|
Post by mtrstudent on Jan 10, 2023 2:10:12 GMT
In fairness to Hart Group they've said umpteen times correlation doesn't mean causation but indepth study is required. However they more than adequately show correlation given the examples and tracking the increase from date of booster in each country rather than an arbitrary date then tracked them against other European countries. It's a pretty common scientific method to start with a hypothesis and then try to falsify it, I think that's a really powerful technique. Looking at Hart's S Korean data, don't their graphs show that vaccinating >80% of people correlates with zero excess deaths inside 9 months? So it's basically impossible for the AZ and Pfizer vaccines to cause huge death rates within 9 months of a major vaccine campaign starting, right? Another pretty obvious research opportunity is surely South Africa. If covid causes myocarditis and heart attacks then there's a country with low vaccine uptake and widespread omicron. If it does cause heart issues then there would be excess deaths and you'd be able to work out infection vs heart attacks. If there isn't excess deaths in line with infection of the unvaccinated then why not? I think we can get some good hints from comparing different countries but also that it has to be done carefully. S Africa is loads younger than the UK so it should be a lot safer against COVID, right? 2020-21 excess deaths in the UK: 2.0k per million 2020-21 excess deaths in S Africa: 4.2k per million Hmmm. I can't find the last few weeks of 2022 for S Africa, but for the available weeks in 2022 excess death rates are basically identical: 599/million in S Africa and 592 in the UK. But I think it's really easy to get things wrong by comparing countries or regions - maybe US states are slightly better because people are more similar in terms of age, weight etc, but even that's not great. I personally trust conclusion more when the studiesuse matched control & treatment groups.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Jan 10, 2023 3:23:25 GMT
What's the link to that German study? The one I found didn't link 5 deaths to the vaccine. I've bolded the bit at the end because that sounds like a good way to do it to me. I bet it's being done but we'll just have to wait for the data gathering and reviews to be done. We already know the short-term death rates are lower among the vaccinated, but I still haven't been convinced about any particular cause for the recent deaths. The Hart group didn't do any grown up analysis but what about these tests and conclusions? Death ratesTry the hypothesis: "most excess deaths are because of the vaccine". Australia and S Korea have much higher vaccination rates than the US, so their death rates should be higher. Australia: 390 deaths per million S Korea: 1,000 deaths per million USA: 3,900 deaths per million Hmmm. TimingS Korea had ~0 excess deaths during its 9 month vaccine campaign. So a mix of Pfizer and AstraZeneca simply cannot cause loads of deaths within 9 months. Perhaps they wait for 9 months then start slaughtering? In the US, there were 750k excess deaths by the 9-month mark. So something else must have killed those 750k, right? RussiaThe Hart group decided not to look at Russia. But Russia's excess deaths are almost 8,000 per million people. Russia also didn't use a single mRNA vaccine, so mRNA vaccines can't be blamed for the extra ~million Russian deaths. Put the pieces together and to me it looks a lot like the reviewed scientific studies fit better with reality.
This is the German paper - 35 autopsies where death occurred within 20 days of vaccination. Ten were 'other', four were myocarditis, one fairly certain and 20 likely as there was no other explanation found: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00392-022-02129-5#ref-CR28In fairness to Hart Group they've said umpteen times correlation doesn't mean causation but indepth study is required. However they more than adequately show correlation given the examples and tracking the increase from date of booster in each country rather than an arbitrary date then tracked them against other European countries. It seems kind of obvious that to do this research has to be done on whether it is or isn't related to the vaccine or how complicit the vaccine is. Instead the research reported is trying to prove its everything but the vaccine - that's not science; that's religion! Governments are on for the bill so they're biased; Pfizer fined umpteen times for shitebaggery hiding their workings for 75 years and admitting to cutting corners to secure the market are biased; WHO reliant on funding are biased; academics reliant on funding are biased so its hardly surprising they're no longer 'travelling at the speed of science' on this. Surely the excess deaths in Europe with the correlation gives a perfect research platform then include places like South Korea to understand why they'd be outliers? Another pretty obvious research opportunity is surely South Africa. If covid causes myocarditis and heart attacks then there's a country with low vaccine uptake and widespread omicron. If it does cause heart issues then there would be excess deaths and you'd be able to work out infection vs heart attacks. If there isn't excess deaths in line with infection of the unvaccinated then why not? The plethora of effects is convenient for plausible deniability. And the waters are further muddied by the mix and match of various jab types, which seemed, at best, reckless. AZ with Pfizer, for example. How could anyone know the effects of this? For any person with a functioning thought process, this should have rang a room of alarm bells. How can this mix ever be investigated, and even if there is data how can it be pinpointed? Another convenient cloak. Thankfully, none of that stuff has ever been near me. And I've travelled extensively cross-comtinent without. I tried my best to get people to stop and think.
