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...
So this article is an apples-to-apples comparison rebuttal to another article using the same dataset. In their dataset, they juggle the numbers to show this wild increase in deaths for unvaccinated and major benefits for vaccinated. I'm using their own dataset to show this isn't the case.
Even if we 'charitably' assume the shots do nothing (do nothing, neither harms nor benefits), what we're looking at is one of the biggest healthcare scams to have ever been foisted on the public bar none. Literal snake oil sold for billions under the cover of indemnity that got past 'regulatory testing' where refusers were literally threatened with fines and jails.
In my opinion - and I agree with Counting the Numbers - the ONS dataset is incomplete and underreported, with a wide ranging number of flaws. Oversimplified does not begin to describe it.
However in this case I'm using the debaters own dataset so they cannot argue the dataset is somehow invalid/not applicable. Already one has accused me of using "false" data - which is from their own dataset! So essentially either way exposing themselves as crooks, either lying about my use of "false" data, or confirming they're peddling lies by using a false dataset. Either way, I think the point has been made and ONS are set to torch their own dataset in response it seems.
the initial high figure of unvaxxed deaths are probably due to the rule of patients counting as unvaxxxed until their second shot, so that high figure may well be due to people dying during that period.
If the vaccines worked, what we would see is the deaths trending down over time in the vaccinated cohort (regardless of what the unvaccinated are doing). Instead, what we see is basically the same death rate 'change places', almost as if someone simply created an arbitrary Category B.
We only see death numbers decline after a peak in deaths, which is a 'the dead can't die again' type situation.
Inversely, if unvaccinated were 'more at risk', we'd expect their death figures to climb over time; but actually they crash to a low from May 2021 onwards, and stay there. This is despite the fact the majority hadn't received a shot (only the elderly had mostly received the shot at this point).
Notice, for contrast, that when vaccinated figures start, they immediately start from +10k deaths (In Jan 2021, when it became publicly available to the elderly). This would mean the exact moment the shot was rolled out, *people were already dying upon receipt*.
It only takes Feb 2021 (or March 2021 if you're figures conservative) for vaccinated deaths to overshoot unvaccinated. I doubt the majority had even received it by then.
No matter how you slice the numbers... it looks bad for vaccinated regardless.
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...
"it SEEMS to show it has very little effect?"
So this article is an apples-to-apples comparison rebuttal to another article using the same dataset. In their dataset, they juggle the numbers to show this wild increase in deaths for unvaccinated and major benefits for vaccinated. I'm using their own dataset to show this isn't the case.
Even if we 'charitably' assume the shots do nothing (do nothing, neither harms nor benefits), what we're looking at is one of the biggest healthcare scams to have ever been foisted on the public bar none. Literal snake oil sold for billions under the cover of indemnity that got past 'regulatory testing' where refusers were literally threatened with fines and jails.
In my opinion - and I agree with Counting the Numbers - the ONS dataset is incomplete and underreported, with a wide ranging number of flaws. Oversimplified does not begin to describe it.
However in this case I'm using the debaters own dataset so they cannot argue the dataset is somehow invalid/not applicable. Already one has accused me of using "false" data - which is from their own dataset! So essentially either way exposing themselves as crooks, either lying about my use of "false" data, or confirming they're peddling lies by using a false dataset. Either way, I think the point has been made and ONS are set to torch their own dataset in response it seems.
Thanks for sharing.
the initial high figure of unvaxxed deaths are probably due to the rule of patients counting as unvaxxxed until their second shot, so that high figure may well be due to people dying during that period.
ONS keep changing their definitions for 'unvaccinated' and 'vaccinated', but for mortality they do count 'vaccinated' as those receiving the shot:
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/ons-wont-explain-why-they-changed
The initially high figure is actually from the pre-shot rollout period, and for that we have the Midazolam murders to thank (see: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/the-death-penalty-drugs-used-by-care).
If the vaccines worked, what we would see is the deaths trending down over time in the vaccinated cohort (regardless of what the unvaccinated are doing). Instead, what we see is basically the same death rate 'change places', almost as if someone simply created an arbitrary Category B.
We only see death numbers decline after a peak in deaths, which is a 'the dead can't die again' type situation.
Inversely, if unvaccinated were 'more at risk', we'd expect their death figures to climb over time; but actually they crash to a low from May 2021 onwards, and stay there. This is despite the fact the majority hadn't received a shot (only the elderly had mostly received the shot at this point).
Notice, for contrast, that when vaccinated figures start, they immediately start from +10k deaths (In Jan 2021, when it became publicly available to the elderly). This would mean the exact moment the shot was rolled out, *people were already dying upon receipt*.
It only takes Feb 2021 (or March 2021 if you're figures conservative) for vaccinated deaths to overshoot unvaccinated. I doubt the majority had even received it by then.
No matter how you slice the numbers... it looks bad for vaccinated regardless.