like a flea fart in a hurricane. Efficacy! Effectiveness! Protection! And the words mean nothing
Extremely so, yet an excess mortality study is supposed to find such information. ( To be clear, at the very least we see that the vaccinated are fairing no better with regard to mortality then the unvaccinated.) what percentage of excess mortality is currently being assigned to Covid? What percentage of the remainder is vaccinated vs unvaccinated?
As to other morbidities, the current ( say last two months of ER patients status, vaccinated vs unvaccinated, should obviously be KNOWN.) If it is mostly vaccinated ( per capita per category) that would confirm VAERS as underreported! I consider it very unlikely that the vast majority of the sudden increase in ER events is anything other then vaccine related. If the category numbers supported, on a per capita bases in each category, vaccinated vs unvaccinated, that the unvaccinated were having equal unusual adverse ER events, you can bet that the media would be shouting this daily. Yet we KNOW that the vast majority of the BEEY LARGE increase in deaths and hospitalizations to athletes is happening almost exclusively to the vaccinated! ( The vaccine participation rate is very very high in these groups) It is logical and expected that this pattern continues in the general population.
And with very high vaccinated population and natural immunity well established, there is no way that COVID-19 infections should be surging. Yet they are. And we KNOW that any efficacy of the vaccines ( even absurdly assuming no harms) fails rapidly and puts vaccine escape mutational pressure on the virus. The evidence that the vaccines harm the immune system, both to Covid-19 and in general, is growing weekly.
And finally we must parse out the deadly six week post jab one and 14 days post jab two period. The spike in VAERS data here is very large, and hidden by calling this group unvaccinated. To begin to tease out this data I would calculate and then remove all the excess mortality from the jabbed but considered unvaccinated for this period.
Secondly I would compare those numbers, both morbidities and mortality, to what would be expected for that demographic before the jab and before Covid.
Thank you very much, I arrived at the similar conclusions regarding the Berenson analysis. Furthermore, I kept working on the dataset in question. It seems to miss a large number of residents. The total for 10 and up is about 39 million (check if I am right). I figure another 7-8 million under 10. That's 46-47. England's population is about 56 million. What happened to the rest?
When dealing with the "United Kingdom", one most figure out which subset of the population is being used. Unless the different subsets have dramatically different age groupings and expected mortality ratios, what I did should be a good first order approximation, regardless. It's not good enough for publication without some additional work, but most of that work would likely result in "rounding error" level deviations.
Sorry the formatting got destroyed. Suffice it to say Pfizer 1 harmed for every 241 vaccinations administered, Moderna 1 harmed every 5 vaccinations administered JNJ 1 harmed every 74 vaccinations administered. Mind you this is THEIR OWN DATA. My experience is that these data have been altered to hide the severity of the adverse events. It is not possible that the FDA is allowing these products to be used.
Michael, take a look at table 2 of the raw data set. It has age standardized all cause mortality rates for non, partial and full vaxxed over the full population. The numbers for "partial" categories are off the charts! Using the rollout data you can back out the age ranges actively shooting as well.
Btw I tried to do that painstaking work of reconstructing the age stratified rollout data from the plots and only got through a part of it before giving up. Would you be willing to make that file public?
Reminds me I got caught having pounded a nail into a wall outlet when I was a little kid. My mother says I got lucky and picked the ground side of the outlet. Some of my later antics make me wonder..
I distinctly remember getting a shock as a small child sticking something into an outlet. I remember it as a butter knife, but that couldn't possibly fit, so it must have been something else. Fortunately I wasn't touching the baseboard heater with my other hand, and I learned not to do that again. One of many things my parents are probably glad not to know about. These days it's almost impossible to do because of the "child proof safety feature" that requires concurrent insertion of both prongs to slide over an internal cover. So I guess those learning experiences are harder to come by now.
