Week 9 UK data on COVID & the latest available Scottish data shows us negative efficacy, & that protection wanes fast & hospitalization & death escalates for booster (3rd) shot; older at greatest risk
Week 9 UK data on COVID & the latest available Scottish data shows us negative efficacy, & that protection wanes fast & hospitalization & death escalates for booster (3rd) shot; older at greatest risk
We understand that the vaccine drives antibodies IgG in the bloodstream where it is not needed; the immune response is needed in the mucosal lining/layer/barrier where the virus lands
Looks like your best bet is to get a vaccine ; ) < Every 20 days, lol. That's only 13.25 vaccines/year. Best to get a digital vaccine card. You'll need the room for your "boosters." Maybe a digital death certificate could be on the back, you know, just in case you get covid anyway or something . . . . . . omg. I hope you know I'm being cynical : )
I'm so sick of covid clown world. But I will still fight this fight for our childrens rights.
“Age standardisation” in one way to fudge the numbers. Another is by ensuring unvaccinated are tested more frequently. The “death within 60 days of positive covid test” enables the bais against unvaxed to be eatablished.
I will attempt an answer. The responsibilty for describing the details of the process of age standardisation is the job of the authors of the report. But here is an example of the steps one might take to bring about a how a bias favoring the vaccine:
1. The unvaccinated are,as a cohort, younger than the vaccinated.
2. If one assumes that younger people are less likely to be hospitalised or to die from covid, then it may make sense to multiply the number of young hospitalised patients/deaths by a weighting factor. The question is: how do you determine the weighting factor?
3. Based on the assumptions you make, you might choose to multiply the number of young hospitalized patients (say between ages 20-29) by 2 or by 10. By the same token you might multiply the number of patients from 70-79 by 0.2 or by 0.5. Then all weighted values can be added -and compare the sum in terms of vaccination status. The choices the researchers makes in weighting factors will lead to a big difference in the comparison.
4. A fair researcher will base the weighting factors for the standardisation (which may be appropriate in some circumstances) on reasonable assumptions. More importantly, how the weighting factors were determined would be 100% transparent.
5. As we know, transparency is absent when it comes to covid vaccines. Most reports will cite an obscure software product with some vague verbiage for their weighting factor/standardisation process.
6. Even if the researcher *wants* to do a fair standardisation, he/she has to satisfy either the journal editors or their bosses. They have a preferred outcome due either to reputation or to inflow of money and power. And if the research fails to meet their expectations, they will require data to be “conditioned” until the “proper” story is told.
If you do your calculations, the latest surveillance report shows the single and double vaccinated have mortality rates 150-330% more than unvaccinated. This negative efficacy has been around since January but seems to be worsening. The surveillance report only shows three dose v no dose, but even that is evening out and sadly will probably continue to worsen for those people.
Any medical practitioner who has been apart of this fiasco (at best), or intentional assault on humanity (more likely) should bow their heads in embarrassment, at their level of medical incompetency, if not shame at their level of complicity. There is not one who should be excused.
It is a sad fact that only a small portion will. The bulk of this pathetic rabble will duck for cover, or up their aggressive suppression and assault on their more enlightened and ethical colleagues.
This has been a very sad time for the medical and scientific institutions and community. Not only have they failed in their duty to protect humanity, they have actively engaged in and pursued highly destructive policies and procedures against humanity.
It will take them decades to regain our trust and respect, assuming it can ever be regained.
At this point it appears to me that most first world countries are going to continue down the vaccine pathway rather than actually trying something different. I would imagine by the fall we will yet again be faced with another covid pathogen and the vaccinated are going to have a terrible time fighting it off. And sadly these very same people will probably line up for yet another miracle vaccine. I totally believe based on my own research that mass vaccine campaigns during a pandemic is wrong. And yet the irony is these really aren't vaccines. In fact at this point they are nothing. When I think of snakeoil salesmen, why does pfizer and all come to mind.
