In response to Steve Kirsch's challenge, we summarise the evidence and list nine reasons that the covid-19 vaccines have not reduced all-cause mortality.
the issue remains---was the vaccine necessary at all ?
as you know, for most age groups the chances of survival were in the high 90s% + with people under 40 -98-99% and children 99.9987%
why spend zillions on a vaccine that was not needed, if governments had spare billions, why not spend it on sustainable health care--infrastructure, clean water, food, shelter?
Logic and common sense. So outdated, but much appreciated. I am still baffled about the ignorance amongst the jabbed. Asked my brother (who got Covid again as did half of the familiy) whether his 'repeat jab' or 'booster' was a monovalent or a bivalent shot. He'd never heard of it. This is someone who works on an academic level in a high esteemed education system in the Netherlands. I can only hope I triggered his curiosity. It seems the vaxxed are completely unaware of which substances they let themselves be injected with.
Here in the Netherlands censorship is still enormous. During the last round of vaccinations they first used the old original monovalent vaccin. And it was even formally mentioned. The old stash had to be cleared first. Even the bivalent one (the infamous 8 mice tested flavour) is at best pointless. Some 'lucky'ones probably received the bivalent variant. They're blisfully unaware. The happy jabbers queued to be injected.
And I am the crazy one, not being vaxxed, the conspiracy theorist. Sigh.
I missed that Cees, that Kuipers in the september (last) round ordered the old monovalent stock to be used first! Apparently, they really don’t care what goes in, as long as something does go in. I so recognize the uninterested (lazy?) attitude of family and friends who can’t be bothered to check and read because it is too much effort and no doubt the government means well. They have an obedient trait perhaps. Take everything at face value and investigate nothing. Good to meet a fellow Dutchman here!
Yes, its bizar. Being unvaxxed, I received an invite for a 'repeat' shot sometime september last year. But.. being unvaxxed, I would first need to take the 2 'basic' shots, later followed by the 'repeat' shot. This is insanity from a completely deranged bureaucracy. The basic shots were designed to address the original Wuhan strain. I obviously binned the insane offer (I should have framed it for later generations). A few weeks later, I received a new proposal. They were now willing to give me the 'repeat' shot only, waving the 2 basic shot. Needless to say what happened to that invite. I can only assume that the technocracy had to clear their shelves from the stacked up 'vaccines'. Purchased with your and mine tax money.
Same here, only i saved every invite as evidence of how the language and claims changed on the colorful ‘under-5 insert’. Received initial invite and then a reminder. Silence after that until booster round november ‘22. Husband, who finally retired and made it home from india just in time early 2020, never received any invites, until this past november, indeed advising he’d have to take the initial series prior to the booster if he had not been vaxed prior… these invites are so invasive! And coercive. I often say we are truly ruled by maffia, everywhere, if you take a step back at look at the workings of government, on every level.
''The basic shots were designed to address the original Wuhan strain.'' LOL. Do you actually believe that? Go up to Reggie's A B C D explanation, several comments north of this, to see what the original (and every) shot was designed for. Other than that, you are on target.
No, not really. I used the phrase to distinguish between the 2 batches of jabs. The first time around they were formally supposed to address the original strain. The second batch, the 'bivalent' was supposed to address Omicron variants. I AM convinced that they contain mRNA strains, and that this method is harmful. I personally believe that the bivalent series may even be more harmful than the first one (nobody knows exactly what happens in a human body when its forced to produce various Spike proteins). I see absolutely no need to take any of these.
Regarding your 4th point, I think there is more governmental manipulation than perceived. I have studied death certificates in my state for 2 years. Anyone that has a history of Covid AND dies gets Covid recorded on their death certificate. I have seen examples of deaths in which the person had Covid 18 months prior to death and Covid was the underlying cause of death. I reached out to my state and asked if there was a statute of limitations in which Covid would not be included on the death certificate. The answer they gave me was “no”. If the medical certifier documents Covid on the certificate; it is counted as Covid. Applying this approach a person that had Covid in 2020 and dies in 2030 is still a COVID death.
Additionally, a decedent only needs to test positive to be counted. There is no requirement of symptoms or etiology that would support Covid contributing to death.
I find it interesting that Covid and death are correlated as causality regardless of the time between those 2 events. But when it comes to vaccination and death (even when those 2 happen on the same day), there is no causality. I don’t see consistent logic being applied.
No MD in Brazil knows about the greater number of deaths among the vaccinated in the initial vaccine trials(those RCT payed by the pharmaceutical industry). They simply don’t bother to seek information o the subject. And don’t want to listen to it when one tries to tell them. We’ve been living in very scary and dark times.
