Regarding the "worry window" or "devil's two weeks" for the AZ vax, I refer you again to Joel Smalley, who, back in mid to late January, demonstrated that deaths were caused by the 1st jab of AZ (then among old people, with mass deaths in some nursing homes). He assumed that every rising death wave -- whether Covid or vax-induced --- followed its own Gompertz curve. By overlaying three such curves (one Covid in November, two vax accelerations later) , he could fit the observed death profile from November to early February, including the spectacular spike on Jan 12. He was afraid to use the V word at that time, but it was obvious. So yeah, that data exists for AZ.
My question is: are those really Covid deaths? Anecdotal evidence, but I follow Facebook and Telegram vax groups from Brazil (I have family there) where people frequently share Facebook profiles of people who got the shot (thank you for posting your vaccination card selfie) and days or weeks later died of Covid. A common theme are the relatives explaining that, according to the doctors, the person got the vaccine without knowing they were infected at the time they got it. So.. these people dodged the virus for months, but got it the day before the vax? That's.. um, strange.
Perhaps of interest, there is a dramatic difference -- like night and day -- between the situations in Saigon and Hanoi. Saigon has had all the spread, and pretty much all the deaths, between the two. They also were first to get the vaccines. But now Hanoi is getting pretty close to saturated with one dose, I think, so you'd expect to see deaths happening there if the theory holds. I don't know that you'll find a source that breaks out that data, though...
So I've been wondering for a while, and since the Chinese did it, it is possible, why did we not just make a COVID vaccine like we make flu vaccines or measles, mumps, smallpox, chickenpox, etc., vaccines with dormant or weak viruses? What was their excuse for not doing that?
Also interesting would be knowing how the Novavax vaccine effects people's immune systems. It is an injection of just the spike proteins themselves, w/o involving cells.
Some SARS-2 attenuated virus vaccines are even in development for humans, but it is unlikely they will ever be used, because they are very dangerous. The attenuated virus, because it replicates in the cells of the vaccinated, can reacquire its prior virulence via mutations. This happened with early attenuated vaccines against poliovirus in humans. And there is an added danger, that the recently vaccinated might come into contact with the wild virus, and recombination events might then combine splice together the genomes of both, yielding unpredictable, potentially very lethal, mutant strains.
You should check out Harvard2TheBigHouse on Twitter. Read the pinned tweet. He says this is basically Covid-19. That it is a vaccine that is deattenuating to the virulence of SARS or MERS. I pray he's wrong, interesting nonetheless.
Also, a couple weeks ago, Brazil halted vaccination of teens (Pfizer) after the death of a healthy 16 year old. She died of cardiac arrest 6 days after the vax.
Might be interesting for you to look in depth at Victoria and NSW in Australia in relation to the worry window hypothesis. Massive vax take up (after supply issues) during this current outbreak and hard lockdown.
Yes, big jump in cases in Victoria today. It’s very strange that here in Australia our lockdowns haven’t prevented spread this time, despite numerous outbreaks of delta that had been contained previously. And of course this time it all ties up with a surging vaccination program.
I would be very cautious about the data from Cambodia. The medical infrastructure there is primitive to non-existent. They make India look First World. It's my understanding that they weren't even participating in the COVID fraud until early this year, when I imagine their foreign aid was threatened if they didn't go along. I wouldn't be surprised if they were throwing the vials in the landfill and making the numbers up, though I'd speculate they have NGO's running the vaccine campaign. I do have a friend who runs an audiology clinic there, I could ask for his observations.
I’ll admit I have not fully digested this article yet so apologies if covered but I’ve been following along this far. Any thoughts on why the surges with respect to initial and booster shot but not the second? I suspect there’s a bit of “culling the herd” in who’s vulnerable and who is not. Or it’s down to timing— every booster is simulating a first shot due to fading efficacy. Over time however, I wonder how all cause mortality rates will look in the booster population. This is uncharted waters and we have no idea on the limits of the human body with respect to these doses.
