Jul 29, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Maybe the triple jabbed looks better because of what the bad cat calls Bayesian data crime. In other words all the deaths within 14 days of taking the 3rd jab actually fall into the double jabbed bucket.
Jul 29, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
I think there is an effort to create doubt with regard to ALL data/statistics/science so that there is no way to come to any conclusions. Classic tactic of the Intelligence Community.
Jul 29, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
"Can these results be explained by the healthy vaccinee effect"
I think you mean the healthy unvaccinated effect. The healthy vaccine effect is what happens when healthier people get vaccinated causing bias in the VE. I've long argued on my substack that these two populations are completely distinct, so yes, it could be that healthier people chose to be unvaccinated in the UK. Though, studies elsewhere have found the opposite. Again, deaths are edge cases, so a tiny change in the distribution of underlying confounders can have an enormous change on death rates.
Jul 30, 2022·edited Jul 30, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
If it weren't so serious, watching all this data manipulation (and still they can't make the numbers line-up in their favour) would be hilarious.
Anyway, now we've established comparing jabbed to unjabbed is "unhelpful" because it's far more complicated than that, and the data manipulation that jabbers are willing to indulge in has exposed them for the ideological charlatans they apparently always were, how could anyone ever make a proper cost/benefit analysis ever again? I'll never trust a doctor hawking an amazing new breakthrough ever again.
Jul 29, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
This doesn't look at all even half as bad as expected if the claims other prominent substackers made about excess mortality in several countries circa 1 month ago were accurate.
At a glance, 30,488 all-cause mortality is a very low total number of deaths for the month of May. And this confirms it:
2019 May deaths were 44000+. Almost 50% higher. Yes, it includes Wales while yours doesn't but the point still stands. Wales is less than 10% of England in terms of population. I can't believe the 30488 number for May 2022 can be correct at all. Having the whole data might yield a different result. I am pretty sure they don't hide unvaccinated deaths. That would be something. How large is the registration delay for deaths?
Jul 29, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
I also think there is an opposite cofounder that is becoming less prevalent with time: the very unhealthy unjabbed effect. People who were struggling with terminal illness say might have not been jabbed (or perhaps only had one) due to their compromised health, so of course they are likely to die, leading to a pandemic of unvaccinated. Over time this population would decline...
I don't think the single-jabbed were necessarily unhealthier - they just happened to draw the short straw and die after the first jab, so didn't have the opportunity to get a subsequent one.
Jul 30, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
if you don't have an innate or adaptive immune system left because of age and/or to much magic juice (triple jabbed) ... then you might not see an all cause mortality difference in the data.
the absolute risk reduction was miniscule to begin with. then if the immune system becomes largely ineffective, relative risk reduction positive or negative will not show.
younger people and people with a more competent immune system will get negatively affected by the magic juice because they produce an immune reaction (in whatever dysfunctional way) to begin with in the first place.
We can keep generating "explanations" to account for the difference between our expectations & our results, and our explanations may even be correct, but - regardless - we're missing the forest for the trees: if the benefits of vaccination are so easily confounded by age, pre-existing health, etc., then the benefits aren't very large to begin with & that's the key point: the benefits MUST be very tiny, we've prove that point beyond doubt.
And given the risks, isn't that the end of it? Now that we know the benefits are tiny, does it really matter precisely how tiny they are?
I'm sure, for example, that eating broccoli every single day of your life has some marginal benefit, but would we mandate daily broccoli? Spend trillions subsidizing it?
Or eat broccoli if it occasionally killed people?
This evidence is dispositive to rational minds because it proves the benefits, if any, are tiny, and that's good enough.
Thank you. ACM, my fav stat :)
In Canada they have stopped reporting the vaccination status of dead people for some strange unbeknownst reason. I wonder why .... ?
Keep Fighting!
Maybe the triple jabbed looks better because of what the bad cat calls Bayesian data crime. In other words all the deaths within 14 days of taking the 3rd jab actually fall into the double jabbed bucket.