I just noticed open in one of my other browsers that Norman Fenton, Martin Neil, and Scott McLachlan published about Simpson's paradox in the UK data. Good statisticians usually make this kind of correction in population data. It's not too uncommon.
https://www.normanfenton.com/post/paradoxes-in-the-reporting-of-covid19-vaccine-effectiveness
Did you check https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid For UK? Doesn’t match your graphs at all.
That data is posted by an organisation which is regarded by some as part of a criminal conspiracy.
Concerning this from your excellent article;
“ As the Vaccinated cohort might get slightly younger at the tail end of the week 11-38 time period, the older people who are added to the vaccinated group, while perhaps fewer, add more risk to the baseline than the more numerous younger people subtract from it.”
Not sure that makes sense, as the baseline consisting of solely higher risk cohorts, has an absolute risk number based on 100 percent high risk demographics.
So, while adding in five low risk demographics to that baseline, and the one added high risk counters those five in an unequal manner, the absolute risk factor of the entire demographic still drops.
It would be interesting to compare like demographics. It is amazing to me that the powers that be, disappeared the EUA control groups, AND fail to track all cause morbidity mortality in the current global control group, which, if done, would bring clear answers to these willfully murky waters.
The fact that the don’t do this reflects very poorly on them.
Do you think something.similar might be going on in this study that currently fights the idea that the vaccin cause excess mortality from other causes?https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm#contribAff
Showing basically no increase mortality from other causes in the vaccinated cohort. Anything my untrained eye is missing here?
The VSD study suggests that the vaccines are a first boost toward eternal life! Which is clearly absurd.
Without their data, we cannot see for sure what is going on there, but it screams "statistical sieve". Unless you really think getting vaccinated boosts life expectancy by a factor of 3. If that were true, I'd expect everyone on that study to be lining up to ask for another! And another...
The results of that VSD study show the unvaccinated cohort with starkly ordinary mortality results. I suspect survivor bias where those who get vaccinated and die are just not part of any calculation.
The numbers in the VSD also contradict national mortality in aggregate, so whether my guess on what happened is correct, it shouldn't be trusted, and the researchers themselves should have made that observation before publishing.
What additional data do you need to see, so that we don't have to just 'trust' your 'guess'?
You need to see calculations that the vaccines aren't raising life expectancy to 286?
Sorry, that's off my priority list.
And I think learning to put the data in a spreadsheet yourself should be higher on your priority list than telling other people what ought to be on theirs. Bye.
Mat, I thought by "eternal life" most people meant death, as in eternal life with God.
LOL - As in “what they were were promised vs what they got?”
Interesting that they excluded "COVID deaths" and did not gather any information about the relative health status of patients in vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. The misclassification of COVID-vaccine induced deaths of the "unvaccinated" according to CDC's classification of only considering people 2 weeks after the 2nd dose to be vaccinated Plus the Medicare payments given to hospitals for labeling patients as having COVID; Plus, the maltreatment of COVID patients in hospitals that tend to kill them; Plus the similarity of symptoms caused by severe COVID disease and vaccine-induced disease - all conspire to make this exclusion of all "COVID" deaths from their "definition" of all-cause deaths - highly unscientific IMO.
The source data should NOT have been merged on age axis "due to low incidence". It should have been the time axis. Due to cautionary principle I'm forced to I suspect they are hiding et harm done to the younger ages in the massive group 10-59. Due to higher mortality at older ages, even a small benefit to ages 50-59 can hide most of large harm done in the younger age groups.
In any case, there is data from Sweden where the 14-day deaths post 2nd dose is higher (3939) than the average 14 day death rate for whole nation (~3000).
(Thanks TB)
There is definitely a motivation behind the selection of 10-59 age group as more granular data must be available to the ONS. They not sharing it which means they're hiding it. Why? because it disproves the official line that the vaxxines are safe for younger age groups and worth the risks. Vax passports are the real objective which explains why the younger groups are being targeted despite adverse effects far outweighing benefits (if there any at all).
US 25-44yr olds group seems to show unprecedented non-covid ACM elevation starting April 2021.