Great work. Look forward to diving in to this article.
I've taken a quick look at this data and have a few thoughts:
1) at first glance, this looks like exactly what you would expect if the vaccines work. Cumulative first doses grown as cases grow (since they were mid spike when they start the data) and then flatten out (also when first doses tip over). Vaccinations follow the deaths.
2) But they follow a little too well? If you plot JUST the raw new vaccinations - new second doses and the raw new deaths there is a very clear correlation - which doesn't make sense. I guess maybe as cases and deaths fell, people were less likely to get vaccinated? But the correlation is really odd, almost like vaccination reports are 28 days late.. If you time shift them to line up with deaths, the correlation is scary.
Further looks - it's still VERY odd how deaths seem to directly influence different countries vaccination rates 30-60 days later. It must be a confounder but I can't understand it. I can't seem to post images here so I can't easily share what I'm seeing.
But it DOES look like the recent data follows the pattern you see, but the older data didn't, which is interesting to me. It certainly implies maybe something has changed in the circulating strain of Delta currently in the UK.
I read bad cattitude with gratitude. Could gato or gatita please point to some published studies that compare covid vax risk to benefit? A friend’s employer asks for this and they won’t accept substacks. Not even the best
In the discussion the authors say “ In this study, we sought to place the increased risk of adverse events caused by the BNT162b2 vaccine in context by contrasting this risk with that of the same adverse events after documented infection with SARS-CoV-2. We thought that this was necessary because vaccination and its potential risks do not occur in a void but rather in the context of an ongoing pandemic. Although the general risks of hospitalization, severe disease, and death from Covid-19 are widely recognized, secondary complications of infection are less well known. Therefore, in this analysis, we sought to estimate the effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the incidence of the same list of adverse events examined in the vaccination analysis. Because the cohorts that we used to study the vaccine and infection effects were different in composition, care should be taken when comparing the resulting risk estimates. In addition, knowledge of these risks alone is insufficient for a complete decision-theoretic analysis. When a person decides to become vaccinated, this choice results in a probability of 100% for the vaccination, whereas the alternative of contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection is an event with uncertain probability that depends on the person, place, and time. Moreover, infection with SARS-CoV-2 has many other adverse effects beyond those considered here, including the risk of transmission to family members and others.”
But, that seems to have little influence on the paper. And I wonder what else is missing. LIke, are they including in their probabilities of adverse event rates for coronavirus infection without vaccination the fact that those adverse events of covid infection are exacerbated by systematic non-treatment and maltreatment? If covid patients instead received proper treatment, would those covid adverse events rates among the unvaccinated not be greatly reduced?
And then of course the gato malo hypothesis that the vaxxes are CREATING covid patients among the vaxxed and the unvaxxed. Is there any published study of risk / benefit that includes these analyses?
Where the study says “ Table S6 shows the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the incidence of various adverse events. Infection substantially increased the risk of many different adverse events, including myocarditis (risk ratio, 18.28; 95% CI, 3.95 to 25.12; risk difference, 11.0 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 5.6 to 15.8), acute kidney injury (risk ratio, 14.83; 95% CI, 9.24 to 28.75; risk difference, 125.4 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 107.0 to 142.6), pulmonary embolism (risk ratio, 12.14; 95% CI, 6.89 to 29.20; risk difference, 61.7 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 48.5 to 75.4), intracranial hemorrhage (risk ratio, 6.89; 95% CI, 1.90 to 19.16; risk difference, 7.6 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 2.7 to 12.6), pericarditis (risk ratio, 5.39; 95% CI, 2.22 to 23.58; risk difference, 10.9 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 4.9 to 16.9), myocardial infarction (risk ratio, 4.47; 95% CI, 2.47 to 9.95; risk difference, 25.1 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 16.2 to 33.9), deep-vein thrombosis (risk ratio, 3.78; 95% CI, 2.50 to 6.59; risk difference, 43.0 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 29.9 to 56.6), and arrhythmia (risk ratio, 3.83; 95% CI, 3.07 to 4.95; risk difference, 166.1 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 139.6 to 193.2).”
