don't know about UK, but in US you are not considered "vaccinated" until 2 weeks after your second jab. Convenient for those "unvaxxed" death stats isn't it?
Oh, "rules". Where are the "rules"? What makes this different? The mRNA aspect? OK call it an mRNA <whatever> that will reduce your symptoms if you are infected with Covid.
Whatever, it takes 2 weeks for the <whatever you call it> to be effective. Gee, this is true of vaccines.
So, don't call it a vaccine. I don't care. The 2 week requirement that keeps being tossed around is a "Red Herring". IOW, meaningless BS.
I appreciate this rant. It’a so bizarre that certain leading Covid-vax-skeptical substacks obsess over the idea that all the stats are garbage because they only tell us how these injections work... after there has been enough time for the biology to take place... wow what a “scam.”
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/vaccines-dont-stop-covid-hospitalizations - the study Berenson reviews here actually shows 56.6% severe efficacy. Like all other data supporting severe efficacy, it is just routinely reported as not supporting it and then absorbed as such by readers who don't look at the actual study.
The jabs certainly aren't protecting well against infection. In fact, they seem to be enhancing it. While the data does suggest a benefit against death, I have my doubts. We certainly have no real analysis of cost-benefit, especially for younger cohorts, because the "public health experts" are pretending nothing bad ever happens after injection.
Anyone who has been injected once is part of the treatment arm not the control arm. They are not unvaxxed.
Anyone who has been boosted (3 doses) is not double-jabbed even if they haven't reached the 14-day mark.
Anyone who believes the 14-day window was arbitrary or chosen for optimal immunity isn't dealing with reality.
You seem to be insinuating that the vaccine itself causes Covid. Surely you realize the faulty logic in that right? We aren't talking about "cases" we are talking about "deaths from all causes".
Yes, there is a risk to getting vaccinated. You might die from the vaccine. One has to weigh that risk against not getting vaccinated and then dying from Covid.
In the over 90 category, it is 70,000 per 100,000. IOW 7 out of 10 people died. Well, doesn't that seem logical? I hardly expect to reach 90. If I do, I sincerely doubt I'd live to be 100. Getting vaccinated or catching Covid has absolutely nothing to do with this.
I was doing a "retirement plan" just the other day, my financial advisor tells me I'll be dead at 92. Gee they must be psychics.
We have had rather strong evidence for some time now for a period of increased susceptibility to covid for about 2-3 weeks following each vaccine dose.
Thus the vaccines aren't 'causing covid' but rather increasing the propensity to catch covid for a few weeks. There are immunological mechanisms that can explain this.
This effect is so strong and so visible in official measures of vaccine protection against infection that I'm very surprised that people weren't given the advice to self isolate for 21 days following vaccination. There are many cases of individuals becoming seriously ill or dying soon after vaccination -- this is explained away as being 'sad -- they died before antibodies could form', but in reality it looks more like they died because they weren't informed of the increased risk period.
Well, I was reading Scott Baker today explain how when he was getting vaxxed in NYC the clinic he was at was packed with people. There was no way of keeping 6 ft distance and it took hours to complete the process. Gee, put a bunch of people into a confined space, some of them sick already, and the result is more get sick.
Now, I'm not saying this one story explains the anomaly you claim. But I am saying you sound a lot like Ned Pierce responding to Matt Lee.
This really just seems to be an illusion. I see people everywhere say there’s evidence of higher infections after the shot. But, there literally isn’t. It’s just something everyone seems to imagine they saw on an el gato malo meme.
I always say that we now during 90 years have seen that vaccine dos more harm than help, but the drug producers, as I call them, hide it the trouth, so that in the books for doctor education there are not written about vaccination sideproblems. And telling that the famous vaccines for poleo and so on nearly had gone away when the vaccines came, and actually instead resulted in the diseases starting to return, increase. I my book revius in Amazon (417), I many time have pointed out failures in among other the doctor books (600 - 800). Concerning vaccinations, among other we recall the polio in California back i 1934, with the 198 doctors and nurses in the hospital where the vaccine was produced, they all were hit by the extreme fatigue and payied compensation, and the doctor behind the vaccine took his own life in 1939, 35 year old. And what about autism, caused by vaccination, Alzheimers and most cancer without doubt also caused by vaccinations.
I saw a report from Pfizer (unfortunately not bookmarked) comparing BNT162b2 (the commercialized version) with candidate BNT162b1. The degree of immunosuppression was horrible for the candidate and not all that much better for b2. The period of immunosuppression was very similar for each - coincidentally declining up to 14 days from jab.
If I give you a magic pill and tell you that 14 days from the moment you swallow it you will experience <whatever you want>, and after 13 days it still hasn't happened, you can't complain to me that it failed. I told you, up front, 14 days.
Did my magic pill fail? No, you failed to follow the instructions I gave you.
Your complaint is similar to you wanting tomatoes. I can give you tomato seeds but you will bitch because you put them in the ground yesterday but have no tomatoes today.
So the I gave you tomato-toxin seeds?
Give me a break.
Just to be clear, I offered up a simile. (maybe a metaphor) As such I was only addressing one particular aspect of the debate. No one should come away from this thinking that I'm defending mRNA vaccines in their entirety. There may indeed be some very serious negative effects. And it is absolutely true that some people appear to have died from the vaccine.
There's the choice you, as an informed human being, have to make. Am I going to die from the vaccine or die from Covid or perhaps there is a third or fourth alternative.
Given 'covid19' is not even one illness there is nothing the vaccine can do to prevent you from getting it (except what doctored numbers show) and there is no risk (beyond) normal that any vaccinated will get one of the random array of symptoms lumped into that bucket.
Yes I have seen a graph showing that most op the persons who died by vaccination died the 2nd day, 24-48 hours, and second most 0-24 hours after injection, and after these 2 days then a much lower top for the straigth line for weeks.
There's no evidence that I need more. Why should I get another one? I'm not advocating for another.
In fact, I'm not advocating anything. Get vaxxed. Don't get vaxxed. Your choice.
Much like people who wouldn't wear a seat beat because they were afraid of being trapped in a car on fire. The possibility of being trapped is not nil. OTOH, if you don't wear a seatbelt you'll probably be dead from the crash before the fire can burn you up.
As answer to What? I during years have told that probably in the future vaccination be banned. That is concerning vaccines against diseases, viruses and bacteries, from outside the body, while not vaccines banned for the "diseases", which we during life have inside the body, but only for some person suddently starts. The immune system known how to fight virusses, af for the flu, and the B cells to remember them. Like Malone warns again the mRNA vaccines against the Covid-19, but by himself not totally against all kind of vaccination.
Precisely. It takes 14 days for the vaccine to work. The decision to put it at 14 days is kind of arbitrary since obviously on day 1 your body starts manufacturing the antibodies to combat the virus. The question is whether this is a linear growth or an exponential growth. Probably the latter.
Its like that "joke" where the king's jester was going to be executed, but in exchange he only wanted on kernel of wheat placed on the corner of the chessboard and then have it doubled on the next square and the next and so on. The king agreed, to his chagrin, because on the last square the jester owned ever kernel of wheat, not only in the kingdom, but in the entire world.
So, that is right, your body doesn't build the defenses it needs until 14 days after getting jabbed.
Pharma companies make deliberate, not arbitrary, decisions. The 14-day window was likely chosen to hide adverse events and immunosuppression following the first jab. Everyone who has been injected is part of the treatment arm, even if they don't fit the category of "fully vaxxed". Any infection or adverse event (like death or injury from the injection) should be attributed to the treatment arm. This was a shell game chosen to hide inconvenient data.
fuck you, no this is data manufacturing to assault people smart enough not to take the dangerous experimental untested "vaccine". If you have received a jab you need to be counted as a gullible vaxxed dumbass and if you die (likely FROM the vaxx) then categorized as such. Total disinformation from the govt hacks getting paid off by pfizer crooks - and dopes like you that sit on their ass watching cnn cult shows all day.