|
|
|
Post by knype on Jan 10, 2023 4:57:43 GMT
Please take time to watch this I watched it and the first study is interesting but in the rest of it he just seems really, really arrogant to me. He uses emotional arguments to throw away the Lancet study and then his Irish numbers don't look properly worked out at all. He uses figures, counter him if you disagree? He is reachable and will answer / counter you.
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Jan 10, 2023 8:56:14 GMT
Please take time to watch this I watched it and the first study is interesting but in the rest of it he just seems really, really arrogant to me. He uses emotional arguments to throw away the Lancet study and then his Irish numbers don't look properly worked out at all. You’re a data man, I’ve checked his Irish numbers as best I can, so maybe you can also review and let us know. So what part of his critique of the lancet piece are you refuting? It seems they picked a death figure based on tenuous assumptions and went from there. Looks like junk to me
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jan 11, 2023 5:34:17 GMT
I watched it and the first study is interesting but in the rest of it he just seems really, really arrogant to me. He uses emotional arguments to throw away the Lancet study and then his Irish numbers don't look properly worked out at all. You’re a data man, I’ve checked his Irish numbers as best I can, so maybe you can also review and let us know. So what part of his critique of the lancet piece are you refuting? It seems they picked a death figure based on tenuous assumptions and went from there. Looks like junk to me Look at 9:00 in the vid. He's talking about these percentages as if they're the risk of dying if you're infected. But they aren't. To calculate the risk of death from an infection I'd want: (1) the number of people infected (2) the number infected people that died I'd do the equation: (number of dead from infection) / (number of infected) to work it out. Would you do it differently?
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jan 13, 2023 17:19:12 GMT
I watched it and the first study is interesting but in the rest of it he just seems really, really arrogant to me. He uses emotional arguments to throw away the Lancet study and then his Irish numbers don't look properly worked out at all. You’re a data man, I’ve checked his Irish numbers as best I can, so maybe you can also review and let us know. So what part of his critique of the lancet piece are you refuting? It seems they picked a death figure based on tenuous assumptions and went from there. Looks like junk to me I looked for some Irish stats to try and make the YouTuber's argument more clear. He looks at total deaths with positive covid tests during some time and then divides by the total number of Irish people (or he does similar by age group). 28 people died from guns in Ireland in 2015. Let's take that number and divide by the population like the YouTuber does for COVID. Then: the risk of dying if you're shot is 0.0005%. I think that if you put a bullet into someone (including suicides where the bullet goes into the head), then the risk of death is actually much higher than 0.0005%. Believing the YouTuber's argument is like believing that being shot only has a 0.0005% chance of killing someone. I don't think you can calculate a fatality rate from the data he uses. But there are other data that are useful, why does he ignore those?
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Jan 13, 2023 17:28:08 GMT
You’re a data man, I’ve checked his Irish numbers as best I can, so maybe you can also review and let us know. So what part of his critique of the lancet piece are you refuting? It seems they picked a death figure based on tenuous assumptions and went from there. Looks like junk to me I looked for some Irish stats to try and make the YouTuber's argument more clear. He looks at total deaths with positive covid tests during some time and then divides by the total number of Irish people (or he does similar by age group). 28 people died from guns in Ireland in 2015. Let's take that number and divide by the population like the YouTuber does for COVID. Then: the risk of dying if you're shot is 0.0005%. I think that if you put a bullet into someone (including suicides where the bullet goes into the head), then the risk of death is actually much higher than 0.0005%. Believing the YouTuber's argument is like believing that being shot only has a 0.0005% chance of killing someone. I don't think you can calculate a fatality rate from the data he uses. But there are other data that are useful, why does he ignore those? He’s used Irish government data as far as I’m aware. Can you also come back on the Lancet piece and tell us why Lancet picking arbitrary unsubstantiated potential death numbers is good data modelling?
|
|
jack1
Youth Player
Posts: 297
|
Post by jack1 on Jan 13, 2023 18:26:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by henry on Jan 13, 2023 18:45:51 GMT
Jail too good for the peddler's of this.