And the ONS and UKHSA don't help themselves by stopping releasing data (Rates per 100,000 in vaccinated vs unvaccinated) and prolonging the release of data (Birth rates & comparison of deaths in vax vs unvaxed).
This data is extremely important and in the public interest. Flaws aside, it could be the most important information that ever needs releasing, we just don't know.
As I would expect from these authors, a thorough and comprehensive review of the statistics and how they have been manipulated. This consideration of the statistics (the risk numbers) deals with only one element of the totality of evidence. Plausible mechanism is a crucial element too: whether forecast or found. There were a chorus of individual qualified commentators who forecast the possibility of both lack of efficacy and harms, based in part on the pre-existing science. These commentators were systematically censored and “fact-checked” out of existence. After the event we are now finding so many peer-reviewed papers showing the many mechanisms for inefficacy and harm, that have been revealed so far. Existence of these mechanisms serves to support the statistical analysis. Since many of the possible harms are long term, we can only wait to see the final toll. It is never easy to deal with the inevitable uncertainty of a novel, experimental and untested therapy. That is why caution should have been exercised and the risks (harms) and benefits of this novel therapy fully assessed before forcing it on the World.
I really do try to convert expensive errors into an investment in wisdom, but the cost of this most recent epiphany just seems too high for me to think it a reasonable ROI.
What "gets me" is the hubris. The Narrators could have gotten away with their deceptions forever, if they'd simply abstained from extortion and violence. It seems the allure of absolute power was simply too much for them, with the result that millions of ordinary folks like myself are now becoming au fait with the everyday mendacity of commonly-deployed statistical legerdemain.
It's beginning to appear that, within certain reasonable limits, ignorance really may be bliss. In retrospect, Norman, I do believe I would have preferred to remain blissful.
The vaccines have simply made everything even worse. The astoundingly gullible general public first believed that a cold would kill them then they believed that several injections with an experimental substance with no safety data would originally stop them catching and dying from said cold. They believed a bit of cloth/paper over their nose/mouth would stop them catching a cold, likewise standing a few feet apart and walking one way round a supermarket. They are mostly still taking the injections because they have been invited by the NHS to do so. They believe they work. It amazes me that people who have basically had covid for around 2 years and have had 3 or 4 jabs, not to mention friends and family keeling over with various sudden illnesses, STILL believe all the rubbish they are told by "trusted sources". I've given up even trying to talk to anyone about it all.
The 6 month pfizer trial vaccine group died mostly from multiple heart conditions. When added together as one they would likely show statistical significance. At the very least, a safety signal. Toxins will affect each person's heart according to their weakness/strength. You are only as strong as your weakest link.
Here (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/podcasts/2022/20220107/20220107.htm) the CDC explains how it defines Death with Covid and Deaths by Covid, and seems their Covid numbers reflect that, and seems to contradict what you say in point 6. I may be wrong, because I'm no scientist and my understanding of all this is limited.
I mention this because everything really needs to be buttoned up if we want to prove them wrong.
As we know from the ONS data, what they claim to be doing and what they ARE doing with respect to the definitions are two very different things. When it comes to assessing efficacy it is completely routine to count covid cases within 14 days of vaccination as unvaccinated. However, when it comes to assessing safety the ONS CLAIM that a death at ANY TIME after vaccination is classified as a vaccinated death. However, as our papers on their data have shown, we know that many such deaths are classified as unvaccinated and also that many such deaths are also missing completely. These 'errors' may bot be the fault of the ONS but rather the inevitable result of the many points in the data collection process in which such errors can occur before the data reaches the ONS (see Figure 8 in http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12472.42248). The same must be true of the CDC data.
I understand there are errors, and it has been shown time after time, but I think it's important to show exactly where those are.
I also see much pushing back on "assumptions" that the official information has, so if nothing, I would like you or someone else to confirm the assumption that the same is true to CDC, and if possible, if they are lying on this or just really incompetent. Since they have a documented stance on this matter they should be accountable to it.
Thank you for answering me, I appreciate you taking the time Dr. Fenton.
Pfizer trial, as you know had many "Lost to follow-up", which means they did not get a response to a registered letter sent to the volunteer last place of residence. They did not check local hospitals.
