No no no, you're not supposed to admit you miscalculated. You're supposed to say "the science changed." You'll never coerce anyone into vaccination like this.
I've never been against vaccines for everyone and this chapter of Gato's brilliant body of work seems to show that they play a legitimate role for those in certain risks categories. But they are only that--a tool, one tool out of many. They are a treatment nothing more or less and they may carry downsides just as other treatments do.
Mr. Happy was just now on the idiot box nattering about he was determined to "protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated." Has he seen the case data breakdown Gato reviews above? Does he know what a "vaccine" is (and i realize the CDC just conveniently changed its definition but still...)? Does he understand the rank absurdity of even uttering the oxymoron that vaccinated people need to be "protected" after they've been shot up?
I continue to be stunned at the level of public discourse; I'm honestly aghast and morbidly disturbed by it. We have to do better and we can do better.
"there is just no way that 80% of ER and hospital overnights in the UK are vaccinated and that it’s 1% in the US. and the UK is clearly better and more honest data.
i caution against accepting US data on vaccinated hospitalizations etc at anything like face value as pretty much no place else looks like that. it does not pass the smell test."
In Germany, any unvaccinated PCR-positive hospitalization is counted (even if symptoms are unrelated and the positive test was long ago), but COVID symptoms are needed to count vaccinated hospitalizations. Their public health agency justifies the difference by the expectation that the vaccine works. Given this built-in assumption it would be circular to use the stats to argue for vaccine effectiveness.
I’m not 100% on UK but if you delve into Israel, I believe this is a confound in that case. At a glance, numbers seem to likely produce similar results. (Ran Israeli a good resource)
We'll never know if the "with but not of SARS-CoV-2" is more than a marginal percentage of cases, even if it was "rampant" in absolute numbers. Maybe it was in Y1, but with the halo of false security provided by the pseudo-vaccines, it could be marginal here in Y2.
This is true of all previous plagues as well. As long as human societies are going to tear their own economies and social structures to bits every time there's a new bug in town, it's almost pointless to make the distinction between a directly caused death and a collateral panic-induced death.
with a virus with 99.7% survival rate, where it's established that at best the vaccines are just barely better over not taking them at all, I'm just not sure there's any way to show that they are great. It seems like at best, they're sort of good for certain segments of the population. But when political liars are obsessed with bombarding me with messages of 'get jabbed! get jabbed!!', I'm sort of naturally like, 'no thanks!'. And there has been a concerted effort to hide all news of the people damaged or killed by the vaccines, which has also influenced me.
Thank you for correcting your analysis. It seems that this supports modified use of the "vaccine." Since widespread use increases transmission of the virus, but moderate protection against death is afforded the "vaccinated" perhaps use only in vulnerable populations is an interim solution. Until a sterilizing vaccine is developed, it is crazy to push this on the entire population.
even with a sterilizing vaccine, the risk profile of this new gene-based technology with no long-term evidence of safety nor efficacy is absolutely unacceptable for my healthy 17 and 19 year olds, and for the majority of young and healthy people who would likely experience no symptoms or mild flu-like symptoms. The public health approach should have shifted to prophylaxis long ago (using Ivermectin, HCQ, etc.).
Something the other side has never done - admitted a mistake (and then corrected it). I question whether vaxed are less likely to visit ER for psychological reasons. They believe they are safe and so don't rush to ER for sniffles/headache.
So if I am understanding you correctly the vaccines are giving lower ER, hospitalization and death but it is fairly minimal. Is there anyway to compare this to side effects that are occurring. Because with those low numbers of benefit if what is being reported on VAERS is accurate there would be essentially no benefit over risk, and this is without knowing any long-term issues we may see such as auto immune disorders from the vaccine. Also Alex Berenson is seeing some odd excess death thing occurring in the UK. He states that it’s not Covid but more cardiovascular related. Would definitely be good to know if this is vaccine related.
That is my understanding of what Team Kirsch is saying, that overall, fewer lives are saved by vaccination than are terminated by side effects of vaccination.
In the older cohorts, it may still be the case that those at highest risk from this virus might just be better off being vaccinated than not.
In every other cohort, vaccination is a bad deal.
Actually, scrap the suggestion that those at highest risk from the virus consider vaccination. ALL cohorts would do better to use drug treatments than to get vaccinated. Scrap all the gene-based agents & roll out the agents as summarised in McCullough et al.