The NZ health minister, commenting on the booster, stated that antibody manufacture starts within a couple of hours and provides protection. I think the 14 day period is very generous. If the vax can cause an Adverse Reaction within hours and the first couple of days following injection, then it's products must be widely dispersed.
But the evidence is overwhelming that it is the unvaxxed who die from covid.
There are indeed some people who die from the vaccine(s), but an analysis of results in Australia shows it was 11 out of millions vs the many who dies unvaxxed. Once upon a time, I would have provided links to that evidence. But no one ever follows that kind of thing. They just believe what they want to believe.
Thank you! Very logical and convincing, beyond a reasonable doubt. They miscategorize in order to provide the headline "data" so that the further jabs can be pushed, despite their deadliness and harm. Very effective construct. Works every time. No shame, no morals, no principles, no conscience, no fear of God.
This is the logical devolution of atheist societies. Although the proof of the existence of God is simple and indisputable. We know the devil exists. Thence, God must exist too. Q.E.D.
It looks to me like it is a form of 'healthy vaccinee' effect.
They're vaccinating pretty much everyone, but there is a group that isn't being vaccinated -- those so very ill and close to death that the vaccine side effects might finish them off.
The important point that many people miss is that most people don't die suddenly -- they become ill with a disease/condition that ends in death, and thus their final fate is telegraphed early.
With this 'healthy vaccinee' hypothesis as each vaccination dose campaign gets underway in each age group you see those closest to death not get vaccinated and thus get concentrated into the 'previous state of vaccination' group. This makes the death rates in the 'previous state of vaccination' soar. Then, over the next few months, these very very ill individuals die and deaths in the 'previous state of vaccination' return to being similar to the group that took the next dose.
The time course of the increase in deaths in the prior-vaccine-state group reflects the longevity of those identified as 'shouldn't have the next dose'. This looked to be about 3 months or so for first doses given in early 2020, but it has become progressively longer as, presumably, they are allowing more very ill people to forgo their next vaccine dose.
This is why we need to have proper matched cohort studies to investigate the vaccines; the current vaccine surveillance methods (in particular test-negative case-control) are not designed to be used in the current situation.
Interesting explanation, thanks! I'm still not fully convinced though. If healthy vaccinees had the first dose, why would the the second peak be even higher (orange line) if this group had already been filtered to contain healthier individuals?
They didn't know about the effect early on -- during the first roll-out of the vaccine they gave it to people who where clinging onto life and the side effects finished them off. As soon as they realised that they'd made this mistake they changed the protocol so that they didn't give the vaccine to those closest to death. This is documented as occurring in some countries and is presumed to have occurred in most.
By the time the second dose came along there were a number of people who hadn't been so bad during Dec/Jan but who were now close to death (sadly, that's how terminal diseases work). These then were spared vaccination and this put their deaths into the smaller single dose cohort.
I also note that the 'one dose only' cohort is the smallest cohort, in the UK at least. People either remained unvaccinated or took both doses as advised; for example, in the UK for those aged >80, about 6% remain unvaccinated, about 1% have one dose only and about 4% have two doses only (and thus about 89% have had all three doses). Thus the 'concentrate the ones that die' effect was seen most strongly in those that had one dose and not two.
If the 'healthy vaccinee' effect explains it then it would also explain high numbers of unvaccinated in ICUs and efficacy claims against COVID? They can't have it both ways.
The cohort size varies with time, isn't the moment we saw the greatest excess in mortality was when the cohort size was the biggest?
Can someone add to the graphs the cohort size to see if the effect only starts being noticeable as the cohort size becomes small, thus when only the frail are left off, or can already be seen when the cohort size is significant?
So just received an email from CVS. Get the booster after testing positive for COVID????? Booster shots are the best protection against severe complications from COVID-19, especially during the ongoing surge of the Omicron variant.
If you’ve recently tested positive for COVID-19, the CDC advises that you get a booster once you’re symptom-free and have completed the recommended isolation period.
That's madness -- vaccine side effect rates are through the roof in the period immediately after infection, and there's no requirement for any additional vaccine doses as the immune response to natural infection gives long lived protection that's far superior to that offered by the vaccines.
Spike in acute deaths which are then miscategorized in terms of vaccination status.
Not ruling out other later effects of course, inc widespread Covid outbreaks and death caused by sudden mass immunosuppression associated with the vac rollout.
"Why does the unvaccinated mortality rate shoot up during 1st dose vaccinations, they haven’t been vaccinated?"
For older groups, this reflects short-term healthy user bias. People "on their death bed" don't get the first dose. So as people not on their death bed exit the group (by being 1st-dosed) the denominator drops and the death rate goes up.
"Why does the 1st dose mortality rate shoot up after second dose vaccinations, they haven’t had a second dose?"
Same, again. It just repeats, those who can take the 2nd dose leave the denominator and those whose health went south after the first dose are left behind.
"And now, why does 2nd dose mortality rates shoot up, as boosters begin, when they haven’t had a booster?"
Literally same, again.
Once you get into younger groups, this gets a lot more complicated. There's bias toward the vulnerable for pre-spring 1st doses, so the death rate drops as the general population qualifies. Then for the 18-39 group you add another wrinkle, in that the unvaccinated 18-39 "get younger" when the vaccine becomes available because more 30-39s take it, so there's a drop all the way until summer. The summer bump could be normal trends or reflect the younger+healthy leaving the 18-29 pool by getting 1st-dosed. The various dosed groups "get older" at first and then "get younger" as well, all the way to boosters, which hides the healthy user drain visible in the above sets.
There's a paper that investigated the first 100 deaths in nursing homes following the vaccination campaign in Norway, as they saw this uptick of excess mortality without it being COVID.
Two independent group investigated the cause of death.
The uptick in deaths was not caused by the 'healthy vaccine effect' as they studied the deaths in the vaccinated group.
They arrived to the conclusions that 10% of the deaths were due to the vaccine, another 26% were possibly due to the vaccine.
There's more evidence to support the prioritisation of vaccination in the most frail groups than to support not vaccinating people on their dead bed as testimonies this article.
After all, if vaccines are safe, why not start by vaccinating the group that is at most risk of COVID death? Which is why all around the world they started with the oldest, and frailest.
Right, that would be intuitive. It’s why I’m skeptical that the UK healthy user bias should be extrapolated to other countries, especially not the US where elder care is abysmal. If the Norway nursing homes are injecting the near-death, the data will look one way; if they are excluding them, it will look totally different. Key here is that the ONS provides 0-20 day mortality post first dose, and it’s lower than baseline (it’s not plotted above). So either the vax is magically reducing death or the near-death are being subtracted from the 0-20 day window population.
So, the rest of the world vaccinated the old and frail, but for some reason, the UK didn't? There's no evidence to backup this claim, even for the third dose, the instructions were clear as for the initial vaccination campaign: vaccinate the group risk first. That is just convenience without evidence.
Prof Norman Fenton addresses some of the statistical assumptions to make this claim hold in the appendix and section 7 of his recent updated paper.
On the other hand, we can backup risk induced by the vaccines itself just by looking at the initial clinical trials, a group in Canada did a great synthesis of the clinical trials results itself (see resume below). If somehow similar adverse events would have happened after the deployment, some of them could be see in Pharmacovigilance systems reports: Eudravigilance, VAERS, Yellowcard, Swissmedic. All these Pharmacovigilance broke records in terms of reported events, which lead the Nordic group to investigate those 100 cases early 2021.
We also now know that the second dose tends to have a higher rate of adverse events than the first one (e.g. Danish Study below, multiple more in peer-reviewed literature), if this hold true, we can expect the total excess mortality followed by the second dose to be higher than the first dose.
