Hmmm, weird things happening in the world of vaccination.
So, they claim this guy in Germany got 217 Covid vaccines and shows no bad effects so it is fine if you get 10 or 20 or 30 or whatever the CDC decides today's number is. Lots of discussion on Xitter:
The MSM has jumped all over it. Big Pharma must have been feeling the reduction in sales really bad if they are now ramping up the following: "See, that guy got 217 and is fine. It really is safe!"
1. Dr. Kory and some nurses pointed out, that it was a very rigid software system to classify patients. E.G. shot taken elsewhere had to be put manually in the system, on other page than the initial classification. This defaulted too often to "unvaccinated". A study looking at this found, that 44% of unvaxed were in fact vaxed. US hospital studies or cdc/fda studies I take with a can of salt.
2. I started following british ONS late 2021. The rates of vaxed/unvaxed were like 2% / 1% infections. With omicron, I was waiting for it, first january report had numbers like 6%/2%, so both relative and absolute difference exploded. Worst were faring the 40/49 years olds, but this shifted towards younger with omicron. Numbers are 4 week rolling average, so the actual change is more dramatic!
3. The Alberta graphical data, covered by Igor, showed that almost 50% of reinfection happened 14 days after 1st shot. This 2 weeks was typically omitted or labeled "unvaxed", in written Alberta data and in Pfizer trials as well as their first 6 weeks reporting to fda. The second vax breakthru infections peaked at month 5,6,7, so the window of observation is very important, most often too short. As in pfizer trials, they conveniently unblinded just before month 5...
4. Alberta showed also hospitalizations and deaths, with visible correlations to the above infections, but without unvaxed comparison group.
5. Most reliable excess death data comes from life expectancy. In the USA -3 years, in my country -2 months, starting july 21, 6 months after rollout. The same with all european countries, I mean the starting time point relative to rollout. These larger excess death models are exactly that: exact observation - modelled baseline = modelled excess. Even if life expectancy is adjusted every year, the change is still visible. Expectancy goes down most effectively, when middle aged people start dying more. Also, if above expectancy -oldies start dying faster, the average glides backwards. Dowds work on acturies tells the story, also regarding the vast amounts of recently handicapped.
6. The first 4 weeks in VAERS dec 20 - jan 21, was equivalent with a norm year with 50 000 reports. With a fraction of old norm year's shots. The first report from pfizer to fda on international and US reports to them, 6 weeks from the start, 40 000 reports which surpriced them. Both ended up adding some 2000 more accountants to label these reports. This seemed to be the biggest problem; to be able to label and report. How about the context, please?
7. the app Vsafe showed 7% getting medical help after shot, at doctor or in hospital, in a tight timeframe (donot remember). Fixed options for problems in the form did not reveal that much, and the free text is becoming available... How to describe a catastrofe, this is it.
The situation with hospitalizations is like assessing statin with CVD only; mild improvement, but no overall benefit, maybe replace CVD with cancer in the death certificate.
I do regret deeply my pfoison pfinjection and moderna shit as a second. I developed fever, my pulse was 10 ticks higher for a month, did not understand just wondering then. And these were reported on the pfizer report to fda as well. So now we know the myocarditis danger, I have yet to check with that. By the way, seeing the alberta data and knowing the inviting effect of omicron for the vaxed, I predicted 6 moths for breakthru infection. Spot on, easter 22 I got it for one "hot and sweaty" day in the bed.
Berenson has to keep at it. It's what his subscribers demand. Being paid to be right, or tell the truth, is an inherently dangerous position to be in. As for most of the rest of covid-skepticism I explained it well here,
'Some people make their decisions on analytical criteria, ‘What is the truth about this? What is the real nature of the matter in question?’ and we pride ourselves on our commitment to truth and our separation from ‘the masses’. And it seems to be an immutable fact of human nature that the majority of people make their decisions on aesthetic criteria, ‘how does it look? how does it feel?’ and this can run the gamut from the utterly superficial who are simply cast adrift on the opinions of those around them to those who ‘know themselves’ and come to a more or less integrated and complete whole. It should be pointed out that such people are often startlingly insightful and shrewd. That is only startling because the analytical thinkers have managed to claim the moral and social high ground, because what is uncommon is often able to claim superiority though, in fact, it depends on the common in more situations than the common depends on it.
