I'm listening to Steve Kirsch https://skirsch.io He does statistical analysis as well. He advises that we need to consider all cause mortality--not just reducing Covid deaths. For if we save the life of a Covid patient, but then another person dies from the vaccine, we haven't really saved any lives. This is a common problem when evaluating drugs and procedures in medicine. For example, a highly toxic chemotherapy drug will be applied. It is successful according to the measure of "reducing size of tumor." However, the patient's immune system was damaged by chemotherapy and, as a result, they died of pneumonia. They are still counted as a success. Kirsch reports that vaccines were not successful in reducing mortality in trials. This is the bottom line.
This has been my greatest fear for a while. The virus evolves to become more virulent among the vaccinated, but the vaccine helps the vaccinated survive. Then that more virulent strain hits the unvaccinated, and deaths start climbing. Nobody in a position to do anything about it gives a sh*t, because, hey, their fault they didn't get the shot. Good luck even getting a hospital bed if there's triage. Scary.
Vaccine driven evolution indeed. I have had this in the back of my mind for months and believe this is being driven by the vaccinated. We should have left well enough alone and let this thing burn out on its own while protecting the highly vulnerable. What a mess.
It's been clear since the beginning that the data has been ignored. Canada just announced that they will be requiring all plane travellers to be vaccinated, for both domestic and international travel, by the end of the month.
Does anyone still believe that there is an end to this? The restrictions, v passes, and new rules are obviously staying, no matter what the data says.
Thank you. For this reason, I expose myself as much as possible and keep best known treatments on hand. Drug sensitive and exposed to enough covid to be seriously harmed by vaccine. 2020 was milder than 2021 when many friends got quite ill around me. Quercetin, zinc, C, D all worked for me but wouldn’t hesitate to do niacin flush, IVM, artemisinin (used China) if necessary. This is my immunization protocol. No side effects except better health. Also, critical to keep insulin levels in check. Noticeable blood sugar drops when fighting virus. Just my experience.
If COVID goes Mareks-for-humans, you have a literal "endemic of the vaccinated" (no irony missed), yielding only two choices: (a) don't get vaccinated and die 100%, or (b) get vaccinated for a chance to live in exchange for perpetuating the need for the vaccine. It's a diabolical positive feedback loop for those seeking power and profits.
It will be extremely difficult to separate vaccine-driven rise in lethality of the virus from potential vulnerability to death from all causes induced by the vaccine's harm to the health of recipients. If there is widespread damage in the blood vessels and heart and pro-clotting effects then that might leave people more vulnerable subsequent infection by a vascular disease even though they have some partially effective immune response. Worse, some such as Dr. Ryan Cole, point out that there is persuasive research showing lasting immune dysregulation due to the vaccine. I wouldn't want health 'authorities' to be able to sweep broad vaccine injury under the rug of enhanced covid illness.
I'm trying to understand why there is no re-evaluation of strategy in light of this data.
Given leaders looking at this data and realizing that in frightened haste they made an error by pushing vaccination beyond high risk groups, might this explain why they're now doubling down and pushing for 100% vaccination, even in low risk groups?
Meanwhile Australia is going full crazy... National Newspaper Headline this morning boldly stating "Catching Covid after you are vaccinated improves immunity - If you are fully vaccinated against Covid the next step to improve your immunity may be to catch the virus."
I guess it's just a subtle way to assert that the Vax won't help you...
Re: Marek's, I'd like to offer a counterpoint: smallpox took >100 years to eradicate with serial often ineffective immunization campaigns with no sign of this. Also, chicken immune systems are quite different than ours - closer to their "dinosaurs with feathers" origin - so not sure that would even apply.
The greater issue is continued suppression of data, especially around VE, masks, and therapeutics. I'm sure they're testing for it and if most or even >50% of immunized still had detectable antibodies, they'd be screaming it to the high heavens and across all channels that we're wrong. It's a further tell that they're allowing Merck's patent medicine to go forward now rather than before the 2020 election when phase I trials were published (e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34450619/). It would not surprise me if Merck bought a seat at the table and the final approved form is a patented combo like, say, molnupiravir plus ivermectin.
And having said all that, I won't get started on masks, go read Colleen Huber NMD's excellent Substack for that.