We do see this an increased effect in the excess in the 1 dose >20 days vaccine group is higher than unvaccinated, as in this group it's the second dose inducing the effect. Confirming yet again that second dose is more risky than first one.
With the 'healthy vaccine effect' shouldn't we have expected actually a reduction of excess mortality in the 1 dose group taking into consideration a significant amount of the 'soon to die group' would not have made it to the second vaccine. Finally the timespan is relatively small (3 months), leaving little time to accumulate more 'soon to die' members in the 1 dose group.
Finally, we can assume a young person can tolerate more easily an adverse event than an old person, such as high fever, general hyper inflammation, etc, thus we can expect an adverse event leading to death to be less significant compared to the total population.
Can you give us a single public statement or paper confirming that the policy of choice was leaving out the frail from the vaccination campaign in the UK?
I just can't seem to find anywhere evidence for the 'healthy vaccine effect', but there's plenty of evidence to backup the 'deadly vaccine effect'.
While the following study concerns only Pfizer, we know that the other vaccines have a higher adverse event ratio than Pfizer, making this the lower threshold of all deployed vaccines.
This is veering into overly dogmatic territory. "There's no evidence to backup this claim" - we are literally discussing the evidence. The raise in death rates for the unvaccinated and the low death rates for the recently dosed *is* evidence, in fact essentially iron-clad proof, that among the elderly either 1) the vaccine magically kills people who don't take it, and makes people who take it super-healthy or 2) the near-death were excluded from being dosed at every interval.
ONS provides the death rates for the 0-20 day windows for every dose, they just aren't plotted out in the graphs in this post. I've already said this above. These deaths and person years are *not* being assigned to the status that precedes issuance of the dose. And... the result is hugely lower deaths in the 0 to 20 day windows, for every dose. You can hash out the math yourself. I've done the 1st dose values for the youngest cohorts here, but as the note says I left out 2nd dose values because I needed the space and they were so low as to be not even worth presenting - https://unglossed.substack.com/p/into-the-weeds-uk-deaths-data
Finally, what is the procedural evidence for short term healthy user bias - the "single public statement"?
"In line with WHO guidance, first up are care home residents and health workers, then older and clinically extremely vulnerable people. Among those excluded from the mass vaccination plan at present are pregnant women, children under 16, and ***those with health conditions that put them at very high risk of serious outcomes***" https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n421
Ah, I see you are part of the paper Jonathan posted above - everything falls into place now! What explanation do you give for the anomalies and do you see a spike in deaths?
I understand the denominator issue but why would the mortality rates spike and not plateau? Surely, the group that is left behind with health issues would have a continuous high mortality rate, it wouldn't immediately drop again?
Because it’s a short term artifact. It’s like measuring “going to the bathroom rate” for residents of an apartment building right after you declare a pizza party in the courtyard. It will be higher for 15 minutes, as everyone who was already going to the bathroom can’t go to the courtyard. Then in minutes 15-30, it will be normal, as all you are measuring is “people who didn’t feel like having pizza.”
Meanwhile, to make the “immortal bathroom effect” go away in the courtyard, just declare that a movie is starting in the clubhouse. Now all the people going to the courtyard bathrooms are stuck behind again and the rate shoots up here. But after 15 minutes it goes down again as you are left with “people who just wanted pizza but not a movie.”
First dose +21 days is going to be people whose health went south after the first shot. There’s no “didn’t feel like getting pizza” baseline to return to, this is people who “wanted the second dose” but aren’t able to take it. Signal for adverse events? Maybe, but since the denominator is driving the rate you can’t really put a scale to this one.
Likely both at once. And even more of both at once in the 1st dose >21 days group. When you look at the raw numbers for deaths in that group it gives you an idea of the ceiling / scale for downstream-of-adverse-event deaths. Note that the deaths in the <21 days post-dose groups might also be AEs but the rates are always going to be lower than baseline due to the trick of discounting the normal near-death contribution from the population.
Could you solve for this by taking all of the vaccinated subgroups and recombining them?
If the increased deaths from the orange and grey graph lines is simply them being the sub population of vaccinated people that are not healthy enough to get a 2nd dose or booster, then it makes sense their mortality is increased. Recombining all of the vaccinated subgroups to compare non-COVID mortality among vaccinated and unvaccinated people would be more straight-forward and avoid this potential Simpson’s Paradox.
If that data is compiled and presented then I would expect non-COVID mortality to be slightly higher in the vaccinated population due to that population not dying of COVID as often as unvaccinated people. To resolve that potential confounder you would probably need a comparison of COVID, non-COVID, and all-cause mortality between the two groups. I am not sure how easy that data is to come by, however it seems the best way to resolve what initially looks like damning evidence but which may be an artifact of subgroup analysis.
I don't think it's miscategorisation (I used to as you probably know). They have added <21 days for doses 1 and 2 now and have said in numerous FOI requests that they are categorising unvaccinated correctly.
So, if it's not the numerator, it must be the denominator? There is little transparency on their person-years calculation. I'm looking at that...
Feb 5, 2022·edited Feb 5, 2022Liked by NE - Naked Emperor Newsletter
I was looking at the massive discrepancy in the NON-Covid ASMR between the vaccinated and non-vaccinated.
This dataset (as did the last one) appears to account for some ~39m persons. By the ONS mid-year population estimate, there would be ~47.7m population (over 10 yrs) in England. This leaves over 10m unaccounted for?
Reasoning that these 10m might be likely to have not received a vaccination, as a quick 'n' dirty experiment, I tried distributing the 10m proportionally across the age groups of 'unvaccinated' cohort.
This made the apparent NON-covid heath benefits of vaccination practically disappear (except for the 'low power' younger (<30yrs) groups, which got worse).
It's also a real shame that this latest dataset doesn't include the 5-year age groupings of the last one (I mean T13: '10-39'? C'mon!). We can still calculate 10 - 17yrs, though, but really. All this '<3' business is for what? It makes me think that there's something in there that we're not supposed to see. Which makes me want to look even harder. ;)
Ok interesting. Brian mentioned the denominator above. I understand his point but why would the rates spike instead of plateau if the group got smaller but contained more ill people? Surely the rate would stay high instead of dropping straight back down again?
It drops back down again as the individuals that were close to death (and were spared the next dose of vaccine) die off and the 'previous state of vaccination' group looks 'like the normal population' again (in terms of the proportion of people considered likely to die soon).
It sounds like this could be chalked up to (some degree) these deaths, just aren't given the label as a COVID-19 death. I'm not saying they were COVID-19 deaths prior because we know they were mostly just deaths with a previous positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. I'm also not saying the vaccine isn't killing people; I'm just saying this data is still inconclusive, and we need to do more research. But indeed the vaccine program should be stopped immediately.
I have a theory about the graphs above and I do not think that they show anything about vaccine safety or that their pattern is even unique to vaccines. After my theory statement I have a longer explanation, a few predictions, and a non-covid thought experiment.
Theory: the mortality rates will always be higher in groups of people that only partially complete a medical intervention relative to those who either finish the intervention or never start it.
Explanation: Controlling for similarities between study groups is really hard. If there is ever selection bias in how the study groups are formed, then that bias difference can easily overwhelm the effect of what intervention you are trying to study. The graphs above look at people at various stages of their vaccination status. However, there is likely selection bias in what causes people to move from one group to another. Many people who start their series of shots, but do not complete it would fail to do so because new or worsening medical problems make future vaccinations medically unnecessary. This effect results in a disproportionate number of healthy people finishing their vaccination series and a disproportionate number of the unhealthy not finishing. As a result, the partially completed groups will have worse mortality data and the fully completed groups will have better than expected mortality data. In fact, when the ‘>21 days after 2nd shot’ group represented a fully complete series it had great mortality data. Once boosters were approved and that same group started to represent people who did not complete their series of shots, then that group started to select for unhealthy people and the group’s mortality rate rose.
