5 Filters

I've earned a medal! Censored by b! (LOL)

Covid
#19

I don’t want to go back over old territory, but as far as I understand it, a mortality rate of just 1% for a virus with an R number as high as covid is a disaster. A mortality rate higher than that is a catastrophe for the NHS.

In western europe we were pretty damn close to 1%. These days it’s less, in part due to the protective effects of the vaccinations.

Perhaps. I’ve yet to see convincing evidence that this is the case. Speaking personally, I haven’t heard of a single person who’s died from a vaccination, but I know several who have died from covid. The death rates don’t seem very comparable to me.

But then I could be very wrong, of course. Time will tell.

Cheers

#20

Can I respectfully suggest you read about the US department of defense data base of adverse events. Or maybe subscribe to Jessica Rose’s substack. Or even look at the UK’s Yellow Card scheme or the US’s VAERS (both of which are widely accepted to be a fraction of the actual events), with say myocarditis of young men. Finally, perhaps try and explain the sudden death of over 700 (at the last count) professional athletes just dropping dead.

Now I understand the difference between correlation and causality, but unless there is a sensible alternative, Occam’s razor applies.

1 Like
#21

Hi Pat

I understand the VAERS system, and have talked about it many times in the past. The same is true of the Yellow Card system in the UK. This is not really evidence of anything except that there are things to be investigated - as I’ve said before. There is a lot of interesting research in myocarditis in young men - If I remember correctly, Covid is more likely than the vaccine to cause myocarditis.

I have seen reports of athletes dropping dead, but not a lot of follow up (perhaps not surprising). Even if every single one of those 700 athletes dropped dead because of the vaccine, this statement

The poison-stabs appear to be killing far more than the c-flu;

would still be false, and off by several orders of magnitude.

Cheers

1 Like
#22

One correlation isn’t - necessarily - causation; many thousands are an absolute odds-on rock-solid bet to be so. (If you judge the current torrent of reports of death/maiming/adversity closely following the stabs to be trustworthy. Smell test: about 80% probability, I’d guesstimate.)

In the end, so many correlations have to have causation as the only occamistically credible explanation. And if we can ever get back to honest science, offering honest experimental and study results, we should then have a detailed causative chain to show for it too.

Yes indeed, the poison-stabs do seem to be killing far more than the c-flu. Orders of magnitude more! And as preventative/healing medicine they seem to be an utter dead loss - though vastly cash-profitable, natch. (Note that cautious word ‘seem’…) :smile:

1 Like
#23

Hi RG

I won’t go on and on about this. I’ll just say that this kind of way of thinking about correlation etc is leading folks astray. Correlation works if we can say other things being equal when we did this thing, we found this result.

But… other things are not equal.

In the VAERS database, there are a large group of different folks - old, young, black, white, healthy, unhealthy, male, female etc etc etc.

There are too many confounding variables to be able to make a meaningful correlation argument. It is the literal opposite of a rock-solid bet.

I know that it’s tempting to jump to conclusions regarding VAERS, and many folks (and some who should really know better) seemingly can’t help themselves. But this is not sound mathematical thinking.

That’s not to say that folks aren’t dying. It’s simply to say that you just cannot show that the vaccine was responsible with VAERS alone.

Cheers

1 Like
#24

Hi PP. I think the crucial issue with VAERS is around sampling, not correlation.

In stats you often arrive at a number and it’s what you do then that matters.
If there are x% extra particular adverse events, or deaths, in vaccinated people then (assuming x is statistically significant ie it’s not just a minor variation) the question arises what is the explanation?

One explanation might be that the vaccinated might not represent the general population - a situation that we would have had for a period of time for example, when only the elderly had been offered the jab. Age would in that case be a confounding variable.

But now they’ve gone down the ages and across all the groups this is no longer the case.
I think that with such a large proportion vaccinated then in the absence of any specific confounders the front runner is the obvious, ‘unmathematical one’. It’s not unmathematical in my view - as it simply means the sampling was reasonable, or sufficient reasoning has not been put up to doubt it.
So I think the onus is on those not accepting the outcome of the sampling as being representative to say why. I don’t think it’s sound to claim possible or unspecified confounders as refuting the outcome of the sample.

