In a country-level analysis, variation in vaccine uptake was related to the number of new cases, but not in the way you would expect if vaccines prevent transmission and reduce symptoms.
And could we also check which vaccine were used in each of these contries? Different kind or brand of vaccines may also be influencing the data we're observing here?
The simplest, most obvious and most logical explanation would be that vaccinated people are (generally): 1) NOT tested when travelling, 2) NOT tested when entering public buildings or events, 3) do NOT show as many symptoms and are therefore less likely to isolate. The above combination makes them superspreaders...
If vaccines work, there are all kinds of reasons why we'd see this pattern in comparing countries. The main one is the confounder of wealth and development: those countries that can't afford to vaccinate, are also bad at reporting new COVID cases.
One should compare countries with trepidation because of the huge number of such confounders due to the huge differences in the way people live across the planet. But let us stick with one country: if you compare the 50 US states, and the counties within the states, do you get the same positive correlation of vaccination fraction and cases? NO. You now get NO correlation at all.
And now we ask opposite question: if the vaccine is responsible for some harm that shows in transmission, how could it be that way? All epidemiologists know that lack of correlation is a better signal that correlation, since to be wrong it requires two confounders operating perfectly against each other (rare), which is to say that any strong causal influence is very hard to hide. For example one cannot image no correlation between smoking in counties in the US and lung cancer rates-- it's inconceivable (and of course does not happen).
I want to see death stats vs. vaccination. adjusted for age and culture. I note that the vaccine raises IgG, the antibody which keeps the virus out of your blood. It doesn't raise IgA, the antibody made in secretions and is most effective against early infection and transmission. The vaccine trials showed most effectiveness against SEVERE disease (hospitalization) not "case rate" or transmission. They are rather weaker there, and (to a large extent) that isn't their "job." If they slow transmission a bit by shortening duration of illness, that's just icing on the cake. The point is to keep you out of the hospital and cemetary. We have a huge amount of data at the granular person-by-person level in single states to show that the vaccines DO that.
Regarding your last line, indicating “vaccines” reduce hospitalization/death, the link/study does not have that analysis. Additionally, in the conclusion, it actually supports the above authors main point; that there is no evidence the vaccines are effective.
The study does mention/footnotes that the “vaccine” reduces hospitalization as an aside in its conclusion and then footnotes a link to a article in axios which, in my understanding, is a journalistic source.
In axios, it states that the vaccine “likely” reduces hospitalization and yet again links to some other study. I stopped here as I suspect there is another link in that link.
This kind of cat mouse game is very typical as we try to pin down some kind of evidence that justifies all BS. And the story is constantly evolving, inducing yet another cat and mouse cycle of evidence chasing. A real waste of time!
I have looked at data for European countries including Sweden - trends are very seasonal. Also.looked at death rates as proportion cases- after initial hump are steadily declining on a trajectory started before vaccinations. I.e. vaccination does not seem to affect rate of mortality in the countries I have studied.
i didn't read your whole article but aren't these vaccines tested and determined to be safe and effective ?? maybe i'm naive but vaccines seem to be the best first line defense against a highly contagious virus that has killed 5 million people / in plain language what is your alternative to vaccinating people ??
Hi Rohn, didn't you read Pfizer's own trial results submitted to the FDA?? Death by injection 3%. Supposed death by virus less than flu 0.26%. Lost participants +-25% of trial subjects, whereabouts unknown, hmmm. Adverse reactions of "safe and effective" vaccine over 50% neurologic problems. Yes the vaccines are tested, that doesn't mean they are any good. We know that they cause disease due to previous mRNA testing on animals, they all died when exposed to a life virus, so even Pfizer themselves determined that their vaccines where not safe but the FDA said, " if we just review the intro and ignore the footnotes, looks good, lets run with it... " Cheers Mark
You are right if we had safe and effective vaccines. However, that is not what we are dealing with here. VAERS has 26,000 deaths so far. The EU´s own EudraVigilance (official reporting system from the European Medicine Agency) is at above 40,000 deaths and more than 3 million injuries. And anybody who knows these systems know that there is a huge underreporting. So these figures can at least be multiplied with a factor 10.
The trial period for Pfizer and Moderna was 2 months. For a never before used technology. Did you know that the required trial period for any other gene therapy (that is what these ´vaccines´ actually are) is 5 years? Before that it is not allowed to test these pharmaceuticals on large populations. And what do we do with these mRNA-vaccines?