Prediction: If a second booster (4th shot) is approved then the mortality data for the ‘>21 days after 3rd shot’ will start to select for a disproportionately unhealthy group and will show a higher non-COVID mortality than unvaccinated people. Likewise, those with a completed 4th shot will be disproportionately healthy. I further predict that this pattern appears frequently in other forms of serial medical interventions.
Thought experiment: Imagine I take a large number of men, meet with them and schedule half of them for a prostate exam in 3 months. One year later I track them all down and look at the mortality data. If I look at the mortality data for those scheduled for a prostate exam against those who were not scheduled for one, then I expect minimal difference. However, if I take the men schedule for a prostate exam and divide than into no-shows and appointment keepers then what would I expect for mortality data between the three groups? Some of the no-shows were due to men having medical issues that made the prostate exam medically unnecessary. Also, I expect on average the no-shows are less concerned about their health than the appointment keeper group. Those two effects would combine to make the no-show group the one with the highest mortality, and because we removed the highest mortality people from those that were scheduled for a prostate exam, the ones that had completed the exam would look disproportionately healthy compared to those that were never scheduled to have one. The end result is those that completed the medical regimen would have the best mortality, those that were supposed to complete it but didn’t would have the worst, and those that were never supposed to do it would be in the middle. To directly analogize to the vaccine data; the men never scheduled would be the unvaccinated, the men that completed their series would be both boosted groups and the ‘>21 days after second shot’ group before boosters were approved, and the no-shows are the ‘>21 days after first shot’ group and the ‘>21 days after 2nd shot’ group after the boosters were approved.
Summary: The data presented looks scary, but it is actually representative of group selection on mortality in people progressing through a series of medical interventions. People that don’t complete the next step are going to have higher average mortality than those that do complete the next step. This is not unique to vaccines and the effect from this overwhelms our ability to pull anything about vaccine safety from this particular type of analysis. I am thankful for the author for providing a unique analysis of the data, but upon review I do not think it provides evidence either for or against vaccine safety.
Thanks for the link. I read through it and thought it was pretty interesting, although my conclusions do differ from the author’s. First, though, I think the article was discussing a different question than I was looking at in my previous post. He was asking why non-COVID mortality increased after vaccine rollout. I was asking why do the mortalities of the people in different stages of vaccination differ from the unvaccinated at different points in time. I still think my theory explains what I was looking at really well and is mutually exclusive from the linked article’s investigation.
My best explanation for the data trends presented in the daily sceptic article is that COVID is bad and even if you recover from it your short term mortality is worsened. The first vaccines were approved immediately after the worst period of COVID deaths that the UK saw. Lots of people got really sick. There was also controversy over if you should get the vaccine if you already had COVID. Therefore, the unvaccinated at the start of the vaccine rollout were disproportionately made up of people that recently had COVID. I suspect that many recovered enough to be considered to have gotten over COVID, but that their expected short-term mortality was higher due to having recently been very sick. The timing of the vaccine rollout being right after the UK was at its sickest exacerbates this effect. If it was not right after the most severe period of COVID cases in the UK, then the peaks would still be there but be no where near as large.
I would love to confirm/disprove this be seeing the mortality data broken by how recently someone had COVID, but I didn’t see that in the ONS dataset. After typing all of the above I went and looked to see if I could find something that agrees or disagrees with me. The best I found was https://ufhealth.org/news/2021/patients-who-recover-severe-covid-19-still-have-significant-risk-death-uf-study-finds which estimates a 200% increased risk of death in the following year after recovery from severe COVID. So to me a combination of: an increased mortality post-COVID recovery, the vaccine rollout being right after the highest period of UK COVID deaths, and unvaccinated people being more likely to have had more recent and more severe COVID results in the unvaccinated appearing to have higher non-COVID mortality than the vaccinated.
Can you point me to what summer peak you are referring to? The daily skeptic sort of had one in the 70-79 year old age group, but it was not existent in the other ones. It was even a lull in mortality for one of the other age groups. I look at the three age groups presented there and see the same trend of a peak early and then a slow decline after that with typical month to month variance from the trend line.
The short answer is that it is due to the 'frist dose first' style program in the UK. Longer explenation below.
My original thesis was that the populations represented by each category in the graphs are changing over time and that is what is driving the group-specific mortality data to move around. I also posited that people who start a medical regimen but fail to complete it are more likely to have higher mortality. Due to the first dose first program, the vast majority of people in the first few months of the year had only recieved one shot. According to Bloomberg, as of mid April 33 million had gotten one shot, but only 12 million had gotten a second. The '>21 days after first shot' at that point was a respresentation of the UK as a whole. The people who then didn't get their 2nd shot over the next few months were the ones for whom it had become medically unnecessary. Thus the '>21 days after first dose' population changed over a one to two month period from from one that was basically all of the UK to one that was only those that forewent their second dose. Once the Janssen vaccine was approved as a single shot vaccine, the '>21 days after first dose' then further changed to being a combination of disproportionately sick people who forwent their secheduled second dose and everyone who got the Janssen vaccine. This added more healthier people into that category and caused the groups overall mortality to decrease from its summer peak.
don't know about UK, but in US you are not considered "vaccinated" until 2 weeks after your second jab. Convenient for those "unvaxxed" death stats isn't it?
Only those who have no idea how vaccines work bring up this completely irrelevant "fact" as if it means something.
If you catch covid, then get a vaccine, the vaccine can't help you.
What is your real agenda here?
This isn't a vaccine by any stretch of the rules.
Oh, "rules". Where are the "rules"? What makes this different? The mRNA aspect? OK call it an mRNA <whatever> that will reduce your symptoms if you are infected with Covid.
Whatever, it takes 2 weeks for the <whatever you call it> to be effective. Gee, this is true of vaccines.
So, don't call it a vaccine. I don't care. The 2 week requirement that keeps being tossed around is a "Red Herring". IOW, meaningless BS.
I appreciate this rant. It’a so bizarre that certain leading Covid-vax-skeptical substacks obsess over the idea that all the stats are garbage because they only tell us how these injections work... after there has been enough time for the biology to take place... wow what a “scam.”
there isn't one stat you can point to that shows these scam "vaccines" "work". Please point to one.
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/vaccines-dont-stop-covid-hospitalizations - the study Berenson reviews here actually shows 56.6% severe efficacy. Like all other data supporting severe efficacy, it is just routinely reported as not supporting it and then absorbed as such by readers who don't look at the actual study.
The jabs certainly aren't protecting well against infection. In fact, they seem to be enhancing it. While the data does suggest a benefit against death, I have my doubts. We certainly have no real analysis of cost-benefit, especially for younger cohorts, because the "public health experts" are pretending nothing bad ever happens after injection.
Anyone who has been injected once is part of the treatment arm not the control arm. They are not unvaxxed.
Anyone who has been boosted (3 doses) is not double-jabbed even if they haven't reached the 14-day mark.
Anyone who believes the 14-day window was arbitrary or chosen for optimal immunity isn't dealing with reality.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1052353/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_5.pdf
Have you not seen the huge spike in cases immediately after the shot?
You seem to be insinuating that the vaccine itself causes Covid. Surely you realize the faulty logic in that right? We aren't talking about "cases" we are talking about "deaths from all causes".
Yes, there is a risk to getting vaccinated. You might die from the vaccine. One has to weigh that risk against not getting vaccinated and then dying from Covid.
The evidence is overwhelming that the unvaccinated die in many multiples over the vaccinated: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status?country=~All+ages
But that brings into question the death rate.
