111 Comments
May 2Liked by Norman Fenton

As an aging doc who has been around the profession for 50+ years, the COVID BioWar on Humankind really forced me to examine the entire vaccine field. Honestly, I have concluded that 99.9% of these are about as effective as medieval indulgences. I can find none - nada - zero - that have been adequately tested for safety and effectiveness. All of the "legacy" vaxxx (polio, DPT, tetanus, etc.) are deeply flawed and suspect. The entire field appears to be a construct for $, power/control, and depopulation. TPTB have been masterful in promoting and enforcing these toxins while ignoring simple boosts to immunity like nutrition and hygiene. Hopefully, this entire madness will go the way of the Dodo.

Expand full comment
May 2Liked by Martin Neil, Norman Fenton

Thank you. None of us wanted to believe it, but it is true...our governments have been scamming us. Counting vaccinated people of less than 14 or 21 days as unvaccinated makes no sense unless you deliberately want to deceive. Shameful! It would be very easy to have a 3rd group in addition to vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.

Expand full comment
May 2Liked by Martin Neil

I hate to be redundant but...

I’ve said this so many times already and I’ll say it again...and again:

When will people do historical research and find out that anytime you inject anything into your body, you’re on a highway to hell.

NEVER in the history of mankind has injecting poisons into your body given you better health.

Quite the opposite. They’ve ALL maimed and killed. Read and learn the history of this barbaric act:

The Poisoned Needle: Suppressed Facts About Vaccinations https://a.co/d/cfvx9Q6

Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History https://a.co/d/coVuit4

- George William Winterburn, PhD, MD, The Value of Vaccination: A Non-partisan Review of Its History and Results, 1886

- History and Pathology of Vaccination, Edgar R. Crookshank, 1889

- Charles Creighton, Jenner and Vaccination. A Strange Chapter of Medical History, 1889

https://officialbrendanmurphy.substack.com/p/5-huge-historical-vaccine-frauds

There are many others, they’re just a few.

Finding the truth isn’t that hard

But you do have to get off your ass and turn off the tube and read.

We’ve known for well over 150 years the concept of vaccination is a fraud concept.

And the criminals that pose as our elected officials are in on the take and are raking in millions, and will NEVER stop the madness that is called vaccination.

And neither will doctors who are being PAID handsomely for jabbing and lying to their trusting patients.

If you’ve been jabbed then your death will be influenced by and/or directly caused by said jab.

People should quit thinking it’s coincidence. That’s propaganda talk.

And yet the populace of today (being dumbed down by design) have their heads buried in the sand and believe the corrupt media’s story of blaming these deaths on everything else under the sun except the obvious. What a pity.

And those “doctors” who are shilling for the medical cartel, the pharmafia and allopathic medicine should hang their heads in shame.

They know the truth, but have sold their soul to the company because their payment on their yacht, McMansion, and Jag is due.

Pitiful. Sickening, pathetic and pitiful.

And to those in the media, you drug pushing pieces of corporate shit: I hope you have a great answer come your judgment day.

Expand full comment

Great work Norm, well massaged statistics are a liars best friend!

Expand full comment

For the U.S., tack on a bit of Healthy User Bias, and the illusory VE can indeed reach over 90%.

Nicely done, Norman.

Expand full comment

EXCELLENT WORK. I first pointed out that the delay tactic lead to amplified efficacy right after the first clinical trials. Including the patients during that time led to 75% efficacy, not 95%. The trials were fraud. Period. I want to interview you both on Unbreaking Science, please email executiveproducer@unbreakingscience.com

Expand full comment
May 2Liked by Norman Fenton

Thanks for this.

It’s looks clear now everything that the ONS produced should have had a warning attached that read something like ‘This data has not been properly analysed and verified, it can’t be used to draw conclusions about vaccines’.

Instead, we had the media producing articles making claims about how good the vaccines were, the articles included ‘The ONS says .....’ or ‘According to the ONS .......’

Expand full comment

The 21 days classification also hid vaccine injuries in with covid data

Expand full comment
May 2Liked by Norman Fenton

Thanks so much for this work.!

