25 Comments

VE is a totally BS metric in any case. Consider a disease that had a 50% CFR and a vaccine that reduced that to 5%. VE = 90%. Consider a disease that had a 1% CFR and a vaccine that lowered that to .1 %. VE = 90%. Guess which disease COVID was more like. Even with a (highly dubious) claimed VE of 95%, the "vaccine" was a total waste of time.

Expand full comment

Can you please write an article that analyzes traditional psychiatric medication and the data manipulation used in studies?

Expand full comment
Sep 1, 2023·edited Sep 1, 2023

I have been following with interest your posts related to vaccine efficacy. I even created a video based on a similar example to show how easy is to manipulate data during a mass vaccination campaign.

The truth is that I suspected something was not right when we were sold the absolutely miraculous efficacy of the vaccines, that was "even better than expected". I have yet to found in the real world any example of something that is even better than what the marketing copy said before deployment. Considering the lies that we were told since the beginning of the panic, it was even more difficult to take the data provided at face value. So I thought that only time would tell.

After more than two years have passed, I am not yet convinced that the vaccines had any benefit at any time since they were forced over the unsuspecting population. I believe that the information provided has been manipulated to such extent that it is not possible to know the real efficacy.

What are your thoughts?

Expand full comment

Highly disturbing. Thank you so much for your work.

Expand full comment

The Magic Roundabout beloved by the vaccine purveyors will continue if this trickery persists: carry on boosting while the producers sit in their counting houses counting out their money.

Will it ever stop? Judging by the latest scary stuff in the MSM, it doesn't seem likely, unless more people join us in refusing the jabs.

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/08/31/here-we-go-again-experts-call-for-universal-booster-campaign-amid-claims-pirola-variant-could-overwhelm-nhs/?highlight=jeremy%20farrar

Expand full comment

I’ve noticed all the hand sanitizing stations are empty. First I noticed on the trains, then at shopper drug marts, then at doctors offices. One nurse bought a separate bottle and put it by the window for people. But the dispensers on the wall are all empty.

SO YOU KNOW THEY ARE GEARING UP FOR SOMETHING THIS FLU SEASON. MEGA C AND D BERBERINE OR METFORMIN, . CLEAN HANDS BEFORE GOING IN SND COMING OUT OF PUBLIC PLACES. DO NASAL AND THROAT CLEANING WITH DILUTE HYDROGEN PEROXIDE IF YOU-FEEL SOMETHING COMING ON BUT DONT OVERDO IT.

Expand full comment

In England, GPs received covid +ve test result data and vaccination data at a patient-level automatically via a few sources on a daily basis. I monitored the incoming data which was always pretty accurate for vaccination date and pretty good for covid +ve test results up until around January 2022 (after which time national testing was no longer funded). It was very clear to me from August 2021 onwards that vaccinated patients were more likely to be infected than unvaccinated. While the covid-testing rate for unvaccinated patients was lower than that for vaccinated patients, this factor did not significantly vary over time; yet the increased risk for vaccinated patients increased almost linearly with the number of doses injected into the community over time.

ONS will have had access to the same data as me anonymised on a much larger scale. They had to go to some intentional effort to adulterate the raw date to produce the impression of vaccine effectiveness.

We still receive Covid +ve results automatically but these mean different things now. The +ve lateral flow tests denote patients suffering from ongoing Covid-related anxiety. The PCR tests that are now reported (+ve or -ve) denote hospital admission.

Expand full comment

What a truly excellent explanation

Expand full comment

mi sembra tanto di sentir pagare di elettrodomestici, auto o qunt altro che li creano con una DATA DI SCADENZA certa per permettere il ri-acquisto e quindi un favoloso profitto.

Expand full comment

Norman & Martin (not to be confused with the Laugh-In hosts) - The only efficacy demonstrated by the mRNA gene therapy masquerading as a vaccine is NEGATIVE. Statements to the contrary are from those captured by... https://youtu.be/OPemyipJzAM

Expand full comment

You can't get clearer than this

Expand full comment

Excellent work! Am I right in thinking that this bias would explain (alleged) “waning” of vaccine effectiveness? “Waning” is often used as an excuse to sell more mRNA product.

Expand full comment

I have a request. It's a tall order, but could be helpful. A lot of the studies you guys previously summarized as doing exclusion are test-negative studies. These are not intuitive and I am having trouble seeing exactly how the bias plays out there. An example would help. Also, one of the citations is an RCT:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34525277/

I am wondering about that, and also the seminal trials (e.g. Pfizer/Moderna), Does any of this play out there?

Expand full comment

BINGO

Expand full comment

1) Typo in the last table. “>1” should read “>3”.

2) If I recall, some rare studies that do not do any of this exclusion business still have had waning efficacy curves, regardless of whether or not that is preceded by a brief negative efficacy. Strongest case we would be able to show an illusory benefit in such a simulated cohort study. Though that would have to be explained by other biases. Someone really needs to do a review of just such studies to see what their efficacy curves look like.

3) Would it be accurate to call this immortal time bias?

Expand full comment