What an incredible invention this vaccine is. I mean, it couldn't even do the thing it was set out to do in the randomized clinical trials. But now people are finding such new benefits to it somehow. Recently it was said to solve diabetes, depression, and heart attacks (See San Francisco Chronicle article, "Even 1 COVID shot can lower heart attack, stroke risks, study says"). And now the good professors here found another overlooked benefit. It's literally causing immortality in the recipients, AND the non-recipients. I don't want to overstate this triumph and medical breakthrough -- but perhaps it has managed to alter time itself? Perhaps you should actually consider the John Maddox Prize after all? (https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-john-maddox-prize) Pfizer is just such an amazing company.
Brilliant. Thank you for this. I've seen a lot of in depth analyses of the Office For Nobbled Statistics (h/t John Dee) latest data and much of it is rather hard to follow. But this is simple and is the most damning indictment yet. The ONS data is junk. You shouldn't waste too much time debunking garbage. It is enough to show that it is simply garbage. All that remains then is to ridicule it and the people producing it, who claim that it is definitive and professional, when in fact it is worthless.
At this stage, I don't think we can trust any institutions mortality figures.
CDC dataset fudge was so blatant and obvious, likewise ONS, that we have to declare them untrustworthy until proven otherwise. Even if they rectify the intentional fudging, there's no way to be absolutely sure it isn't just a 'more convincing lie'.
The question then becomes, if we cannot accept any institutions' figures for determining safety/validity/accuracy/harms etc, how on earth do we proceed in relation to vaccine harms?
Rather than admit error, the vaccine stooges have essentially tossed the game board in the trash so no-one can check the figures. To me, this is tantamount to an admission of guilt that they know the vaccines cause irreparable harms (like in the legal sense a judge will declare a guilty verdict if someone tampers with, hides or destroys evidence) and are in the process of actively covering it up.
This isn't simple error, it's outright fraud to conceal what is essentially a mass murder campaign (more details on that to follow in an article I'm publishing).
The historical mortality rates are close to those in Germany. Unfortunately, what we (and that includes the German authorities and statistical agencies) do not have is data on vaccination status of the dead.
This is a refreshingly lighthearted way of presenting. (I am not implying that the data realities are "lite". I am just appreciating the tone of this write-up, the previous one, and wryness in some of the previous posts.)
In a way this simplifies life, you can simply ignore anything the ONS has to say since we know they have nothing to say of significance, that can be trusted.
RE: “From this we can produce rough estimates of the mortality burden by age group and compare them against the latest ONS mortality figures. The green line is the all-cause mortality rate per 100K people for that age group from 2016 and the red and blue lines are the all-cause mortality rates for the ever vaccinated and unvaccinated from the latest ONS report.”
To sharpen the point, you could also replace the rates in vaccinated (blue line) and unvaccinated (red line) by the crude rate in the latest ONS report (which is a weighted average of the two rates, weighted by their proportion in the population.) That overall mortality line will run somewhere between the blue and red lines, well below the green line, showing “remarkable improvement in overall mortality”…
Although the data are clearly false (magnitude wise), they still exhibit the healthy vaccinee phenomenon in each age group. Is it attributable to data errors alone? If it were observed only in ONS data, I would have agreed. But that’s not the case: we have identical observations in US data for both flu vax and covid vax (cited here https://shahar-26393.medium.com/healthy-vaccinee-bias-loud-and-clear-in-an-ons-analysis-uk-b7ccba4a25ed ).
In other words, a gross measurement error, which surely exists in ONS data, does not necessarily preclude seeing causal relationships (general health-->vax status).
Regardless, I fully agree that the data are “near useless for any inference we might wish to make about vaccine efficacy or safety.”
Be careful with sarcasm. Loons might, in all their psychotic sincerity, cherry pick and post to Twitter as a defense of the clot shots (think AOC reading this).
I am amazed at how blatant discrepancies such as those described could not be identified by the ONS staff. Even a simple accountant like myself would always check my figures and ask: Do they make sense?
