As a recent subscriber, I want to say how I love your analysis. But I’d find it ever so helpful if you would spell out the abbreviations upon first usage in each post as I am not a scientist and do not know what RCT means. (Yes I did , after some research find what I assume it means Random Controlled Trial). But this makes the posts hard for the average reader. I’d like to help spread your data analysis. This makes it more difficult for us pedestrians. Also, it would be cool if you wrote a brief “synopsis box” at the end or the beginning so we know what we are looking for. Something we can easily digest and get the gist of your detailed work. I got it , your a cat nerd and I love that but throw me a bone and help me spread your analysis among the great unwashed. I could break it down and do it my self but I do t like the idea of copying your original work. I’d like you to get credit. Anyways, just a thought.
I read on a tablet. When I've forgotten an abbreviation or acronym, I just select it (press & hold). A menu pops up: "copy....web search." When I select "web search" it takes me to another tab with a Google search for the term already implemented. Sometimes it helps to add "medical definition" to the search term, to narrow the results. In other browsers you might need to copy the acronym, open another tab/ window and initiate the Google search yourself. I have never failed to quickly find the definition.
Yes me too but in order fir great ideas to spread to the masses they need to be very short and to the point bit bogged down with data and prose. I may ask permission from the author to create marketable synopsis of each post. I just want I make sure the author gets the credit. I’m a nerd amd love the feel data dive but most people want it in a short 5 to 10 sentences paragraph with the option to delve deeper at the end.
K I’ll make it simple for you. There’s noise. What’s noise? Stuff that happens normally regardless of anything happens. How do you detect a difference? You subtract real effect from non effect and corroborate it by changing everything else and making sure the effect only appears when you change one thing. That’s basically the entire idea of null hypothesis, scientific methodology, correlation studies, anything.
Hear hear. El Gato - we are hugely indebted to you for your huge amounts of work, exceptional data analysis skills ..... and of course a truly British level sense of humour in presenting difficult and very complex data in such a way that it is entirely consumable by mere mortals.
Great and important work. Keep after it. Two questions to consider:
1.How does acquired natural immunity factor into the analysis? May be impossible to analyze since expect there exists no good data, but interesting to consider the implications of how the benefits from natural immunity may influence things.
2. Although data suggests for some the race to the bunker has been a good bet, how does the calculus change if they have to continue racing from bunker to bunker forever? My math may not be great, but it seems that probability theory likely suggests the odds begin to look terrifying rather quickly even for those who managed to make it safely to the first bunker.
the Govt line of thinking on forever boosters is the MOST psychotic idea ever. Just say no, and Pray bodies can recover from the damage being done by the experimental drug.
Does anyone know why there is a temporary decline in white cell count after the first dose of mRNA, but as far as I know this is not seen with the 21-day-later 2nd dose? Which raises question, if second (or third) dose is many months later, is there a white cell decline or not? Assuming this temporary immune suppression at least part of the reason for the "run to the bunker" vulnerability.
It’s frustrating that the whole vaccine narrative has been twisted by public health bodies & media.
The vaccine RCTs endpoint was MILD symptomatic Covid disease & according to Moderna at least, the rationale for assuming vaccine efficacy against severe disease & death was solely based on the notion that if you prevent mild disease you will prevent severe disease & death too. https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037
However, contrary to the claims of the RCTs, in the real world, it’s clear the vaccines aren’t preventing mild disease. But instead of labelling this as a vaccine failure, it’s been miraculously touted as being a success on the basis that since the disease is mild then the vaccine must be responsible. Completely mangled reasoning!
Meanwhile it’s left to independent scientists to analyse the observational data with all its confounders - especially the definition of vaccinated/unvaccinated - to try to get at the truth as to whether these vaccines are really as effective as claimed.
Well done to you, Norman Fenton & Martin Neil. Please keep going!
What is becoming most disturbing to me is the concept of companies like Moderna "creating the problem" AND of course "creating the solution".
The latest floating around Twitter today was the grave news of unusual types and high rates CANCER appearing in the vaccinated (Dr. Ryan Cole video already has over 270K views) OHHHH but no worries, Moderna is in trials with "personalized cancer mRNA vaccines". The press release mentions those "cancer vax" and the new version of Covid 19 vax (formula that will require less stringent refrigeration). #KeepYourSleevesRolledUp #CrimesAgainstHumanity
Thank you so much for the work you are doing. Alas time is the enemy for many of us right now as the mandates roll out in the US. I'm worried that if the data trends as you are predicting that the reaction is going to be even worse because they are fabricating a different narrative. Help us el gato malo, it feels like you're our only hope.