Subjects in the trial who received the BNT162b2 jab and Died:
10211127 Died 19 DEC 2020 11201266 Died 19 JAN 2021 11271112 Died 4 DEC 2020
10071101 Died 21 OCT 2020 10361140 Died before 10 Feb 2021 10391010 Died before 18 Nov 2020
10841266 Died before 12 Jan 2021 10881139 Died 6 Mar 2021 10891073 Died 12 Nov 2020
10971023 Died 21 Dec 2020 11141050 Died 19 Oct 2020 11201050 Died 7 Nov 2020
11291166 Died 3 Feb 2021 11311204 Died 15 Feb 2021 11351033 Died 29 Jan 2021
11361102 Died 19 Dec 2020 11401117 Died 29 Dec 2020 11521497 Died 11 Nov 2020
11621327 Died 13 Sep 2020 12521010 Died 26 Dec 2020
Note many of these Dead trial subjects were classified as "Withdrawn".
Narratives are located in Module 5.3.5.1 C4591001 Efficacy Final Analysis Interim CSR
Section 14 Subject Narratives (for data available as of the 14 November 2020 cutoff date) or
As you know, a judge ordered release of BioNTech-Pfizer jab trial data 75 years ahead of what the company and FDA had in mind as concealment time.
Please share this link with all who want do a deep dive. There is a team of data analysts extracting useful detail from the data dumps, converting scanned files to text as well as probing the XPT format. I take their output and track individual trial subjects.
If the FDA had not already decided that the US Army should buy Pfizer jabs at a fixed contract price before its meeting in early October, before the first trial results for BNT162b2 were forwarded by Polack, the "efficacy" calculation in prevention of Death would have been shot to pieces.
the issue remains---was the vaccine necessary at all ?
as you know, for most age groups the chances of survival were in the high 90s% + with people under 40 -98-99% and children 99.9987%
why spend zillions on a vaccine that was not needed, if governments had spare billions, why not spend it on sustainable health care--infrastructure, clean water, food, shelter?
Please always read, acknowledge and refer to the original authors!
Katherine Watt's amazing and extended research: https://substack.com/profile/8540123-katherine-watt
Also look up Sasha Latypova at Team Enigma.
And read Margaret's comments here to Malone's language.
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/the-dilemma-of-the-vaccinated/comments#comment-10606169
Malone has been involved with the DOD and DARPA. He's doing damage control.
Some interesting questions re Malone.
https://www.rosemaryfrei.ca/robert-malone-an-enigma-wrapped-in-many-unanswered-questions/
🙃
Logic and common sense. So outdated, but much appreciated. I am still baffled about the ignorance amongst the jabbed. Asked my brother (who got Covid again as did half of the familiy) whether his 'repeat jab' or 'booster' was a monovalent or a bivalent shot. He'd never heard of it. This is someone who works on an academic level in a high esteemed education system in the Netherlands. I can only hope I triggered his curiosity. It seems the vaxxed are completely unaware of which substances they let themselves be injected with.
Here in the Netherlands censorship is still enormous. During the last round of vaccinations they first used the old original monovalent vaccin. And it was even formally mentioned. The old stash had to be cleared first. Even the bivalent one (the infamous 8 mice tested flavour) is at best pointless. Some 'lucky'ones probably received the bivalent variant. They're blisfully unaware. The happy jabbers queued to be injected.
And I am the crazy one, not being vaxxed, the conspiracy theorist. Sigh.
I missed that Cees, that Kuipers in the september (last) round ordered the old monovalent stock to be used first! Apparently, they really don’t care what goes in, as long as something does go in. I so recognize the uninterested (lazy?) attitude of family and friends who can’t be bothered to check and read because it is too much effort and no doubt the government means well. They have an obedient trait perhaps. Take everything at face value and investigate nothing. Good to meet a fellow Dutchman here!
Yes, its bizar. Being unvaxxed, I received an invite for a 'repeat' shot sometime september last year. But.. being unvaxxed, I would first need to take the 2 'basic' shots, later followed by the 'repeat' shot. This is insanity from a completely deranged bureaucracy. The basic shots were designed to address the original Wuhan strain. I obviously binned the insane offer (I should have framed it for later generations). A few weeks later, I received a new proposal. They were now willing to give me the 'repeat' shot only, waving the 2 basic shot. Needless to say what happened to that invite. I can only assume that the technocracy had to clear their shelves from the stacked up 'vaccines'. Purchased with your and mine tax money.
Same here, only i saved every invite as evidence of how the language and claims changed on the colorful ‘under-5 insert’. Received initial invite and then a reminder. Silence after that until booster round november ‘22. Husband, who finally retired and made it home from india just in time early 2020, never received any invites, until this past november, indeed advising he’d have to take the initial series prior to the booster if he had not been vaxed prior… these invites are so invasive! And coercive. I often say we are truly ruled by maffia, everywhere, if you take a step back at look at the workings of government, on every level.