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Jan 13, 2023 19:58:52 GMT
The interviewer couldn’t change the topic quickly enough, someone in the Beeb is getting fired 🥹
|
|
jack1
Youth Player
Posts: 297
|
Post by jack1 on Jan 13, 2023 22:20:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Jan 13, 2023 22:24:43 GMT
I get the following message when I click your link: Sorry... We can't find the page you requested A fitting response some wit would suggest…
|
|
jack1
Youth Player
Posts: 297
|
Post by jack1 on Jan 13, 2023 22:28:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Jan 13, 2023 23:19:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bjarnig on Jan 14, 2023 0:46:45 GMT
Good to see everything finally hitting MSM. The Guardian have already posted the following making out it's a false claim 🤣🤣🤣. www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/13/bbc-cardiologist-aseem-malhotra-links-covid-jabs-to-heart-disease-deathsWe all know someone who has taken a turn for the worse after having these experimental jabs. I've witnessed previously healthy friends under 45 gradually falling apart as the months move on. Nobody under 50 should ever have gone near this snake oil. The excess deaths will continue and rise. This is just the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 14, 2023 8:41:18 GMT
In fairness to Hart Group they've said umpteen times correlation doesn't mean causation but indepth study is required. However they more than adequately show correlation given the examples and tracking the increase from date of booster in each country rather than an arbitrary date then tracked them against other European countries. Another pretty obvious research opportunity is surely South Africa. If covid causes myocarditis and heart attacks then there's a country with low vaccine uptake and widespread omicron. If it does cause heart issues then there would be excess deaths and you'd be able to work out infection vs heart attacks. If there isn't excess deaths in line with infection of the unvaccinated then why not? I think we can get some good hints from comparing different countries but also that it has to be done carefully. S Africa is loads younger than the UK so it should be a lot safer against COVID, right? 2020-21 excess deaths in the UK: 2.0k per million 2020-21 excess deaths in S Africa: 4.2k per million Hmmm. I can't find the last few weeks of 2022 for S Africa, but for the available weeks in 2022 excess death rates are basically identical: 599/million in S Africa and 592 in the UK. But I think it's really easy to get things wrong by comparing countries or regions - maybe US states are slightly better because people are more similar in terms of age, weight etc, but even that's not great. I personally trust conclusion more when the studiesuse matched control & treatment groups. You would need to compare a like for like country, with things like health care availability, poverty v wealth etc, were the deaths in areas like the townships in SA ?
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jan 17, 2023 2:38:49 GMT
I think we can get some good hints from comparing different countries but also that it has to be done carefully. S Africa is loads younger than the UK so it should be a lot safer against COVID, right? 2020-21 excess deaths in the UK: 2.0k per million 2020-21 excess deaths in S Africa: 4.2k per million Hmmm. I can't find the last few weeks of 2022 for S Africa, but for the available weeks in 2022 excess death rates are basically identical: 599/million in S Africa and 592 in the UK. But I think it's really easy to get things wrong by comparing countries or regions - maybe US states are slightly better because people are more similar in terms of age, weight etc, but even that's not great. I personally trust conclusion more when the studiesuse matched control & treatment groups. You would need to compare a like for like country, with things like health care availability, poverty v wealth etc, were the deaths in areas like the townships in SA ? Yeah that's a good point. I'm more confident when studies can do controlled trial designs with carefully matched samples. Preferably random & double blind too. Comparing S Africa and the UK makes it really, really obvious that the virus simply has to be loads more deadly than any vaccine we've used. But you can work that out from looking at the weekly data from S Korea or elsewhere too. The S Africa data can't tell us whether the virus is only 10,000 times more deadly than the vaccine, or millions of times more deadly. Really need different data for that.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jan 17, 2023 3:03:22 GMT
I looked for some Irish stats to try and make the YouTuber's argument more clear. He looks at total deaths with positive covid tests during some time and then divides by the total number of Irish people (or he does similar by age group). 28 people died from guns in Ireland in 2015. Let's take that number and divide by the population like the YouTuber does for COVID. Then: the risk of dying if you're shot is 0.0005%. I think that if you put a bullet into someone (including suicides where the bullet goes into the head), then the risk of death is actually much higher than 0.0005%. Believing the YouTuber's argument is like believing that being shot only has a 0.0005% chance of killing someone. I don't think you can calculate a fatality rate from the data he uses. But there are other data that are useful, why does he ignore those? He’s used Irish government data as far as I’m aware. Can you also come back on the Lancet piece and tell us why Lancet picking arbitrary unsubstantiated potential death numbers is good data modelling? I don't buy his logic that "this is official Irish government data" therefore "whatever the YouTuber says is true". I always try and check that any claimed results actually match what the data say. He's making claims about the percent of people that would die if infected with the virus. So don't you think we need both (# people dead from the virus) AND (# infected by the virus)? No matter how official it is, the data doesn't have that second number so you literally can't calculate the death rate. Or am I missing something?