Yes, but almost zero% of children under 12 years old have been COVID vaxd and very few under 18 have had 2 doses. The lower the age group, the more drop off there is after dose 1.
I am aware of the Sweden data, and it's on my list. A quick workup shows that the results match my prior mortality analyses in terms of deaths per dose, but I'd like to run through the numbers formally instead of just eyeballing. I think the background death rate will be a bit less than 3000, but I'll take the step of consulting tables if I can find them.
Sweden, data from January 17th (first day with double vaccinated people) to August 5th.
All cause mortality for the whole of Sweden (10.4 million total), for each 14 days, is avg. 3324 (median 3304, max 4319, whole series: 4319, 3703, 3615, 3451, 3399, 3354, 3322, 3304, 3199, 3003, 2989, 2966, 3068, 3113, 3049)
All cause mortality for double vaccinated people (4.035 million total), within 14 days after 2nd dose, is 3939.
I used these sources:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410 Page 32
https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/population/population-composition/population-statistics/
-> "Preliminary statistics on deaths (published 2021-11-15)" and
-> "Population statistics 2021"
Age-related mortality increases exponentially by age. For someone aged 60, the individual mortality is ~70x higher than for someone 10 years old.
Here's graphical representation
Age Mortality(generic)
10 X
20 XX
30 XXXXX
40 XXXXXXXXXXXXX
50 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
60 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The vaccines seem to work well for old people, and one could speculate with declining performance as age goes down. My argument is that there is a cross-over point somewhere around 50, when the net benefit turns to net harm with younger ages. Now if the vaccine works a somewhat in age 50-59, the benefit is multiplied by the above age specific mortality and the total benefit is large enough to hide/cancel any net loss in younger ages.
In any case there data leaves this question open to be interpreted either way. That is why the recent data from Sweden is so crucial as it allows for eliminating the effect MC suggests is distorting this data.
It's efficient way to muddy the waters by mixing these non-linear categories.
"The vaccines seem to work well for old people"
No, they don't. It's all statistical trickery and laundering deaths.
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/estimating-vaccine-induced-mortality
Think it through: why would they work well for one age group and be useless in others? They're not mucosal, so the virus still enters...everyone. All the resulting antibodies do is sift for virions already deep through the passageways (the harm is already being done), creating potential for age-grouped serial passage, pushing variant evolution in a way that selects for virus that *can* infect younger populations. This keeps the pandemic going.
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/variant-roulette-evolution-and-immunity-9f5
Mat, there was a big spike in elderly mortality, followed by a survivor bias dip in a majority of countries when the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly. I would not characterize that as working well for the elderly.
Aren't influenza vaccines thought to be less efficacious in the elderly?
"Because infection-battling B-cells become blunted with age, making them less equipped to fight off the flu and other illnesses in our advanced years. And because most vaccines rely on a B-cell response to work, the finding may explain why the influenza vaccine is less effective in this population."
https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/why-flu-vaccines-dont-work-as-well-in-the-elderly
I'm pretty sure influenza vaccines are as efficacious in everyone as is the COVID- vaccine -- that is to say, not at all. It is my understanding that certain types of causes of illness cannot be vaccinated against. Having taken prior influenza vaccines put people at higher risk for severe COVID. Search on this page for some of the studies: http://www.kathydopp.info/COVIDinfo/AtRisk/FluVaccines
Yes, that's because the elderly are notoriously Vitamin D deficient (production of anti-viral peptides in mucosa are D dependent). There have been studies showing that vit D supplementation is more efficient than the jab: https://www.fxmedicine.com.au/blog-post/vitamin-d-vs-flu-vaccine-there-stand-out-winner
US 25-44yr olds group seems to show unprecedented non-covid ACM elevation starting April 2021. Receiving comments from insurance professionals.
We have similar data showing up in our VAERs system where the death rate in the first week to ten days is far far higher than the usual daily death rate for the same age group, but more of the immediate deaths occur post dose 1 than post dose 2. See this work by Jessica Rose: http://www.kathydopp.info/COVIDinfo/Vaccines/Doses1and2
US 25-44yr olds group I believe seems to show unprecedented non-covid ACM elevation starting April 2021
data laundering ... that's it!
