Horowitz: The very concerning data from Scotland
(My bold)
" Scottish data shows that the COVID-19 age-standardized case rate is highest among the two-dose vaccinated and lowest among unvaccinated! It further shows this trend of negative efficacy for the double-vaccinated persisting for hospitalizations and deaths. Something is very wrong here, and together with other data points, it raises concerning questions about the negative effect of waning antibodies, constant boosting, and the consequences of a leaky vaccine with narrow-spectrum suboptimal antibodies against an ever-evolving virus."
See Table 14. There are four blocks here: Unvaccinated, 1 dose, two doses and Booster or 3 doses. Presented in a 2x2.
It reads left to right, then the same for the second block underneath.
Havenât done anything to check it though, but I thought it worth posting. Weâve seen the âinfectionsâ among the vaccinated matching the unvaccinated; now they seem to have overtaken them. The data is age-adjusted.
I havenât dived into the weeds Evvy but the similarities in standardised case rates between boosted and first jabbed makes me suspicious that the latter are seeing a short-term benefit that could wane rather soon.
Hi @Evvy_dense , worrying results as you say but they have given themselves lots of wriggle room in Appendix 6. I did notice they are still hanging on to this definition for covid deaths:
â A confirmed COVID-19 related death is defined as an individual who has tested positive by PCR for SARS-CoV-2 at any time point and has COVID-19 listed as a underlying or contributory cause of death on the death certificate. Vaccine status is determined at time of most recent specimen date.â
No attempt to wean themselves off PCR as the US appears to be doing, and no attempt to distinguish between deaths with C and other commorbidities and deaths due to C alone!
The ability to hide deaths due to jabs continues unabated, imo.
Appendix 1 churns out the same old storyline, no attempt to show alternative views:
â In early January 2020, the cause of the outbreak was identified as a new coronavirus. While early cases were likely infected by an animal source in a âwet marketâ in Wuhan, ongoing human-to-human transmission is now occurring.â
âI havenât dived into the weeds Evvy but the similarities in standardised case rates between boosted and first jabbed makes me suspicious that the latter are seeing a short-term benefit that could wane rather soonâ
Good point, they are strikingly simlar. Though the benefits (in terms of not testing positive for covid, assuming thatâs a benefit for the Omicron variant) seem to apply to those with a worn-out double jab! But not to those with no jab. Itâs lke the booster helps because the immune system has been supplanted. But if thereâs still a virus around in a few months time, will yet another booster be a help or a hindrance?
This data supports those who said the vaccine would weaken the immune system. It will be interesting to see if this data is repeated in the bigger picture.
Hi folks, on stats generally I started to flick through a book called Covid by Numbers by David Spiegelhalter
and came across this point:
âAs is inevitable for a new and frightening disease, we heard many claims of potentially dubious remedies. Madagascarâs President Rajoelina asserted the benefits of herbal tonics,7 while President Donald Trump gave apparent support for injecting bleach.8 The anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine was heavily promoted by both the popular doctor Didier Raoult in France and Trump in the US. A paper in the prominent journal The Lancet appeared to confirm its benefits but had to be withdrawn when the genesis of the claimed data became suspicious.9â
Excerpt From
Covid by Numbers
David Spiegelhalter
This material may be protected by copyright.
, a series of links here but this is from the article published May 2020 and subsequently stamped RETRACTED at :
âWe were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19. Each of these drug regimens was associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19.â
clearly the retracted article did not claim benefits from the use of HCQ it confirmed no benefits at all , the opposite of what the bookâs authors claimed. No mention of the damage to HCQ in the MSM before the Lancet retracted the article.
I stopped reading the book at this point! Have I got this right? If I have then this is just another e.g of academic malfeasance!
â âProfessor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics, was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. He is @d_spiegel on Twitter.
Dr Anthony Masters is a Chartered Statistician, a Statistical Ambassador for the Royal Statistical Society, and a frequent blogger and explainer of statistical ideas. He is @anthonybmasters on Twitter.â
Excerpt From
Covid by Numbers
David Spiegelhalter
This material may be protected by copyright.â
On stats generally, C: The rule, in this time, is - Trust ABSOLUTELY none of them. Caveat emptor every time. Some may be good, but all you know for sure is that youâre getting a pig in a poke. As with Russian roulette: take you chances!
Hi @RhisiartGwilym , I certainly have no basis on which to trust official âcovidâ stats which would prima facie justify my doubting all official stats!
I was just surprised that a leading Cambridge prof knighted for his services to medical stats ( and how can anyone provide services to stats?) could get away with this outright reversal of the facts in the middle of a paragraph smearing anyone supporting hcq as a beneficial therapy in whole or in part for the illness of many in 2020 and 2021.
Hence my plea to be corrected if I have somehow misread this. ( To me this falls into the same level of propaganda as the Rwanda genocide as pointed out by Hermen and Peterson which still hasnât breached the official narrative).
The Daily Expose, TCW, UK column seem to have stats that are standing head and shoulders above official stats so I will go with them until proven unworthy.
You are of course right CJ. The Lancet paper appeared to show an increase in mortality.
" After controlling for multiple confounding factors (age, sex, race or ethnicity, body-mass index, underlying cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, diabetes, underlying lung disease, smoking, immunosuppressed condition, and baseline disease severity), when compared with mortality in the control group (9¡3%), hydroxychloroquine (18¡0%; hazard ratio 1¡335, 95% CI 1¡223â1¡457), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (23¡8%; 1¡447, 1¡368â1¡531), chloroquine (16¡4%; 1¡365, 1¡218â1¡531), and chloroquine with a macrolide (22¡2%; 1¡368, 1¡273â1¡469) were each independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality."
This reversal of the truth is an unbelievable error for Spiegelhalter to make.
(Edit - let alone two people who know the scene.)
Everyone knows Lancet condemned HCQ, and what happened round the world afterwards before it was retracted. After retraction, the damage (countries banning it, stopping trials, the WHO clamping down) wasnât remedied.
Well spotted - I wonder if heâs been challenged on this on Twitter
Incidentally, it was odd that the four hazard ratios were so close together, when the study was pulling data together from countries all over the world. Much of it would have been gathered in different scenarios.
In fact this over-accuracy (in faking) was one of the giveaways that made those who were quick to call âfakeâ suspicious - reams of medical measurements in different continents, differing by one decimal place just wasnât credible.
Really, Evvy? How do you know? Hunch? Thatâs what it is with me. Yes of course, the stupid conclusion from the âexpertâ is wrong. Donât question that at all. Iâm just being hyper-cautious, because weâre so swimming in swindlery just now, Iâve no idea how else to guess which information can be trusted. And Iâm always painfully aware of the perils of confirmation bias - from which I suffer quite badlyâŚ
Rhis Iâm not sure what you are asking about, also youâve replied to CJ1.
Re data Iâd say trust is a process, the more consistency you see it the more trust it earns.
If nothing was trustworthy, all the studies and data would always show what TBTB wanted them to show. This is far from the case. Not surprisingly, studies funded directly or indirectly by industry tend to favour the industry so that can be a clue. But it can be hard to know when to believe data and who to trust. Like in other forms of politics, trusted critiques are valuable but yeah, this can make it as much an art as a science. Sorry if thatâs no real help!
Cheers
Yes, Der Spiegel has the gift of the gab and Gives Good Telly but if that is his standard of citation⌠Trump was an eejit for using dubious humour but Der Spiegel is a chump to amplify it in this way.
His name means Mirror Holder, and in reflecting very faithfully the approved narrative he certainly lives up to that epithet.
Remember too that Statistics means science of the State.