Excellent choice!! I've gathered the whole list of supplements recommended by the FLCCC. Ivermectin in the mail (arriving in a few days). Enough doses to treat my family of 4 prophylactically and as early treatment. Make sure to keep your Zinc on hand (as per Dr. Zelenko's protocol).
Good choices. I recommend addition of a zinc ionophore such as azithromycin or HCQ (I don’t think both). If I could have just one agent, it’d be ivermectin. Just two, add zinc. Just three, add azithromycin.
Worth mentioning in the category of food supplements that per Dr Ryan Cole, the vast majority of us would do well to add Vitamin D (& D3 specifically IIRC). Especially those of us in the colder, dimmer northern climes. This last is something my wife & I started a month or so ago & we plan to keep at it.
There is a rumour circulating that WHO etc will sound the alarm that Marburg virus is spreading & that new lockdowns are essential, while they test everyone using another rotten PCR test, until we can all be saved by yet another gene-based vaccine.
Marburg they say combines a load of really unlikely features. It kills 80-90% of those it infects, yet has a long incubation period and is transmitted asymptomatically. In practise, the global perpetrators won’t release anything which could harm them, too. In which case, any talk of Marburg would serve as excellent cover for the deaths of many from Covid19 vaccine boosters.
It’s not ideal cover, because Marburg kills through bleeding & ultimately haemorrhage. Covid19 vaccination kills through coagulation & sometimes bleeding (once clotting depresses circulating platelet count sufficiently).
Yes! Thanks! I already have Zinc, NAC, Melatonin, Magnesium, Quercetin, plus the Ivermectin. My ND is willing to write Rx for antibiotic. Here in OR, all doctors have been threatened with revoking of licenses IF caught prescribing off-label. And pharmacies are reporting drs who prescribe Ivermectin to the medical boards. Quite the witch hunt.
While I really applaud the fact that PHE is releasing this data, a lot more transparency is needed.
We all know that C19 deaths are much more stratified than <50 & >50. So it would be good to have age of cases, age of death & incoming general health status for all. Without that transparency, errors of interpretation are very likely. And I’m still puzzled why this data is not released as a matter of course.
Sorry to say, I think PHE may be aiming to simultaneously be transparent and at the same time paint the most positive picture possible of vaxing.
And as some commenters have pointed out, the crucial element of adverse events is left untouched.
Basically, to know true real-life end-of-the-day vax efficacy, we need all-cause deaths & hospitalizations by age band of vaxed vs unvaxed. Not C19 deaths only. All-cause.
For my part, I doubt that vaxes for the old will help much overall. Like a colonoscopy, which may, and regularly does, harm or kill the elderly patient. It may also reduce the patient’s chances of colon cancer. But its chances of prolonging the person’s life are very, very slight. This is common knowledge: too many other competing causes of death.
Thank you for the excellent analysis (and honesty) as always. Do you (or does anyone in here) have any relevant data/studies related to the efficacy of vaccines when it comes to pregnant women? My wife is pregnant and even though she has already had COVID her ONGYN is recommending she get the moderna vaccine. I personally think this is a completely unnecessary risk to take and through my aggregate study of everything surrounding Covid feel justified in believing this, but I can’t recall the specific sources I’ve looked at that would back up this assertion. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.
Before you and your wife agree to that shot, please read my substack article on the abortifacient effect of the covid shots, from CDC data. The covid shot is approximately as effective as 'the morning after pill.'
Ask the obgyn to provide outcome Studies. They have none. Nobody knows if it affects a fetus developmentally. I encourage to order the t detect test for your wife - it measures T cells and would give her piece of mind that she has solid immunity to Covid since she’s had it.
Regarding the number of hospitalized vaccinated cases in the USA, I know that here in New York they are not allowed to record you as positive if you say you are vaccinated. I recently visited a hospital for a procedure and a medical tech quipped that yes, COVID was down but there were an awful lot of RSV cases all of a sudden...
If they weren't getting $ from our Government, then the false data would probably stop. Stop the money, stop testing with a bad test, stop mask and other "mandates, and protect those who need it and let's move forward.
Heres a fun project for your next blog. Calculate the number of lives saved by the vaccine for different countries. Take the USA for example, which continues to tout near 100% efficacy against death. If efficacy truly is this high, then all we must do is multiply the covid mortality in the unvaxed group by the total population of the vaxed group to get the number of deaths that would have occurred if there were no vaccine.
Example: There are 35 million people 65+ year olds in the USA. Approximately 90% of them are vaxed. If there are 1000 deaths per day in the unvaxed group, then there would be approximately 9,000 deaths in the vaxed group if there were no vaccine (9:1 ratio of vaxed:unvaxed with 100% efficacy).