The analytical thinker is often ‘high IQ’, and we should stop briefly to consider why the Analytical generally are so much easier to fool, especially in the case at hand of the Plandemic. Intelligence is the ability to adapt to changing circumstances, the ability to rapidly integrate what is new into the way that you think and act. The Moving Truth at the heart of modern society has grossly exaggerated the importance of this ability from its historic usefullness. So, the Analytical have taken to heart the great lesson of our society-’Compliance brings reward’ and have focused on complying in such a way as to maximize their reward, thus creating a strong bias to comply. The Aesthetic have learned a different lesson, that even if they comply they are usually cheated out of their reward, thus creating a strong bias to not comply. But in an increasingly evil and deranged society noncompliance is much more likely to be the correct response, but most of the Analytical are not as smart as they think that they are and have not caught up to that yet.' from my 'almost as inflammatory as Brian' Why Abortions should be performed in Backalleys with Coathangers. https://comfortwithtruth.substack.com/p/why-abortions-should-be-performed
Our society has created a permanent underclass based on cognitive function. We have streamlined society for people who think in one particular way among many with corresponding obstacles for people who think in other ways. So, analytical thinkers have become biased towards compliance and all other thinkers have become biased towards non-compliance. This is why the same set of people are skeptical and non-compliant on almost every issue, because they have learned that society is rigged against them. When society was on a bit of an upswing, the compliant were right more often than they had reason to be and now that society is a steaming pile of filth the non-compliant enjoy all of the advantages. But in either case we must strive to move beyond bias in either direction to considering the truth.
It honestly feels as if the COVID skeptic side is in a precarious position. It doesn't seem like much headway is being made regarding any reconciliation over the mass vaccinations and the adverse events. Because of this there seems to be some strange scramble going on, with lots of infighting and a need to hark on points that seem rather moot at this point. What utility is there to pushing the idea of no efficacy, vaccine shedding, or things like that at this point when there are likely to be better points to be made?
This is probably why we are seeing this surge in fringe ideas or conspiracies, or even absurd claims being taken as fact. It's weird to see all of these things happening, and yet it's a likely consequence of any movement that may fizzle out and needs to find a way to sustain itself, because irrespective of the comments suggesting "we are winning" I really don't see much of anything happening any time soon.
Not safe BUT effective? This argument holds in my view ONLY if you see the SARS-Cov-2 illness as a true Pandemic AND a Viral one whatever the source.
Firstly the supposed rampant infections spreading over the earth narrative arising in early 2020 just does NOT stand up to challenge.
Secondly the Viral nature ONLY holds so long as you accept the belief, yes it is a belief, that Viruses are infectious pathological entities invading cells to replicate and transmissible from one to another living biological entity in particular within a species. This narrative too is problematic and like religion and political philosophies, largely holds together ONLY within itself. Challenge any piece and all too often the evidence is lacking to support the claims.
The COVID-19 injectibles have been extremely effective not in curing, minimizing or preventing illness but for quite the opposite. They kill and maim in deliberately randomized ways (e.g. lot/batch variability) as intended as a weapon of war and are setting the battlefield for the next deployment, Wireless Radiation.
Like you say, this comes down to the initial, too good to be true, repeated ad nauseum claims of ~95% generalised efficacy (back then there was rarely a distinction made between infection/hospitalisation/death healthy/young, young/old).
To break it down (because it is somewhat non-linear and oft misunderstood): 95% efficacy equates to a 1:~20 växxed:unvaxxed risk ratio i.e. vaxxed should be ~20 times less likely than unvaxxed to get infected/hospitalises/die. Real world data very quickly showed effectiveness was vastly less against infection, much less against hospitalisation, and also less against death.
Your example calculation of ~70% efficacy (under 60's population) based on Israeli data, equates to a ratio of 1:~3 I.e. vaxxed were ~3 times less likely to be hospitalised.
Hospitalisation for a middle-aged person going from 20 times less likely to only 3 times less likely is a very considerable loss of effectiveness, and, to play pharma's "trick" of highlighting relative risk reductions: this represents an ~85% relative reduction in the relative risks (advertised relative risk ratio 1:~20, real world relative risk ratio 1:~3)
Keeping in mind that theses were relative risk ratios, we'd need to know the absolute risk before we can consider the actual absolute risk reduction benefit.
