Re Feynman "I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist..."
They do this all the time through disingenuous use of statistics. For example, relative risk.
'“Transmission efficacy” is the ability of a vaccine to prevent a new infection leading to disease. This is a function of the level of infection expected in a vaccinated person (bacteremia for bacteria; viremia for viruses). When reading vaccine studies and reports (press releases) it’s important to know the actual definition of efficacy being used. Sometimes companies will initially report on prevention of transmission; then, as real-world studies are conducted, the focus will shift to prevention of death; then to prevention of hospitalization; then to prevention of serious symptoms. That’s when asymptomatic transmission can creep in.
'In the end-stage analyses, they may move to using “antibody production” (ideally neutralizing, but read carefully all reports), all the while the public is reading “efficacy” or “effectiveness” as one and the same. They are not. “Efficacy” is an estimate of the ability of a vaccine to do its job (whatever outcome measure is used) in an ideal population; that is, a sample group that is free of pre-existing infection or immunity, one free of comorbid conditions (for the disease), and, often unreported, one free from risk factors for serious adverse events.
'With a perfect antigen match, on an idealized population, Transmission Efficacy can look very high. Yet while that is not expected to translate to real-world high effectiveness, long-term large randomized trials including everyone to which the vaccine will be offered are rarely conducted. THE INCORRECT GENERALIZATION OF REAL-WORLD PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF A VACCINE (IN TERMS OF SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS) FROM IDEAL CONDITIONS KNOWN TO LEAD TO FALSE HIGH EFFICACY ESTIMATES IS ONE OF THE GRAVEST EXAMPLES OF TRANSLATIONAL FAILURE SEEN IN BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH, AND IT OCCURS ON A ROUTINE BASIS IN VACCINE RESEARCH.'
They set themselves up to win, and then just redefine losing as winning when the long term results start to go south. No matter what it's "and this supports a worldwide roll-out which erases the control group forever" in the final text.
I've had 10 years of training in reading scientific studies about nutritional research (which is almost universally abysmal), although it's a whole lot more in-depth than the average person is able to, or wants to, do. But some of the recent moves on the part of public health agencies, especially re-defining terms like "vaccine", are breathtakingly, spectacularly dishonest.
Funny you should mention HIV. I just plowed my way through RFK Junior's book about Fauci, a good chunk of which goes into the history of HIV/AIDS. Apparently there was, and possibly still is, some controversy about whether HIV causes AIDS or not and he goes into the history of this pretty thoroughly, but very carefully does not draw a personal conclusion. It's an interesting fact, though, that Luc Montagnier, the first discoverer of HIV who won a Nobel prize for it, later decided HIV does not cause aids. Robert Gallo, who appropriated the discovery credit and who announced in 1985, prior to publishing any supportive evidence, that he had discovered the cause of AIDS, thereby hogging all the AIDS oxygen, in 1991 admitted guilt in court of that theft and was excluded from Nobel consideration.
BTW the decision that AIDS was a viral disease rather than a cancer allowed Fauci's NIAID (infectious disease agency) to wrest control of grant money from the National Cancer Institute; Gallo ended up partnering with Fauci. Imagine that.
Being older than dirt, I was alive in the 80s and remember it being in the news a lot but didn't pay a whole lot of attention. So this particular part of the RFK book was a great interest to me. Pretty revelatory about the bureaucratic infighting and nastiness and, of course, struggle for control of bajillions of dollars. I was already skeptical of the CDC thanks to my experience with Lyme disease, but the bureaucratic history laid out here, even if you ignore assumption of motives by RFK, explains a lot of our current situation.
For those who don't want to wade through the whole book, here's a review by someone who started out as skeptical as I about RFK's anti-VAX history, and he was equally struck by the HIV story, which he describes in depth in this review. https://www.unz.com/article/fauci-and-the-great-aids-swindle/
I still don't know what to make of the HIV connection; at the very least, it's not as cut-and-dried it as we've been led to believe. And as you alluded to in this post, a lot of the deaths ascribed to HIV could easily have been caused by the standard treatment with AZT. It's very disturbing.
I do recommend the RFK book and if you buy it, spend three bucks for the electronic version because it makes following up on footnotes so much easier. While he does use the occasional prejudicial adjective, the historical facts stand on their own and are pretty well sourced.
Back in 2008 when I started researching about vaccines a lot more information was easily available, even on Google you could find the simpsonwood papers, there were lots of Facebook groups, YouTube videos from families. The series vaxxed is real life. This has been breaking my heart for a long time. Judy Mikovits books are very detailed eye openers about. vaccine and blood supply contamination. Andrew Wakefields book reeks of integrity. I had to get over a mental block just to purchase it. I was blown away by his character, a man of unwavering integrity. He has my respect. I have been such a freak on this topic for the last 14 years. I’m so pleased others are talking about it. If you look in Suzanne humphries YouTube channel she has interview with a doctor who treats his son who profoundly autistic with cannabinoids, and for the period of time that the THC is taking effect, he can learn and remember. Also Stephanie Seneff’s research about vaccines, glyphosate and autism is really important. It’s very interesting and now these kids have got a chance.
Then prepare for severe nausea if you read the book. The evidence of Fauci and Gates treating entire populations of India and Africa as guinea pigs (through threats of withholding WHO public health grant money) is severely disturbing.
I get enough negative emotional stimulation watching our local dictators diktat us into oblivion. I don't need to read the book and won't - but it sounds like a good gift for pro-vaxers...
I think it's really important for people to understand about regulatory capture and how our public health agencies are not working for public health. I don't hold out a lot of hope that they will be held accountable, but you never know.
Right, I haven't read the chapter yet - still reverse-finishing the swine flu chapter - but caught the Unz summary (hat tip to https://fackel.substack.com for recommending it). Perhaps that's the strongest evidence for whether Remdesivir is also killing patients in the US (since the Ebola trial can't tell us much) - we know what kind of drugs Fauci likes to recommend for "plagues."
Deaths in the 1918 flu were just as sketchy - seemingly caused by rushed "bacteria vaccines" or simply nosocomial bacterial infections. But then how to account for the death toll in India... Mystery after mystery.
Why didn't people in either case just stay away from the hospital, I will never get.
And they do now? I just read some anecdotal reports of how people are getting home tests (for SARS-Cov2) and then they rush to hospitals when test positive.
I know that likes of Taleb et co. are claiming how "grandmothers know best" (I am paraphrasing here). But human stupidity and lack of common sense has no boundaries.
The similarity between the AIDS debacle and now - with Fauci at the center - had me researching AIDS discovery dates to see if it was possible Fauci funded some kind of GoF-like research to create AIDS as well.