Calculating that there would be 10,000 deaths per day in this group would be preposterous as this is more than the number of people who die each day in the USA. It would prove that the raw data presented is extremely confounded and likely manipulated.
I did such calculations for previously infected Kentuckians based on the CDC reinfection study, though that had the disadvantage of the overall vaccination percentage being calculated by cohort match, rather than directly surveyed.
Here's what I would recycle from that in terms of structural choices:
Observed efficacy window to yearly multiplier: (worldometer 6.30.21 total cases for area - 7.1.20 total cases) / "Observed window overall area case count"
-Even if you aren't measuring cases, you want a baseline for a year of exposure risk, to account for variations in current phase of wave/trough during the observation window. The data from spring 2020 is poisoned in most areas by restricted testing, and we won't have a pure view of the future exposure risk until next summer. Winter rollout of the Covid vaccines likely did not impact case counts since most cases are during waves.-
Possible per-million prevented outcomes during observed window: Calculated prevented outcomes among vaccinated x (10^6/vaccinated pop)
Or use real-world are population instead of 10^6.
Then hit with the case rate multiplier for yearly prevented outcomes, or .5 the multiplier for "per booster prevented outcomes."
You're sure to come up with the obvious result that millions who are taking the pseudo-vaccine will receive zero benefit.
No no no, you're not supposed to admit you miscalculated. You're supposed to say "the science changed." You'll never coerce anyone into vaccination like this.
At least you didn't make everyone inject questionable drugs before noticing an error.
I've never been against vaccines for everyone and this chapter of Gato's brilliant body of work seems to show that they play a legitimate role for those in certain risks categories. But they are only that--a tool, one tool out of many. They are a treatment nothing more or less and they may carry downsides just as other treatments do.
Mr. Happy was just now on the idiot box nattering about he was determined to "protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated." Has he seen the case data breakdown Gato reviews above? Does he know what a "vaccine" is (and i realize the CDC just conveniently changed its definition but still...)? Does he understand the rank absurdity of even uttering the oxymoron that vaccinated people need to be "protected" after they've been shot up?
I continue to be stunned at the level of public discourse; I'm honestly aghast and morbidly disturbed by it. We have to do better and we can do better.
"The Eternal Unvaccinated" will be in cinematic release shortly.
(If you don't understand this reference, let me know and I'll spell it out)
could not have said it better..."aghast and morbidly disturbed" by it...
A "thought experiment." https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/biden-let-truth-out-quick-thought-experiment
"there is just no way that 80% of ER and hospital overnights in the UK are vaccinated and that it’s 1% in the US. and the UK is clearly better and more honest data.
i caution against accepting US data on vaccinated hospitalizations etc at anything like face value as pretty much no place else looks like that. it does not pass the smell test."
In Germany, any unvaccinated PCR-positive hospitalization is counted (even if symptoms are unrelated and the positive test was long ago), but COVID symptoms are needed to count vaccinated hospitalizations. Their public health agency justifies the difference by the expectation that the vaccine works. Given this built-in assumption it would be circular to use the stats to argue for vaccine effectiveness.
https://www.tichyseinblick.de/daili-es-sentials/corona-update-rki-impfdurchbrueche-statistik/
anyone know how UK does this? that could be a large confound
I’m not 100% on UK but if you delve into Israel, I believe this is a confound in that case. At a glance, numbers seem to likely produce similar results. (Ran Israeli a good resource)
Yep. But somehow US is different and vaccines work better here in ‘Merica.
We'll never know if the "with but not of SARS-CoV-2" is more than a marginal percentage of cases, even if it was "rampant" in absolute numbers. Maybe it was in Y1, but with the halo of false security provided by the pseudo-vaccines, it could be marginal here in Y2.
This is true of all previous plagues as well. As long as human societies are going to tear their own economies and social structures to bits every time there's a new bug in town, it's almost pointless to make the distinction between a directly caused death and a collateral panic-induced death.
with a virus with 99.7% survival rate, where it's established that at best the vaccines are just barely better over not taking them at all, I'm just not sure there's any way to show that they are great. It seems like at best, they're sort of good for certain segments of the population. But when political liars are obsessed with bombarding me with messages of 'get jabbed! get jabbed!!', I'm sort of naturally like, 'no thanks!'. And there has been a concerted effort to hide all news of the people damaged or killed by the vaccines, which has also influenced me.
Exactly how I feel. Exactly.