The Lancet study seems fine to me btw, it's pretty clear about limitations etc* so looks like a reasonable estimate. The YouTuber's description of the study is very different from what they actually did, which I find kinda suspicious. Did you read the study? *I had a tiny technical issue but I bet it doesn't really matter.
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Jan 17, 2023 10:05:29 GMT
He’s used Irish government data as far as I’m aware. Can you also come back on the Lancet piece and tell us why Lancet picking arbitrary unsubstantiated potential death numbers is good data modelling? I don't buy his logic that "this is official Irish government data" therefore "whatever the YouTuber says is true". I always try and check that any claimed results actually match what the data say. He's making claims about the percent of people that would die if infected with the virus. So don't you think we need both (# people dead from the virus) AND (# infected by the virus)? No matter how official it is, the data doesn't have that second number so you literally can't calculate the death rate. Or am I missing something?
The Lancet study seems fine to me btw, it's pretty clear about limitations etc* so looks like a reasonable estimate. The YouTuber's description of the study is very different from what they actually did, which I find kinda suspicious. Did you read the study? *I had a tiny technical issue but I bet it doesn't really matter.
Yes I read the study but it was a while ago. You say the study “looks like a reasonable estimate”, based on what I read the assumptions underpinning it were suspect at best. As I recollect there was no credible data underpinning the projected death data. Also I don’t remember any media outlet caveating the headline number with “limitations”. It’s a bad data/science study that was commissioned to achieve a particular objective Any credible data expert would pick it to shreds
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Jan 17, 2023 10:13:34 GMT
In fairness to Hart Group they've said umpteen times correlation doesn't mean causation but indepth study is required. However they more than adequately show correlation given the examples and tracking the increase from date of booster in each country rather than an arbitrary date then tracked them against other European countries. It's a pretty common scientific method to start with a hypothesis and then try to falsify it, I think that's a really powerful technique. Looking at Hart's S Korean data, don't their graphs show that vaccinating >80% of people correlates with zero excess deaths inside 9 months? So it's basically impossible for the AZ and Pfizer vaccines to cause huge death rates within 9 months of a major vaccine campaign starting, right? Another pretty obvious research opportunity is surely South Africa. If covid causes myocarditis and heart attacks then there's a country with low vaccine uptake and widespread omicron. If it does cause heart issues then there would be excess deaths and you'd be able to work out infection vs heart attacks. If there isn't excess deaths in line with infection of the unvaccinated then why not? I think we can get some good hints from comparing different countries but also that it has to be done carefully. S Africa is loads younger than the UK so it should be a lot safer against COVID, right? 2020-21 excess deaths in the UK: 2.0k per million 2020-21 excess deaths in S Africa: 4.2k per million Hmmm. I can't find the last few weeks of 2022 for S Africa, but for the available weeks in 2022 excess death rates are basically identical: 599/million in S Africa and 592 in the UK. But I think it's really easy to get things wrong by comparing countries or regions - maybe US states are slightly better because people are more similar in terms of age, weight etc, but even that's not great. I personally trust conclusion more when the studiesuse matched control & treatment groups. I've done research methods modules once or twice so I get that but in order to disprove X you have to test it - not go 'look at Y,Z and A though over here!' On South Africa not really sure what picking the two figures out of the air is looking at and wasn't my suggestion - I could equally say South Africa performed better than expected given much lower vaccine uptake or given their far higher levels of poverty or their far higher ethic minority (being the overall majority). The age thing is a bit of misnomer too because the spaceship off Cocoon doesn't whisk any South African over 60 off to a different planet. My point was that by measuring trends in individual countries in Europe over 5 years then tracing recent divergence from the norm and comparing that across Europe doesn't automatically mean it's comparing apples with apples but it gives a hypothesis to work towards that you are. The other point was if we're saying Covid causes heart attacks then surely the perfect place to look into this is South Africa with their low vaccine rate and the Omicron virus ripping through - if there isn't an increase in heart attacks in comparison to previous years then surely the question is why not especially as it seems middle aged men are the most susceptible so the lower age profile of the country is less of a factor? On South Korea think there's a recent paper out that had excess deaths following Omicron at 25k which again would on the face of it appear to be a perfect place to test the vaccine's efficacy against the new strain. In previous waves there had been strict lockdown in place so this was potentially the first real societal exposure and can see how they coped without natural immunity being built up. The Pfizer stuff coming out from Twitter is deeply concerning too surely from a trust perspective?