I know, I know, Brian will say I am stuck in their paradigm, and the mandates were unconsciable regardless, but I just wanted to restate that numbers did not justify mandates even if Brian has shown Berensons inflated claims (mirroring? the Pharma MSM) are untenable.
Great article as usual, I guess most of Berensons audience are polarized to thinking the vaxx cannot be of any benefit, and so he must find evidence for them to confirm their biases.
What's interesting to me is the rationale behind widely mass vaxxing regardless of risk, to 'prevent more serious/vaxx evading variants.' This to me is more about preserving the need for the vaxx, rather than allowing nature to take it's course with milder variants in the long run.
It seems patently obvious on reflection, but the covidian mainstream cannot allow themselves to see the 'mistake' let alone admit to it. The zero covid 'expert' busybodies should have seen that it was a very poor candidate for elimination and eradication, but could not permit themselves to.
Since a long long time long ago when medicine was essentially quackery, there has been strong 'intervention bias' for any treatment, and these days the regulatory approval bodies and public heath are by no means an exception. In being unable to resist, some of the quackery continues to this very day, so let the patients beware, proper evidence is your friend. :-)
Brian I also want to add my support. It hasn't always been comfortable having my biases challenged or disproven by you but it has always been beneficial. Being able to honestly debate with the pro-vaccine side strengthens the arguments against the censorship, the mandates, and the experimental nature of the vaccine. People will often dismiss all of one's rguments if they detect one they believe is patently false. (Similar to the "poisoning the well tactic").
So this is about efficacy that is apparently better than most anti-vaxxers think.. But do you then also think that the vaccine injuries are not so bad?
Absolute blind fool or propagandist? Go back to Pfizer. Tell them you failed on Substack. Keep the money. The rest will be distributed among survivors.
Hmmm, weird things happening in the world of vaccination.
So, they claim this guy in Germany got 217 Covid vaccines and shows no bad effects so it is fine if you get 10 or 20 or 30 or whatever the CDC decides today's number is. Lots of discussion on Xitter:
https://twitter.com/WeeklyRich/status/1765624599956668817
How does someone get 48 shots in one month?
The MSM has jumped all over it. Big Pharma must have been feeling the reduction in sales really bad if they are now ramping up the following: "See, that guy got 217 and is fine. It really is safe!"
Hi, some thoughts on this.
1. Dr. Kory and some nurses pointed out, that it was a very rigid software system to classify patients. E.G. shot taken elsewhere had to be put manually in the system, on other page than the initial classification. This defaulted too often to "unvaccinated". A study looking at this found, that 44% of unvaxed were in fact vaxed. US hospital studies or cdc/fda studies I take with a can of salt.
2. I started following british ONS late 2021. The rates of vaxed/unvaxed were like 2% / 1% infections. With omicron, I was waiting for it, first january report had numbers like 6%/2%, so both relative and absolute difference exploded. Worst were faring the 40/49 years olds, but this shifted towards younger with omicron. Numbers are 4 week rolling average, so the actual change is more dramatic!
3. The Alberta graphical data, covered by Igor, showed that almost 50% of reinfection happened 14 days after 1st shot. This 2 weeks was typically omitted or labeled "unvaxed", in written Alberta data and in Pfizer trials as well as their first 6 weeks reporting to fda. The second vax breakthru infections peaked at month 5,6,7, so the window of observation is very important, most often too short. As in pfizer trials, they conveniently unblinded just before month 5...
4. Alberta showed also hospitalizations and deaths, with visible correlations to the above infections, but without unvaxed comparison group.
5. Most reliable excess death data comes from life expectancy. In the USA -3 years, in my country -2 months, starting july 21, 6 months after rollout. The same with all european countries, I mean the starting time point relative to rollout. These larger excess death models are exactly that: exact observation - modelled baseline = modelled excess. Even if life expectancy is adjusted every year, the change is still visible. Expectancy goes down most effectively, when middle aged people start dying more. Also, if above expectancy -oldies start dying faster, the average glides backwards. Dowds work on acturies tells the story, also regarding the vast amounts of recently handicapped.
6. The first 4 weeks in VAERS dec 20 - jan 21, was equivalent with a norm year with 50 000 reports. With a fraction of old norm year's shots. The first report from pfizer to fda on international and US reports to them, 6 weeks from the start, 40 000 reports which surpriced them. Both ended up adding some 2000 more accountants to label these reports. This seemed to be the biggest problem; to be able to label and report. How about the context, please?