I don’t think people are jumping to conclusions just based on VAERS, they refer to other indicators. It’s unfair to suggest they are relying on them individually.

But do you really think 700 athletes dying suddenly can be dismissed as small? (It’s over 1000 now, btw). Why would you not think there are more people dying than that - athletes are simply more visible.
At any rate, it’s a new phenomenon, coinciding with the vaccine rollouts. Isn’t it exactly the kind of thing that would support the VAERS data?

And what about these insurance figures - 40% rises in deaths of under-40s etc.

Cheers

1 Like
#25

Hi ED

I was mainly responding to others in the thread bringing up correlation, and giving my thoughts about why I thought that was problematic.

The sampling issue is interesting, but similarly begs the question. For example:

But are there x% extra deaths? Where has this been shown? if I took a large, similarly sampled population of non-vaxxed Americans, would they have fewer deaths than the VAERS group? Fewer mysterious illnesses? Health and healthcare being what it is in America, I just don’t know. That’s what I meant by jumping to conclusions with the VAERS dataset.

At some point I tried to look into this in the UK, with the excess death figures vs vaccine rollout, but I found almost zero correlation. Very possibly my analysis was flawed, but I’m not aware of someone doing it properly and finding a result.

As I’ve said many times, that doesn’t mean it’s not happening. I just haven’t seen any studies that look carefully at the question.

With the athletes data, my only point was that even if many people did die from the vaccine (and again, I don’t know if they did, but let’s assume) going from “many” to “far more people than died from covid” is almost certainly false.

I remember precisely zero hospital icus overwhelmed by huge and rising numbers of vaccine victims. I don’t remember ambulances queuing up outside morgues with vaccine deaths etc. You get my point. The latest estimates that I’ve seen are that 10-20 million people died from covid, globally. I highly doubt that far more than that have died from the vaccine.

I’ve seen some life insurance data, and I’ll have a look at your link. Something might well be happening with excess mortality again (although I don’t see that in the Euromomo data). In short, I don’t know what to make of it, other than - like VAERS - it probably needs some careful study.

I know that you’re paying very close attention to this subject, ED. Perhaps it would be worth keeping a thread going with the best studies/references/signs as you come across them. That would be an excellent resource to have, I think.

Cheers
PP

2 Likes
#26

If it were ever proved that jabs were the key factor in excess deaths (and those dozen or so words are already a very shaky “if”) that would still very probably conceal myriad other variables. Some could be traced back to Covid overreach, some to the disease itself, some to sheer bad luck: the world is a complex place.

PP makes passing reference to US Healthcare system, and that’s highly relevant. I have several wobbly teeth but can’t get to see an NHS dentist. When I was in great pain the several hundred quid of private care, to remedy the worst problems, was a bargain. At the time I had some savings, gone now.

If I lived in St Louis, or Oshkosh, or Detroit, or Springfield, where missing rent day even once, to pay for health costs, could lead to eviction, I know what I’d be prioritising. With the bottom falling out of so many people’s lives those choices are being made way more often, and in a percentage of cases the effects will be higher mortality. I can’t pin this down, and would scoff at anyone who claimed otherwise.

Existence is all one big interconnected mess (this is a good thing, enjoy it while it lasts) and our key mistake has been the conceit that any of this can be influenced, muchly, for long. That’s not passivity, or giving up hope, of course people should not cooperate with patently stupid regulations, and thank goodness there are people continuing to monitor this, and pushing back.

1 Like
#27

Well in my post I was addressing the confounding possibility you mentioned. The issue pertaining to whether that x% is real is under-reporting in VAERS. This has been studied and found to be a factor of ten to a hundred.

In the present context it isn’t hard to see why there would be underreporting - it take at least 20 mins to fill out a VAERS report. (They are usually filled out by medical personnel). A hard-pressed doctor could see two patients and a nurse could give two vaccinations in that time. There is much bigger pressure than usual on medics not to raise vaccine concerns. Even telling a relative that you think it was likely the vaccine gets a Dr into trouble. Of course most doctors believe vaccine reactions are rare. And the CDC have been weeding the database.