If you want to go down that rabbit hole, Dr Paul Cottrell has some theories. On his rumble and brighteon. He covers the gain of function of sars and hiv. Fauci paid for that, Ralph Baric delivered it.
He put a timeline in this video (and others, there’s loads)
The question it raised for me was: if so many people in Africa are HIV positive, how many of them who did not receive "official" treatment ended up getting AIDS?
There are several good reasons to question the effectiveness of the inoculations for reducing severity / mortality risk.
In the US at least, persons don't count as "vaccinated" until weeks after the 2nd injection. Meanwhile, any deaths due directly to injection adverse events get counted as "unvaccinated" and most of those deaths are falsely attributed to covid. Furthermore, the immune system is weakened by the shots, resulting in increased rates of severe covid which are also counted as "unvaccinated" covid cases.
In addition to making "unvaccinated" statistics much worse than they would be otherwise, these effects presumably create a survivor bias. That is, the weakest individuals are most likely to perish immediately after their jabs, leaving a stronger surviving population of "vaccinated" who were unlikely to get severe covid in any case.
Matt Crawford and 'el gato malo' have been writing about this for months, most recently in gato's post this morning about negative VE against Omicron in German data: https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/german-omicron-data
One other aspect which I haven't seen anyone else cover, is the phenomenon of "covid-like illness". It turns out that there are lots of "fully vaccinated" people hospitalized with something with symptoms more or less similar to covid-19, but they tested negative. In the US, there has been a policy that "vaccinated" are only tested for coronavirus when they get hospitalized (typically, a week or two after they got sick) and even then at a low cycle threshold. So maybe some of those "covid like illnesses" are covid with a false negative test.
Also, consider that the vast majority of the highly vulnerable population (old, or with comorbidities) were inoculated early in 2021, yet overall death rates from covid-19 have hardly been reduced at all since 2020. How can that be, if the shots have any effectiveness at all towards cutting the risk of death?
I don't think anyone on Substack is saying that there's proof of zero or negative VE against severe illness or death. But the evidence is not nearly as solid as proponents would have you think. And it's not up to the critics to demonstrate whether or not the jabs are working in that regard.
I heartily agree that the hospitalization "data" from the US is poison. As well as death rates, sadly - it seems there was a reversal to ventilator use, especially targeting the "dirty" unvaccinated, starting in the summer, in the US.
Whereas if you look at case / death rates in other areas, just using google dashboards, the "discount" of the vaccine is perceptible, including right there in the places we've been looking the most intensely: UK, Israel, Denmark up to November. Toggle from cases to deaths and there is a clear signal for efficacy. Adjusting for test positivity would chop some of the summer/autumn case waves down quite a bit. Still seems like 50% less deaths per cases.
You might be right about under-diagnosed severe breakthroughs in general. As I mentioned in a comment below, why should we obsess with winning the game by "their rules" to begin with? There are more important things than "not getting Covid" and that includes becoming so ill you might as well have it, directly because of the shots.
Do you know if the European and Israeli data are similar to the US in that everyone between their first shot until weeks after their second, is classified as "unvaccinated"? If anyone, anywhere, would count the cases and deaths separately for the "partially vaccinated", I would be very interested to see that data.
The closest read of the Israel dashboard manual is that 1st dosed are excluded, and it's been that way for a few months. ""Unvaccinated" are those who have not received a first dose of vaccine" https://datadashboard.health.gov.il/COVID-19/guide - but maybe they're lumped in.
A very thorough demarcation of Omicron outcomes by *time since dose* at https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/severity-of-omicron-variant-of-concern-and-vaccine-effectiveness- linked pdf Table 4, which hilariously uses "v2_25+" as the base rate so that the unvaccinated have "positive efficacy" against Omicron (S negative). Either way the "v1_0:3" outperform the unvaccinated for both S positive/negative among the young and only for S positive for 50+ year olds.
Then table S2, per 100k rates, a bit more ambiguous for S negative. Could be an artifact of the low S negative rates among unvaccinated children. And all the denominators could be messed up given that there's so many people changing status all the time, who can say.
So, the Scots claim to have "linked primary care, vaccination, reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), sequencing, hospitalisation and mortality data on 5.4 million (99% of the population)". This is very impressive, if true. The paper by Sheikh et al. doesn't give much support for the idea that the inoculations cause an immediate boost to covid-19 rates caused by immune suppression -- in fact, it's the opposite, they see an immediate benefit. The data could presumably address the rate of serious adverse AE's (involving hospitalization or death) as well. Thanks for this link!
I used to faithfully get the annual flu shot. Then years ago I read a Stephanie Seneff article about aluminum as an adjuvant and never got another one after that. I don't remember mention of autism, but aluminum is simply toxic.
Very interesting thanks. It seems clear that the vaccines do substantially reduce severity / mortality risk of covid. This is extremely helpful for at risk individuals. There are also potential negative side effects of course, the magnitude and frequency of which seems to be debated. How do you personally weigh up these two countervailing forces? Or is it too early to make a definitive judgement? Of course the maths differs greatly depending on the risk status of the individual being vaccinated. Perhaps a simpler way of asking this - if you were in charge of public health policy what would be your vaccination strategy?
Severe efficacy for the Covid vaccines is either a "healthy user bias" illusion (I'm skeptical), or a result of reduced viremia (spread of the virus in the bloodstream) thanks to the anti-spike antibodies which quickly ramp up upon infection even if they no longer are high enough to prevent infection. This is why triple-dosing was always pointless.
I do not think governments should be involved in "public health." Health, illness, death, these are all parts of what it means to be a human and should not be turned into a sim city game of stat-boosting, even before we get to the part where the stat-boosters start to invent problems as soon as people stop paying attention to them, then spend decades patting themselves on the back for giving millions of Americans a pointless drug (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/12/1/05-1007_article). And yet here we are again. These are experimental drugs with rushed, flawed, and distorted trial results (https://unglossed.substack.com/p/perfunctory) that should never have been released.
Thank you for your thoughts - much appreciated! I suppose you would not recommend even those in the top few percentiles of risk from covid to be offered the vaccines then? Or at least not until more robust trials have been conducted / completed?
Correct, and I wouldn't be in favor of the caveat. That might be a bit paternalistic - perhaps people should be able to make their own choices on the matter, even though true informed consent is not possible when not even the manufacturers know what the "information" is.
I am just describing the status quo - drugs are not made available until appointed agencies deem them safe - without dressing it up in language that hides what the implications are.
So, it's not a job I would normally "want," since I support self-determinism. But most societies want someone in the job and if I were in the job I wouldn't pass on an experimental drug whose influence on biology and health no end-user can possibly understand.