In the over 90 category, it is 70,000 per 100,000. IOW 7 out of 10 people died. Well, doesn't that seem logical? I hardly expect to reach 90. If I do, I sincerely doubt I'd live to be 100. Getting vaccinated or catching Covid has absolutely nothing to do with this.
I was doing a "retirement plan" just the other day, my financial advisor tells me I'll be dead at 92. Gee they must be psychics.
We have had rather strong evidence for some time now for a period of increased susceptibility to covid for about 2-3 weeks following each vaccine dose.
Thus the vaccines aren't 'causing covid' but rather increasing the propensity to catch covid for a few weeks. There are immunological mechanisms that can explain this.
This effect is so strong and so visible in official measures of vaccine protection against infection that I'm very surprised that people weren't given the advice to self isolate for 21 days following vaccination. There are many cases of individuals becoming seriously ill or dying soon after vaccination -- this is explained away as being 'sad -- they died before antibodies could form', but in reality it looks more like they died because they weren't informed of the increased risk period.
Well, I was reading Scott Baker today explain how when he was getting vaxxed in NYC the clinic he was at was packed with people. There was no way of keeping 6 ft distance and it took hours to complete the process. Gee, put a bunch of people into a confined space, some of them sick already, and the result is more get sick.
Now, I'm not saying this one story explains the anomaly you claim. But I am saying you sound a lot like Ned Pierce responding to Matt Lee.
This really just seems to be an illusion. I see people everywhere say there’s evidence of higher infections after the shot. But, there literally isn’t. It’s just something everyone seems to imagine they saw on an el gato malo meme.
there literally is fuckwad, you just refuse to see it. please pumping your boosters and self exterminate your low iq brain from society, thanks
I always say that we now during 90 years have seen that vaccine dos more harm than help, but the drug producers, as I call them, hide it the trouth, so that in the books for doctor education there are not written about vaccination sideproblems. And telling that the famous vaccines for poleo and so on nearly had gone away when the vaccines came, and actually instead resulted in the diseases starting to return, increase. I my book revius in Amazon (417), I many time have pointed out failures in among other the doctor books (600 - 800). Concerning vaccinations, among other we recall the polio in California back i 1934, with the 198 doctors and nurses in the hospital where the vaccine was produced, they all were hit by the extreme fatigue and payied compensation, and the doctor behind the vaccine took his own life in 1939, 35 year old. And what about autism, caused by vaccination, Alzheimers and most cancer without doubt also caused by vaccinations.
I saw a report from Pfizer (unfortunately not bookmarked) comparing BNT162b2 (the commercialized version) with candidate BNT162b1. The degree of immunosuppression was horrible for the candidate and not all that much better for b2. The period of immunosuppression was very similar for each - coincidentally declining up to 14 days from jab.
Any chance you could find this? Thanks.
And the problem is that those cases and resulting deaths are counted in the stats as unvaxed deaths. It skews the numbers.
They are "unvaxxed".
They don’t have vaccine based immunity, but they are definitely vaxxed. The shots are in and doing their thing.
Pharma knew about the case spike in clinical trials, so they established the “effective date” for counting purposes after it was over.
NO.
So you haven’t seen the chart. It’s was one of the provinces in Canada that showed an enormous spike in Covid cases immediately after the shots.
I may try to find it. The article I saw it on is here on Substack somewhere.
You are probably referring to an article by Alex Brenson on the statistics from Alberta https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/covid-infections-and-deaths-soar . The raw data has been deleted but is still available on the archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20220113003257/https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm#vaccine-outcomes
:))) pathetic attempt to bs. Go and take more genetic therapy shots. They are food for the likes of you.
Didn't take statistics in High School did you.
Not at all.
The vaccine verifiably causes a great many adverse reactions and many deaths.
Those deaths are then counted as unvaccinated because they occur less than 14 days after the pfizertoxin was given.
You have no evidence of your claim.
If I give you a magic pill and tell you that 14 days from the moment you swallow it you will experience <whatever you want>, and after 13 days it still hasn't happened, you can't complain to me that it failed. I told you, up front, 14 days.
Did my magic pill fail? No, you failed to follow the instructions I gave you.
Your complaint is similar to you wanting tomatoes. I can give you tomato seeds but you will bitch because you put them in the ground yesterday but have no tomatoes today.
So the I gave you tomato-toxin seeds?
Give me a break.
Just to be clear, I offered up a simile. (maybe a metaphor) As such I was only addressing one particular aspect of the debate. No one should come away from this thinking that I'm defending mRNA vaccines in their entirety. There may indeed be some very serious negative effects. And it is absolutely true that some people appear to have died from the vaccine.
There's the choice you, as an informed human being, have to make. Am I going to die from the vaccine or die from Covid or perhaps there is a third or fourth alternative.
almost nobody dies FROM covid you clown
Hello again dumbass, it is 0.87% hospitalization rate. NOT A FUCKING PROBLEM.
it's more likely that the evidence 'unvaxxed' die in higher numbers is because excess death from the vaccine is being lumped into that category: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/02/09/why-the-healthy-vaccinee-effect-is-a-myth-and-cannot-explain-the-spikes-in-deaths-at-the-time-of-the-vaccine-rollout/
Given 'covid19' is not even one illness there is nothing the vaccine can do to prevent you from getting it (except what doctored numbers show) and there is no risk (beyond) normal that any vaccinated will get one of the random array of symptoms lumped into that bucket.
https://terrainthefilm.com/
"it's more likely that the evidence 'unvaxxed' die in higher numbers is because excess death from the vaccine is being lumped into that category"
Well, I guess there's a conspiracy theory for everyone.
hopefully your financial advisor is very wrong - on the long end FU
Yes I have seen a graph showing that most op the persons who died by vaccination died the 2nd day, 24-48 hours, and second most 0-24 hours after injection, and after these 2 days then a much lower top for the straigth line for weeks.
Yes people die from getting vaccinated. That has -always- been true no matter what the vaccine. So What?
Go and get more of them. Like as many as they tell you to. A fourth one. A fifth. The likes of you need them.
There's no evidence that I need more. Why should I get another one? I'm not advocating for another.
In fact, I'm not advocating anything. Get vaxxed. Don't get vaxxed. Your choice.
Much like people who wouldn't wear a seat beat because they were afraid of being trapped in a car on fire. The possibility of being trapped is not nil. OTOH, if you don't wear a seatbelt you'll probably be dead from the crash before the fire can burn you up.
As answer to What? I during years have told that probably in the future vaccination be banned. That is concerning vaccines against diseases, viruses and bacteries, from outside the body, while not vaccines banned for the "diseases", which we during life have inside the body, but only for some person suddently starts. The immune system known how to fight virusses, af for the flu, and the B cells to remember them. Like Malone warns again the mRNA vaccines against the Covid-19, but by himself not totally against all kind of vaccination.
well, news flash, your precious "vaccines" DON"T fucking work dumbfuck. exterminate yourself with boosters please
This is a place to debate. Everyone's opinion is valid and necessary. Swearing and name calling won't help anything.
I'm sick of enablers of totalitarianism. They are extremely dangerous people.
Deaths and person-years are tabulated for 0-21 days after all doses in the ONS set, it's just not plotted out above.
Precisely. It takes 14 days for the vaccine to work. The decision to put it at 14 days is kind of arbitrary since obviously on day 1 your body starts manufacturing the antibodies to combat the virus. The question is whether this is a linear growth or an exponential growth. Probably the latter.
Its like that "joke" where the king's jester was going to be executed, but in exchange he only wanted on kernel of wheat placed on the corner of the chessboard and then have it doubled on the next square and the next and so on. The king agreed, to his chagrin, because on the last square the jester owned ever kernel of wheat, not only in the kingdom, but in the entire world.
So, that is right, your body doesn't build the defenses it needs until 14 days after getting jabbed.