Yikes. I was badgered into one dose in august and reeling from neuro side effects still and won’t have more. But I’m confident that I should be fine when I get c19 due to my young age and lack of comorbidities.
The selection bias is that currently infected do not leave the unvaccinated and 1 dose +21 days pools. So when 1st doses roll out the denominator suddenly bleeds the uninfected while the numerator has to keep the infected; eventually, the fact that the pool is simultaneously getting younger and younger compensates. When the 2nd dose rolls out, same exact thing, the denominator bleeds the uninfected while the numerator has to keep the infected.
For 1st dose <21 days, the distortion has a lot more cross-currents since uninfected individuals are entering and leaving the pool at the same time.
The 1st dose +21 days group is also more complicated since it selects for infected but doesn't have a easily definable default vulnerability starting point (how big is the denominator, who is in it).
But overall, the two 1st Dose groups together start sort out the uninfected in mass numbers in April (while, again, progressively getting younger).
Apologies if this was already mentioned in the paper or another comment
Good insight, that the already sick won't be vaccinated, and are of course more likely to die. It would be nice to have the data to exclude this group :-)
People with other health issues may also decline the vaccine over injury concerns, leaving a less-than-optimally healthy unvaccinated group.
The already sick should be given Ivermectin..... why not? IF they are that health compromised, what could it hurt? Other than big pharma pocket book, or Govt scaring people into thinking nothing will save them but the experimental jab....
This was already visible in the June 23 Scotland 28-day windows report, as well. Since SARS-CoV-2 is, for all appearances, essentially just the porter for eminent death, rolling out the Covid vaccines mid-winter-wave selected for people who were not near their natural imminent death in the coming month / season.
Thus, there is a yuuuuge discount for the Covid vaccines to be maiming and killing droves, with no detectable signal. They could be killing 0 people, they could be killing 10,000s, they could be SAVING 10,000s - the mortality rate would look the same, because we don't know how big the discount is. I've mentioned the Scotland report problem before, here and on my sub (https://unglossed.substack.com/p/midsummer-maladies#footnote-anchor-25).
I really enjoyed reading this. On major issue during the pandemic has been the extreme misrepresentation of statistics just like the, "science" behind Immunology. This properly compared the most crucial variables, properly outlined the myths & beliefs, then made the charts very easy to read.
Has anyone looked into the probability that there are people out there that have been "self boosting" for quite sometime and maybe have had three, four, five... shots for sometime? There are no controls and you would have to think that if there are people dumb enough to drink bleach or whatever to avoid getting C-19, they would have no problem hitting different vaccination sites on a regular basis. Getting all three types for "full coverage". Boostering every month to stay fresh. Until maybe it ran their bodies into the ground. Just a thought.
Anecdotal story (no source, lost in time) that homeless people were taking shots in order to sell on the accreditation to those who wanted "passport" but not the vax... One guy reportedly had at least 20 shots but couldn't remember exactly how many.
Great analysis. Keep up the good work. Please grammar check your articles. To not use capitals at the start of any sentence is a strange habit of yours that does your excellent work no favour.
As a recent subscriber, I want to say how I love your analysis. But I’d find it ever so helpful if you would spell out the abbreviations upon first usage in each post as I am not a scientist and do not know what RCT means. (Yes I did , after some research find what I assume it means Random Controlled Trial). But this makes the posts hard for the average reader. I’d like to help spread your data analysis. This makes it more difficult for us pedestrians. Also, it would be cool if you wrote a brief “synopsis box” at the end or the beginning so we know what we are looking for. Something we can easily digest and get the gist of your detailed work. I got it , your a cat nerd and I love that but throw me a bone and help me spread your analysis among the great unwashed. I could break it down and do it my self but I do t like the idea of copying your original work. I’d like you to get credit. Anyways, just a thought.
Yes please. I am an aging calico and can’t keep the meaning of all these abbreviations in my head.