7. the app Vsafe showed 7% getting medical help after shot, at doctor or in hospital, in a tight timeframe (donot remember). Fixed options for problems in the form did not reveal that much, and the free text is becoming available... How to describe a catastrofe, this is it.
The situation with hospitalizations is like assessing statin with CVD only; mild improvement, but no overall benefit, maybe replace CVD with cancer in the death certificate.
I do regret deeply my pfoison pfinjection and moderna shit as a second. I developed fever, my pulse was 10 ticks higher for a month, did not understand just wondering then. And these were reported on the pfizer report to fda as well. So now we know the myocarditis danger, I have yet to check with that. By the way, seeing the alberta data and knowing the inviting effect of omicron for the vaxed, I predicted 6 moths for breakthru infection. Spot on, easter 22 I got it for one "hot and sweaty" day in the bed.
JR
Berenson has to keep at it. It's what his subscribers demand. Being paid to be right, or tell the truth, is an inherently dangerous position to be in. As for most of the rest of covid-skepticism I explained it well here,
'Some people make their decisions on analytical criteria, ‘What is the truth about this? What is the real nature of the matter in question?’ and we pride ourselves on our commitment to truth and our separation from ‘the masses’. And it seems to be an immutable fact of human nature that the majority of people make their decisions on aesthetic criteria, ‘how does it look? how does it feel?’ and this can run the gamut from the utterly superficial who are simply cast adrift on the opinions of those around them to those who ‘know themselves’ and come to a more or less integrated and complete whole. It should be pointed out that such people are often startlingly insightful and shrewd. That is only startling because the analytical thinkers have managed to claim the moral and social high ground, because what is uncommon is often able to claim superiority though, in fact, it depends on the common in more situations than the common depends on it.
The analytical thinker is often ‘high IQ’, and we should stop briefly to consider why the Analytical generally are so much easier to fool, especially in the case at hand of the Plandemic. Intelligence is the ability to adapt to changing circumstances, the ability to rapidly integrate what is new into the way that you think and act. The Moving Truth at the heart of modern society has grossly exaggerated the importance of this ability from its historic usefullness. So, the Analytical have taken to heart the great lesson of our society-’Compliance brings reward’ and have focused on complying in such a way as to maximize their reward, thus creating a strong bias to comply. The Aesthetic have learned a different lesson, that even if they comply they are usually cheated out of their reward, thus creating a strong bias to not comply. But in an increasingly evil and deranged society noncompliance is much more likely to be the correct response, but most of the Analytical are not as smart as they think that they are and have not caught up to that yet.' from my 'almost as inflammatory as Brian' Why Abortions should be performed in Backalleys with Coathangers. https://comfortwithtruth.substack.com/p/why-abortions-should-be-performed
Our society has created a permanent underclass based on cognitive function. We have streamlined society for people who think in one particular way among many with corresponding obstacles for people who think in other ways. So, analytical thinkers have become biased towards compliance and all other thinkers have become biased towards non-compliance. This is why the same set of people are skeptical and non-compliant on almost every issue, because they have learned that society is rigged against them. When society was on a bit of an upswing, the compliant were right more often than they had reason to be and now that society is a steaming pile of filth the non-compliant enjoy all of the advantages. But in either case we must strive to move beyond bias in either direction to considering the truth.
It honestly feels as if the COVID skeptic side is in a precarious position. It doesn't seem like much headway is being made regarding any reconciliation over the mass vaccinations and the adverse events. Because of this there seems to be some strange scramble going on, with lots of infighting and a need to hark on points that seem rather moot at this point. What utility is there to pushing the idea of no efficacy, vaccine shedding, or things like that at this point when there are likely to be better points to be made?
This is probably why we are seeing this surge in fringe ideas or conspiracies, or even absurd claims being taken as fact. It's weird to see all of these things happening, and yet it's a likely consequence of any movement that may fizzle out and needs to find a way to sustain itself, because irrespective of the comments suggesting "we are winning" I really don't see much of anything happening any time soon.
Not safe BUT effective? This argument holds in my view ONLY if you see the SARS-Cov-2 illness as a true Pandemic AND a Viral one whatever the source.