Ah ok - sorry if that was implied - I am firmly in the '1. show people the data and let them decide'. I abhor the coercion that we have witnessed over the last year. I suppose I still see a potential role for a central body to offer good and unbiased advice though, if 'net benefit' treatments exist. Many people simply don't have the time or inclination to do their own research. Of course this requires a trustworthy and wise central body though! And 'advice' should never become coercion. Anyway I'm sorry what you have had to go through in Australia. I truly hope 2022 brings happier times for all of us.
The crowdsourced knowledge method seems to work better. Messy and anecdote-driven as it is, it led to the Math+ protocol. Centralization and trials get us Mutagenic Molnupiravir.
But when it comes to licensing drugs in the first place, my instincts are more conflicted, as I mentioned in the other thread. Especially since there's loads of drugs already on the market that shouldn't be. Antidepressants that leak into the water and food, etc.
The question of healthy user bias is indeed hard to slice. Even if the unvaccinated are over-all more "at risk," all the vaccine has to do is capture enough "high rollers" to collect back the observable severe would-be severe outcomes and deaths. So, if you look at breakthrough-infection leading to death entries in VAERS, you find a lot of previously-really-unhealthy people for example. But how do you know if there is any corresponding "protected at risk" group of high rollers? It comes down to guesswork obviously.
For the first one, yes, the 1st-dosed were seemingly removed from the dashboard a few months ago, which would include retroactively. Since I have never been greatly curious about outcomes among the 1st dosed, I prefer it this way anyway. For the second one, I wouldn't expect the dashboard to try to cover for a study that was overly rosy to deflect criticism of the study. The dashboard has typically shown more ugly results than studies. They redefined tons of stuff throughout the booster roll-out, as the original design was obviously for only two shots. But, maybe the "boosters don't prevent infection" was a politically sore point.
(I have no problem assuming boosters don't prevent infection but only make it more asymptomatic, so that it will show up on screening. Better that way anyway, so that boosters can't mess up the natural wave pattern and cause "forever spike.")
Though to be honest the theories aren't mutually exclusive.
However the first theory I think has a potential dating issue since phylogenetic analyses have shown that HIV (which isn't really just one virus but has HIV-1 with 4 lineages: M, N, O and P and HIV-2) has crossed into human populations at multiple times with the earliest time estimated as being in the 1910s-1920s (from chimps, likely as bushmeat, with the chimps in turn likely getting it from a recombination event following multiple infections of at least two SIVs from two different genera of monkeys that they hunted as prey).
Perhaps the polio vaccine/ADE theory might explain why an already established HIV-1 M (which as you note might not have been inherently aggressive in nature, as seems to be the case with the other 3 lineages of HIV-1 and particularly with HIV-2) might have caused the development of new strains of the M lineage of HIV-1 that eventually caused AIDS if persons in the Belgian Congo who got the contaminated polio vaccines also got a dose of the SIVs from monkeys that is most closely related to HIV-1 M and developed antibodies thereto and then subsequently got exposed to (presumably benign) these older strains of HIV-1 M.
So you get an early form of AIDS, which isn't identified as such and perhaps the whole procedure results in the evolution of more aggressive strains of HIV-1 M that are more successful at invading immune cells in hosts who already exhibit homologous HIV antibodies (thus ensuring these newer strains displace the pre-existing strains for persons in the Congo and Cameroon and heading to the rest of the world in the 1960s as pretty much the only strains and infecting persons sufficiently well to cause disease regardless of whether or not they had pre-existing HIV antibodies that helped to cause ADE - this would possibly help account for the earliest known retrospective cases of AIDS being in the mid-to-late 1960s; 1966 in a Norwegian man and 1966-1969 in the US).
The fact that apparently single use needles were reused (unsterile at that!) for mass vaccination, antibiotic and anti-malaria campaigns in colonial Africa in the 1950s would support theory 1 (and help to explain how even just a few vaccines contaminated with SIV or persons who had been vaccinated with the same needle used to vaccinate just one other person who picked up an SIV and then been vaccinated with the polio vaccine could spread the problem far and wide).
The measles eradication campaign in the late 1960s then basically cleared the way for HIV-1 M to become the New Measles.
That’s how dim my familiarity with the official story is - I thought the Norwegian was 76-79. Yes, a tag team ADE + niche abandonment was “crazy for this one Jay” version of my theories. Thank you - comment of the year.
Edward Hooper's exhaustively-researched theory that oral polio vaccine trials in the 1950s Belgian Congo started the AIDS epidemic is the strongest theory of HIV's origin I know of. The only "evidence" that stands against it is what C.H. mentioned - phylogenetic dating using a theoretical model that incorporates a "relaxed" molecular clock. A number of influential researchers, in their haste to dispel this absolute bombshell of a theory, decided to ignore the fact that HIV is one of the most recombinant viruses known to mankind. Such viruses cannot be accurately measured using phylogenetic dating techniques. These techniques are, if anything, most likely dating the original SIV ancestors of the HIV strains that crossed into humanity en masse when said OPV was trialed on hundreds of thousands of Africans, most of whom were children. Needles can't be blamed either because this vaccine was oral. The massive size of these trials combined with the methods used to amplify the vaccine using the sera of many different chimpanzees easily explains the sudden emergence of several different HIV strains.
The three earliest HIV infections that we have physical proof of are from 1959, 1960, and 1966. All three of them came from Leopoldville, now known as Kinshasa. Kinshasa was the epicenter of the OPV trials that began just a few years prior to that first 1959 case. The next earliest world sample of HIV-1 after 1966 dates from 1976. It also comes from the Congo, specifically a village east of Kinshasa.
I've been following the evolving OPV-AIDS hypothesis since I was in high school more than a decade ago. I'll post some links below this comment so you can investigate it further if you wish.
This summary is fairly long but is IMO the briefest and most technically detailed post that provides a broad overview of OPV-AIDS and the relevant facts. It also helpfully goes over the objections raised by the bushmeat theorists in the context of OPV-AIDS. This post in particular could also lend some support to your related ADE-HIV theory.
This documentary, while now hosted on YouTube by a dude with a joker avatar, was released in the early 2000s on public television and won multiple awards. It contains multiple documented statements by those involved with OPV that wild chimp sera was indeed used to prep the vaccine. While Bill Hamilton was alive many people were forced to take the OPV-AIDS hypothesis seriously because of his fame and influence. Scientists involved didn't turn fully to unscientific methods of discrediting the theory until after Hamilton died from malaria caught while he was in Africa trying to find more evidence for OPV-AIDS.
Edward Hooper just recently re-released his exhaustively-researched book on OPV-AIDS. The River doesn't incorporate all of the things Hooper has discovered in the 20+ years since it was published, but it is still a very readable and fascinating overview of the entire theory and most of its supporting evidence.