VAERS IS the system - it wasn’t deigned to bring down dangerous vaccines but to give the CDC credibility while possibly flagging up particular issues with the data, like all the reports being within a particular timeframe. The reduction in the numbers damps down public disquiet.

But they never reckoned on a ‘signal’ like this. Since the rollout the rate of serious covid vaccine reactions, and deaths, in VAERS immediately shot to something like 20-100 times the rate of all previous vaccines.

If this can be ignored the system lacks any genuine purpose other than to damp down disquiet.

“I remember precisely zero hospital icus overwhelmed by huge and rising numbers of vaccine victims. I don’t remember ambulances queuing up outside morgues with vaccine deaths etc. You get my point. The latest estimates that I’ve seen are that 10-20 million people died from covid, globally. I highly doubt that far more than that have died from the vaccine.”

But there are only 6m claimed even on Worldometer. You are aware of false positives with PCR at 40 cycles? I can’t compare real data with exaggerations - that would mean I’d have to find what, 20-40 million vaccine deaths to ‘beat’ what is likely about 2-3m covid deaths.

Nevertheless, that’s what some well-placed, top medics are indicating, looking at the medical signals. For example Dr Ryan Cole (a board-certified pathologist with a license in twelve state) has shown how the jab effects can be measured in the blood. He predicts a tsunami of thrombotic, cardio events but also weakened immune systems (that he can directly prove). He has seen order of magnitude increase in particular cancers and sees those as predictable from the weakening of the immune system.

Cheers

#28

Hi again PP. Just some thoughts on the thoughts. I’ve got to go out (to try to catch covid while it’s weak :laughing:), sorry if this is ending up a bit rushed…

Dr Ryan Cole was warning of this cancer risk in 2021 - as indeed was one @RhisiartGwilym

Now his forecasts are being supported by pathology.
There was an excellent conference on Vaccine Causation, organised by the World Council for Health.

“The inaugural Understanding Vaccine Causation Conference, convened by World Council for Health Steering Committee Member, Shabnam Palesa Mohamed, took place on Feb. 5, 2022. The WCH Law and Activism Committee brought together legal practitioners, doctors, scientists, and jab victim data and advocacy groups to explore a key question: How are jab adverse events proved?”

One of the speakers was Dr Cole who indicated how vaccine damage can be seen from the blood parameters.

Another speaker was Dr Arne Burkhardt (who we know from:

Link, Pathologist Dr Arne Burkhardt and Dr Sucharit Bhakdi homing in on vaccine deaths?) who gave a very informative presentation showing how the vaccine harm was picked up by autopsy:

Burkhardt’s graphic (and riveting) presentation was like watching disease live. It left no doubt that the vaccines are killing people - as they killed those patients. The vaccine were ‘probable cause’ in at least 12 of the 15 cases he has autopsied after relatives have referred to him for a second opinion.

Both Burkhardt and Cole have been flagged here before. I think this highlights an issue - to form a complete picture, such ‘dots’ have to be joined or factored in.

The other issue is the onus you seem to have placed - prove the vaccines are killing more than Covid. I realize this is something people are actually saying - but proving this from official data can’t be the line that we are arguing across. You don’t acknowledge all the political forces that are stretching covid deaths while suppressing vaccine deaths.

Early treatment is another ‘dot’ (a very big one admittedly) - you acknowledge its suppression, but doesn’t this mean that a big majority of covid deaths are essentially politically/medically induced deaths?
Basically, if you remove all those who would have been saved by early interventions, then ‘proving’ or arguing vaccines killed more people than covid would be straightforward.