Pharma companies make deliberate, not arbitrary, decisions. The 14-day window was likely chosen to hide adverse events and immunosuppression following the first jab. Everyone who has been injected is part of the treatment arm, even if they don't fit the category of "fully vaxxed". Any infection or adverse event (like death or injury from the injection) should be attributed to the treatment arm. This was a shell game chosen to hide inconvenient data.
fuck you, no this is data manufacturing to assault people smart enough not to take the dangerous experimental untested "vaccine". If you have received a jab you need to be counted as a gullible vaxxed dumbass and if you die (likely FROM the vaxx) then categorized as such. Total disinformation from the govt hacks getting paid off by pfizer crooks - and dopes like you that sit on their ass watching cnn cult shows all day.
The NZ health minister, commenting on the booster, stated that antibody manufacture starts within a couple of hours and provides protection. I think the 14 day period is very generous. If the vax can cause an Adverse Reaction within hours and the first couple of days following injection, then it's products must be widely dispersed.
I found articles saying 6 months. Nothing as short as 8 weeks.
One example: https://www.verywellhealth.com/vaccine-covid-effectiveness-5209145
But the evidence is overwhelming that it is the unvaxxed who die from covid.
There are indeed some people who die from the vaccine(s), but an analysis of results in Australia shows it was 11 out of millions vs the many who dies unvaxxed. Once upon a time, I would have provided links to that evidence. But no one ever follows that kind of thing. They just believe what they want to believe.
Thank you! Very logical and convincing, beyond a reasonable doubt. They miscategorize in order to provide the headline "data" so that the further jabs can be pushed, despite their deadliness and harm. Very effective construct. Works every time. No shame, no morals, no principles, no conscience, no fear of God.
This is the logical devolution of atheist societies. Although the proof of the existence of God is simple and indisputable. We know the devil exists. Thence, God must exist too. Q.E.D.
It looks to me like it is a form of 'healthy vaccinee' effect.
They're vaccinating pretty much everyone, but there is a group that isn't being vaccinated -- those so very ill and close to death that the vaccine side effects might finish them off.
The important point that many people miss is that most people don't die suddenly -- they become ill with a disease/condition that ends in death, and thus their final fate is telegraphed early.
With this 'healthy vaccinee' hypothesis as each vaccination dose campaign gets underway in each age group you see those closest to death not get vaccinated and thus get concentrated into the 'previous state of vaccination' group. This makes the death rates in the 'previous state of vaccination' soar. Then, over the next few months, these very very ill individuals die and deaths in the 'previous state of vaccination' return to being similar to the group that took the next dose.
The time course of the increase in deaths in the prior-vaccine-state group reflects the longevity of those identified as 'shouldn't have the next dose'. This looked to be about 3 months or so for first doses given in early 2020, but it has become progressively longer as, presumably, they are allowing more very ill people to forgo their next vaccine dose.
This is why we need to have proper matched cohort studies to investigate the vaccines; the current vaccine surveillance methods (in particular test-negative case-control) are not designed to be used in the current situation.
Interesting explanation, thanks! I'm still not fully convinced though. If healthy vaccinees had the first dose, why would the the second peak be even higher (orange line) if this group had already been filtered to contain healthier individuals?
They didn't know about the effect early on -- during the first roll-out of the vaccine they gave it to people who where clinging onto life and the side effects finished them off. As soon as they realised that they'd made this mistake they changed the protocol so that they didn't give the vaccine to those closest to death. This is documented as occurring in some countries and is presumed to have occurred in most.
By the time the second dose came along there were a number of people who hadn't been so bad during Dec/Jan but who were now close to death (sadly, that's how terminal diseases work). These then were spared vaccination and this put their deaths into the smaller single dose cohort.
I also note that the 'one dose only' cohort is the smallest cohort, in the UK at least. People either remained unvaccinated or took both doses as advised; for example, in the UK for those aged >80, about 6% remain unvaccinated, about 1% have one dose only and about 4% have two doses only (and thus about 89% have had all three doses). Thus the 'concentrate the ones that die' effect was seen most strongly in those that had one dose and not two.
If the 'healthy vaccinee' effect explains it then it would also explain high numbers of unvaccinated in ICUs and efficacy claims against COVID? They can't have it both ways.
The cohort size varies with time, isn't the moment we saw the greatest excess in mortality was when the cohort size was the biggest?
Can someone add to the graphs the cohort size to see if the effect only starts being noticeable as the cohort size becomes small, thus when only the frail are left off, or can already be seen when the cohort size is significant?
So just received an email from CVS. Get the booster after testing positive for COVID????? Booster shots are the best protection against severe complications from COVID-19, especially during the ongoing surge of the Omicron variant.
If you’ve recently tested positive for COVID-19, the CDC advises that you get a booster once you’re symptom-free and have completed the recommended isolation period.
Oh my gosh I just slammed CVS for this same email that I received. I notified them that I’ll never step foot in their stores again!
That's madness -- vaccine side effect rates are through the roof in the period immediately after infection, and there's no requirement for any additional vaccine doses as the immune response to natural infection gives long lived protection that's far superior to that offered by the vaccines.
Are you aware of this paper - written by a team of 9 (inc myself)?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357778435_Official_mortality_data_for_England_suggest_systematic_miscategorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination
Summarising tweet thread starting here:
https://twitter.com/MartinNeil9/status/1481561698792267779?s=20&t=7iyfu0G4s_kmLgjEUleODQ
Thanks. I was made aware of Martin Neil after I posted my original article in December. I'll have a read of your latest one.
Do you think its just a mis categorisation issue, not evidence of a spike in deaths?
Spike in acute deaths which are then miscategorized in terms of vaccination status.
Not ruling out other later effects of course, inc widespread Covid outbreaks and death caused by sudden mass immunosuppression associated with the vac rollout.
Thank you for this information. The obfuscation from governments is quite unbelievable and heartbreaking.
"Why does the unvaccinated mortality rate shoot up during 1st dose vaccinations, they haven’t been vaccinated?"
For older groups, this reflects short-term healthy user bias. People "on their death bed" don't get the first dose. So as people not on their death bed exit the group (by being 1st-dosed) the denominator drops and the death rate goes up.
"Why does the 1st dose mortality rate shoot up after second dose vaccinations, they haven’t had a second dose?"
Same, again. It just repeats, those who can take the 2nd dose leave the denominator and those whose health went south after the first dose are left behind.
"And now, why does 2nd dose mortality rates shoot up, as boosters begin, when they haven’t had a booster?"
Literally same, again.
Once you get into younger groups, this gets a lot more complicated. There's bias toward the vulnerable for pre-spring 1st doses, so the death rate drops as the general population qualifies. Then for the 18-39 group you add another wrinkle, in that the unvaccinated 18-39 "get younger" when the vaccine becomes available because more 30-39s take it, so there's a drop all the way until summer. The summer bump could be normal trends or reflect the younger+healthy leaving the 18-29 pool by getting 1st-dosed. The various dosed groups "get older" at first and then "get younger" as well, all the way to boosters, which hides the healthy user drain visible in the above sets.
There's a paper that investigated the first 100 deaths in nursing homes following the vaccination campaign in Norway, as they saw this uptick of excess mortality without it being COVID.
Two independent group investigated the cause of death.
The uptick in deaths was not caused by the 'healthy vaccine effect' as they studied the deaths in the vaccinated group.
They arrived to the conclusions that 10% of the deaths were due to the vaccine, another 26% were possibly due to the vaccine.
There's more evidence to support the prioritisation of vaccination in the most frail groups than to support not vaccinating people on their dead bed as testimonies this article.