Brian you have so much information, but it is hard to digest in one shot. Can you break into smaller posts? Thank you and not a negative, but we are overwhelmed these days. You have incisive clarity but many heads are spinning.....
I have been giving it a lot of thought. I myself am perpetually overwhelmed with the subject matter covered here, so not conveying that to the page is difficult. But what I primarily wanted to avoid with "Unglossed" is becoming just another platform for listing conclusions that can be taken as true without digesting the evidence.
The solution might be for there to be a satellite blog - "shorter unglossed." The index (in the about page) is at least an interim version.
Yup. I think I might be becoming an old timey anti-vaxxer. It’s a weird thing. I feel like I’m admitting to being a Nazi.
This idea that you are 4 times more likely to be infected with omicron if you have been vaccinated ( Denmark)…how about you are just 4 times more likely to be infected with anything ? I’m thinking about the vaccines as they apply to the immune system generally and not as they apply specifically to covid. Just a thought.
Also I really like your cool headed-ness. You’ve a nice anti-hysteria quality about your outlook. It’s needed.
Thanks Ryk. Well this kinda sums up my position. Brian - you are indeed cool-headed and have a nice anti-hysteria presentation. And Ryk - you are not a Natzy to share your personal determinations and who could have known where this would end up, not that it has. These are very strange days.
Strange days indeed. Who would believe it? Any of it. It’s all just too incredible. Have a nice day and best to you. I do like feeling I have found this community after the analogue one kicked me out :)
I believe we are all weirded out at the way things are becoming, and a new community has grown around this discordance. This is an organic environment, and aren't we lucky to have it. And have a nice day to you too Ryk.
More brilliant theories. Thanks. Curious about the graphs at the top. Over 60, looks like more are severely ill (28, unvaxed) than are infected (17, unvaxed). Did they miss a decimal point? Or different denominators? Looks like the similar under 60 charts have a much smaller number in the ordinate, with fractional values, for seriously ill. Over 60 has larger numbers with no fractions.
Either way, it looks like the overwhelming majority at any age are not identified infected, and not sick. Same everywhere. We find in every survey that many more have been previously infected, but not reported, probably not noticed. It's beyond amazing that we continue to obsess over weakness in a tiny portion of every society, and averaged statistics, as if everyone is equally at risk. We're not. Competent medical industry would be focused on why a few are vulnerable while most are mostly unaffected, not trying to terrorize the healthy.
It's ongoing hospitalizations rates, so there is a backlog until patients are dismissed; while cases are per day. The same graph on the dashboard displays new admissions when you click the radio button.
I appreciate you pointing out that many people who quote these stats seem to forget to observe that there is and has been a reduction in case severity for the vaccines. It is a shame because it's kind of disingenuous, yet there are legitimate counter factors: when you take into account vaccine injury, "partial" vaccinees, and in many places failure to offer early treatment.
It means that these severe case stats are correct, but may still be a losing proposition when net effect is compared to early treatment. Unfortunately it's a difficult or impossible analysis to make, and this forms a difficult wedge in discussions of efficacy.. and it makes it too easy to discount many authors like alex
Right, all those counter factors of course being excluded from consideration from the other side. So refusal to acknowledge severe outcome efficacy - or allow even a minor hit on masks - is essentially declaring "we can't win the argument unless we win it by their rules." That's exactly backward. The rules were wrong from go.
Dairy products are great for INGESTION. No complaints. Injecting dairy products programs the immune system to recognize them as pathogens/toxins. That's the disaster we are now facing:
Milk containing vaccines cause milk allergies, EoE, autism and type 1 diabetes
That's some fascinating information in there, definitely going to take a look.
I have to say, before covid I was somewhat indifferent to vaccines -- although having seen their deleterious affect on the health of my dogs over time I became very careful to push the required vaccinations out as far as they could possibly go with my dogs -- but after the crap we've seen over the past year and learning about the real efficacy of the traditional vaccines, I'm really moving into the heavily-suspicious-of-vaccines-camp.
When I had a bat land on me in the middle of the night two years ago and scratch/bite me with broken skin, I couldn't get that rabies vaccination series quickly enough. But for Covid? Never even a consideration. Thanks again for the info!
Thank you Mos51 for noting your dogs' health. Having 30 years ago stupidly doped up my first indoor cat with annual boosters (the latest and greatest thing!), ending up with him being put out of his pain, riddled with tumors, at age 8. Never again. The rest of my cats lived into late teens, no shots except for kitty jabs. My vet knows not to bring up meds//jabs bc I will talk him down a path he does not want to acknowledge. This is unfortunately the new Pharma Market. Folks want to do the best for their furkids, but propaganda reigns. Furious also about stacked meds. You can't get flea meds without heartworm etc. I will stick with Nature thanks.
Re Feynman "I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist..."
They do this all the time through disingenuous use of statistics. For example, relative risk.
In the context of vaccines, there's this (emphasis added) from https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/the-vaccine-lifecycle-lead-to-vaccine
'“Transmission efficacy” is the ability of a vaccine to prevent a new infection leading to disease. This is a function of the level of infection expected in a vaccinated person (bacteremia for bacteria; viremia for viruses). When reading vaccine studies and reports (press releases) it’s important to know the actual definition of efficacy being used. Sometimes companies will initially report on prevention of transmission; then, as real-world studies are conducted, the focus will shift to prevention of death; then to prevention of hospitalization; then to prevention of serious symptoms. That’s when asymptomatic transmission can creep in.
'In the end-stage analyses, they may move to using “antibody production” (ideally neutralizing, but read carefully all reports), all the while the public is reading “efficacy” or “effectiveness” as one and the same. They are not. “Efficacy” is an estimate of the ability of a vaccine to do its job (whatever outcome measure is used) in an ideal population; that is, a sample group that is free of pre-existing infection or immunity, one free of comorbid conditions (for the disease), and, often unreported, one free from risk factors for serious adverse events.
'With a perfect antigen match, on an idealized population, Transmission Efficacy can look very high. Yet while that is not expected to translate to real-world high effectiveness, long-term large randomized trials including everyone to which the vaccine will be offered are rarely conducted. THE INCORRECT GENERALIZATION OF REAL-WORLD PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF A VACCINE (IN TERMS OF SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS) FROM IDEAL CONDITIONS KNOWN TO LEAD TO FALSE HIGH EFFICACY ESTIMATES IS ONE OF THE GRAVEST EXAMPLES OF TRANSLATIONAL FAILURE SEEN IN BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH, AND IT OCCURS ON A ROUTINE BASIS IN VACCINE RESEARCH.'
They set themselves up to win, and then just redefine losing as winning when the long term results start to go south. No matter what it's "and this supports a worldwide roll-out which erases the control group forever" in the final text.