Imagine if "journalists" had access to the internet and could find your work...

Expand full comment

Even doctoring up the numbers as they did here the best they can supposedly prove was efficacy of 2 to 3 months waning afterwards , that is a simple business 101 “create a need and then fill that need for profits ”maybe you have to be on a lifelong booster to prevent infection absolute ridiculous of any understanding of vaccines efficacy but this again is not a vaccine it’s an injectable gene therapy.

A science of garbage in will get you garbage out!

Expand full comment

Excellent summary and explanation.

Expand full comment

1) It is important to clarify that the phenomenon of each groups' population sizes changes over time is only applicable to population level data. That aspect of this bias would not occur in a cohort study which would have both group sizes be fixed. I see some people citing your research erroneously in that regard. However other aspects of these biases would still be functioning. And also, in the event of acute negative efficacy, vaccine-caused covid cases would still be censored from the vaccine group (albeit not shifted into the unvaccinated group, as would happen in population level analysis).

2) It would be nice to do another simulation of a cohort study, since those are the ones people really cite which show the cyclical pattern of waning and boosting with new vaccines.

3) One aspect you made me realize just now is that not only do the vaccinated have higher natural immunity due to the requirement to be healthy before vaccination, but for a second reason as well. In the first two weeks after vaccination, you have a chance to develop natural immunity, without getting a counted case of covid! The unvaccinated are not afforded this opportunity. This issue becomes worse if vaccines have an acute negative efficacy. In population level data, this would in essence cause covid to be assigned to the unvaccinated, but the natural immunity be kept for the vaccinated! In a fixed-population-size cohort study, this would cause censoring of covid cases in the vaccinated, but would not "censor" the natural immunity they gained. But as stated, if infection rate is low, this bias may not matter a ton.

Expand full comment

There was no doubting the scam very early on. As soon as they were classifying a Covid death as: anyone dying who tested positive 21 days prior, the writing was on the wall.

It is not surprising to me, people are evil and have orchestrated this atrocity. What has been surprising is how many people have been prepared to willingly, often vehemently, play a role in implementing it.

Thanks for the terrific analysis. It gives me both a tool to utilise in countering this madness, and, reassurance in the spark of decency remaining in humanity. Cheers

Expand full comment

Robert Kennedy Jr explains the corrupt vaccine safety system -

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/members-only/vaccine-safety-project-video/

Expand full comment

And if real-world effectiveness is not to your liking, you change the estimator. I noticed that there seems to be quite some nonchalant use of Cox regression going on (but "very recently vaccinated" is never considered as explanatory variable).

https://cm27874.substack.com/p/bivalent-intransparent-ambivalent

Expand full comment

As you sort of acknowledge in your May 6 update, this spurious vaccine effectiveness ONLY results if you shift the infections by 2 weeks but not the number vaccinated/uvaccinated (i.e. denominators).

When both are shifted, the correct 0% VE results.

You state that "The answer is that, while those infected within 21 days are classified as unvaccined in observational trials, those who are not infected are generally treated as vaccinated" -- can you list even one vaccine effectiveness study in which this is the case?

The ONS VE study you link does not do this -- it defines vaccinated as >14d after shot, and uses a Cox Regression model using time-varying covariate for vaccine status (thus vaccine status, the denominators, change over time as well).

Most good VE studies use time-varying vaccination status and measure infection rate not as simple "# vaccinated who were infected/# vaccinated", but use person-years to model differing amount of time in each vaccine status for each individual. These studies are exempt from the spurious effect you illustrate here no matter what time frame after shot they use for "fully vaccinated", since both events and time at risk (denominator) are matching.

The only studies affected by this phenomenon you point out are those that use mismatched time frames for events and denominators. I'm not aware of any out of the many dozens of VE studies that have been published so far (perhaps over 100 by now) -- are you aware of any and if so, link them here?

Or are you just pointing out a hypothetical phenomenon, but not sure whether it really impacts any of the real VE studies that have been published to date?

Expand full comment