After all, if vaccines are safe, why not start by vaccinating the group that is at most risk of COVID death? Which is why all around the world they started with the oldest, and frailest.
source: https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1372
Right, that would be intuitive. It’s why I’m skeptical that the UK healthy user bias should be extrapolated to other countries, especially not the US where elder care is abysmal. If the Norway nursing homes are injecting the near-death, the data will look one way; if they are excluding them, it will look totally different. Key here is that the ONS provides 0-20 day mortality post first dose, and it’s lower than baseline (it’s not plotted above). So either the vax is magically reducing death or the near-death are being subtracted from the 0-20 day window population.
So, the rest of the world vaccinated the old and frail, but for some reason, the UK didn't? There's no evidence to backup this claim, even for the third dose, the instructions were clear as for the initial vaccination campaign: vaccinate the group risk first. That is just convenience without evidence.
Prof Norman Fenton addresses some of the statistical assumptions to make this claim hold in the appendix and section 7 of his recent updated paper.
On the other hand, we can backup risk induced by the vaccines itself just by looking at the initial clinical trials, a group in Canada did a great synthesis of the clinical trials results itself (see resume below). If somehow similar adverse events would have happened after the deployment, some of them could be see in Pharmacovigilance systems reports: Eudravigilance, VAERS, Yellowcard, Swissmedic. All these Pharmacovigilance broke records in terms of reported events, which lead the Nordic group to investigate those 100 cases early 2021.
We also now know that the second dose tends to have a higher rate of adverse events than the first one (e.g. Danish Study below, multiple more in peer-reviewed literature), if this hold true, we can expect the total excess mortality followed by the second dose to be higher than the first dose.
We do see this an increased effect in the excess in the 1 dose >20 days vaccine group is higher than unvaccinated, as in this group it's the second dose inducing the effect. Confirming yet again that second dose is more risky than first one.
With the 'healthy vaccine effect' shouldn't we have expected actually a reduction of excess mortality in the 1 dose group taking into consideration a significant amount of the 'soon to die group' would not have made it to the second vaccine. Finally the timespan is relatively small (3 months), leaving little time to accumulate more 'soon to die' members in the 1 dose group.
Finally, we can assume a young person can tolerate more easily an adverse event than an old person, such as high fever, general hyper inflammation, etc, thus we can expect an adverse event leading to death to be less significant compared to the total population.
Can you give us a single public statement or paper confirming that the policy of choice was leaving out the frail from the vaccination campaign in the UK?
I just can't seem to find anywhere evidence for the 'healthy vaccine effect', but there's plenty of evidence to backup the 'deadly vaccine effect'.
While the following study concerns only Pfizer, we know that the other vaccines have a higher adverse event ratio than Pfizer, making this the lower threshold of all deployed vaccines.
Resume Pfizer AE from clinical trials: https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The-COVID-19-Inoculations-More-Harm-Than-Good-REV-Dec-16-2021.pdf
Myocarditis, higher 2nd dose than first dose:
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068665
Prof Norman Fenton:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357778435_Official_mortality_data_for_England_suggest_systematic_miscategorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination
This is veering into overly dogmatic territory. "There's no evidence to backup this claim" - we are literally discussing the evidence. The raise in death rates for the unvaccinated and the low death rates for the recently dosed *is* evidence, in fact essentially iron-clad proof, that among the elderly either 1) the vaccine magically kills people who don't take it, and makes people who take it super-healthy or 2) the near-death were excluded from being dosed at every interval.
ONS provides the death rates for the 0-20 day windows for every dose, they just aren't plotted out in the graphs in this post. I've already said this above. These deaths and person years are *not* being assigned to the status that precedes issuance of the dose. And... the result is hugely lower deaths in the 0 to 20 day windows, for every dose. You can hash out the math yourself. I've done the 1st dose values for the youngest cohorts here, but as the note says I left out 2nd dose values because I needed the space and they were so low as to be not even worth presenting - https://unglossed.substack.com/p/into-the-weeds-uk-deaths-data
Finally, what is the procedural evidence for short term healthy user bias - the "single public statement"?
"In line with WHO guidance, first up are care home residents and health workers, then older and clinically extremely vulnerable people. Among those excluded from the mass vaccination plan at present are pregnant women, children under 16, and ***those with health conditions that put them at very high risk of serious outcomes***" https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n421
We have addressed this from e ery angle. This is not the explanation for the anomalies.
I don’t need “every angle.” The data is straight forward. Person years and deaths by category. Simple, clean. No magic adjustments needed.
Ah, I see you are part of the paper Jonathan posted above - everything falls into place now! What explanation do you give for the anomalies and do you see a spike in deaths?
I understand the denominator issue but why would the mortality rates spike and not plateau? Surely, the group that is left behind with health issues would have a continuous high mortality rate, it wouldn't immediately drop again?
Because it’s a short term artifact. It’s like measuring “going to the bathroom rate” for residents of an apartment building right after you declare a pizza party in the courtyard. It will be higher for 15 minutes, as everyone who was already going to the bathroom can’t go to the courtyard. Then in minutes 15-30, it will be normal, as all you are measuring is “people who didn’t feel like having pizza.”
Meanwhile, to make the “immortal bathroom effect” go away in the courtyard, just declare that a movie is starting in the clubhouse. Now all the people going to the courtyard bathrooms are stuck behind again and the rate shoots up here. But after 15 minutes it goes down again as you are left with “people who just wanted pizza but not a movie.”
but why would the second peak (orange line) be higher than the first if the group had already been filtered to only include healthier individuals?
First dose +21 days is going to be people whose health went south after the first shot. There’s no “didn’t feel like getting pizza” baseline to return to, this is people who “wanted the second dose” but aren’t able to take it. Signal for adverse events? Maybe, but since the denominator is driving the rate you can’t really put a scale to this one.
So do you think there is nothing to see here or any signals of vaccine effects?
Likely both at once. And even more of both at once in the 1st dose >21 days group. When you look at the raw numbers for deaths in that group it gives you an idea of the ceiling / scale for downstream-of-adverse-event deaths. Note that the deaths in the <21 days post-dose groups might also be AEs but the rates are always going to be lower than baseline due to the trick of discounting the normal near-death contribution from the population.
Could you solve for this by taking all of the vaccinated subgroups and recombining them?
If the increased deaths from the orange and grey graph lines is simply them being the sub population of vaccinated people that are not healthy enough to get a 2nd dose or booster, then it makes sense their mortality is increased. Recombining all of the vaccinated subgroups to compare non-COVID mortality among vaccinated and unvaccinated people would be more straight-forward and avoid this potential Simpson’s Paradox.
If that data is compiled and presented then I would expect non-COVID mortality to be slightly higher in the vaccinated population due to that population not dying of COVID as often as unvaccinated people. To resolve that potential confounder you would probably need a comparison of COVID, non-COVID, and all-cause mortality between the two groups. I am not sure how easy that data is to come by, however it seems the best way to resolve what initially looks like damning evidence but which may be an artifact of subgroup analysis.
I assume you have seen this paper? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356756711_Latest_statistics_on_England_mortality_data_suggest_systematic_mis-categorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination
Yes thanks, some of the authors have commented on here.
I don't think it's miscategorisation (I used to as you probably know). They have added <21 days for doses 1 and 2 now and have said in numerous FOI requests that they are categorising unvaccinated correctly.
So, if it's not the numerator, it must be the denominator? There is little transparency on their person-years calculation. I'm looking at that...
I was looking at the massive discrepancy in the NON-Covid ASMR between the vaccinated and non-vaccinated.
This dataset (as did the last one) appears to account for some ~39m persons. By the ONS mid-year population estimate, there would be ~47.7m population (over 10 yrs) in England. This leaves over 10m unaccounted for?
Reasoning that these 10m might be likely to have not received a vaccination, as a quick 'n' dirty experiment, I tried distributing the 10m proportionally across the age groups of 'unvaccinated' cohort.
This made the apparent NON-covid heath benefits of vaccination practically disappear (except for the 'low power' younger (<30yrs) groups, which got worse).