I've had 10 years of training in reading scientific studies about nutritional research (which is almost universally abysmal), although it's a whole lot more in-depth than the average person is able to, or wants to, do. But some of the recent moves on the part of public health agencies, especially re-defining terms like "vaccine", are breathtakingly, spectacularly dishonest.
Funny you should mention HIV. I just plowed my way through RFK Junior's book about Fauci, a good chunk of which goes into the history of HIV/AIDS. Apparently there was, and possibly still is, some controversy about whether HIV causes AIDS or not and he goes into the history of this pretty thoroughly, but very carefully does not draw a personal conclusion. It's an interesting fact, though, that Luc Montagnier, the first discoverer of HIV who won a Nobel prize for it, later decided HIV does not cause aids. Robert Gallo, who appropriated the discovery credit and who announced in 1985, prior to publishing any supportive evidence, that he had discovered the cause of AIDS, thereby hogging all the AIDS oxygen, in 1991 admitted guilt in court of that theft and was excluded from Nobel consideration.
BTW the decision that AIDS was a viral disease rather than a cancer allowed Fauci's NIAID (infectious disease agency) to wrest control of grant money from the National Cancer Institute; Gallo ended up partnering with Fauci. Imagine that.
Being older than dirt, I was alive in the 80s and remember it being in the news a lot but didn't pay a whole lot of attention. So this particular part of the RFK book was a great interest to me. Pretty revelatory about the bureaucratic infighting and nastiness and, of course, struggle for control of bajillions of dollars. I was already skeptical of the CDC thanks to my experience with Lyme disease, but the bureaucratic history laid out here, even if you ignore assumption of motives by RFK, explains a lot of our current situation.
For those who don't want to wade through the whole book, here's a review by someone who started out as skeptical as I about RFK's anti-VAX history, and he was equally struck by the HIV story, which he describes in depth in this review. https://www.unz.com/article/fauci-and-the-great-aids-swindle/
I still don't know what to make of the HIV connection; at the very least, it's not as cut-and-dried it as we've been led to believe. And as you alluded to in this post, a lot of the deaths ascribed to HIV could easily have been caused by the standard treatment with AZT. It's very disturbing.
I do recommend the RFK book and if you buy it, spend three bucks for the electronic version because it makes following up on footnotes so much easier. While he does use the occasional prejudicial adjective, the historical facts stand on their own and are pretty well sourced.
Back in 2008 when I started researching about vaccines a lot more information was easily available, even on Google you could find the simpsonwood papers, there were lots of Facebook groups, YouTube videos from families. The series vaxxed is real life. This has been breaking my heart for a long time. Judy Mikovits books are very detailed eye openers about. vaccine and blood supply contamination. Andrew Wakefields book reeks of integrity. I had to get over a mental block just to purchase it. I was blown away by his character, a man of unwavering integrity. He has my respect. I have been such a freak on this topic for the last 14 years. I’m so pleased others are talking about it. If you look in Suzanne humphries YouTube channel she has interview with a doctor who treats his son who profoundly autistic with cannabinoids, and for the period of time that the THC is taking effect, he can learn and remember. Also Stephanie Seneff’s research about vaccines, glyphosate and autism is really important. It’s very interesting and now these kids have got a chance.
Is RFK book on Fauci any good?
I certainly recommend it. It's not a screed like I was expecting.
Wow. That Unz summary is turning my stomach.
Then prepare for severe nausea if you read the book. The evidence of Fauci and Gates treating entire populations of India and Africa as guinea pigs (through threats of withholding WHO public health grant money) is severely disturbing.
I get enough negative emotional stimulation watching our local dictators diktat us into oblivion. I don't need to read the book and won't - but it sounds like a good gift for pro-vaxers...
They probably wouldn't read it.
I think it's really important for people to understand about regulatory capture and how our public health agencies are not working for public health. I don't hold out a lot of hope that they will be held accountable, but you never know.
I gave my sister in law Dissolving Illusions. Unfortunately she didn’t read it.
Right, I haven't read the chapter yet - still reverse-finishing the swine flu chapter - but caught the Unz summary (hat tip to https://fackel.substack.com for recommending it). Perhaps that's the strongest evidence for whether Remdesivir is also killing patients in the US (since the Ebola trial can't tell us much) - we know what kind of drugs Fauci likes to recommend for "plagues."
Deaths in the 1918 flu were just as sketchy - seemingly caused by rushed "bacteria vaccines" or simply nosocomial bacterial infections. But then how to account for the death toll in India... Mystery after mystery.
Why didn't people in either case just stay away from the hospital, I will never get.
And they do now? I just read some anecdotal reports of how people are getting home tests (for SARS-Cov2) and then they rush to hospitals when test positive.
I know that likes of Taleb et co. are claiming how "grandmothers know best" (I am paraphrasing here). But human stupidity and lack of common sense has no boundaries.
The similarity between the AIDS debacle and now - with Fauci at the center - had me researching AIDS discovery dates to see if it was possible Fauci funded some kind of GoF-like research to create AIDS as well.
If you want to go down that rabbit hole, Dr Paul Cottrell has some theories. On his rumble and brighteon. He covers the gain of function of sars and hiv. Fauci paid for that, Ralph Baric delivered it.
He put a timeline in this video (and others, there’s loads)
https://rumble.com/vql1cw-hiv-war-room-ep95-baric-made-sars-and-knew-about-myocarditis-by-dr.-paul-co.html
The question it raised for me was: if so many people in Africa are HIV positive, how many of them who did not receive "official" treatment ended up getting AIDS?
There are several good reasons to question the effectiveness of the inoculations for reducing severity / mortality risk.
In the US at least, persons don't count as "vaccinated" until weeks after the 2nd injection. Meanwhile, any deaths due directly to injection adverse events get counted as "unvaccinated" and most of those deaths are falsely attributed to covid. Furthermore, the immune system is weakened by the shots, resulting in increased rates of severe covid which are also counted as "unvaccinated" covid cases.
In addition to making "unvaccinated" statistics much worse than they would be otherwise, these effects presumably create a survivor bias. That is, the weakest individuals are most likely to perish immediately after their jabs, leaving a stronger surviving population of "vaccinated" who were unlikely to get severe covid in any case.
Matt Crawford and 'el gato malo' have been writing about this for months, most recently in gato's post this morning about negative VE against Omicron in German data: https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/german-omicron-data
One other aspect which I haven't seen anyone else cover, is the phenomenon of "covid-like illness". It turns out that there are lots of "fully vaccinated" people hospitalized with something with symptoms more or less similar to covid-19, but they tested negative. In the US, there has been a policy that "vaccinated" are only tested for coronavirus when they get hospitalized (typically, a week or two after they got sick) and even then at a low cycle threshold. So maybe some of those "covid like illnesses" are covid with a false negative test.