I just looked at the PHE reports for Delta case and death data in the fully vaxxed versus unvaxxed from tech report 17 through tech report 23 ( about two-week intervals) to determine the CFR for the set data. This covers data from mid-June (when they first started reporting Delta data by vaxx status) through mid-September (when they discontinued reporting cases and deaths by vaxx status).
This is what I found:
Fully vaxxed...
All: 1.89/0.57/0.98/1.05/1.02/1.20
<50: 0.11/0.02/0.09/0.09/0.05/0.05
50+: 1.27/2.10/2.32/2.16/2.48
Unvaxxed...
All: 0.27/0.15/0.30/0.43/0.40/0.50
<50: 0.08/0.03/0.05/0.08/0.08/0.09
50+: 11.3/5.61/6.96/7.58/6.50/8.38
There is some bouncing around, but there is definitely a trend upwards in both age cohorts of the unvaxxed and the fully vaxxed 50+ cohort. Is it an early signal of a Marek's effect?
We'll have to watch the UK Health Security Agency/COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report over the next few weeks to see if this trend emerges in the UK data.
If the virus is evolving to have higher CFR, would this not be identified as *new* variants of concern? As I understand it, the UK is doing full sequencing of some fraction of test samples to discover new variants. The problem with CFR is it depends heavily on "C"... so if the testing gets tightened up to avoid false positives, CFR would rise.
But, oh illustrious fellow fluffy one, it is my understanding that it is necessary to take into account the baseline rate of vaccinated and unvaccinated when calculating the VE. When calculating during the clinical trials, they would have had similar numbers in both groups (test group and placebo), but 90% of the individuals over 50s in the UK are vaccinated. So you need to look at whether the number of vaccinated cases (21,114), for example, is more or less than 90% of the total (22,941). In this case, 21,114/22,941 = 0.92, or 92%. So, from this we can say the vaccine is definitely not reducing the spread of cases in the over 50s, because the number of cases is the same (or even slightly exceeds) the baseline level of vaccination in the that age cohort. Whether the extra 2% really indicates the vaccine is slightly worsening the spread I am unsure - would depend whether it is statistically significant.
I'm listening to Steve Kirsch https://skirsch.io He does statistical analysis as well. He advises that we need to consider all cause mortality--not just reducing Covid deaths. For if we save the life of a Covid patient, but then another person dies from the vaccine, we haven't really saved any lives. This is a common problem when evaluating drugs and procedures in medicine. For example, a highly toxic chemotherapy drug will be applied. It is successful according to the measure of "reducing size of tumor." However, the patient's immune system was damaged by chemotherapy and, as a result, they died of pneumonia. They are still counted as a success. Kirsch reports that vaccines were not successful in reducing mortality in trials. This is the bottom line.
This has been my greatest fear for a while. The virus evolves to become more virulent among the vaccinated, but the vaccine helps the vaccinated survive. Then that more virulent strain hits the unvaccinated, and deaths start climbing. Nobody in a position to do anything about it gives a sh*t, because, hey, their fault they didn't get the shot. Good luck even getting a hospital bed if there's triage. Scary.
Vaccine driven evolution indeed. I have had this in the back of my mind for months and believe this is being driven by the vaccinated. We should have left well enough alone and let this thing burn out on its own while protecting the highly vulnerable. What a mess.
It's been clear since the beginning that the data has been ignored. Canada just announced that they will be requiring all plane travellers to be vaccinated, for both domestic and international travel, by the end of the month.
Does anyone still believe that there is an end to this? The restrictions, v passes, and new rules are obviously staying, no matter what the data says.
Thank you. For this reason, I expose myself as much as possible and keep best known treatments on hand. Drug sensitive and exposed to enough covid to be seriously harmed by vaccine. 2020 was milder than 2021 when many friends got quite ill around me. Quercetin, zinc, C, D all worked for me but wouldn’t hesitate to do niacin flush, IVM, artemisinin (used China) if necessary. This is my immunization protocol. No side effects except better health. Also, critical to keep insulin levels in check. Noticeable blood sugar drops when fighting virus. Just my experience.
By this December all of your questions will be answered and then some. ADE Season is going to expose a lot.
If COVID goes Mareks-for-humans, you have a literal "endemic of the vaccinated" (no irony missed), yielding only two choices: (a) don't get vaccinated and die 100%, or (b) get vaccinated for a chance to live in exchange for perpetuating the need for the vaccine. It's a diabolical positive feedback loop for those seeking power and profits.
