The challenge is to find the data that does not support the thesis in the book. I have read articles by Steve Kirsch for some years where he begs people to show he's wrong, even offering a cash incentive of $ millions.
I sent an e-mail to the CEO of the AGES regarding the miraculous increase of the saved lives by vaccination in Austria:
Dear Dr. Benka,
In the few months that passed between the preprint (co-authored by you as an AGES author) and the publication in Lancet Respiratory Diseases, the number of people rescued has increased from 24,859
to 32,304. Please explain this miraculous increase to me.
Is it possible that data from Austria was used in the new calculation that does not appear in the former Supplemental Table 7? Perhaps these were results from Tyrol ( a hyperlink was added here to the Schwaz Miracle ,as published by Fenton and Neil)?
There is ( in Austria) an increasing public propaganda in newspapers, state-financed influencers, radio and TV about the recently published " Estimated number of lives saved by Covid -19 vaccination.." which now appeared ( behind a paywall) in Lancet Respiratory Diseases.These estimates are based on the number of Covid -19 deaths,reported by each of CAT and an efficacy of the vaccination to prevent death from the literature( which I could not find in the cited Supplemental table 6 in the preprint ).The data for entire UK ( including Northern Ireland ) are in the paper. Extrapolating the NI data suggests that the real death rate may be much smaller.
Fortunately there are spot samples from autopsies. In one pathology report ( Noack et al.from Linz in Austria ) the median PCR CT ( for all deceased ) was 22.9, suggestion that at least on half of the deceased (Median age:80 years) had some fragments of the suspected virus ,not considered by some experts to prove an "infection."
I am only a trained biochemist / pharmacologist and have no expertise to critically evaluate the claims of WHO Europe.For Austria the "Excess All Cause Mortality "was recently reported by Matthias Reitzer in a preprint. His data and interpretations are in alignement with others e.g. Moster et al.( which may not survive the concern).
With respect to the Kirsch 1$ million reward( comment by Robert Dyson)-never underestimate what billions can by-even murder.
Actually, I think the answer is simply 275, except that the agency's language is a bit distorted.
I will assume that the 275 COVID-only are deaaths that use only U07.1 and no concurrent pneumonia code. Please LMK if that is your assumption as well
The only "caution" I would issue for readers is to NOT intepret those as "the only true COVID deaths," as has been the mistake with interpretation in the US.
I believe my article above helps clarify.
Disclosure: I don't believe there was a new cause of death in 2020 and contend that the WHO lied when it announced/confirmed a new disease on Feb 11, 2020.
Well, where does one bin the data on people refused care for shortness of breath and increasingly-extreme fatigue, symptoms of (among other maladies) progressive coronary artery restriction leading to acute cardiogenic shock?
This was the reality of lockdown, for many people. I was one of them.
The only reliable category for this is "delayed treatment." The subcategory is arguable. Does a data point representing cardiac arrest and respiratory collapse (death) that is successfully resuscitated, belong in the category "died" or "preventable adverse outcomes?"
We have to determine the probability of timely and accurate diagnosis to even begin such a categorization. Frequentist modelling can do nothing but obscure the meaning of such data, which was the core reasons for abandoning established pandemic protocols in favor of house arrest; the utilitarian calculus deployed by public health authorities elided any models at variance with their univariate priors.
Shutting down production and distribution nodes within the supply chain, for instance, is an obvious driver of poverty at the tail of the distribution curve. Within the category of deferred care, prior "poverty kills" represents a subcategory. To determine probability, we have to differentiate the priors by "potential access to early treatment before house arrest" and "deferral owing to chronically-limited access."
Bayesianism is touted as a means of updating beliefs. Fair enough, but even an old fool like me can see that it's much more than that.
While the numbers appear to speak for themselves, they generate further questions:
- How was a covid diagnosis established? I presume by PCR? How many cycles? There is another factor to take into account.
- What treatment did patients with covid diagnosis receive? Were they put on ventilators and refused anything else?
Although as it stands the data is damning enough, it can only get worse if the above factors have not been considered?
Yes all those factors further exaggerated the number of covid ‘cases’ while increasing the number of covid classified deaths
The challenge is to find the data that does not support the thesis in the book. I have read articles by Steve Kirsch for some years where he begs people to show he's wrong, even offering a cash incentive of $ millions.
Anyway, “Always get your vaccine and health information from trusted sources, such as the NHS or World Health Organisation (WHO)”. https://www.nhs.uk/vaccinations/why-vaccination-is-important-and-the-safest-way-to-protect-yourself/
So, NHS & WHO, get yourself a cash boost from Steve Kirsch – and shut down Fenton & Neil et al.