Also, consider that the vast majority of the highly vulnerable population (old, or with comorbidities) were inoculated early in 2021, yet overall death rates from covid-19 have hardly been reduced at all since 2020. How can that be, if the shots have any effectiveness at all towards cutting the risk of death?
I don't think anyone on Substack is saying that there's proof of zero or negative VE against severe illness or death. But the evidence is not nearly as solid as proponents would have you think. And it's not up to the critics to demonstrate whether or not the jabs are working in that regard.
I heartily agree that the hospitalization "data" from the US is poison. As well as death rates, sadly - it seems there was a reversal to ventilator use, especially targeting the "dirty" unvaccinated, starting in the summer, in the US.
Whereas if you look at case / death rates in other areas, just using google dashboards, the "discount" of the vaccine is perceptible, including right there in the places we've been looking the most intensely: UK, Israel, Denmark up to November. Toggle from cases to deaths and there is a clear signal for efficacy. Adjusting for test positivity would chop some of the summer/autumn case waves down quite a bit. Still seems like 50% less deaths per cases.
Ah, the Germany numbers. I posted the problem with them in a comment over there a couple hours ago. Crickets, as usual. https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/german-omicron-data/comment/4232315
You might be right about under-diagnosed severe breakthroughs in general. As I mentioned in a comment below, why should we obsess with winning the game by "their rules" to begin with? There are more important things than "not getting Covid" and that includes becoming so ill you might as well have it, directly because of the shots.
Great data from Singapore - 8x effective in terms of mortality. But that efficacy is a double edged sword imo:
1. vaxed is 0.1 / 100k deaths vs 0.8 / 100k unvaxed
ie less than 1 person per 100k people are dying from covid - where's the problem?!
2. they make unvaxed pay for their own medical stuff now - in so socialised it's pretty much socialist Singapore.
Bottom line: vax is definitely "helpful", but I am happy with a 0.8/100k risk. And I will do almost anything to resist internal passports.
Do you know if the European and Israeli data are similar to the US in that everyone between their first shot until weeks after their second, is classified as "unvaccinated"? If anyone, anywhere, would count the cases and deaths separately for the "partially vaccinated", I would be very interested to see that data.
The closest read of the Israel dashboard manual is that 1st dosed are excluded, and it's been that way for a few months. ""Unvaccinated" are those who have not received a first dose of vaccine" https://datadashboard.health.gov.il/COVID-19/guide - but maybe they're lumped in.
A very thorough demarcation of Omicron outcomes by *time since dose* at https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/severity-of-omicron-variant-of-concern-and-vaccine-effectiveness- linked pdf Table 4, which hilariously uses "v2_25+" as the base rate so that the unvaccinated have "positive efficacy" against Omicron (S negative). Either way the "v1_0:3" outperform the unvaccinated for both S positive/negative among the young and only for S positive for 50+ year olds.
Then table S2, per 100k rates, a bit more ambiguous for S negative. Could be an artifact of the low S negative rates among unvaccinated children. And all the denominators could be messed up given that there's so many people changing status all the time, who can say.
So, the Scots claim to have "linked primary care, vaccination, reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), sequencing, hospitalisation and mortality data on 5.4 million (99% of the population)". This is very impressive, if true. The paper by Sheikh et al. doesn't give much support for the idea that the inoculations cause an immediate boost to covid-19 rates caused by immune suppression -- in fact, it's the opposite, they see an immediate benefit. The data could presumably address the rate of serious adverse AE's (involving hospitalization or death) as well. Thanks for this link!
Great post, thanks :-)
If you haven't seen it, vaccinepapers.org has a cogent explanation of how aluminum adjuvant can cause autism. Lots of other good stuff as well.
I used to faithfully get the annual flu shot. Then years ago I read a Stephanie Seneff article about aluminum as an adjuvant and never got another one after that. I don't remember mention of autism, but aluminum is simply toxic.
Very interesting thanks. It seems clear that the vaccines do substantially reduce severity / mortality risk of covid. This is extremely helpful for at risk individuals. There are also potential negative side effects of course, the magnitude and frequency of which seems to be debated. How do you personally weigh up these two countervailing forces? Or is it too early to make a definitive judgement? Of course the maths differs greatly depending on the risk status of the individual being vaccinated. Perhaps a simpler way of asking this - if you were in charge of public health policy what would be your vaccination strategy?
Oh - I just replied to your question in the other thread - https://unglossed.substack.com/p/reversal/comment/4231126 - So that's for the philosophical risk comparison answer.
Severe efficacy for the Covid vaccines is either a "healthy user bias" illusion (I'm skeptical), or a result of reduced viremia (spread of the virus in the bloodstream) thanks to the anti-spike antibodies which quickly ramp up upon infection even if they no longer are high enough to prevent infection. This is why triple-dosing was always pointless.
Monoclonal antibodies effectively provide the same benefit, for those who are at risk from infection. (And other therapeutics as well https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/math-plus-protocol/)
I do not think governments should be involved in "public health." Health, illness, death, these are all parts of what it means to be a human and should not be turned into a sim city game of stat-boosting, even before we get to the part where the stat-boosters start to invent problems as soon as people stop paying attention to them, then spend decades patting themselves on the back for giving millions of Americans a pointless drug (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/12/1/05-1007_article). And yet here we are again. These are experimental drugs with rushed, flawed, and distorted trial results (https://unglossed.substack.com/p/perfunctory) that should never have been released.
Thank you for your thoughts - much appreciated! I suppose you would not recommend even those in the top few percentiles of risk from covid to be offered the vaccines then? Or at least not until more robust trials have been conducted / completed?
Correct, and I wouldn't be in favor of the caveat. That might be a bit paternalistic - perhaps people should be able to make their own choices on the matter, even though true informed consent is not possible when not even the manufacturers know what the "information" is.
‘Perhaps’?!
I am just describing the status quo - drugs are not made available until appointed agencies deem them safe - without dressing it up in language that hides what the implications are.
So, it's not a job I would normally "want," since I support self-determinism. But most societies want someone in the job and if I were in the job I wouldn't pass on an experimental drug whose influence on biology and health no end-user can possibly understand.
Do you mean should we force people to be vaccinated or not, based on their relative risk profile?
Not at all. Nobody should be forced. Not sure why you would infer that from my question.
"if you were in charge of public health policy what would be your vaccination strategy?"
I guess I see it implied in the question itself: "vaccination strategy" seems to be a limited set of options:
1. people can choose to be vaccinated
2. people can't choose to be vaccinated (ie forced)
What other "strategies" are available for someone "in charge" of public health?
And note - it was a question seeking clarification, not an accusation.