Listen or read Whitney Webb. She explains how the US is run by organised crime. It's the same in the U.K.
''The basic shots were designed to address the original Wuhan strain.'' LOL. Do you actually believe that? Go up to Reggie's A B C D explanation, several comments north of this, to see what the original (and every) shot was designed for. Other than that, you are on target.
No, not really. I used the phrase to distinguish between the 2 batches of jabs. The first time around they were formally supposed to address the original strain. The second batch, the 'bivalent' was supposed to address Omicron variants. I AM convinced that they contain mRNA strains, and that this method is harmful. I personally believe that the bivalent series may even be more harmful than the first one (nobody knows exactly what happens in a human body when its forced to produce various Spike proteins). I see absolutely no need to take any of these.
Full agreement. Colin todhunter’s article of december 29 last on off-guardian.com lays it out well.
Tremendous Nutshell Analysis by the Formidable Statistician Prof “can’t bamboozle us” Fenton
Regarding your 4th point, I think there is more governmental manipulation than perceived. I have studied death certificates in my state for 2 years. Anyone that has a history of Covid AND dies gets Covid recorded on their death certificate. I have seen examples of deaths in which the person had Covid 18 months prior to death and Covid was the underlying cause of death. I reached out to my state and asked if there was a statute of limitations in which Covid would not be included on the death certificate. The answer they gave me was “no”. If the medical certifier documents Covid on the certificate; it is counted as Covid. Applying this approach a person that had Covid in 2020 and dies in 2030 is still a COVID death.
Additionally, a decedent only needs to test positive to be counted. There is no requirement of symptoms or etiology that would support Covid contributing to death.
I find it interesting that Covid and death are correlated as causality regardless of the time between those 2 events. But when it comes to vaccination and death (even when those 2 happen on the same day), there is no causality. I don’t see consistent logic being applied.
You relate observations that emphasize the fact that any extrapolation from corrupted datasets is axiomatically corrupt, DDL.
Regarding perception, we cannot discount the role that forgiving falsehoods deemed "noble lies" has played in shaping public acceptance of nonsense.
This is in the U.K.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1614332319111970816.html
No MD in Brazil knows about the greater number of deaths among the vaccinated in the initial vaccine trials(those RCT payed by the pharmaceutical industry). They simply don’t bother to seek information o the subject. And don’t want to listen to it when one tries to tell them. We’ve been living in very scary and dark times.
Very, very, very good writing Nornam & Martin. Thank you. Keep going, your work is greatly appreciated.
And the ONS and UKHSA don't help themselves by stopping releasing data (Rates per 100,000 in vaccinated vs unvaccinated) and prolonging the release of data (Birth rates & comparison of deaths in vax vs unvaxed).
This data is extremely important and in the public interest. Flaws aside, it could be the most important information that ever needs releasing, we just don't know.
I asked them why they are delayed and they said the latest census data needs processing (as well as the latest booster data) so will take a while.
Plausible but the data is of the utmost importance so should be made a priority.
As I would expect from these authors, a thorough and comprehensive review of the statistics and how they have been manipulated. This consideration of the statistics (the risk numbers) deals with only one element of the totality of evidence. Plausible mechanism is a crucial element too: whether forecast or found. There were a chorus of individual qualified commentators who forecast the possibility of both lack of efficacy and harms, based in part on the pre-existing science. These commentators were systematically censored and “fact-checked” out of existence. After the event we are now finding so many peer-reviewed papers showing the many mechanisms for inefficacy and harm, that have been revealed so far. Existence of these mechanisms serves to support the statistical analysis. Since many of the possible harms are long term, we can only wait to see the final toll. It is never easy to deal with the inevitable uncertainty of a novel, experimental and untested therapy. That is why caution should have been exercised and the risks (harms) and benefits of this novel therapy fully assessed before forcing it on the World.
Excellent text. Thanks for sharing.
I really do try to convert expensive errors into an investment in wisdom, but the cost of this most recent epiphany just seems too high for me to think it a reasonable ROI.
What "gets me" is the hubris. The Narrators could have gotten away with their deceptions forever, if they'd simply abstained from extortion and violence. It seems the allure of absolute power was simply too much for them, with the result that millions of ordinary folks like myself are now becoming au fait with the everyday mendacity of commonly-deployed statistical legerdemain.
It's beginning to appear that, within certain reasonable limits, ignorance really may be bliss. In retrospect, Norman, I do believe I would have preferred to remain blissful.