I applaud both you and Alex but there are still mistakes here. If, like the ONS, you are using the population by vaccination status during the same week as the death then you are overstaing unvaccinated deaths and understaing vaccinated deaths.
Joel, you may be correct.
My plan was to play by "their rules" in this article, but I have a followup article planned where I will summarize all the many data problems, including the Fenton argument (same as yours if I'm understanding you):
https://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/11/is-vaccine-efficacy-statistical-illusion.html
This was just a five hour exercise on a weekend when I'm trying to get into a house. At first it was an exercise in checking Berenson's basic observation. Perhaps it should just be that, but the convergence of the trends was dramatically perfect.
Also, I think most of the extra deaths were likely prior to the time period described here because the elderly were already largely vaccinated by this period.
I understand, Matthew. You might want to follow my FOI request for the raw data so we can do this analysis properly once and for all? https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/england_deaths_with_exact_covid
Joel, you're doing great work. It is noted and appreciated in my circles. When all this is done, I'm seeking you out to buy you beer.
Yes, it is important to have all the correct data, and to fight for that so that we can put the pieces together perfectly. At this point, I worry that's the data that is sparking Moloch's World War.
Joel
Are you referring to the 'Covid' deaths which are triggered by an infection ~3 weeks prior to the date of death. This, presumably, would have big effect on the denominator particularly in the early stages of the vaccine rollout.
Yes. Whatever the time period, it is the vaccination status at point of infection that matters, not death. It seems quite a few people are picking up on this now and yes, it makes a massive difference, especially in January when most of the deaths occurred and when most of the vaccinations were taking place. In fact it turns the ONS analysis on its head, i.e. their spurious vaccine effectiveness turns into negative for all ages, except the over 80s that become neutral.
Mathew plotted all-cause deaths above, not COVID deaths, but do understand people die a few weeks after being infected by COVID IF they don't get any effective treatment and go to a hospital that follows the CDC's murderous maltreatment protocols.
Good point, in addition to the variable used when applying the vaccinated deaths to the unvaccinated cohort for 2wks
You mean the 14 days post dose 2? I suspect this but not able to confirm it. Have sent an FOI.
Have you established it for dose 1? Clare seems to of have.
"Intensive care data is being totally corrupted:
"Vaccintion status assessed at 14 days prior to the positive COVID-19 test."
If you believe vaccines have no impact in the first 14 days then make another cateogory. Calling them unvaccinated is a lie."
https://icnarc.org/DataServices/Attachments/Download/5ae07e36-7c49-ec11-9138-00505601089b
https://twitter.com/ClareCraigPath/status/1461969455962116097
There does seem to be some issues in the first couple of weeks post dose 1 as well, yes.
In a baseball game, if two five and five teams play each other, the post game record is guaranteed to be 6 and 5 for the winner and 5 and 6 for the loser. The situation guarantees a double swing.
If during the six week period (from first jab to 14 days post 2nd jab) all cause morbidity and mortality spikes, as VAERS indicates, due to the vaccines, then this possible vaccine caused mortality is ofte
… is often wrongly assigned to the unvaccinated.
There is existing studies showing vaccine abused lowered immunity during this period.
Took me 5 minutes to work out the baseball analogy! Doh!!
Mathew sorry but this is a little bit above my level intelligence wise. So please forgive a stupid question. Are you saying that the vaccinated are not dying at twice the rate? In fact the difference is small? Therefore the vaccine causes many injuries but not many deaths?
What I'm saying is that after *correcting for age*, the twice vaccinated and the unvaccinated in the 10-59 age group are dying at the same rate during weeks 11-38 in the UK. It's just that the unvaccinated group within that subset are younger, so it appears the vaccinated are dying more.
Got it thanks.