I think when people make the claim that vaccines are killing more than covid there are two strands to it. One is the analyses by people like Jesica Rose and Steve Kirsch (who can’t find anyone senior in medicine who will debate him on vaccine deaths vs covid deaths, even for a million pounds) that purports to how this. The other is the cacophany of horror stories, medical signals and political outrages (and official data lies and manipulations) that forms the vaccine news outside the mainstream. They are partly reflecting to the whole picture, anticipating that you will have some of these ‘dots’ in mind!
Hope I’m shedding some light…
Cheers

#29

Here’s my reality: I refuse to call it a ‘pandemic’. Because

  1. many deaths were caused because govts intentionally prevented early treatment
  2. many deaths were caused by lockdowns, which caused massive stress, and stress is the number one factor of reduced immunity, and reduced immunity is a major killer of the elderly
  3. the statistics concerning deaths and serious illness have been shown to be fraudulent
  4. the PCR tests have been shown to be fraudulent used to maximize ‘cases’.

If we had never been told there was a ‘pandemic’, and if there had been no lockdowns, no PCR mass testing, and if people had been treated ‘normally’ with the best protocols, would we have noticed anything? I say NO absolutely not.

Concerning the Vaxx, my reality is that it makes people sick and dead at a much higher rate that covid, and this fact is being ruthlessly suppressed.

Why trust any of the ‘science’ at this point that purports to prove covid was or is a pandemic? Would you trust Boeing to tell you about whether more weapons are needed? Would you trust Phillip Morris if they said tobacco was not harmful? Remember how BigTobacco manipulated science and doctors and politicians? And suddenly we’re supposed to put our faith in the science underwritten by BigPharma criminals?

No pandemic, profits, yes. Not even a vaxx, a gene therapy injection, yes, whose effect is still not known, and cannot be known. They concocted that cell manipulation deadly soup in a matter of months, and forced it on millions if not billions, only a matter of months ago, so it’s IMPOSSIBLE to know how deadly it is at this point.

3 Likes
#30

Hi bwana

Quick points to both your messages.

  • Yes, under-reporting in VAERS, I agree.
  • The data in VAERS etc are hopefelly being further investigated. Evidence for that is the myocarditis story that was a tiny effect, discovered, investigated and acted upon (within the EU, though. Maybe america is much worse)
  • Number of global covid deaths in worldometer is a certain (large) underestimate in my view, but thats a different topic
  • vaccine and cancer rates: very interesting, I’ll definitely look through. It’s great that there are doctors out there looking into this. Id like someone to look at the same thing in covid survivors. Im sure the clotting resulting from.the disease has similar effects. Scary
  • @RhisiartGwilym predicting a rise in cancers: He’s a canny one for sure, and it’s not the first time he’s been right! I just disagree with him about covid stats
  • early treatment - 100% agree. This entire thing was preventable.
  • I’m generally not a huge fan of Steve Kirsch, but id consider debating him for 1 million! I wonder if you get the million for just showing up, or if you somehow have to “win”… joking aside, however, this just reminds me of various climate denier stunts (and James Randi). Id be surprised if anyone took that up. Doesnt mean hes wrong though…
  • the conference on vaccine caused injury: excellent. I will absolutely check that out. This is the kind of thing that could fit into an ongoing evidence thread.

So, yes, overall lots of light, good data for chewing on. Thanks.

On the subject of correlation or even sampling, my view remains that you cannot simply draw conclusions from VAERS. It’s a raw dataset on which (1) careful analysis should be performed, and (2) from which statistical models can be extracted that will ultimately show whether the vaccine is causing more deaths than average. We cant skip those two steps and just do a raw count and jump straight to the conclusion. Underreporting only makes that problem more tricky from a mathematical POV.

So far I’ve seen lots of people making claims. Some are well qualified and some less so. This all needs good, robust, statstical analysis. If you ask me whether I think some people get serious adverse effects or even die from a vaccine reaction, I would say yes. The question is how many people are we talking about?

A huge spike in mortality (“more than from covid”) would be visible. Its not. Not anywhere that I’ve been looking, anyway. I tried to look for excess mortality spikes in the UK and found none. I dont see any in other European countries either (where the data is far better quality than the US).

So, are some people dying? Most likely. Are more dying than died from covid? Almost certainly not.