—-… it looks to me like
1) they do not account for covid maltreatment (e.g. remdesivir) causing these adverse effects of covid and
2) in comparing the rate of these adverse events to the same events among the vaccinated, they exaggerate the event rate in the unvaccinated by about 100X (or more) because because they count only those unvaccinated who are hospitalized and therefore subjected to maltreatment. They are not accounting for most people, almost all people infected, who do not get very ill and do not go to hospital and do not develop these adverse events
Switzerland might be worth looking at. They implemented a rule that more or less excludes non-vaccinated people from going to restaurants, gym, libraries, indoor events etc. starting from Sept 13 2021. You now need a Covid certificate to go to these places. Due to this rule and the pressure it caused, many formerly hesistant people got vaccinated (first shot). I hope the Swiss data is good enough (they admit that laboratory-confirmed hospitalisations and laboratory-confirmed deaths are not up to date due to reporting delays), so it is probably too early to tell, but you can find it here:
Regarding the "worry window" or "devil's two weeks" for the AZ vax, I refer you again to Joel Smalley, who, back in mid to late January, demonstrated that deaths were caused by the 1st jab of AZ (then among old people, with mass deaths in some nursing homes). He assumed that every rising death wave -- whether Covid or vax-induced --- followed its own Gompertz curve. By overlaying three such curves (one Covid in November, two vax accelerations later) , he could fit the observed death profile from November to early February, including the spectacular spike on Jan 12. He was afraid to use the V word at that time, but it was obvious. So yeah, that data exists for AZ.
My question is: are those really Covid deaths? Anecdotal evidence, but I follow Facebook and Telegram vax groups from Brazil (I have family there) where people frequently share Facebook profiles of people who got the shot (thank you for posting your vaccination card selfie) and days or weeks later died of Covid. A common theme are the relatives explaining that, according to the doctors, the person got the vaccine without knowing they were infected at the time they got it. So.. these people dodged the virus for months, but got it the day before the vax? That's.. um, strange.
this whole thing is just a-paw-ling. thanks for giving us something to think on!
For what it's worth, this guy has a lot of in-depth and well connected reporting on Vietnam:
https://vietnamweekly.substack.com/
Perhaps of interest, there is a dramatic difference -- like night and day -- between the situations in Saigon and Hanoi. Saigon has had all the spread, and pretty much all the deaths, between the two. They also were first to get the vaccines. But now Hanoi is getting pretty close to saturated with one dose, I think, so you'd expect to see deaths happening there if the theory holds. I don't know that you'll find a source that breaks out that data, though...
El Gato ... you way wish to read this thread and the underlying paper.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1443431536641015810.html
So I've been wondering for a while, and since the Chinese did it, it is possible, why did we not just make a COVID vaccine like we make flu vaccines or measles, mumps, smallpox, chickenpox, etc., vaccines with dormant or weak viruses? What was their excuse for not doing that?
Also interesting would be knowing how the Novavax vaccine effects people's immune systems. It is an injection of just the spike proteins themselves, w/o involving cells.
According to this guy: https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/we-are-all-cattle-now
who says:
Some SARS-2 attenuated virus vaccines are even in development for humans, but it is unlikely they will ever be used, because they are very dangerous. The attenuated virus, because it replicates in the cells of the vaccinated, can reacquire its prior virulence via mutations. This happened with early attenuated vaccines against poliovirus in humans. And there is an added danger, that the recently vaccinated might come into contact with the wild virus, and recombination events might then combine splice together the genomes of both, yielding unpredictable, potentially very lethal, mutant strains.
Thank you, and thank you for the link.
You should check out Harvard2TheBigHouse on Twitter. Read the pinned tweet. He says this is basically Covid-19. That it is a vaccine that is deattenuating to the virulence of SARS or MERS. I pray he's wrong, interesting nonetheless.
