....even when those vaccinated get infected.
I remember in 2020, in my age of innocence/naivety, AstraZeneca announced figures of 76% efficacy after 1 dose and 81% after 2 doses. Pfizer came out with a figure of 95% and most of my acquaintances announced they wanted Pfizer. So many people just didn’t realise that AZ was cheating and Pfizer just cheated harder. It was the same with the blood clots issue. AZ basically got dropped even though the figures from Pfizer were just as bad. Pfizer had a better PR machine and used it to eliminate a competitor.
This catastrophe being international, it outstrips nation-level propagandas. It demonstrates that mechanisms are in place for the same level of mind control and exploitation in the future. A minimum of two things, be they realisitc or not, are needed to save ourselves. One is either (a) technology that evades suppression by those who control the internet, or (b) a range of technologies that can't be centrally controlled. Maybe my thinking isn't quite right; I am not at all tech-savvy. Nevertheless we clearly have a problem with info suppression. The other "save" needed is protection of whisteblowers--a mighty problem.
You forgot the meaninglessness of vaccine efficacy, in that when deciding to vaccinate a population, only a holistic analysis of all cause hospitalization and death makes any sense
You also didn't mention the hypothesis that the vaccine could make you test positive for Covid within a week of receiving and then not test positive again for months even if you are infected. This hypothesis is never tested but fits the data and again would motivate a holistic cost/benefit.
Thank you for analyzing and breaking down the study. I’m appreciative of you and everyone else who does this b/c it takes quite a bit of time for you to do so but it’s important to see that just because it’s a published study doesn’t mean it’s not flawed. MSM will literally copy and paste the last two conclusion sentences of studies and that is what everyone believes without looking at methods and results.
"A major study claimed the covid vaccines are over 90% effective. But when you look at the details of the study you find that a whopping 37.2% of all vaccinated participants who were tested within 14 days of the first dose were confirmed as covid cases. None of these ‘cases’ were counted in the efficacy calculation."
Coming from a physics background (MA, with thesis), I am trained to look at systematic error. Ditto for my work in chemistry (BA). I see lots of systematic error in this study. I'll focus on salient points.
1. The study didn't look at the possibility that jabs exacerbated risk of covid infection in the 14 day period. This might lead to the conclusion of negative efficacy. The mechanism is known. I have seen a study of a bacterial infection where 25OHD levels dropped 4-5 ng/ml (10-12.5 nM/Liter) immediately upon infection. The levels recovered gradually over two weeks. This 25OHD drop likely also happens in viremic infections that affect endovascular cells and possibly when cells are instructed to make spike proteins. If the jab recipient begins with deficient 25OHD levels, the 25OHD levels might not recover quickly enough to prevent covid infection/progression. This is a study that would be well worth doing. Ignoring jab-exacerbation of covid infection is the largest source of bias.
2. The study didn't examine false negatives, even by estimation. Estimates of false negatives would undermine certainty in any conclusion by increasing the efficacy range and shifting it downwards if even numbers of tests were in both jab and placebo arms. Since the total number of tests weren't reported, this is a major source of bias.
Thank you for at least trying to hold them to account. Thankfully substack provides a high visible space to self-publish critiques, and allows some evasion of the gatekeepers.
Professor, you remind me of a brilliant CFO that took the time to show me how to sort data in a way that allowed even a naif like me to make important signals emerge from the noise.
I shall never attain his erudition, nor yours, but please accept the profound gratitude of one who has benefited from your generosity.
From what I have read, there is also mechanistically little to zero evidence of vaccinal antibodies (igG) crossing the lung barrier in any meaningful manner to stop infection in the airways. It has only been shown to happen with flu antibodies (which are significantly smaller than covid ones), but is quite rare (3% of individuals with no prior antibodies) and is likely of insignificant quantity to make a clinical difference.
Thus, when a transfected individual does not get ill/severely sick, there is no evidence to suggest it was the effect of vaccinal serum antibodies preventing the infection from spreading as opposed to their mucosal immunity doing the job.
Just a thought, should the government be reported to the serious fraud office
for Safe and Effective being a variafiable fraudulent statement and the deaths that it has caused🤔
Brazen Fraud: Normalised Deception.
More excellent work. Keep it coming.
Anothe gem for posterity.
Thank you both for your world class analysis.
Thank you for doing this important and very interesting work.
I think this happens due to the spike protein accumulating in the brain and damaging the neural network in the neocortex. Most people in academia took multiple boosters, and this is the result.
“There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.” - attributed to Benjamin Disraeli by Mark Twain. Seems appropriate to this discussion.
Regarding misclassification, soon they will just administer the virus with the vaccine being trialed.