Discussion about this post

User's avatar
cl's avatar

Thanks for this. I have also been following prof Fenton, Neil and Dr Craig.

I understand re the "person years" trope and the other ways the data has been misrepresented. Also that there SHOULD be a mortality benefit in the vaccd. ( also the population undercount of unvaccd, and the ridiculousness of stating that UNvaccd start to die MORE on jab rollout... that's obvious miscategorisation.

What about per 100k , we know about 20% of uk pop are unjabbed in actuality. and 80% therefore jabbed:

IF the jabs did.literally nothing, zip, zilch, nada...( and no this is NOT what I am seeing around me)...

but.. you said 1 : 5 ( 109, 891 : 531,118)

unjabbed : ever jabbed deaths,

is the maths:-

total= 6/6 ( around 600k died in all, 100k unjabbed plus the 500k jabbed)

ie 1/6 unjabbed, and 5/6 jabbed died...

ie roundabout 16.6% and 83%.

is this not almost the SAME proportion in each population ( jabbed population, roundabout 20% vs ever jabbed pop. the 80%).

it SEEMS to show it has very little effect?

albeit tipped slightly in favour of unjabbed re mortality.

if this were the case, oh if only this were the case...

Expand full comment
Guilherme's avatar

Thanks for sharing.

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts