Jan 31, 2023·edited Jan 31, 2023Liked by Norman Fenton
I don't know whether you always had this knack of "gently" putting people straight Norman, or if it's something you had to develop during the "Covid period", but this is another excellent example. Perhaps the person who wrote to you has shot him or herself in the foot by alerting you, and therefore us, to how the study's conclusions are being misinterpreted, either innocently or intentionally, (I'm being kind!). I'm sure he or she is now regretting contacting you. I particular enjoyed the suggestion you made that "referring to these people as ‘unvaccinated’ must have been done to fit a particular mischievous agenda". Mischievous! Brilliant
Jan 31, 2023Liked by Norman Fenton, Mr Law, Health and Technology
Bill Gates was the leader of the ‘race for a coronavirus vaccine’.
Speak critically of Bill Gates in 2020/2021 and eyes would roll…
But yes indeed, Bill Gates was the kingpin leading the coronavirus response.
See his GatesNotes article, published on 30 April 2020: What you need to know about the COVID-19 vaccine[1] which led in with the statement:
"One of the questions I get asked the most these days is when the world will be able to go back to the way things were in December before the coronavirus pandemic. My answer is always the same: when we have an almost perfect drug to treat COVID-19, or when almost every person on the planet has been vaccinated against coronavirus."
Yes, a software billionaire was leading the coronavirus vaccine response, he’d been leading international vaccination policy for over 20 years – e.g. via influence at the WHO, Gavi, CEPI…
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was also a funder of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine trials, along with CEPI and others.[2]
Seems that "science" "journalists" can't even read science papers anymore - your criticisms seem to be basic due diligence stuff, hardly in-the-weeds detailed technical points or jargon busting?
So, all the study actually shows is that “that individuals with certain pre-existing medical conditions who get covid are more likely to suffer serious outcomes than those without such medical conditions who get covid.”
I did not read the study, but if that’s what they report, the claim is trivial, as explained below.
That people with pre-existing conditions suffer worse outcomes than people without – in general - is common knowledge. That’s the case even in the absence of covid.
If any claim is to be made specifically about covid, it has to compare two effects:
1. The effect of pre-existing medical conditions (present vs absent) in people with covid
2. The effect of pre-existing medical conditions (present vs absent) in people without covid
If they differ (on some scale), we claim “effect modification”.
But effect modification is a reciprocal property (mathematically), so it is equivalent to stating that the following is true:
The effect of covid (present vs absent) in people with pre-existing medical conditions differs from its effect in people without pre-existing medical conditions.
And that is indeed “widely known since March 2020”.
Now, if anyone wants to add a THIRD variable (vax status) to this story, we are moving to “three-way interaction”, which calls for more comparisons.
More on the complicated concept of effect modification can be found here.
So, more accurately, it's a study prioritizing people with pre-existing heart conditions for injection with a substance that is known to damage and exacerbate heart conditions...
Norman, your individual response is to my mind far more powerful than a Group one. I can only hold you in the highest esteem and it is always interesting to learn of the challenges within a university campus.
Something tells me that the <<journalists>> are going to carry on regardless of Norman's response. Anything that doesn't fit the narrative will be neatly packaged, labelled as 'Far right' / 'Conspiracy' / 'Disinformation', and duly memory-holed.
A while back I challenged a friend with some data from the ONS three times asking whether or not he thought it accurate. The first two times I didn't get an answer, the third he grudgingly admitted that it was correct but... "misleading"!
I'm really having problems classifying these people as either ignorant or evil. They're obviously not stupid and, whatever we might think, they are well meaning...
Oh dear, the Times journalists fell for the con (or knowingly propagated it) and your 'balanced' journalists must surely have seen the con if they had read the whole paper.
"Notwithstanding the above limitations, our meta-analysis quantifies the excess risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in unvaccinated patients with pre-existing CV risk factors, IHD and myocardial injury."
NO IT DID NOT. These are weasel words. All it did was quantify the excess risk of severe adverse outcomes for those with Diabetes mellitus, hypertension, heart disease and myocardial injury. The study subjects were of course not vaccinated, as you point out. The authors make the ASSUMPTION, without evidence, that vaccination of these 'at risk' groups would naturally lower the risk of severe outcomes. Did the MSM read the paper in its entirety or were they swayed by just this one (intentionally) very misleading sentence. Quality investigative journalism is hard to find these days.
Philanthropy-as-a-Service. BMGF was banned in India following a parliamentary enquiry. Unfortunately they were let back in again following Covid. At least they didn’t sign the Pfizer contracts.
I don't know whether you always had this knack of "gently" putting people straight Norman, or if it's something you had to develop during the "Covid period", but this is another excellent example. Perhaps the person who wrote to you has shot him or herself in the foot by alerting you, and therefore us, to how the study's conclusions are being misinterpreted, either innocently or intentionally, (I'm being kind!). I'm sure he or she is now regretting contacting you. I particular enjoyed the suggestion you made that "referring to these people as ‘unvaccinated’ must have been done to fit a particular mischievous agenda". Mischievous! Brilliant
Bill Gates was the leader of the ‘race for a coronavirus vaccine’.
Speak critically of Bill Gates in 2020/2021 and eyes would roll…
But yes indeed, Bill Gates was the kingpin leading the coronavirus response.
See his GatesNotes article, published on 30 April 2020: What you need to know about the COVID-19 vaccine[1] which led in with the statement:
"One of the questions I get asked the most these days is when the world will be able to go back to the way things were in December before the coronavirus pandemic. My answer is always the same: when we have an almost perfect drug to treat COVID-19, or when almost every person on the planet has been vaccinated against coronavirus."
Yes, a software billionaire was leading the coronavirus vaccine response, he’d been leading international vaccination policy for over 20 years – e.g. via influence at the WHO, Gavi, CEPI…
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was also a funder of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine trials, along with CEPI and others.[2]
Sources:
1. https://www.gatesnotes.com/health/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-covid-19-vaccine
2. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext
Thank you Prof Fenton😊for once more shining your spotlight on yet another biased study.👏🏻😁
It is an honour to be able to read directly your analysis , ❤️these ongoing truths, show just how bad
the false presentations are…
I use your evidence to "wake up" anyone who will listen…😄
Seems that "science" "journalists" can't even read science papers anymore - your criticisms seem to be basic due diligence stuff, hardly in-the-weeds detailed technical points or jargon busting?
I think it's clear what we need to do now. Investigate Gates.
As always, brilliantly written and with the much-needed expertise. kudos also to the journalism source that prompted your letter.
So, all the study actually shows is that “that individuals with certain pre-existing medical conditions who get covid are more likely to suffer serious outcomes than those without such medical conditions who get covid.”
I did not read the study, but if that’s what they report, the claim is trivial, as explained below.
That people with pre-existing conditions suffer worse outcomes than people without – in general - is common knowledge. That’s the case even in the absence of covid.
If any claim is to be made specifically about covid, it has to compare two effects:
1. The effect of pre-existing medical conditions (present vs absent) in people with covid
2. The effect of pre-existing medical conditions (present vs absent) in people without covid
If they differ (on some scale), we claim “effect modification”.
But effect modification is a reciprocal property (mathematically), so it is equivalent to stating that the following is true:
The effect of covid (present vs absent) in people with pre-existing medical conditions differs from its effect in people without pre-existing medical conditions.
And that is indeed “widely known since March 2020”.
Now, if anyone wants to add a THIRD variable (vax status) to this story, we are moving to “three-way interaction”, which calls for more comparisons.
More on the complicated concept of effect modification can be found here.
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~shahar/commentaries.html
(on effect modification and its applications)
So, more accurately, it's a study prioritizing people with pre-existing heart conditions for injection with a substance that is known to damage and exacerbate heart conditions...
Warms the heart.
Thanks Professor!
So the enlightened & “more educated” than mere reader media didn’t notice the simplest of things the date of which the study refers ?
I’ve noticed that a lack of being thorough is growing through out society & it’s creating more problems. Will they issue an acknowledgment of error?
I doubt it, that would require too much professionalism.
Thank you Professor for bucking the trend
Norman, your individual response is to my mind far more powerful than a Group one. I can only hold you in the highest esteem and it is always interesting to learn of the challenges within a university campus.
Fantastic honest analysis.  Thank you!
Something tells me that the <<journalists>> are going to carry on regardless of Norman's response. Anything that doesn't fit the narrative will be neatly packaged, labelled as 'Far right' / 'Conspiracy' / 'Disinformation', and duly memory-holed.
A while back I challenged a friend with some data from the ONS three times asking whether or not he thought it accurate. The first two times I didn't get an answer, the third he grudgingly admitted that it was correct but... "misleading"!
I'm really having problems classifying these people as either ignorant or evil. They're obviously not stupid and, whatever we might think, they are well meaning...
Oh dear, the Times journalists fell for the con (or knowingly propagated it) and your 'balanced' journalists must surely have seen the con if they had read the whole paper.
"Notwithstanding the above limitations, our meta-analysis quantifies the excess risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in unvaccinated patients with pre-existing CV risk factors, IHD and myocardial injury."
NO IT DID NOT. These are weasel words. All it did was quantify the excess risk of severe adverse outcomes for those with Diabetes mellitus, hypertension, heart disease and myocardial injury. The study subjects were of course not vaccinated, as you point out. The authors make the ASSUMPTION, without evidence, that vaccination of these 'at risk' groups would naturally lower the risk of severe outcomes. Did the MSM read the paper in its entirety or were they swayed by just this one (intentionally) very misleading sentence. Quality investigative journalism is hard to find these days.
Philanthropy-as-a-Service. BMGF was banned in India following a parliamentary enquiry. Unfortunately they were let back in again following Covid. At least they didn’t sign the Pfizer contracts.
Over Here, it looks like Bill "On The Take" Gates is up to his scrawny neck in Dirty Money.
But other than that?😀