Maybe it's just me but here in Australia the only options I see available to public health are:
1. show people the data and let them decide
2. coerce / force people to do it - as evidenced pretty much everywhere.
Ah ok - sorry if that was implied - I am firmly in the '1. show people the data and let them decide'. I abhor the coercion that we have witnessed over the last year. I suppose I still see a potential role for a central body to offer good and unbiased advice though, if 'net benefit' treatments exist. Many people simply don't have the time or inclination to do their own research. Of course this requires a trustworthy and wise central body though! And 'advice' should never become coercion. Anyway I'm sorry what you have had to go through in Australia. I truly hope 2022 brings happier times for all of us.
The crowdsourced knowledge method seems to work better. Messy and anecdote-driven as it is, it led to the Math+ protocol. Centralization and trials get us Mutagenic Molnupiravir.
But when it comes to licensing drugs in the first place, my instincts are more conflicted, as I mentioned in the other thread. Especially since there's loads of drugs already on the market that shouldn't be. Antidepressants that leak into the water and food, etc.
And apologies if you have covered this before!
Very good points. Very much agreed on the clinical trial point. It is frustrating to say the least.
The question of healthy user bias is indeed hard to slice. Even if the unvaccinated are over-all more "at risk," all the vaccine has to do is capture enough "high rollers" to collect back the observable severe would-be severe outcomes and deaths. So, if you look at breakthrough-infection leading to death entries in VAERS, you find a lot of previously-really-unhealthy people for example. But how do you know if there is any corresponding "protected at risk" group of high rollers? It comes down to guesswork obviously.
My immediate thought re: Israel dashboard is they muck around with the data. See twitter threads like this as an example: https://twitter.com/prof_shahar/status/1437793969992306693
Or substack articles like this: https://stephenc.substack.com/p/the-israeli-moh-caught-red-handed
Granted, it may not have any bearing on the analysis.
For the first one, yes, the 1st-dosed were seemingly removed from the dashboard a few months ago, which would include retroactively. Since I have never been greatly curious about outcomes among the 1st dosed, I prefer it this way anyway. For the second one, I wouldn't expect the dashboard to try to cover for a study that was overly rosy to deflect criticism of the study. The dashboard has typically shown more ugly results than studies. They redefined tons of stuff throughout the booster roll-out, as the original design was obviously for only two shots. But, maybe the "boosters don't prevent infection" was a politically sore point.
(I have no problem assuming boosters don't prevent infection but only make it more asymptomatic, so that it will show up on screening. Better that way anyway, so that boosters can't mess up the natural wave pattern and cause "forever spike.")
Interesting HIV/AIDS theories.
Though to be honest the theories aren't mutually exclusive.
However the first theory I think has a potential dating issue since phylogenetic analyses have shown that HIV (which isn't really just one virus but has HIV-1 with 4 lineages: M, N, O and P and HIV-2) has crossed into human populations at multiple times with the earliest time estimated as being in the 1910s-1920s (from chimps, likely as bushmeat, with the chimps in turn likely getting it from a recombination event following multiple infections of at least two SIVs from two different genera of monkeys that they hunted as prey).
Perhaps the polio vaccine/ADE theory might explain why an already established HIV-1 M (which as you note might not have been inherently aggressive in nature, as seems to be the case with the other 3 lineages of HIV-1 and particularly with HIV-2) might have caused the development of new strains of the M lineage of HIV-1 that eventually caused AIDS if persons in the Belgian Congo who got the contaminated polio vaccines also got a dose of the SIVs from monkeys that is most closely related to HIV-1 M and developed antibodies thereto and then subsequently got exposed to (presumably benign) these older strains of HIV-1 M.
So you get an early form of AIDS, which isn't identified as such and perhaps the whole procedure results in the evolution of more aggressive strains of HIV-1 M that are more successful at invading immune cells in hosts who already exhibit homologous HIV antibodies (thus ensuring these newer strains displace the pre-existing strains for persons in the Congo and Cameroon and heading to the rest of the world in the 1960s as pretty much the only strains and infecting persons sufficiently well to cause disease regardless of whether or not they had pre-existing HIV antibodies that helped to cause ADE - this would possibly help account for the earliest known retrospective cases of AIDS being in the mid-to-late 1960s; 1966 in a Norwegian man and 1966-1969 in the US).
The fact that apparently single use needles were reused (unsterile at that!) for mass vaccination, antibiotic and anti-malaria campaigns in colonial Africa in the 1950s would support theory 1 (and help to explain how even just a few vaccines contaminated with SIV or persons who had been vaccinated with the same needle used to vaccinate just one other person who picked up an SIV and then been vaccinated with the polio vaccine could spread the problem far and wide).
The measles eradication campaign in the late 1960s then basically cleared the way for HIV-1 M to become the New Measles.
That’s how dim my familiarity with the official story is - I thought the Norwegian was 76-79. Yes, a tag team ADE + niche abandonment was “crazy for this one Jay” version of my theories. Thank you - comment of the year.
Edward Hooper's exhaustively-researched theory that oral polio vaccine trials in the 1950s Belgian Congo started the AIDS epidemic is the strongest theory of HIV's origin I know of. The only "evidence" that stands against it is what C.H. mentioned - phylogenetic dating using a theoretical model that incorporates a "relaxed" molecular clock. A number of influential researchers, in their haste to dispel this absolute bombshell of a theory, decided to ignore the fact that HIV is one of the most recombinant viruses known to mankind. Such viruses cannot be accurately measured using phylogenetic dating techniques. These techniques are, if anything, most likely dating the original SIV ancestors of the HIV strains that crossed into humanity en masse when said OPV was trialed on hundreds of thousands of Africans, most of whom were children. Needles can't be blamed either because this vaccine was oral. The massive size of these trials combined with the methods used to amplify the vaccine using the sera of many different chimpanzees easily explains the sudden emergence of several different HIV strains.
The three earliest HIV infections that we have physical proof of are from 1959, 1960, and 1966. All three of them came from Leopoldville, now known as Kinshasa. Kinshasa was the epicenter of the OPV trials that began just a few years prior to that first 1959 case. The next earliest world sample of HIV-1 after 1966 dates from 1976. It also comes from the Congo, specifically a village east of Kinshasa.
I've been following the evolving OPV-AIDS hypothesis since I was in high school more than a decade ago. I'll post some links below this comment so you can investigate it further if you wish.