Firstly the supposed rampant infections spreading over the earth narrative arising in early 2020 just does NOT stand up to challenge.
Secondly the Viral nature ONLY holds so long as you accept the belief, yes it is a belief, that Viruses are infectious pathological entities invading cells to replicate and transmissible from one to another living biological entity in particular within a species. This narrative too is problematic and like religion and political philosophies, largely holds together ONLY within itself. Challenge any piece and all too often the evidence is lacking to support the claims.
The COVID-19 injectibles have been extremely effective not in curing, minimizing or preventing illness but for quite the opposite. They kill and maim in deliberately randomized ways (e.g. lot/batch variability) as intended as a weapon of war and are setting the battlefield for the next deployment, Wireless Radiation.
Like you say, this comes down to the initial, too good to be true, repeated ad nauseum claims of ~95% generalised efficacy (back then there was rarely a distinction made between infection/hospitalisation/death healthy/young, young/old).
To break it down (because it is somewhat non-linear and oft misunderstood): 95% efficacy equates to a 1:~20 växxed:unvaxxed risk ratio i.e. vaxxed should be ~20 times less likely than unvaxxed to get infected/hospitalises/die. Real world data very quickly showed effectiveness was vastly less against infection, much less against hospitalisation, and also less against death.
Your example calculation of ~70% efficacy (under 60's population) based on Israeli data, equates to a ratio of 1:~3 I.e. vaxxed were ~3 times less likely to be hospitalised.
Hospitalisation for a middle-aged person going from 20 times less likely to only 3 times less likely is a very considerable loss of effectiveness, and, to play pharma's "trick" of highlighting relative risk reductions: this represents an ~85% relative reduction in the relative risks (advertised relative risk ratio 1:~20, real world relative risk ratio 1:~3)
Keeping in mind that theses were relative risk ratios, we'd need to know the absolute risk before we can consider the actual absolute risk reduction benefit.
I know, I know, Brian will say I am stuck in their paradigm, and the mandates were unconsciable regardless, but I just wanted to restate that numbers did not justify mandates even if Brian has shown Berensons inflated claims (mirroring? the Pharma MSM) are untenable.
Great article as usual, I guess most of Berensons audience are polarized to thinking the vaxx cannot be of any benefit, and so he must find evidence for them to confirm their biases.
What's interesting to me is the rationale behind widely mass vaxxing regardless of risk, to 'prevent more serious/vaxx evading variants.' This to me is more about preserving the need for the vaxx, rather than allowing nature to take it's course with milder variants in the long run.
It seems patently obvious on reflection, but the covidian mainstream cannot allow themselves to see the 'mistake' let alone admit to it. The zero covid 'expert' busybodies should have seen that it was a very poor candidate for elimination and eradication, but could not permit themselves to.
Since a long long time long ago when medicine was essentially quackery, there has been strong 'intervention bias' for any treatment, and these days the regulatory approval bodies and public heath are by no means an exception. In being unable to resist, some of the quackery continues to this very day, so let the patients beware, proper evidence is your friend. :-)
Brian I also want to add my support. It hasn't always been comfortable having my biases challenged or disproven by you but it has always been beneficial. Being able to honestly debate with the pro-vaccine side strengthens the arguments against the censorship, the mandates, and the experimental nature of the vaccine. People will often dismiss all of one's rguments if they detect one they believe is patently false. (Similar to the "poisoning the well tactic").
So this is about efficacy that is apparently better than most anti-vaxxers think.. But do you then also think that the vaccine injuries are not so bad?
https://gsconlinepress.com/journals/gscarr/content/are-mrna-vaccines-inducing-sanarelli-shwartzman-phenomenon
https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/12
https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Vitamin_C_Mitigating_and_Rescuing_from_Synergistic_Toxicity_Sodium_Fluoride_Silicofluorides_Aluminum_Salts_Electromagnetic_Pollution_and_SARS-CoV-2/13580318/1
Hydrophobic Catalysis by L-Ascorbic Acid: A supramolecular Strategy to counter the SARS-CoV2 ADP Ribose Glycohydrolase (figshare.com)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IhQlLMxJrs
Yes, they do prevent severe disease by causing death.
Absolute blind fool or propagandist? Go back to Pfizer. Tell them you failed on Substack. Keep the money. The rest will be distributed among survivors.