An entire generation of bureaucrats will need to be weeded out before we've any hope of creating a sane world.
I think there is an effort to create doubt with regard to ALL data/statistics/science so that there is no way to come to any conclusions. Classic tactic of the Intelligence Community.
"Can these results be explained by the healthy vaccinee effect"
I think you mean the healthy unvaccinated effect. The healthy vaccine effect is what happens when healthier people get vaccinated causing bias in the VE. I've long argued on my substack that these two populations are completely distinct, so yes, it could be that healthier people chose to be unvaccinated in the UK. Though, studies elsewhere have found the opposite. Again, deaths are edge cases, so a tiny change in the distribution of underlying confounders can have an enormous change on death rates.
But it's Safe and Effective™.
I think Prof Fenton has given up on using ONS data - categorisation errors I think he said.
If it weren't so serious, watching all this data manipulation (and still they can't make the numbers line-up in their favour) would be hilarious.
Anyway, now we've established comparing jabbed to unjabbed is "unhelpful" because it's far more complicated than that, and the data manipulation that jabbers are willing to indulge in has exposed them for the ideological charlatans they apparently always were, how could anyone ever make a proper cost/benefit analysis ever again? I'll never trust a doctor hawking an amazing new breakthrough ever again.
This doesn't look at all even half as bad as expected if the claims other prominent substackers made about excess mortality in several countries circa 1 month ago were accurate.
At a glance, 30,488 all-cause mortality is a very low total number of deaths for the month of May. And this confirms it:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/monthlyfiguresondeathsregisteredbyareaofusualresidence
2019 May deaths were 44000+. Almost 50% higher. Yes, it includes Wales while yours doesn't but the point still stands. Wales is less than 10% of England in terms of population. I can't believe the 30488 number for May 2022 can be correct at all. Having the whole data might yield a different result. I am pretty sure they don't hide unvaccinated deaths. That would be something. How large is the registration delay for deaths?
Eager to see this analysis on a much larger population size over a much longer time. Thanks!
I also think there is an opposite cofounder that is becoming less prevalent with time: the very unhealthy unjabbed effect. People who were struggling with terminal illness say might have not been jabbed (or perhaps only had one) due to their compromised health, so of course they are likely to die, leading to a pandemic of unvaccinated. Over time this population would decline...
But were the single-jabbed unhealthy to start or were they severely damaged by the first dose?
What are the causes of death? That matters. More strokes, heart attacks, than baseline?
I don't think the single-jabbed were necessarily unhealthier - they just happened to draw the short straw and die after the first jab, so didn't have the opportunity to get a subsequent one.
if you don't have an innate or adaptive immune system left because of age and/or to much magic juice (triple jabbed) ... then you might not see an all cause mortality difference in the data.
the absolute risk reduction was miniscule to begin with. then if the immune system becomes largely ineffective, relative risk reduction positive or negative will not show.
younger people and people with a more competent immune system will get negatively affected by the magic juice because they produce an immune reaction (in whatever dysfunctional way) to begin with in the first place.
How does ur analysis tie in with the insurance industry's numbers?.....
Some companies claim an unprecedented higher all cause mortality rate...never witnessed before.
We can keep generating "explanations" to account for the difference between our expectations & our results, and our explanations may even be correct, but - regardless - we're missing the forest for the trees: if the benefits of vaccination are so easily confounded by age, pre-existing health, etc., then the benefits aren't very large to begin with & that's the key point: the benefits MUST be very tiny, we've prove that point beyond doubt.
And given the risks, isn't that the end of it? Now that we know the benefits are tiny, does it really matter precisely how tiny they are?
I'm sure, for example, that eating broccoli every single day of your life has some marginal benefit, but would we mandate daily broccoli? Spend trillions subsidizing it?
Or eat broccoli if it occasionally killed people?
This evidence is dispositive to rational minds because it proves the benefits, if any, are tiny, and that's good enough.