Cheers
PP

PS, I have noticed that I have an OCD tendency to get caught in the weeds of statistical arguments. I think that is rarely interesting to literally anyone else here. If you’d like to continue chatting about correlation, sampling, estimates of covid deaths and excess mortality, maybe we chat by email? Unless others are actually interested in these details, of course…

2 Likes
#31

P, don’t leave out of these cautious thoughts the additional one: that it’s now possible to resurrect and make quite persuasively the argument that it’s not proven conclusively that viruses exist at all. That particular awkward possibility doesn’t look to me as if it’s going to lie down again any time soon, having been re-awakened by the covid thing. (Bet the ‘pandemic’ story pushers didn’t foresee that possibility! :slight_smile: )

You’re right about the detailed analysis of stat technicalities. That always leaves me - for one - out. I’m capable of such advanced numeracy; but these days, not much convinced that it’s worth the time. Surfing the larger trends, and giving intuition freedom to operate right alongside nitty-gritty logic, as an equal partner in the constant search for what are only ever going to be, at best, odds-on bets, never rabid certainties… That just seems a better way to go.

But, since that kind of detailed discussion tends to get simply chased out from places like - for example - the Hulk, surely we should be open to house it here at 5F; because someone should. Readers can always choose - like me - whether to dive into it or not.

1 Like
#32

Hi PP thanks for the response, more agreement than disagreement.
On the latter :slight_smile: :

  • The data in VAERS etc are hopefelly being further investigated. Evidence for that is the myocarditis story that was a tiny effect, discovered, investigated and acted upon (within the EU, though. Maybe america is much worse)

I think that’s very hopeful. Only the threat to the vaccine is investigated. The CDC told VAERS they only started looking at the data in April 2021.
It’s not a tiny effect relative to covid. If you’re more likely to get myocarditis from the vaccine than by getting covid. When covid is less dangerous - like now with Omicron, or for under 40s, anytime - the vaccine becomes almost a no-win gamble, based on myocarditis alone.

  • Number of global covid deaths in worldometer is a certain (large) underestimate in my view, but thats a different topic

What data are you looking at? I looked at Worldometer, the WHO and Statista.

  • vaccine and cancer rates: very interesting, I’ll definitely look through. It’s great that there are doctors out there looking into this. Id like someone to look at the same thing in covid survivors. Im sure the clotting resulting from.the disease has similar effects. Scary

Good point. There seem to be parallels between vaccine effects and covid effects. From memory, the FLCCC seem to advise the same covid treatments for long covid as well. The spike protein inherent in both could account for much of this. The vaccines’ spike proteins may be much longer lasting (people like Zelenko said this) and other researchers have indicated that the SP is more mobile as well whereas covid tends to stay localised. Their smaller which is probably bad.
But I don’t have the gen on this - could do with an honest scientific review, but I think there might be a backlash against acknowledging that the vaccines give you ‘a bit of covid’ after all, especiallly if it looks like more than a bit!

  • I’m generally not a huge fan of Steve Kirsch, but id consider debating him for 1 million! I wonder if you get the million for just showing up, or if you somehow have to “win”… joking aside, however, this just reminds me of various climate denier stunts (and James Randi). Id be surprised if anyone took that up. Doesnt mean hes wrong though…

Jessica Rose then? On Kirch, I think the challenge was to prove his figures were wrong by a factor of three or more. But I think his figures were severe - eg five times as many deaths caused by vaccines as there are covid deaths avoided by them - so there is scope if you doubt them.
It’s not a comparable stunt. Kirsch was making plenty of money before covid, now he’s spending it on covid (he’s funded covid studies and other medical projects) and all his time as well. He’s a serious player. He’s no McCullough, but these top guys take him seriously.

"On the subject of correlation or even sampling, my view remains that you cannot simply draw conclusions from VAERS. It’s a raw dataset on which (1) careful analysis should be performed, and (2) from which statistical models can be extracted that will ultimately show whether the vaccine is causing more deaths than average. We cant skip those two steps and just do a raw count and jump straight to the conclusion. Underreporting only makes that problem more tricky from a mathematical POV.