What an incredible invention this vaccine is. I mean, it couldn't even do the thing it was set out to do in the randomized clinical trials. But now people are finding such new benefits to it somehow. Recently it was said to solve diabetes, depression, and heart attacks (See San Francisco Chronicle article, "Even 1 COVID shot can lower heart attack, stroke risks, study says"). And now the good professors here found another overlooked benefit. It's literally causing immortality in the recipients, AND the non-recipients. I don't want to overstate this triumph and medical breakthrough -- but perhaps it has managed to alter time itself? Perhaps you should actually consider the John Maddox Prize after all? (https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-john-maddox-prize) Pfizer is just such an amazing company.
Brilliant. Thank you for this. I've seen a lot of in depth analyses of the Office For Nobbled Statistics (h/t John Dee) latest data and much of it is rather hard to follow. But this is simple and is the most damning indictment yet. The ONS data is junk. You shouldn't waste too much time debunking garbage. It is enough to show that it is simply garbage. All that remains then is to ridicule it and the people producing it, who claim that it is definitive and professional, when in fact it is worthless.
You sure?
Approx 16k-21k / 21k = -23%
At this stage, I don't think we can trust any institutions mortality figures.
CDC dataset fudge was so blatant and obvious, likewise ONS, that we have to declare them untrustworthy until proven otherwise. Even if they rectify the intentional fudging, there's no way to be absolutely sure it isn't just a 'more convincing lie'.
The question then becomes, if we cannot accept any institutions' figures for determining safety/validity/accuracy/harms etc, how on earth do we proceed in relation to vaccine harms?
Rather than admit error, the vaccine stooges have essentially tossed the game board in the trash so no-one can check the figures. To me, this is tantamount to an admission of guilt that they know the vaccines cause irreparable harms (like in the legal sense a judge will declare a guilty verdict if someone tampers with, hides or destroys evidence) and are in the process of actively covering it up.
This isn't simple error, it's outright fraud to conceal what is essentially a mass murder campaign (more details on that to follow in an article I'm publishing).
We would be mugs if surprised the data wasn't to be corrupted. They have been doing this with climate data for well over a decade.
Regrettably, wiping deaths off data bases still leaves the poor sods dead.
Lying eventually creates nonsense.
The historical mortality rates are close to those in Germany. Unfortunately, what we (and that includes the German authorities and statistical agencies) do not have is data on vaccination status of the dead.
https://cm27874.substack.com/p/excess-deaths-in-germany-2022-update
This is a refreshingly lighthearted way of presenting. (I am not implying that the data realities are "lite". I am just appreciating the tone of this write-up, the previous one, and wryness in some of the previous posts.)
In a way this simplifies life, you can simply ignore anything the ONS has to say since we know they have nothing to say of significance, that can be trusted.
worth a like just for the title!
A thoughtful analysis.
RE: “From this we can produce rough estimates of the mortality burden by age group and compare them against the latest ONS mortality figures. The green line is the all-cause mortality rate per 100K people for that age group from 2016 and the red and blue lines are the all-cause mortality rates for the ever vaccinated and unvaccinated from the latest ONS report.”
To sharpen the point, you could also replace the rates in vaccinated (blue line) and unvaccinated (red line) by the crude rate in the latest ONS report (which is a weighted average of the two rates, weighted by their proportion in the population.) That overall mortality line will run somewhere between the blue and red lines, well below the green line, showing “remarkable improvement in overall mortality”…
Although the data are clearly false (magnitude wise), they still exhibit the healthy vaccinee phenomenon in each age group. Is it attributable to data errors alone? If it were observed only in ONS data, I would have agreed. But that’s not the case: we have identical observations in US data for both flu vax and covid vax (cited here https://shahar-26393.medium.com/healthy-vaccinee-bias-loud-and-clear-in-an-ons-analysis-uk-b7ccba4a25ed ).
In other words, a gross measurement error, which surely exists in ONS data, does not necessarily preclude seeing causal relationships (general health-->vax status).
Regardless, I fully agree that the data are “near useless for any inference we might wish to make about vaccine efficacy or safety.”
Be careful with sarcasm. Loons might, in all their psychotic sincerity, cherry pick and post to Twitter as a defense of the clot shots (think AOC reading this).
How about commissioning a survey for the unvaxxed?
Concur
Could you please explain the numbers for Percentage Difference in Red in the Table?
I am amazed at how blatant discrepancies such as those described could not be identified by the ONS staff. Even a simple accountant like myself would always check my figures and ask: Do they make sense?