Thank you for correcting your analysis. It seems that this supports modified use of the "vaccine." Since widespread use increases transmission of the virus, but moderate protection against death is afforded the "vaccinated" perhaps use only in vulnerable populations is an interim solution. Until a sterilizing vaccine is developed, it is crazy to push this on the entire population.
even with a sterilizing vaccine, the risk profile of this new gene-based technology with no long-term evidence of safety nor efficacy is absolutely unacceptable for my healthy 17 and 19 year olds, and for the majority of young and healthy people who would likely experience no symptoms or mild flu-like symptoms. The public health approach should have shifted to prophylaxis long ago (using Ivermectin, HCQ, etc.).
Very well and succinctly put Eric.
Something the other side has never done - admitted a mistake (and then corrected it). I question whether vaxed are less likely to visit ER for psychological reasons. They believe they are safe and so don't rush to ER for sniffles/headache.
Fauci did say he was wrong about masks ;-)
Which time?
Actually, he admitted he lied—but for a noble reason.
Because he's a real noble guy.
🤪
So if I am understanding you correctly the vaccines are giving lower ER, hospitalization and death but it is fairly minimal. Is there anyway to compare this to side effects that are occurring. Because with those low numbers of benefit if what is being reported on VAERS is accurate there would be essentially no benefit over risk, and this is without knowing any long-term issues we may see such as auto immune disorders from the vaccine. Also Alex Berenson is seeing some odd excess death thing occurring in the UK. He states that it’s not Covid but more cardiovascular related. Would definitely be good to know if this is vaccine related.
That is my understanding of what Team Kirsch is saying, that overall, fewer lives are saved by vaccination than are terminated by side effects of vaccination.
In the older cohorts, it may still be the case that those at highest risk from this virus might just be better off being vaccinated than not.
In every other cohort, vaccination is a bad deal.
Actually, scrap the suggestion that those at highest risk from the virus consider vaccination. ALL cohorts would do better to use drug treatments than to get vaccinated. Scrap all the gene-based agents & roll out the agents as summarised in McCullough et al.
boosters will increase casualties from the vaxxes. booster will not do what the first two shots failed to!
zero covid is the mobile objective. vaccines do not begin to get there!
zero covid is a tool to destroy individual liberty that aspect of deplorables the media sponsors despise.
i am back on quercetin!
Excellent choice!! I've gathered the whole list of supplements recommended by the FLCCC. Ivermectin in the mail (arriving in a few days). Enough doses to treat my family of 4 prophylactically and as early treatment. Make sure to keep your Zinc on hand (as per Dr. Zelenko's protocol).
Good choices. I recommend addition of a zinc ionophore such as azithromycin or HCQ (I don’t think both). If I could have just one agent, it’d be ivermectin. Just two, add zinc. Just three, add azithromycin.
Worth mentioning in the category of food supplements that per Dr Ryan Cole, the vast majority of us would do well to add Vitamin D (& D3 specifically IIRC). Especially those of us in the colder, dimmer northern climes. This last is something my wife & I started a month or so ago & we plan to keep at it.
There is a rumour circulating that WHO etc will sound the alarm that Marburg virus is spreading & that new lockdowns are essential, while they test everyone using another rotten PCR test, until we can all be saved by yet another gene-based vaccine.
Marburg they say combines a load of really unlikely features. It kills 80-90% of those it infects, yet has a long incubation period and is transmitted asymptomatically. In practise, the global perpetrators won’t release anything which could harm them, too. In which case, any talk of Marburg would serve as excellent cover for the deaths of many from Covid19 vaccine boosters.
It’s not ideal cover, because Marburg kills through bleeding & ultimately haemorrhage. Covid19 vaccination kills through coagulation & sometimes bleeding (once clotting depresses circulating platelet count sufficiently).
Yes! Thanks! I already have Zinc, NAC, Melatonin, Magnesium, Quercetin, plus the Ivermectin. My ND is willing to write Rx for antibiotic. Here in OR, all doctors have been threatened with revoking of licenses IF caught prescribing off-label. And pharmacies are reporting drs who prescribe Ivermectin to the medical boards. Quite the witch hunt.
And that's how you do it! 👏
If only someday we'll get this kind of integrity from our ruling masters depends upon who we'll trust to lead us through the dark times ahead.
"In catus veritas"
perhaps not always veritas, but i will try.
My latin is close to nonexistent, but shouldnt it be "in felis veritas"?