It will be extremely difficult to separate vaccine-driven rise in lethality of the virus from potential vulnerability to death from all causes induced by the vaccine's harm to the health of recipients. If there is widespread damage in the blood vessels and heart and pro-clotting effects then that might leave people more vulnerable subsequent infection by a vascular disease even though they have some partially effective immune response. Worse, some such as Dr. Ryan Cole, point out that there is persuasive research showing lasting immune dysregulation due to the vaccine. I wouldn't want health 'authorities' to be able to sweep broad vaccine injury under the rug of enhanced covid illness.
I'm trying to understand why there is no re-evaluation of strategy in light of this data.
Given leaders looking at this data and realizing that in frightened haste they made an error by pushing vaccination beyond high risk groups, might this explain why they're now doubling down and pushing for 100% vaccination, even in low risk groups?
Meanwhile Australia is going full crazy... National Newspaper Headline this morning boldly stating "Catching Covid after you are vaccinated improves immunity - If you are fully vaccinated against Covid the next step to improve your immunity may be to catch the virus."
I guess it's just a subtle way to assert that the Vax won't help you...
Re: Marek's, I'd like to offer a counterpoint: smallpox took >100 years to eradicate with serial often ineffective immunization campaigns with no sign of this. Also, chicken immune systems are quite different than ours - closer to their "dinosaurs with feathers" origin - so not sure that would even apply.
The greater issue is continued suppression of data, especially around VE, masks, and therapeutics. I'm sure they're testing for it and if most or even >50% of immunized still had detectable antibodies, they'd be screaming it to the high heavens and across all channels that we're wrong. It's a further tell that they're allowing Merck's patent medicine to go forward now rather than before the 2020 election when phase I trials were published (e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34450619/). It would not surprise me if Merck bought a seat at the table and the final approved form is a patented combo like, say, molnupiravir plus ivermectin.
And having said all that, I won't get started on masks, go read Colleen Huber NMD's excellent Substack for that.
getting a booster is expecting the thing to work by repeating the mistake.
toomuch vax injury risk, i will do vit d!
no booster, i am vaxxed with moderna, i am usually a vaxxer.
I just looked at the PHE reports for Delta case and death data in the fully vaxxed versus unvaxxed from tech report 17 through tech report 23 ( about two-week intervals) to determine the CFR for the set data. This covers data from mid-June (when they first started reporting Delta data by vaxx status) through mid-September (when they discontinued reporting cases and deaths by vaxx status).
This is what I found:
Fully vaxxed...
All: 1.89/0.57/0.98/1.05/1.02/1.20
<50: 0.11/0.02/0.09/0.09/0.05/0.05
50+: 1.27/2.10/2.32/2.16/2.48
Unvaxxed...
All: 0.27/0.15/0.30/0.43/0.40/0.50
<50: 0.08/0.03/0.05/0.08/0.08/0.09
50+: 11.3/5.61/6.96/7.58/6.50/8.38
There is some bouncing around, but there is definitely a trend upwards in both age cohorts of the unvaxxed and the fully vaxxed 50+ cohort. Is it an early signal of a Marek's effect?
We'll have to watch the UK Health Security Agency/COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report over the next few weeks to see if this trend emerges in the UK data.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investigation-of-novel-sars-cov-2-variant-variant-of-concern-20201201
If the virus is evolving to have higher CFR, would this not be identified as *new* variants of concern? As I understand it, the UK is doing full sequencing of some fraction of test samples to discover new variants. The problem with CFR is it depends heavily on "C"... so if the testing gets tightened up to avoid false positives, CFR would rise.
This is by far a better reason to get the jabs than anything I've heard from Fauci inc.
But, oh illustrious fellow fluffy one, it is my understanding that it is necessary to take into account the baseline rate of vaccinated and unvaccinated when calculating the VE. When calculating during the clinical trials, they would have had similar numbers in both groups (test group and placebo), but 90% of the individuals over 50s in the UK are vaccinated. So you need to look at whether the number of vaccinated cases (21,114), for example, is more or less than 90% of the total (22,941). In this case, 21,114/22,941 = 0.92, or 92%. So, from this we can say the vaccine is definitely not reducing the spread of cases in the over 50s, because the number of cases is the same (or even slightly exceeds) the baseline level of vaccination in the that age cohort. Whether the extra 2% really indicates the vaccine is slightly worsening the spread I am unsure - would depend whether it is statistically significant.