Thank you - fantastic leads, and tyia for any links!
http://www.aidsorigins.com/more-supportive-of-opv-aids-than-of-the-bushmeat-hypothesis-a-revised-response-to-the-recent-faria-paper-in-science/
This summary is fairly long but is IMO the briefest and most technically detailed post that provides a broad overview of OPV-AIDS and the relevant facts. It also helpfully goes over the objections raised by the bushmeat theorists in the context of OPV-AIDS. This post in particular could also lend some support to your related ADE-HIV theory.
http://www.aidsorigins.com/category/origins-documentary/
This documentary, while now hosted on YouTube by a dude with a joker avatar, was released in the early 2000s on public television and won multiple awards. It contains multiple documented statements by those involved with OPV that wild chimp sera was indeed used to prep the vaccine. While Bill Hamilton was alive many people were forced to take the OPV-AIDS hypothesis seriously because of his fame and influence. Scientists involved didn't turn fully to unscientific methods of discrediting the theory until after Hamilton died from malaria caught while he was in Africa trying to find more evidence for OPV-AIDS.
http://www.aidsorigins.com/the-river-a-journey-to-the-source-of-hiv-and-aids-2021-edition-by-edward-hooper/
Edward Hooper just recently re-released his exhaustively-researched book on OPV-AIDS. The River doesn't incorporate all of the things Hooper has discovered in the 20+ years since it was published, but it is still a very readable and fascinating overview of the entire theory and most of its supporting evidence.
Brian you have so much information, but it is hard to digest in one shot. Can you break into smaller posts? Thank you and not a negative, but we are overwhelmed these days. You have incisive clarity but many heads are spinning.....
I have been giving it a lot of thought. I myself am perpetually overwhelmed with the subject matter covered here, so not conveying that to the page is difficult. But what I primarily wanted to avoid with "Unglossed" is becoming just another platform for listing conclusions that can be taken as true without digesting the evidence.
The solution might be for there to be a satellite blog - "shorter unglossed." The index (in the about page) is at least an interim version.
Yup. I think I might be becoming an old timey anti-vaxxer. It’s a weird thing. I feel like I’m admitting to being a Nazi.
This idea that you are 4 times more likely to be infected with omicron if you have been vaccinated ( Denmark)…how about you are just 4 times more likely to be infected with anything ? I’m thinking about the vaccines as they apply to the immune system generally and not as they apply specifically to covid. Just a thought.
Also I really like your cool headed-ness. You’ve a nice anti-hysteria quality about your outlook. It’s needed.
Many thanks,
Ryk
Oh and also quickly becoming an old-time anti-vaxer.
Yes I agree 100% re; anti-hysteria. A welcome change from either side of the fence.
Thanks Ryk. Well this kinda sums up my position. Brian - you are indeed cool-headed and have a nice anti-hysteria presentation. And Ryk - you are not a Natzy to share your personal determinations and who could have known where this would end up, not that it has. These are very strange days.
Strange days indeed. Who would believe it? Any of it. It’s all just too incredible. Have a nice day and best to you. I do like feeling I have found this community after the analogue one kicked me out :)
I believe we are all weirded out at the way things are becoming, and a new community has grown around this discordance. This is an organic environment, and aren't we lucky to have it. And have a nice day to you too Ryk.
Yep. Currently wondering which vaccination causes Type 2.
All vaccinations are shit is the position that I've arrived at.
More brilliant theories. Thanks. Curious about the graphs at the top. Over 60, looks like more are severely ill (28, unvaxed) than are infected (17, unvaxed). Did they miss a decimal point? Or different denominators? Looks like the similar under 60 charts have a much smaller number in the ordinate, with fractional values, for seriously ill. Over 60 has larger numbers with no fractions.
Either way, it looks like the overwhelming majority at any age are not identified infected, and not sick. Same everywhere. We find in every survey that many more have been previously infected, but not reported, probably not noticed. It's beyond amazing that we continue to obsess over weakness in a tiny portion of every society, and averaged statistics, as if everyone is equally at risk. We're not. Competent medical industry would be focused on why a few are vulnerable while most are mostly unaffected, not trying to terrorize the healthy.
It's ongoing hospitalizations rates, so there is a backlog until patients are dismissed; while cases are per day. The same graph on the dashboard displays new admissions when you click the radio button.
I appreciate you pointing out that many people who quote these stats seem to forget to observe that there is and has been a reduction in case severity for the vaccines. It is a shame because it's kind of disingenuous, yet there are legitimate counter factors: when you take into account vaccine injury, "partial" vaccinees, and in many places failure to offer early treatment.
It means that these severe case stats are correct, but may still be a losing proposition when net effect is compared to early treatment. Unfortunately it's a difficult or impossible analysis to make, and this forms a difficult wedge in discussions of efficacy.. and it makes it too easy to discount many authors like alex
Right, all those counter factors of course being excluded from consideration from the other side. So refusal to acknowledge severe outcome efficacy - or allow even a minor hit on masks - is essentially declaring "we can't win the argument unless we win it by their rules." That's exactly backward. The rules were wrong from go.
On autism, the metal makes it worse but it is the milk proteins in the vaccine that cause it.
Cow's milk protein contaminated vaccines cause 75% of autism cases
https://vinuarumugham.substack.com/p/cows-milk-protein-contaminated-vaccines
Hey buddy, as someone who enjoys a lot of dairy products you'd better not be mean to cow's milk!
(Also, thank you for the link.)
Dairy products are great for INGESTION. No complaints. Injecting dairy products programs the immune system to recognize them as pathogens/toxins. That's the disaster we are now facing:
Milk containing vaccines cause milk allergies, EoE, autism and type 1 diabetes
https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k2396/rr
That's some fascinating information in there, definitely going to take a look.
I have to say, before covid I was somewhat indifferent to vaccines -- although having seen their deleterious affect on the health of my dogs over time I became very careful to push the required vaccinations out as far as they could possibly go with my dogs -- but after the crap we've seen over the past year and learning about the real efficacy of the traditional vaccines, I'm really moving into the heavily-suspicious-of-vaccines-camp.
When I had a bat land on me in the middle of the night two years ago and scratch/bite me with broken skin, I couldn't get that rabies vaccination series quickly enough. But for Covid? Never even a consideration. Thanks again for the info!
Thank you Mos51 for noting your dogs' health. Having 30 years ago stupidly doped up my first indoor cat with annual boosters (the latest and greatest thing!), ending up with him being put out of his pain, riddled with tumors, at age 8. Never again. The rest of my cats lived into late teens, no shots except for kitty jabs. My vet knows not to bring up meds//jabs bc I will talk him down a path he does not want to acknowledge. This is unfortunately the new Pharma Market. Folks want to do the best for their furkids, but propaganda reigns. Furious also about stacked meds. You can't get flea meds without heartworm etc. I will stick with Nature thanks.
"deleterious affect on the health of my dogs"
Another person with a similar background:
https://over-vaccination.net
Wow - great link!
Thank you, I have added it to my footnotes.
Thank you!