And yet, in essence, you followed the same definition Fauci uses in the US to deceive the public when he calls everyone who's received one dose of the vaccines as "unvaccinated", by ignoring the data that was in the same official table for the partially vaccinated who had just one dose of the injections. Why not use all the data in the spreadsheet that is relevant to make it seem like the COVID shots have not caused an increase in all-cause mortality when they clearly have?
I see now you provided links to the actuarial data you used to calculate your estimate for expected mortality differences in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups.
. . . just musing out loud: should the younger cohorts be dying at the same rate as the older?
Not in the actuarial data I linked to. And that makes sense: 10-29 year olds don't die as often as 40-59 year olds, for instance. For all-cause mortality, this correction needs to be made in order to compare the series. We *should* expect for the older (vaccinated in this case) group to die more often.
A lot of recent studies and papers suggest that there is a negative correlation between serum vitamin D3 levels and hospitalization and mortality. Eg:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0188440921001983
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.22.21263977v1
We are also told by Dr John Campbell that Fauci has admitted by email that he takes 6,000 IUs of Vitamin D3 daily.
How reliable are these studies? Are they committing any statistical sins?
No time for detail while moving into a new home, but yes, Vitamin D levels are highly meaningful. I give conservative certainty estimates, but I'm at 98% in my "does this matter substantially" meter.
The main message is undoubtedly correct, while the second part of the statement: "COVID-19 mortality risk correlates inversely with vitamin D3 status, and a mortality rate close to zero could theoretically be achieved [..]" should be looked at with reservation.
Vitamin D, if it is missing, can easily turn out to be fatal in case of infection, and makes infection also more likely. But it is only one brick in the wall called immune system. If another brick is missing, the wall may be unstable as well.
But this, be aware of it, is the answer of a layman.
This might be of interest for you: Vitamin D real-time meta study https://vdmeta.com/
They do a lot of other real-time meta studies as well, so take your time to explore them.
Thanks for that. I believe the correlation coefficient suggests that Vitamin D is a reasonable part of the solution but not the complete solution ... so we seem to agree.
I have calculated efficacy, NNT and NNH using Pfizer, Moderna and JNJ's own data submission to the FDA and adjusting the endpoint for "All Cause Morbidity and Mortality". Here it is:
All Cause Severe Morbidity Endpoint
Moderna Control Moderna Control
Risk Risk
Randomized 15210 15210 VE= -322.59%
Day of follow up 56 56 ARR= -20.00%
#Severe Covid Cases 0 30 RRI= 322.59%
#Unsolicited Severe Adverse Reactions 234 202 NNH= 5
#Solicited grade 3 AE, shot1 848 361 one harmed every 5 vaccinations
#Solicited grade 4 AE, shot1 5 6 NNT= -5
#Solicited grade 3 AE, shot2 2884 341 VE= -322.59%
#Solicited grade 4 AE, shot2 14 3 EER CER RR
#Total Severe Events 3985 943 0.261998685 0.061998685 4.225874867 -322.59%
Deaths 2 3 Death Rate= 0.0131%
Pfizer Control
Pfizer Control Risk Risk
VE= -52.38%
Randomized 21720 21728 ARR= -0.41%
Day of follow up 81 81 RRI= -52.38%
#Severe Covid Cases 1 9 NNH= 241
#Unsolicited Severe Adverse Reactions 240 139 one harmed every 241 vacinations
#Unsolicited Life Threatening Events 21 24 NNT= -241
#Total Severe Events 262 172 EER CER RR
Deaths 2 4 0.012062615 0.007916053 1.523816866
Death Rate= 0.0092%
Jansen Jansen Control Control
Randomized 19630 19691
Safety Subset 3356 3386
Day of follow up 28 28 VE= -80.32%
#Severe Covid Cases 21 78 ARR= -1.35%
#Solicited grade 3 Adverse Events RRI= -80.32%
Local extrapolated 135 23 35 6 NNH= 74
Systemic extrapolated 357 61 122 21 one harmed every 74 vacinations
#Unsolicited grade 3-4 Adverse Events 83 96
#Total Severe Events 595 331 RR control 0.01680971
Deaths 3 16 RR vax 0.030310749
Death Rate= 0.0153%
Great job. Have you posted your work online somewhere I could link to it from my web site? Also would like your post to include links to the original data sources you used please.
