47 Comments
Jan 3, 2023·edited Jan 3, 2023Liked by Norman Fenton

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?

Expand full comment

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 So outdated, but much appreciated.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.

Expand full comment
Jan 3, 2023Liked by Norman Fenton

Tremendous Nutshell Analysis by the Formidable Statistician Prof “can’t bamboozle us” Fenton

Expand full comment
Jan 3, 2023Liked by Norman 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.

Expand full comment
Jan 3, 2023Liked by Norman Fenton

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.

Expand full comment
Jan 3, 2023Liked by Norman Fenton

Very, very, very good writing Nornam & Martin. Thank you. Keep going, your work is greatly appreciated.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment
Jan 3, 2023Liked by Norman Fenton

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.

Expand full comment
Jan 3, 2023Liked by Norman Fenton

Excellent text. Thanks for sharing.

Expand full comment
Jan 3, 2023Liked by Norman Fenton

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Good, useful summary of your thinking and careful work on this.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Brilliant! If I were a monarch, you would be Dukes by now!

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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).

Expand full comment