I sent an e-mail to the CEO of the AGES regarding the miraculous increase of the saved lives by vaccination in Austria:
Dear Dr. Benka,
In the few months that passed between the preprint (co-authored by you as an AGES author) and the publication in Lancet Respiratory Diseases, the number of people rescued has increased from 24,859
to 32,304. Please explain this miraculous increase to me.
Is it possible that data from Austria was used in the new calculation that does not appear in the former Supplemental Table 7? Perhaps these were results from Tyrol ( a hyperlink was added here to the Schwaz Miracle ,as published by Fenton and Neil)?
I would be grateful for an answer.
MfG
Yours
H.Glossmann
Em.O.Univ.Prof. Dr.med.Hartmut Glossmann
Specialist in Clinical Pharmacology
Institute for Biochemical Pharmacology
Medical University of Innsbruck
PS
You may also find an article interesting,reflecting my own views on the faschistoid background:
https://tkp.at/2024/09/04/auf-der-suche-nach-moerdern-anlaesslich-des-ploetzlichen-und-unerwarteten-todes-eines-34-jaehrigen/
There is ( in Austria) an increasing public propaganda in newspapers, state-financed influencers, radio and TV about the recently published " Estimated number of lives saved by Covid -19 vaccination.." which now appeared ( behind a paywall) in Lancet Respiratory Diseases.These estimates are based on the number of Covid -19 deaths,reported by each of CAT and an efficacy of the vaccination to prevent death from the literature( which I could not find in the cited Supplemental table 6 in the preprint ).The data for entire UK ( including Northern Ireland ) are in the paper. Extrapolating the NI data suggests that the real death rate may be much smaller.
Fortunately there are spot samples from autopsies. In one pathology report ( Noack et al.from Linz in Austria ) the median PCR CT ( for all deceased ) was 22.9, suggestion that at least on half of the deceased (Median age:80 years) had some fragments of the suspected virus ,not considered by some experts to prove an "infection."
I am only a trained biochemist / pharmacologist and have no expertise to critically evaluate the claims of WHO Europe.For Austria the "Excess All Cause Mortality "was recently reported by Matthias Reitzer in a preprint. His data and interpretations are in alignement with others e.g. Moster et al.( which may not survive the concern).
With respect to the Kirsch 1$ million reward( comment by Robert Dyson)-never underestimate what billions can by-even murder.
FYI, in the US, a death that lists only COVID-19 and nothing else is an incomplete death certificate, insofar as cause is concerned. https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/nycs-covid-only-deaths-in-spring
Do you have the number of deaths that list only COVID and NOT pneumonia?
Thanks.
Actually, I think the answer is simply 275, except that the agency's language is a bit distorted.
I will assume that the 275 COVID-only are deaaths that use only U07.1 and no concurrent pneumonia code. Please LMK if that is your assumption as well
The only "caution" I would issue for readers is to NOT intepret those as "the only true COVID deaths," as has been the mistake with interpretation in the US.
I believe my article above helps clarify.
Disclosure: I don't believe there was a new cause of death in 2020 and contend that the WHO lied when it announced/confirmed a new disease on Feb 11, 2020.
Well, where does one bin the data on people refused care for shortness of breath and increasingly-extreme fatigue, symptoms of (among other maladies) progressive coronary artery restriction leading to acute cardiogenic shock?
This was the reality of lockdown, for many people. I was one of them.
The only reliable category for this is "delayed treatment." The subcategory is arguable. Does a data point representing cardiac arrest and respiratory collapse (death) that is successfully resuscitated, belong in the category "died" or "preventable adverse outcomes?"
We have to determine the probability of timely and accurate diagnosis to even begin such a categorization. Frequentist modelling can do nothing but obscure the meaning of such data, which was the core reasons for abandoning established pandemic protocols in favor of house arrest; the utilitarian calculus deployed by public health authorities elided any models at variance with their univariate priors.
Shutting down production and distribution nodes within the supply chain, for instance, is an obvious driver of poverty at the tail of the distribution curve. Within the category of deferred care, prior "poverty kills" represents a subcategory. To determine probability, we have to differentiate the priors by "potential access to early treatment before house arrest" and "deferral owing to chronically-limited access."
Bayesianism is touted as a means of updating beliefs. Fair enough, but even an old fool like me can see that it's much more than that.