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Jan 17, 2023 10:41:37 GMT
I see Moderna are now looking to charge $130 for a jab that costs $2.85 to produce!
No wonder they want governments to allow them to jab kids that don’t need it.
Has this jab even been approved for use in Europe or is it still being used under temporary authorisation?
|
|
|
Post by superjw on Jan 17, 2023 10:47:44 GMT
I see Moderna are now looking to charge $130 for a jab that costs $2.85 to produce! No wonder they want governments to allow them to jab kids that don’t need it. Has this jab even been approved for use in Europe or is it still being used under temporary authorisation? Something in the region of 500k yellow card incidents for these jabs and yet they are still being pushed. I saw something about the swine flu jab that got pulled after getting a tiny proportion of those incidents. The fact that at this point it's seriously harming more people through Vax injuries than lives saved per jab, proves that it's nothing more than a money grab from the producers. I seriously regret being coerced into taking the doses I have up to now, I never even needed it in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Jan 17, 2023 11:21:39 GMT
I see Moderna are now looking to charge $130 for a jab that costs $2.85 to produce! No wonder they want governments to allow them to jab kids that don’t need it. Has this jab even been approved for use in Europe or is it still being used under temporary authorisation? Something in the region of 500k yellow card incidents for these jabs and yet they are still being pushed. I saw something about the swine flu jab that got pulled after getting a tiny proportion of those incidents. The fact that at this point it's seriously harming more people through Vax injuries than lives saved per jab, proves that it's nothing more than a money grab from the producers. I seriously regret being coerced into taking the doses I have up to now, I never even needed it in the first place. Same here, had 3 doses of the junk just to go on bastard holiday.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 17, 2023 19:07:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jan 17, 2023 19:19:25 GMT
Ahhh covid bollocks - The biggest global scam in centuries.
Fuck pro lockdowners, fuck pro maskers.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jan 17, 2023 19:26:23 GMT
Imagine in 2019 being told that society would be obliterated, the global economy would be shut down, Grannies would be thrown in police vans outside Parliament for being outside, the entirety of society would be forced to wear ineffective, filthy rags on their face, injections were mandatory, the health service would shut down, neighbours would snitch on neighbours for going on a walk and schools were to close - All in the name of a virus with a 99%+ survival rate.
Unforgivable.
|
|
|
Post by hotterpotter on Jan 17, 2023 23:23:26 GMT
Ahhh covid bollocks - The biggest global scam in centuries. Fuck pro lockdowners, fuck pro maskers. I've had a bout of the covid bollocks. My wife was pleased - they didn't smell for weeks!
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Jan 18, 2023 1:09:06 GMT
Regardless of people’s views on this, that is a pathetically Euroscentric view of humanity.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Jan 18, 2023 7:49:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by musik on Jan 18, 2023 23:13:29 GMT
I see Moderna are now looking to charge $130 for a jab that costs $2.85 to produce! No wonder they want governments to allow them to jab kids that don’t need it. Has this jab even been approved for use in Europe or is it still being used under temporary authorisation $130 ??? Does it guarantee eternal life?
|
|