Thank you, Kathy. No, I haven't really shared my work...not since I retired. I have a tremendous amount of information. Yes, I have links...somewhere. Actually, I have all the sources but I tend to get caught up in the mathematics and drift away. Recently, I found a follow-up study Pfizer did with additional morbidity/mortality data that will make these calculations much worse. The document had "confidential" printed all over it? I'd be happy to share all the information I have.
kathy dot dopp at gmail dot com to send me something or links too. Thanks.
Excellent analysis, thanks!
Bertram's discovery of the importance of the 3-week delay between infection and death probably affects the curves in the early months, but when vaccination rates drop towards zero the later results will be accurate.
https://bartram.substack.com/p/the-importance-of-the-delay-between
https://bartram.substack.com/p/the-importance-of-the-delay-between-6e5
If only we could have known that the most sued companies in existence, paying out many billions in settlements for health product malfeasance, could have anything to do with exaggerating their products benefits, while hiding it's flaws....
Or that the US gov has givien them blanket liability protection.
Excerpt from one of my favorite studies these days: Pfizer has been a “habitual offender,” persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2875889/
Great article, but wouldn't it be even more interesting to focus on the category "Deaths 21 days or more after first dose" since there seems to be a VERY intriguing all-cause mortality signal here?
And Simpson's paradox should be less of a concern in this case.
Exactly. I suspect the 2 doses + 14 days to be considered vaccinated could be a devilish way to hide vaccine deaths. You have to consider that.
Today I asked ons.gov.uk to give me more precisions about the "second dose" category. I will let you know if I get some but yes, IF "second dose" means "second dose + X delay", that would be an extremely devilish way to hide a "soft genocide"... and would explain why there are so many deaths in the "1 dose + 21 days and more" category.
It can't be overstated: the literal survival of the species may depend on teasing *that* out of the data.
The UK is not hiding or misrepresenting its very large sample data. If you merely look at the table 3 and 4 itself and add up all the numbers for each week for each of their 4 classifications of unvaxd, partlyvaxd1, partlyvaxd2, and fullyvaxd, you will find that the data is mutually exclusive and sums to the total sum minus the deaths they list - so is very accurate. I.e., they move people from one category to the other each week as reflects reality in accurate, timely fashion.
Thanks for this comment. But do you know what "2 doses" mean? 2 doses just after the injection or with a time delay (like 2 weeks to consider the vaccine fully effective)? It's strange that they consider 2 possible cases in the definitions tab but give only one in the spreadsheet.
I believe in England most people got the 2nd dose at least 4 weeks or longer after the 2nd dose. The vaccine drastically reduces your own natural immunity for at least 2 weeks after the 2nd dose (if not forever). Don't know what spreadsheet you're referring to.
VAERS confirms that quiet well I believe.
Exactly! The Fauci/CDC way to mislead everyone and label many of the deaths of the vaccinated "COVID deaths of the unvaccinated". That's why US data cannot be accurately broken out by vaxd and unvaxd like the UK/England data is.
Here's a chart that includes ALL the vaccinated groups, so doesn't under-estimate the vaccine-induced all-cause deaths like Mathew's chart does: http://www.kathydopp.info/COVIDinfo/Vaccines/UKallCauseMortalit_Infectiousness
If you could calculate the area between the actual curve and the expected curve (or the sum of differences for each week) to compare overall above expected vaccinated to unvaccinated death rates, that could reveal a difference. However, most important is to also look at the all cause deaths of the partially vaccinated, which England may be the only country that keeps and reveals such records. I don't know what the difference in expected mortality should be but, perhaps, exactly the same as for the vaccinated, however, you estimated those numbers, given the age groups taking up the vaccines each week.