Also, a couple weeks ago, Brazil halted vaccination of teens (Pfizer) after the death of a healthy 16 year old. She died of cardiac arrest 6 days after the vax.
Might be interesting for you to look in depth at Victoria and NSW in Australia in relation to the worry window hypothesis. Massive vax take up (after supply issues) during this current outbreak and hard lockdown.
Yes, big jump in cases in Victoria today. It’s very strange that here in Australia our lockdowns haven’t prevented spread this time, despite numerous outbreaks of delta that had been contained previously. And of course this time it all ties up with a surging vaccination program.
The lack of intellectual curiosity about the current situation in Australia is really quite extraordinary.
I would be very cautious about the data from Cambodia. The medical infrastructure there is primitive to non-existent. They make India look First World. It's my understanding that they weren't even participating in the COVID fraud until early this year, when I imagine their foreign aid was threatened if they didn't go along. I wouldn't be surprised if they were throwing the vials in the landfill and making the numbers up, though I'd speculate they have NGO's running the vaccine campaign. I do have a friend who runs an audiology clinic there, I could ask for his observations.
I’ll admit I have not fully digested this article yet so apologies if covered but I’ve been following along this far. Any thoughts on why the surges with respect to initial and booster shot but not the second? I suspect there’s a bit of “culling the herd” in who’s vulnerable and who is not. Or it’s down to timing— every booster is simulating a first shot due to fading efficacy. Over time however, I wonder how all cause mortality rates will look in the booster population. This is uncharted waters and we have no idea on the limits of the human body with respect to these doses.
Great work. Look forward to diving in to this article.
In previous articles, he's theorized that the second jab is given in the shadow of the protection of the first, thereby masking the worry window.
Best meme laugh of the day 😹
The UK Vaccine dashboard (if you click on by nation) has detailed downloadable data for Case, Vaccination, and Deaths that go back to mid January 2021. https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations
I've taken a quick look at this data and have a few thoughts:
1) at first glance, this looks like exactly what you would expect if the vaccines work. Cumulative first doses grown as cases grow (since they were mid spike when they start the data) and then flatten out (also when first doses tip over). Vaccinations follow the deaths.
2) But they follow a little too well? If you plot JUST the raw new vaccinations - new second doses and the raw new deaths there is a very clear correlation - which doesn't make sense. I guess maybe as cases and deaths fell, people were less likely to get vaccinated? But the correlation is really odd, almost like vaccination reports are 28 days late.. If you time shift them to line up with deaths, the correlation is scary.
Further looks - it's still VERY odd how deaths seem to directly influence different countries vaccination rates 30-60 days later. It must be a confounder but I can't understand it. I can't seem to post images here so I can't easily share what I'm seeing.
But it DOES look like the recent data follows the pattern you see, but the older data didn't, which is interesting to me. It certainly implies maybe something has changed in the circulating strain of Delta currently in the UK.
I read bad cattitude with gratitude. Could gato or gatita please point to some published studies that compare covid vax risk to benefit? A friend’s employer asks for this and they won’t accept substacks. Not even the best
Is there published critique of this? https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-08-largest-real-world-covid-vaccine-safety.html
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475
In the discussion the authors say “ In this study, we sought to place the increased risk of adverse events caused by the BNT162b2 vaccine in context by contrasting this risk with that of the same adverse events after documented infection with SARS-CoV-2. We thought that this was necessary because vaccination and its potential risks do not occur in a void but rather in the context of an ongoing pandemic. Although the general risks of hospitalization, severe disease, and death from Covid-19 are widely recognized, secondary complications of infection are less well known. Therefore, in this analysis, we sought to estimate the effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the incidence of the same list of adverse events examined in the vaccination analysis. Because the cohorts that we used to study the vaccine and infection effects were different in composition, care should be taken when comparing the resulting risk estimates. In addition, knowledge of these risks alone is insufficient for a complete decision-theoretic analysis. When a person decides to become vaccinated, this choice results in a probability of 100% for the vaccination, whereas the alternative of contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection is an event with uncertain probability that depends on the person, place, and time. Moreover, infection with SARS-CoV-2 has many other adverse effects beyond those considered here, including the risk of transmission to family members and others.”