It's also a real shame that this latest dataset doesn't include the 5-year age groupings of the last one (I mean T13: '10-39'? C'mon!). We can still calculate 10 - 17yrs, though, but really. All this '<3' business is for what? It makes me think that there's something in there that we're not supposed to see. Which makes me want to look even harder. ;)
Ok interesting. Brian mentioned the denominator above. I understand his point but why would the rates spike instead of plateau if the group got smaller but contained more ill people? Surely the rate would stay high instead of dropping straight back down again?
It drops back down again as the individuals that were close to death (and were spared the next dose of vaccine) die off and the 'previous state of vaccination' group looks 'like the normal population' again (in terms of the proportion of people considered likely to die soon).
Nice work. Something so up at was published a few months ago, but the authors and their credentials were identified.
Something similar was published......
It sounds like this could be chalked up to (some degree) these deaths, just aren't given the label as a COVID-19 death. I'm not saying they were COVID-19 deaths prior because we know they were mostly just deaths with a previous positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. I'm also not saying the vaccine isn't killing people; I'm just saying this data is still inconclusive, and we need to do more research. But indeed the vaccine program should be stopped immediately.
I have a theory about the graphs above and I do not think that they show anything about vaccine safety or that their pattern is even unique to vaccines. After my theory statement I have a longer explanation, a few predictions, and a non-covid thought experiment.
Theory: the mortality rates will always be higher in groups of people that only partially complete a medical intervention relative to those who either finish the intervention or never start it.
Explanation: Controlling for similarities between study groups is really hard. If there is ever selection bias in how the study groups are formed, then that bias difference can easily overwhelm the effect of what intervention you are trying to study. The graphs above look at people at various stages of their vaccination status. However, there is likely selection bias in what causes people to move from one group to another. Many people who start their series of shots, but do not complete it would fail to do so because new or worsening medical problems make future vaccinations medically unnecessary. This effect results in a disproportionate number of healthy people finishing their vaccination series and a disproportionate number of the unhealthy not finishing. As a result, the partially completed groups will have worse mortality data and the fully completed groups will have better than expected mortality data. In fact, when the ‘>21 days after 2nd shot’ group represented a fully complete series it had great mortality data. Once boosters were approved and that same group started to represent people who did not complete their series of shots, then that group started to select for unhealthy people and the group’s mortality rate rose.
Prediction: If a second booster (4th shot) is approved then the mortality data for the ‘>21 days after 3rd shot’ will start to select for a disproportionately unhealthy group and will show a higher non-COVID mortality than unvaccinated people. Likewise, those with a completed 4th shot will be disproportionately healthy. I further predict that this pattern appears frequently in other forms of serial medical interventions.
Thought experiment: Imagine I take a large number of men, meet with them and schedule half of them for a prostate exam in 3 months. One year later I track them all down and look at the mortality data. If I look at the mortality data for those scheduled for a prostate exam against those who were not scheduled for one, then I expect minimal difference. However, if I take the men schedule for a prostate exam and divide than into no-shows and appointment keepers then what would I expect for mortality data between the three groups? Some of the no-shows were due to men having medical issues that made the prostate exam medically unnecessary. Also, I expect on average the no-shows are less concerned about their health than the appointment keeper group. Those two effects would combine to make the no-show group the one with the highest mortality, and because we removed the highest mortality people from those that were scheduled for a prostate exam, the ones that had completed the exam would look disproportionately healthy compared to those that were never scheduled to have one. The end result is those that completed the medical regimen would have the best mortality, those that were supposed to complete it but didn’t would have the worst, and those that were never supposed to do it would be in the middle. To directly analogize to the vaccine data; the men never scheduled would be the unvaccinated, the men that completed their series would be both boosted groups and the ‘>21 days after second shot’ group before boosters were approved, and the no-shows are the ‘>21 days after first shot’ group and the ‘>21 days after 2nd shot’ group after the boosters were approved.
Summary: The data presented looks scary, but it is actually representative of group selection on mortality in people progressing through a series of medical interventions. People that don’t complete the next step are going to have higher average mortality than those that do complete the next step. This is not unique to vaccines and the effect from this overwhelms our ability to pull anything about vaccine safety from this particular type of analysis. I am thankful for the author for providing a unique analysis of the data, but upon review I do not think it provides evidence either for or against vaccine safety.
have a read of this: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/02/09/why-the-healthy-vaccinee-effect-is-a-myth-and-cannot-explain-the-spikes-in-deaths-at-the-time-of-the-vaccine-rollout/
Thanks for the link. I read through it and thought it was pretty interesting, although my conclusions do differ from the author’s. First, though, I think the article was discussing a different question than I was looking at in my previous post. He was asking why non-COVID mortality increased after vaccine rollout. I was asking why do the mortalities of the people in different stages of vaccination differ from the unvaccinated at different points in time. I still think my theory explains what I was looking at really well and is mutually exclusive from the linked article’s investigation.
My best explanation for the data trends presented in the daily sceptic article is that COVID is bad and even if you recover from it your short term mortality is worsened. The first vaccines were approved immediately after the worst period of COVID deaths that the UK saw. Lots of people got really sick. There was also controversy over if you should get the vaccine if you already had COVID. Therefore, the unvaccinated at the start of the vaccine rollout were disproportionately made up of people that recently had COVID. I suspect that many recovered enough to be considered to have gotten over COVID, but that their expected short-term mortality was higher due to having recently been very sick. The timing of the vaccine rollout being right after the UK was at its sickest exacerbates this effect. If it was not right after the most severe period of COVID cases in the UK, then the peaks would still be there but be no where near as large.
I would love to confirm/disprove this be seeing the mortality data broken by how recently someone had COVID, but I didn’t see that in the ONS dataset. After typing all of the above I went and looked to see if I could find something that agrees or disagrees with me. The best I found was https://ufhealth.org/news/2021/patients-who-recover-severe-covid-19-still-have-significant-risk-death-uf-study-finds which estimates a 200% increased risk of death in the following year after recovery from severe COVID. So to me a combination of: an increased mortality post-COVID recovery, the vaccine rollout being right after the highest period of UK COVID deaths, and unvaccinated people being more likely to have had more recent and more severe COVID results in the unvaccinated appearing to have higher non-COVID mortality than the vaccinated.
The first vaccines were approved just as the vaccine rollout started, not after.
Also, why is there a higher second peak in the summer when covid deaths are non existent?
Can you point me to what summer peak you are referring to? The daily skeptic sort of had one in the 70-79 year old age group, but it was not existent in the other ones. It was even a lull in mortality for one of the other age groups. I look at the three age groups presented there and see the same trend of a peak early and then a slow decline after that with typical month to month variance from the trend line.
In the graphs above, the >21 days after 1st dose orange line
The short answer is that it is due to the 'frist dose first' style program in the UK. Longer explenation below.
My original thesis was that the populations represented by each category in the graphs are changing over time and that is what is driving the group-specific mortality data to move around. I also posited that people who start a medical regimen but fail to complete it are more likely to have higher mortality. Due to the first dose first program, the vast majority of people in the first few months of the year had only recieved one shot. According to Bloomberg, as of mid April 33 million had gotten one shot, but only 12 million had gotten a second. The '>21 days after first shot' at that point was a respresentation of the UK as a whole. The people who then didn't get their 2nd shot over the next few months were the ones for whom it had become medically unnecessary. Thus the '>21 days after first dose' population changed over a one to two month period from from one that was basically all of the UK to one that was only those that forewent their second dose. Once the Janssen vaccine was approved as a single shot vaccine, the '>21 days after first dose' then further changed to being a combination of disproportionately sick people who forwent their secheduled second dose and everyone who got the Janssen vaccine. This added more healthier people into that category and caused the groups overall mortality to decrease from its summer peak.