Since I'm spending most of each day trying to get into a house after the flood, I chose to skip the one dose group for this analysis, but I may come back around later and do more.
It would also be interesting to start back at Week 50 of last year. I suspect that the front curve will look something like what Professor Fenton demonstrates in his death lag analysis, with the "immediate deaths" (first 72 hours) essentially scrubbed (or not).
Yes. good luck. A friend here in Mass just had her sewer line break inside her house and she was planning to host Thanksgiving dinner today for all us COVID-truthers - so that's cancelled and she needs to move out of her house until it's fixed and cleaned up too. I agree that the delay by one week curve by Prof. Fenton is *really* interesting but I don't quite understand it yet and wonder does the delay in reporting affect the vaxd and unvaxd equally but just produce different patterns because one group (vaxd) is growing while the other (unvaxd) is shrinking? Agree with beginning earlier too to capture the vaccine-induced allcause deaths of the elderly and hospital staff better. But still believe accurate estimates of the Expected all-cause mortality require getting data from prior years, which the UK also makes available by age categories broken out by single years I believe.
Why is ONS grouping 10 year olds with sixty year olds in the first place?
Cuz they’re just as healthy obviously!! Nothing to see here.
To paraphrase the comedian Bill Burr, Biden doesn't look like he's ten years old, he looks like a 43 year old lizard.
Thank you for putting this together. If I am understanding correctly, all-cause mortality for unvaccinated and vaccinated both remain slightly elevated at about the same level in the U.K. This would seem to dispute both the theory that these vaccines are efficacious and have saved lives AND that they are harmful and have caused unnecessary deaths in the (relatively) short-term. (Unless somehow they are capable of killing those who haven't received them, which would fulfill the darkest wishes of a number of resentful jabbed.) Still damning data for the vaccines, especially for those who are trying to mandate. We are not the ones who have to prove anything.
"If I am understanding correctly, all-cause mortality for unvaccinated and vaccinated both remain slightly elevated at about the same level in the U.K."
That's the way this appears to me, though I cannot for instance know if the health profiles of the groups diverge in a meaningful way.
What I can say is..."95% efficacy my arse!"
That number was always useless. Relative risk reduction derived from their suspiciously conducted test is not what really matters, but the absolute risk reduction which is ~1% at best
Even the RRR figure is likely to be far lower than what they claimed it was. Peter Doshi pointed this out in the BMJ:
"All attention has focused on the dramatic efficacy results: Pfizer reported 170 PCR confirmed covid-19 cases, split 8 to 162 between vaccine and placebo groups. But these numbers were dwarfed by a category of disease called “suspected covid-19”—those with symptomatic covid-19 that were not PCR confirmed. According to FDA’s report on Pfizer’s vaccine, there were '3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group.'
"With 20 times more suspected than confirmed cases, this category of disease cannot be ignored simply because there was no positive PCR test result. Indeed this makes it all the more urgent to understand. A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing covid-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, would be a relative risk reduction of 19% (see footnote)—far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization set by regulators. Even after removing cases occurring within 7 days of vaccination (409 on Pfizer’s vaccine vs. 287 on placebo), which should include the majority of symptoms due to short-term vaccine reactogenicity, vaccine efficacy remains low: 29% (see footnote)." [source: https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-we-need-more-details-and-the-raw-data/#comment-5223894971
Thanks for that link and your comment. Very interesting, some things I hadn't considered.
Any wonder why the RRR is the only thing reported in the media? If they discussed ARR everyone would want a whole lot more information on the risks involved with vaccination before agreeing to it.
It's such a meaningless number, but pointing it out is like a flea fart in a hurricane. Efficacy! Effectiveness! Protection! And the words mean nothing
And most likely the injuries and deaths from vaccines are underreported in UK as in US.