But, that seems to have little influence on the paper. And I wonder what else is missing. LIke, are they including in their probabilities of adverse event rates for coronavirus infection without vaccination the fact that those adverse events of covid infection are exacerbated by systematic non-treatment and maltreatment? If covid patients instead received proper treatment, would those covid adverse events rates among the unvaccinated not be greatly reduced?
And then of course the gato malo hypothesis that the vaxxes are CREATING covid patients among the vaxxed and the unvaxxed. Is there any published study of risk / benefit that includes these analyses?
Where the study says “ Table S6 shows the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the incidence of various adverse events. Infection substantially increased the risk of many different adverse events, including myocarditis (risk ratio, 18.28; 95% CI, 3.95 to 25.12; risk difference, 11.0 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 5.6 to 15.8), acute kidney injury (risk ratio, 14.83; 95% CI, 9.24 to 28.75; risk difference, 125.4 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 107.0 to 142.6), pulmonary embolism (risk ratio, 12.14; 95% CI, 6.89 to 29.20; risk difference, 61.7 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 48.5 to 75.4), intracranial hemorrhage (risk ratio, 6.89; 95% CI, 1.90 to 19.16; risk difference, 7.6 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 2.7 to 12.6), pericarditis (risk ratio, 5.39; 95% CI, 2.22 to 23.58; risk difference, 10.9 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 4.9 to 16.9), myocardial infarction (risk ratio, 4.47; 95% CI, 2.47 to 9.95; risk difference, 25.1 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 16.2 to 33.9), deep-vein thrombosis (risk ratio, 3.78; 95% CI, 2.50 to 6.59; risk difference, 43.0 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 29.9 to 56.6), and arrhythmia (risk ratio, 3.83; 95% CI, 3.07 to 4.95; risk difference, 166.1 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 139.6 to 193.2).”
—-… it looks to me like
1) they do not account for covid maltreatment (e.g. remdesivir) causing these adverse effects of covid and
2) in comparing the rate of these adverse events to the same events among the vaccinated, they exaggerate the event rate in the unvaccinated by about 100X (or more) because because they count only those unvaccinated who are hospitalized and therefore subjected to maltreatment. They are not accounting for most people, almost all people infected, who do not get very ill and do not go to hospital and do not develop these adverse events
Switzerland might be worth looking at. They implemented a rule that more or less excludes non-vaccinated people from going to restaurants, gym, libraries, indoor events etc. starting from Sept 13 2021. You now need a Covid certificate to go to these places. Due to this rule and the pressure it caused, many formerly hesistant people got vaccinated (first shot). I hope the Swiss data is good enough (they admit that laboratory-confirmed hospitalisations and laboratory-confirmed deaths are not up to date due to reporting delays), so it is probably too early to tell, but you can find it here:
https://www.covid19.admin.ch/en/weekly-report/situation
The downloadable data is at the bottom of the page
Love your work, new subscriber and I eagerly read every post!
On more on the same topic, vaccinations followed by infections. https://www.bitchute.com/video/fERkkYNC421n/
Here are the links on vaccinations meaning more cases and more deaths. https://www.msn.com/en-my/news/national/malaysia-administered-338661-covid-19-vaccine-doses-on-sept-29/ar-AAOYEPc?ocid=BingNewsSearch https://www.msn.com/en-my/news/national/malaysia-logs-208-covid-19-fatalities-on-sept-29-raising-death-tally-to-26143/ar-AAOYOFO?ocid=BingNewsSearch https://www.msn.com/en-my/news/national/malaysia-logs-208-covid-19-fatalities-on-sept-29-raising-death-tally-to-26143/ar-AAOYOFO?ocid=BingNewsSearch
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/singapores-tale-of-covid-19-medicine?