So the answer to Steve Kirsch's question is NONE!
The vaccines have simply made everything even worse. The astoundingly gullible general public first believed that a cold would kill them then they believed that several injections with an experimental substance with no safety data would originally stop them catching and dying from said cold. They believed a bit of cloth/paper over their nose/mouth would stop them catching a cold, likewise standing a few feet apart and walking one way round a supermarket. They are mostly still taking the injections because they have been invited by the NHS to do so. They believe they work. It amazes me that people who have basically had covid for around 2 years and have had 3 or 4 jabs, not to mention friends and family keeling over with various sudden illnesses, STILL believe all the rubbish they are told by "trusted sources". I've given up even trying to talk to anyone about it all.
Good, useful summary of your thinking and careful work on this.
Thank you. 🙏
The 6 month pfizer trial vaccine group died mostly from multiple heart conditions. When added together as one they would likely show statistical significance. At the very least, a safety signal. Toxins will affect each person's heart according to their weakness/strength. You are only as strong as your weakest link.
Brilliant! If I were a monarch, you would be Dukes by now!
Here (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/podcasts/2022/20220107/20220107.htm) the CDC explains how it defines Death with Covid and Deaths by Covid, and seems their Covid numbers reflect that, and seems to contradict what you say in point 6. I may be wrong, because I'm no scientist and my understanding of all this is limited.
I mention this because everything really needs to be buttoned up if we want to prove them wrong.
As we know from the ONS data, what they claim to be doing and what they ARE doing with respect to the definitions are two very different things. When it comes to assessing efficacy it is completely routine to count covid cases within 14 days of vaccination as unvaccinated. However, when it comes to assessing safety the ONS CLAIM that a death at ANY TIME after vaccination is classified as a vaccinated death. However, as our papers on their data have shown, we know that many such deaths are classified as unvaccinated and also that many such deaths are also missing completely. These 'errors' may bot be the fault of the ONS but rather the inevitable result of the many points in the data collection process in which such errors can occur before the data reaches the ONS (see Figure 8 in http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12472.42248). The same must be true of the CDC data.
I understand there are errors, and it has been shown time after time, but I think it's important to show exactly where those are.
I also see much pushing back on "assumptions" that the official information has, so if nothing, I would like you or someone else to confirm the assumption that the same is true to CDC, and if possible, if they are lying on this or just really incompetent. Since they have a documented stance on this matter they should be accountable to it.
Thank you for answering me, I appreciate you taking the time Dr. Fenton.
Pfizer trial, as you know had many "Lost to follow-up", which means they did not get a response to a registered letter sent to the volunteer last place of residence. They did not check local hospitals.
Subjects in the trial who received the BNT162b2 jab and Died:
10211127 Died 19 DEC 2020 11201266 Died 19 JAN 2021 11271112 Died 4 DEC 2020
10071101 Died 21 OCT 2020 10361140 Died before 10 Feb 2021 10391010 Died before 18 Nov 2020
10841266 Died before 12 Jan 2021 10881139 Died 6 Mar 2021 10891073 Died 12 Nov 2020
10971023 Died 21 Dec 2020 11141050 Died 19 Oct 2020 11201050 Died 7 Nov 2020
11291166 Died 3 Feb 2021 11311204 Died 15 Feb 2021 11351033 Died 29 Jan 2021
11361102 Died 19 Dec 2020 11401117 Died 29 Dec 2020 11521497 Died 11 Nov 2020
11621327 Died 13 Sep 2020 12521010 Died 26 Dec 2020
Note many of these Dead trial subjects were classified as "Withdrawn".
Narratives are located in Module 5.3.5.1 C4591001 Efficacy Final Analysis Interim CSR
Section 14 Subject Narratives (for data available as of the 14 November 2020 cutoff date) or
Module 5.3.5.1 C4591001 6-Month Update Interim CSR Section 14 Subject Narratives
(for data available as of the 13 March 2021 cutoff date).
Where can one find this information, sir?
As you know, a judge ordered release of BioNTech-Pfizer jab trial data 75 years ahead of what the company and FDA had in mind as concealment time.
Please share this link with all who want do a deep dive. There is a team of data analysts extracting useful detail from the data dumps, converting scanned files to text as well as probing the XPT format. I take their output and track individual trial subjects.
https://vaccines.shinyapps.io/abstractor/
Thanks!
If the FDA had not already decided that the US Army should buy Pfizer jabs at a fixed contract price before its meeting in early October, before the first trial results for BNT162b2 were forwarded by Polack, the "efficacy" calculation in prevention of Death would have been shot to pieces.