So far I’ve seen lots of people making claims. Some are well qualified and some less so. This all needs good, robust, statstical analysis. If you ask me whether I think some people get serious adverse effects or even die from a vaccine reaction, I would say yes. The question is how many people are we talking about?"

Well what about your claims. How is it that you accept all the claims about covid deaths, even multiplying the official total by 2-3. Why do these not need “careful analysis” and “good, robust, statstical analysis”

But on Vaers, what analysis do you need when a new vaccine appears and there are immediately HUGE spikes in several serious adverse events (myocarditis, pulmonary embolisms, pericarditis), all more serious than Covid. These were spikes of 100,1000 times the previous rates associated with vaccines. And they persisted all year so weren’t down to topicality. The spike in vaccine deaths are similar.

“A huge spike in mortality (“more than from covid”) would be visible. Its not. Not anywhere that I’ve been looking, anyway. I tried to look for excess mortality spikes in the UK and found none. I dont see any in other European countries either (where the data is far better quality than the US).”

But the spikes in illnesses are visible. I do fear you are looking in such a way as not to see. If you can ascertain the deaths you should be wary of statistically (‘robustly’) processing them out of view.

“So, are some people dying? Most likely. Are more dying than died from covid? Almost certainly not.”

Only ‘most likely’? Pathologist Arne Burkhardt caught it as if it were live. All the athlete deaths - well you have a ready made experiment there, thanks to the good old mandates in sports.
40% rise in insurance claims? More from such sources in Kirsch’s ‘top 50’ as posted by. @RhisiartGwilym, Steve Kirsch: "The 'safe and effective' narrative is falling apart - #3 by Evvy_dense.
Peter Fenton’s analysis indicated why you need to be wary of official data.
Many of these issues have been posted here.

“PS, I have noticed that I have an OCD tendency to get caught in the weeds of statistical arguments. I think that is rarely interesting to literally anyone else here. If you’d like to continue chatting about correlation, sampling, estimates of covid deaths and excess mortality, maybe we chat by email? Unless others are actually interested in these details, of course…”

Edit: We could discuss the gory details of some things if you like :slightly_smiling_face:

Cheers
ED

2 Likes
#33

Completely agree. My mother once told me, “Intelligence is the ability to make connections”. I was reminded of this in a recent Robert Malone interview where he said exactly that about himself. So yes, the nitty gritty analysis (if done objectively) is important, but many can see the big picture without it!

2 Likes
#34

And where will those statistics originate if they are suppressed from key documents? And if those statistics are suppressed on what basis can good robust statistical analysis be done? And if the analysis cannot be done what then is the basis of your argument?

For example (one of many)

#35

The basic conundrum - still unanswered by anyone here - is: HOW do you tell which stats/‘facts’/tests are authentic and un-nobbled? HOW do you KNOW?

The short answer for any appropriately-sceptical person is simple as well as short: No-one knows with any justified certainty, because we are living through a time of universal corruption.

One hundred percent open-minded scepticism is the only rational stance to take. And in that awkward situation, intuitive direct knowledge-getting is the other - better - option, to set against currently-disabled rationality.

Be very ware, though: real intuitive information sifting - as taught, for example, in Tom Campbell’s practical seminars, and by others too - is a delicately tricky skill. Wishful thinking, instant rationalising interpretation, and ego, are all waiting constantly to trip us up.

It takes a fair bit of practice until the subtle signals can be discerned which enable us to sort the wheat from the chaff. But it can be done - with practice. Just be cautious.

#36

This suggests that those connections are being made

#37

Any idea what the figures mean?

#38

Hi Everyman

Well, the VAERS and yellow card systems are not suppressed, and I believe that there are teams looking through that data. AFAIK its only the vaccine trial data that is suppressed, no? Presumably with enough public pressure that could be opened up too.

Well, if the analysis cannot be done then we cannot reach a meaningful conclusion. You can say what you think, I can say what I think and we might be right or we might be wrong…

As a great song says - there’s no shortcuts on this road.

Cheers
PP

1 Like