Genus "Felis", Species "Felis Catus"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat?wprov=sfla1
While I really applaud the fact that PHE is releasing this data, a lot more transparency is needed.
We all know that C19 deaths are much more stratified than <50 & >50. So it would be good to have age of cases, age of death & incoming general health status for all. Without that transparency, errors of interpretation are very likely. And I’m still puzzled why this data is not released as a matter of course.
Sorry to say, I think PHE may be aiming to simultaneously be transparent and at the same time paint the most positive picture possible of vaxing.
And as some commenters have pointed out, the crucial element of adverse events is left untouched.
Basically, to know true real-life end-of-the-day vax efficacy, we need all-cause deaths & hospitalizations by age band of vaxed vs unvaxed. Not C19 deaths only. All-cause.
For my part, I doubt that vaxes for the old will help much overall. Like a colonoscopy, which may, and regularly does, harm or kill the elderly patient. It may also reduce the patient’s chances of colon cancer. But its chances of prolonging the person’s life are very, very slight. This is common knowledge: too many other competing causes of death.
Thank you for the excellent analysis (and honesty) as always. Do you (or does anyone in here) have any relevant data/studies related to the efficacy of vaccines when it comes to pregnant women? My wife is pregnant and even though she has already had COVID her ONGYN is recommending she get the moderna vaccine. I personally think this is a completely unnecessary risk to take and through my aggregate study of everything surrounding Covid feel justified in believing this, but I can’t recall the specific sources I’ve looked at that would back up this assertion. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.
Before you and your wife agree to that shot, please read my substack article on the abortifacient effect of the covid shots, from CDC data. The covid shot is approximately as effective as 'the morning after pill.'
At this link:
https://colleenhuber.substack.com/p/covid-vaccines-may-rival-or-exceed
Ask the obgyn to provide outcome Studies. They have none. Nobody knows if it affects a fetus developmentally. I encourage to order the t detect test for your wife - it measures T cells and would give her piece of mind that she has solid immunity to Covid since she’s had it.
But Yahoo today had a big front page piece "warning" mothers of still births from Covid infected children. See how the propaganda works?
Regarding the number of hospitalized vaccinated cases in the USA, I know that here in New York they are not allowed to record you as positive if you say you are vaccinated. I recently visited a hospital for a procedure and a medical tech quipped that yes, COVID was down but there were an awful lot of RSV cases all of a sudden...
Joe Biden: "What more to do you need to see?"
America: "You acknowledging this data analysis."
"... and a shout out to natural immunity."
If they weren't getting $ from our Government, then the false data would probably stop. Stop the money, stop testing with a bad test, stop mask and other "mandates, and protect those who need it and let's move forward.
Heres a fun project for your next blog. Calculate the number of lives saved by the vaccine for different countries. Take the USA for example, which continues to tout near 100% efficacy against death. If efficacy truly is this high, then all we must do is multiply the covid mortality in the unvaxed group by the total population of the vaxed group to get the number of deaths that would have occurred if there were no vaccine.
Example: There are 35 million people 65+ year olds in the USA. Approximately 90% of them are vaxed. If there are 1000 deaths per day in the unvaxed group, then there would be approximately 9,000 deaths in the vaxed group if there were no vaccine (9:1 ratio of vaxed:unvaxed with 100% efficacy).
Calculating that there would be 10,000 deaths per day in this group would be preposterous as this is more than the number of people who die each day in the USA. It would prove that the raw data presented is extremely confounded and likely manipulated.
I did such calculations for previously infected Kentuckians based on the CDC reinfection study, though that had the disadvantage of the overall vaccination percentage being calculated by cohort match, rather than directly surveyed.
Here's what I would recycle from that in terms of structural choices:
Observed efficacy window to yearly multiplier: (worldometer 6.30.21 total cases for area - 7.1.20 total cases) / "Observed window overall area case count"
-Even if you aren't measuring cases, you want a baseline for a year of exposure risk, to account for variations in current phase of wave/trough during the observation window. The data from spring 2020 is poisoned in most areas by restricted testing, and we won't have a pure view of the future exposure risk until next summer. Winter rollout of the Covid vaccines likely did not impact case counts since most cases are during waves.-
Possible per-million prevented outcomes during observed window: Calculated prevented outcomes among vaccinated x (10^6/vaccinated pop)
Or use real-world are population instead of 10^6.
Then hit with the case rate multiplier for yearly prevented outcomes, or .5 the multiplier for "per booster prevented outcomes."
You're sure to come up with the obvious result that millions who are taking the pseudo-vaccine will receive zero benefit.