It's an amalgam of the words malevolent and ignorant (or could it be malignant and ignorant?), and is to be used to describe the "leadership" that we were subjected to during the covid insanity, especially that which came from "public health authorities".
That "1 dose and zero doses are the same" bullshit confounds so much.
There are vast differences between one and two doses (backed off because of side effects? lazy /negligent self-care?) and one and zero doses.
I cannot think of a single study on the planet where a "0 and 1" group would make any logical sense. People who murdered up to one other person? People with up to one cancer diagnosis?
The only person that would see no significance to this is someone willfully attempting to ignore vaccine damage or to obscure it.
Aug 16, 2022·edited Aug 17, 2022Liked by el gato malo
Great article, and I especially liked the decision making aspect of it.
I wish these studies comparing vaccinated vs unvaccinated outcomes were conducted more often (they are almost not at all conducted) and involved more people and dimensions. Unfortunately health authorities do not want to finance them.
So glad I never fell for their promise of ‘safety and healthy practices for the common good’—when coercion, force, mandates, and possible job loss was used, it was a big red sign 🛑
Probably because 1 dose tracks the stated definition of "not fully vaccinated." But yeah, feels completely wrong to lump people who actually were injected with pure bloods.
Solid assessment as usual, Gato, especially given how this study appears to reinforce a lot of what Team Reality has been saying. Pointing out potential flaws in something favorable to your cause just isn't something that's been seen from the Covid Apocalypse crowd since day one. If nothing else it's another of countless smoke signals we're suppose to believe doesn't actually point to there ever being a fire.
Using these horrible broken tests to determine "reinfection" is fraud. Vaccines making reinfections worse is probably a valid conclusion because it is a relative measure. Absolute reinfection rate cannot be determined with these broken tests.
I have no idea why so many people just took this study and ran with it. It was deeply flawed and so many variables were not accounted for. No mention of the type of vaccines, no mention of when people got vaccinated with respect to their infection/reinfection. No mention of severity of illness as it appears a reinfection was based solely on PCR tests. There was so much with this study that was questionable but it just fit the narrative and therefore people cited it.
I raised concerns about the adjusted vs unadjusted ration, and given that the reference was for an individual in the 18-29 group I wonder if that means that most of the effect size is derived from the 18-29 group and using that reference changed the odds ratio a lot.
Also, I mentioned that it appeared only 4 people were included into the 1 dose category. The results mention 2942 people had at least one dose by the Omicron wave, Table 1 mentions a total number of 2398 for those who had 2 or more, meaning only 4 people were left who had only 1 dose. Given that number why not just throw out that whole cohort and mark it as unvaccinated?
60 day PCR gap for reinfection is short for a VitD deficient population and not a lot of discussion on CT thresholds. So some ‘reinfections’ might just be residuals. Does that affect one cohort more than the other?
I was told the authors made the 1 Vax vs 2+ cut because so few people are unvaxxed in iceland.
Every country showing this data just reinforces what we’ve thought all along—a globalist conspiracy to weaken countries and curb population engineered by WEF elites and Bill Gates.
I have a word....the word is malignorant.
It's an amalgam of the words malevolent and ignorant (or could it be malignant and ignorant?), and is to be used to describe the "leadership" that we were subjected to during the covid insanity, especially that which came from "public health authorities".
Living in the People's Republic of Silicon Valley, most of the people I know are jabbed to one extent or another.
Without exception, every single one of them has gotten Covid, many of them twice. And yet many are lining up for another jab.
Then we have Comrades Biden, Fauci et. al. all incanting gratitude to the Vax deity (h/t eugyppius) for getting a jab that did not protect them.
We truly live in surreal times.
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
~ Marcus Aurelius
That "1 dose and zero doses are the same" bullshit confounds so much.
There are vast differences between one and two doses (backed off because of side effects? lazy /negligent self-care?) and one and zero doses.
I cannot think of a single study on the planet where a "0 and 1" group would make any logical sense. People who murdered up to one other person? People with up to one cancer diagnosis?
The only person that would see no significance to this is someone willfully attempting to ignore vaccine damage or to obscure it.
Great article, and I especially liked the decision making aspect of it.
I wish these studies comparing vaccinated vs unvaccinated outcomes were conducted more often (they are almost not at all conducted) and involved more people and dimensions. Unfortunately health authorities do not want to finance them.
I’m going to Iceland in 2 weeks. Any local research I can do involving bars...the kind of bars with adult beverages, not charts and such.
So glad I never fell for their promise of ‘safety and healthy practices for the common good’—when coercion, force, mandates, and possible job loss was used, it was a big red sign 🛑
Gato, the memory hole is getting full! What do we do now?!?!?!?
There's no incentive to get tested if you are unvaccinated in Europe.
You only get the recovery certificate once and it lasts for 6 months. That's it.
So if you didn't buy into the narrative you wouldn't test if you had some minor sniffles.
On the other hand quadruple jabbed individuals tend to be more neurotic and would test with the first sneeze.
There. All these studies are useless.
Probably because 1 dose tracks the stated definition of "not fully vaccinated." But yeah, feels completely wrong to lump people who actually were injected with pure bloods.
Solid assessment as usual, Gato, especially given how this study appears to reinforce a lot of what Team Reality has been saying. Pointing out potential flaws in something favorable to your cause just isn't something that's been seen from the Covid Apocalypse crowd since day one. If nothing else it's another of countless smoke signals we're suppose to believe doesn't actually point to there ever being a fire.
Using these horrible broken tests to determine "reinfection" is fraud. Vaccines making reinfections worse is probably a valid conclusion because it is a relative measure. Absolute reinfection rate cannot be determined with these broken tests.
I made similar concerns in my post from yesterday:
https://moderndiscontent.substack.com/p/evidence-of-higher-reinfection-among
I have no idea why so many people just took this study and ran with it. It was deeply flawed and so many variables were not accounted for. No mention of the type of vaccines, no mention of when people got vaccinated with respect to their infection/reinfection. No mention of severity of illness as it appears a reinfection was based solely on PCR tests. There was so much with this study that was questionable but it just fit the narrative and therefore people cited it.
I raised concerns about the adjusted vs unadjusted ration, and given that the reference was for an individual in the 18-29 group I wonder if that means that most of the effect size is derived from the 18-29 group and using that reference changed the odds ratio a lot.
Also, I mentioned that it appeared only 4 people were included into the 1 dose category. The results mention 2942 people had at least one dose by the Omicron wave, Table 1 mentions a total number of 2398 for those who had 2 or more, meaning only 4 people were left who had only 1 dose. Given that number why not just throw out that whole cohort and mark it as unvaccinated?
They were hoping for a different result. When it was the oppo they stopped.
why they chose to compare 1 or fewer to 2 or more.*
For the same reason they gave no cogent explanation as to why the mRNA vaxx was a two shot regimen vs one.
60 day PCR gap for reinfection is short for a VitD deficient population and not a lot of discussion on CT thresholds. So some ‘reinfections’ might just be residuals. Does that affect one cohort more than the other?
I was told the authors made the 1 Vax vs 2+ cut because so few people are unvaxxed in iceland.
Every country showing this data just reinforces what we’ve thought all along—a globalist conspiracy to weaken countries and curb population engineered by WEF elites and Bill Gates.