Extremely so, yet an excess mortality study is supposed to find such information. ( To be clear, at the very least we see that the vaccinated are fairing no better with regard to mortality then the unvaccinated.) what percentage of excess mortality is currently being assigned to Covid? What percentage of the remainder is vaccinated vs unvaccinated?
As to other morbidities, the current ( say last two months of ER patients status, vaccinated vs unvaccinated, should obviously be KNOWN.) If it is mostly vaccinated ( per capita per category) that would confirm VAERS as underreported! I consider it very unlikely that the vast majority of the sudden increase in ER events is anything other then vaccine related. If the category numbers supported, on a per capita bases in each category, vaccinated vs unvaccinated, that the unvaccinated were having equal unusual adverse ER events, you can bet that the media would be shouting this daily. Yet we KNOW that the vast majority of the BEEY LARGE increase in deaths and hospitalizations to athletes is happening almost exclusively to the vaccinated! ( The vaccine participation rate is very very high in these groups) It is logical and expected that this pattern continues in the general population.
And with very high vaccinated population and natural immunity well established, there is no way that COVID-19 infections should be surging. Yet they are. And we KNOW that any efficacy of the vaccines ( even absurdly assuming no harms) fails rapidly and puts vaccine escape mutational pressure on the virus. The evidence that the vaccines harm the immune system, both to Covid-19 and in general, is growing weekly.
And finally we must parse out the deadly six week post jab one and 14 days post jab two period. The spike in VAERS data here is very large, and hidden by calling this group unvaccinated. To begin to tease out this data I would calculate and then remove all the excess mortality from the jabbed but considered unvaccinated for this period.
Secondly I would compare those numbers, both morbidities and mortality, to what would be expected for that demographic before the jab and before Covid.
All the Best…
Thank you very much, I arrived at the similar conclusions regarding the Berenson analysis. Furthermore, I kept working on the dataset in question. It seems to miss a large number of residents. The total for 10 and up is about 39 million (check if I am right). I figure another 7-8 million under 10. That's 46-47. England's population is about 56 million. What happened to the rest?
When dealing with the "United Kingdom", one most figure out which subset of the population is being used. Unless the different subsets have dramatically different age groupings and expected mortality ratios, what I did should be a good first order approximation, regardless. It's not good enough for publication without some additional work, but most of that work would likely result in "rounding error" level deviations.
Sorry the formatting got destroyed. Suffice it to say Pfizer 1 harmed for every 241 vaccinations administered, Moderna 1 harmed every 5 vaccinations administered JNJ 1 harmed every 74 vaccinations administered. Mind you this is THEIR OWN DATA. My experience is that these data have been altered to hide the severity of the adverse events. It is not possible that the FDA is allowing these products to be used.
The FDA is run by pharma advocats
and they earn with vax sales like the CDC. And all 3 FDA-authorized COVID shot companies now employ former FDA commissioners.
Doesn’t the FDA get a sizable portion of their funding from big pharma as well?
Michael, take a look at table 2 of the raw data set. It has age standardized all cause mortality rates for non, partial and full vaxxed over the full population. The numbers for "partial" categories are off the charts! Using the rollout data you can back out the age ranges actively shooting as well.
Btw I tried to do that painstaking work of reconstructing the age stratified rollout data from the plots and only got through a part of it before giving up. Would you be willing to make that file public?
Are you referring to Mathew as Michael?
Oops, yes!
Better throw the circuit breaker that controls that socket!
Yes, I think all the burning insulation got to me.
Reminds me I got caught having pounded a nail into a wall outlet when I was a little kid. My mother says I got lucky and picked the ground side of the outlet. Some of my later antics make me wonder..
I distinctly remember getting a shock as a small child sticking something into an outlet. I remember it as a butter knife, but that couldn't possibly fit, so it must have been something else. Fortunately I wasn't touching the baseboard heater with my other hand, and I learned not to do that again. One of many things my parents are probably glad not to know about. These days it's almost impossible to do because of the "child proof safety feature" that requires concurrent insertion of both prongs to slide over an internal cover. So I guess those learning experiences are harder to come by now.