I read on a tablet. When I've forgotten an abbreviation or acronym, I just select it (press & hold). A menu pops up: "copy....web search." When I select "web search" it takes me to another tab with a Google search for the term already implemented. Sometimes it helps to add "medical definition" to the search term, to narrow the results. In other browsers you might need to copy the acronym, open another tab/ window and initiate the Google search yourself. I have never failed to quickly find the definition.
Yes me too but in order fir great ideas to spread to the masses they need to be very short and to the point bit bogged down with data and prose. I may ask permission from the author to create marketable synopsis of each post. I just want I make sure the author gets the credit. I’m a nerd amd love the feel data dive but most people want it in a short 5 to 10 sentences paragraph with the option to delve deeper at the end.
K I’ll make it simple for you. There’s noise. What’s noise? Stuff that happens normally regardless of anything happens. How do you detect a difference? You subtract real effect from non effect and corroborate it by changing everything else and making sure the effect only appears when you change one thing. That’s basically the entire idea of null hypothesis, scientific methodology, correlation studies, anything.
I've nothing clever to say here. Just well done and thanks for pursuing this.
Hear hear. El Gato - we are hugely indebted to you for your huge amounts of work, exceptional data analysis skills ..... and of course a truly British level sense of humour in presenting difficult and very complex data in such a way that it is entirely consumable by mere mortals.
Truly the Yoda of cats *bows down*
Hear hear.
Yes, thank you, Gato.
Great and important work. Keep after it. Two questions to consider:
1.How does acquired natural immunity factor into the analysis? May be impossible to analyze since expect there exists no good data, but interesting to consider the implications of how the benefits from natural immunity may influence things.
2. Although data suggests for some the race to the bunker has been a good bet, how does the calculus change if they have to continue racing from bunker to bunker forever? My math may not be great, but it seems that probability theory likely suggests the odds begin to look terrifying rather quickly even for those who managed to make it safely to the first bunker.
indeed.
having to take another round of risk every 6 months to keep the same safety is going to change the equation significantly.
the Govt line of thinking on forever boosters is the MOST psychotic idea ever. Just say no, and Pray bodies can recover from the damage being done by the experimental drug.
Does anyone know why there is a temporary decline in white cell count after the first dose of mRNA, but as far as I know this is not seen with the 21-day-later 2nd dose? Which raises question, if second (or third) dose is many months later, is there a white cell decline or not? Assuming this temporary immune suppression at least part of the reason for the "run to the bunker" vulnerability.
It’s frustrating that the whole vaccine narrative has been twisted by public health bodies & media.
The vaccine RCTs endpoint was MILD symptomatic Covid disease & according to Moderna at least, the rationale for assuming vaccine efficacy against severe disease & death was solely based on the notion that if you prevent mild disease you will prevent severe disease & death too. https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037
However, contrary to the claims of the RCTs, in the real world, it’s clear the vaccines aren’t preventing mild disease. But instead of labelling this as a vaccine failure, it’s been miraculously touted as being a success on the basis that since the disease is mild then the vaccine must be responsible. Completely mangled reasoning!
Meanwhile it’s left to independent scientists to analyse the observational data with all its confounders - especially the definition of vaccinated/unvaccinated - to try to get at the truth as to whether these vaccines are really as effective as claimed.
Well done to you, Norman Fenton & Martin Neil. Please keep going!
40% vax effectiveness now... compared to 75‑92% for ivermectin PrEP
worth noting: this is not really a VE measure.
VE is efficacy in stopping a pathogen. it's the "benefit" side of the balance scale.
this is more of an assessment (at least in terms of mortality) of the full balance of risk vs benefit.
it's a useful distinction in terms of being sure we know what we are measuring and what can be compared to what.
Important to know if the objective were public health not power grabs & profits! :~)
LOUDER!
Thank you Gato. I look to you for your brilliance.
How are we going to fight this enormous monster! Look at what Moderna has planned for the world! https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-announces-significant-advances-across-industry-leading
What is becoming most disturbing to me is the concept of companies like Moderna "creating the problem" AND of course "creating the solution".
The latest floating around Twitter today was the grave news of unusual types and high rates CANCER appearing in the vaccinated (Dr. Ryan Cole video already has over 270K views) OHHHH but no worries, Moderna is in trials with "personalized cancer mRNA vaccines". The press release mentions those "cancer vax" and the new version of Covid 19 vax (formula that will require less stringent refrigeration). #KeepYourSleevesRolledUp #CrimesAgainstHumanity
Thank you so much for the work you are doing. Alas time is the enemy for many of us right now as the mandates roll out in the US. I'm worried that if the data trends as you are predicting that the reaction is going to be even worse because they are fabricating a different narrative. Help us el gato malo, it feels like you're our only hope.