Looks like your best bet is to get a vaccine ; ) < Every 20 days, lol. That's only 13.25 vaccines/year. Best to get a digital vaccine card. You'll need the room for your "boosters." Maybe a digital death certificate could be on the back, you know, just in case you get covid anyway or something . . . . . . omg. I hope you know I'm being cynical : )
I'm so sick of covid clown world. But I will still fight this fight for our childrens rights.
Every 20 days? The way this is going they will require a permanent drip.
No doubt, right lol.
“Age standardisation” in one way to fudge the numbers. Another is by ensuring unvaccinated are tested more frequently. The “death within 60 days of positive covid test” enables the bais against unvaxed to be eatablished.
I have heard this about age standardization before. Can you elaborate on how it fudges the numbers. Thank you.
I will attempt an answer. The responsibilty for describing the details of the process of age standardisation is the job of the authors of the report. But here is an example of the steps one might take to bring about a how a bias favoring the vaccine:
1. The unvaccinated are,as a cohort, younger than the vaccinated.
2. If one assumes that younger people are less likely to be hospitalised or to die from covid, then it may make sense to multiply the number of young hospitalised patients/deaths by a weighting factor. The question is: how do you determine the weighting factor?
3. Based on the assumptions you make, you might choose to multiply the number of young hospitalized patients (say between ages 20-29) by 2 or by 10. By the same token you might multiply the number of patients from 70-79 by 0.2 or by 0.5. Then all weighted values can be added -and compare the sum in terms of vaccination status. The choices the researchers makes in weighting factors will lead to a big difference in the comparison.
4. A fair researcher will base the weighting factors for the standardisation (which may be appropriate in some circumstances) on reasonable assumptions. More importantly, how the weighting factors were determined would be 100% transparent.
5. As we know, transparency is absent when it comes to covid vaccines. Most reports will cite an obscure software product with some vague verbiage for their weighting factor/standardisation process.
6. Even if the researcher *wants* to do a fair standardisation, he/she has to satisfy either the journal editors or their bosses. They have a preferred outcome due either to reputation or to inflow of money and power. And if the research fails to meet their expectations, they will require data to be “conditioned” until the “proper” story is told.
Thank you for this. Really appreciate the depth of your answer in explaining how it works.
It was a good question.
The mortality rates per 100k population in UK for single dose and two dose can be ascertained using the vaccination coverage rates on p.84 of the UK Weekly Flu and Covid19 Report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1060025/Weekly_Flu_and_COVID-19_report_w10_2.pdf
If you do your calculations, the latest surveillance report shows the single and double vaccinated have mortality rates 150-330% more than unvaccinated. This negative efficacy has been around since January but seems to be worsening. The surveillance report only shows three dose v no dose, but even that is evening out and sadly will probably continue to worsen for those people.
Any medical practitioner who has been apart of this fiasco (at best), or intentional assault on humanity (more likely) should bow their heads in embarrassment, at their level of medical incompetency, if not shame at their level of complicity. There is not one who should be excused.
It is a sad fact that only a small portion will. The bulk of this pathetic rabble will duck for cover, or up their aggressive suppression and assault on their more enlightened and ethical colleagues.
This has been a very sad time for the medical and scientific institutions and community. Not only have they failed in their duty to protect humanity, they have actively engaged in and pursued highly destructive policies and procedures against humanity.
It will take them decades to regain our trust and respect, assuming it can ever be regained.
Again, the population in the different tables (Scotland) matches for every category but not for the vax-free:
Table 13: 950k
Table 14: 780k
Table 15: 1500k
At this point it appears to me that most first world countries are going to continue down the vaccine pathway rather than actually trying something different. I would imagine by the fall we will yet again be faced with another covid pathogen and the vaccinated are going to have a terrible time fighting it off. And sadly these very same people will probably line up for yet another miracle vaccine. I totally believe based on my own research that mass vaccine campaigns during a pandemic is wrong. And yet the irony is these really aren't vaccines. In fact at this point they are nothing. When I think of snakeoil salesmen, why does pfizer and all come to mind.
Just criminal, I'm so heartbroken for us all! They planned to delete 2/3rds of the world's population.