There has been an exponential rise in deaths from "Rare Disease" coinciding with mass vaxxing: https://patrick.net/post/1340091/2021-07-13-vax-death-spike?offset=120#comment-1786486
You can plot it yourself from CDC data: https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Monthly-Provisional-Counts-of-Deaths-by-Select-Cau/9dzk-mvmi
Why is no one talking about this?
Yikes. I was badgered into one dose in august and reeling from neuro side effects still and won’t have more. But I’m confident that I should be fine when I get c19 due to my young age and lack of comorbidities.
The selection bias is that currently infected do not leave the unvaccinated and 1 dose +21 days pools. So when 1st doses roll out the denominator suddenly bleeds the uninfected while the numerator has to keep the infected; eventually, the fact that the pool is simultaneously getting younger and younger compensates. When the 2nd dose rolls out, same exact thing, the denominator bleeds the uninfected while the numerator has to keep the infected.
For 1st dose <21 days, the distortion has a lot more cross-currents since uninfected individuals are entering and leaving the pool at the same time.
The 1st dose +21 days group is also more complicated since it selects for infected but doesn't have a easily definable default vulnerability starting point (how big is the denominator, who is in it).
But overall, the two 1st Dose groups together start sort out the uninfected in mass numbers in April (while, again, progressively getting younger).
Apologies if this was already mentioned in the paper or another comment
Good insight, that the already sick won't be vaccinated, and are of course more likely to die. It would be nice to have the data to exclude this group :-)
People with other health issues may also decline the vaccine over injury concerns, leaving a less-than-optimally healthy unvaccinated group.
This problem of healthy-user bias affects pretty much all vaccine studies. Good analysis of this at http://vaccinepapers.org/healthy-user-bias-why-most-vaccine-safety-studies-are-wrong/ and http://vaccinepapers.org/high-mortality-dtp-vaccine/
"Health-user bias" sounds like the word I should have used. I am better at problematizing statistics than speaking it.
Super links - thank you
The already sick should be given Ivermectin..... why not? IF they are that health compromised, what could it hurt? Other than big pharma pocket book, or Govt scaring people into thinking nothing will save them but the experimental jab....
This was already visible in the June 23 Scotland 28-day windows report, as well. Since SARS-CoV-2 is, for all appearances, essentially just the porter for eminent death, rolling out the Covid vaccines mid-winter-wave selected for people who were not near their natural imminent death in the coming month / season.
Thus, there is a yuuuuge discount for the Covid vaccines to be maiming and killing droves, with no detectable signal. They could be killing 0 people, they could be killing 10,000s, they could be SAVING 10,000s - the mortality rate would look the same, because we don't know how big the discount is. I've mentioned the Scotland report problem before, here and on my sub (https://unglossed.substack.com/p/midsummer-maladies#footnote-anchor-25).
I really enjoyed reading this. On major issue during the pandemic has been the extreme misrepresentation of statistics just like the, "science" behind Immunology. This properly compared the most crucial variables, properly outlined the myths & beliefs, then made the charts very easy to read.
Please keep digging! Thank god somebody is...
Has anyone looked into the probability that there are people out there that have been "self boosting" for quite sometime and maybe have had three, four, five... shots for sometime? There are no controls and you would have to think that if there are people dumb enough to drink bleach or whatever to avoid getting C-19, they would have no problem hitting different vaccination sites on a regular basis. Getting all three types for "full coverage". Boostering every month to stay fresh. Until maybe it ran their bodies into the ground. Just a thought.
Anecdotal story (no source, lost in time) that homeless people were taking shots in order to sell on the accreditation to those who wanted "passport" but not the vax... One guy reportedly had at least 20 shots but couldn't remember exactly how many.
Interesting. And you know they are out there given the aberrations we’ve had in bc days.
"because many of you likely won’t, i’m going to hit the high points here" is why we love you x
metadata from trusted sources are the seams of gold in this information explosion
Great analysis. Keep up the good work. Please grammar check your articles. To not use capitals at the start of any sentence is a strange habit of yours that does your excellent work no favour.