Never heard either that the spike protein is a known toxin and that scientists believed it would stay in the arm, but in vaccinated individuals it is found all over the body in brain, heart, ovaries, liver, etc, etc. Vaccinated sports people drop dead on the field like never before. Blood clots!
Safe and effective? Look at Pfizer´s own data. Data Pfizer did not want to share. They requested 75 years to make their safety data public. Does that sound as a corporation to you that has nothing to hide? 1223 deaths in the first 3 months of use of these vaccines according to Pfizer. Have a look at table 1 yourself. And in the rest of the document to see what happened with the other just under 42,000 people in these trials that got injured by the vaccine.
you don't trust the vaccines / i don't trust your cherry picked information / there you have it in a nutshell / i do know my brother died from covid and 2 of my friends just recently got sick with it - one seriously / a big strapping young man / 1 million dead in the US / there's a statistic for you and it's definitely under reported / 6 million worldwide and that is greatly under reported / many countries don't have the infrastructure to keep track of who died of what / i'm vaccinated and glad for it / if you're not you're one of the reasons this thing has gone on for so long and still going strong / i'll trust the experts on this / i really don't think fauci and the CDC are acting carelessly / they're trying to stop a pandemic / it would be nice if the rest of us could help them / can you imagine how many more people would have died or suffered without the vaccines ?? 10 million ?? 20 million ?? the virus doesn't care how many it infects or kills / without the vaccines there would be nothing to stop it except for social distancing shutdowns and mask wearing which people are opposed to as well / what's your solution my friend ??
Just curious: Is there a marked difference in seasonality?
Yes. Seasonality and regionality.
Look at the pre-vaxed data. We are in the third year now.
And could we also check which vaccine were used in each of these contries? Different kind or brand of vaccines may also be influencing the data we're observing here?
The simplest, most obvious and most logical explanation would be that vaccinated people are (generally): 1) NOT tested when travelling, 2) NOT tested when entering public buildings or events, 3) do NOT show as many symptoms and are therefore less likely to isolate. The above combination makes them superspreaders...
If vaccines work, there are all kinds of reasons why we'd see this pattern in comparing countries. The main one is the confounder of wealth and development: those countries that can't afford to vaccinate, are also bad at reporting new COVID cases.
One should compare countries with trepidation because of the huge number of such confounders due to the huge differences in the way people live across the planet. But let us stick with one country: if you compare the 50 US states, and the counties within the states, do you get the same positive correlation of vaccination fraction and cases? NO. You now get NO correlation at all.
And now we ask opposite question: if the vaccine is responsible for some harm that shows in transmission, how could it be that way? All epidemiologists know that lack of correlation is a better signal that correlation, since to be wrong it requires two confounders operating perfectly against each other (rare), which is to say that any strong causal influence is very hard to hide. For example one cannot image no correlation between smoking in counties in the US and lung cancer rates-- it's inconceivable (and of course does not happen).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/
I want to see death stats vs. vaccination. adjusted for age and culture. I note that the vaccine raises IgG, the antibody which keeps the virus out of your blood. It doesn't raise IgA, the antibody made in secretions and is most effective against early infection and transmission. The vaccine trials showed most effectiveness against SEVERE disease (hospitalization) not "case rate" or transmission. They are rather weaker there, and (to a large extent) that isn't their "job." If they slow transmission a bit by shortening duration of illness, that's just icing on the cake. The point is to keep you out of the hospital and cemetary. We have a huge amount of data at the granular person-by-person level in single states to show that the vaccines DO that.
https://journals.stfm.org/primer/2021/morley-2021-0035/
StSeve, thanks for the links.
Regarding your last line, indicating “vaccines” reduce hospitalization/death, the link/study does not have that analysis. Additionally, in the conclusion, it actually supports the above authors main point; that there is no evidence the vaccines are effective.
The study does mention/footnotes that the “vaccine” reduces hospitalization as an aside in its conclusion and then footnotes a link to a article in axios which, in my understanding, is a journalistic source.
In axios, it states that the vaccine “likely” reduces hospitalization and yet again links to some other study. I stopped here as I suspect there is another link in that link.
This kind of cat mouse game is very typical as we try to pin down some kind of evidence that justifies all BS. And the story is constantly evolving, inducing yet another cat and mouse cycle of evidence chasing. A real waste of time!
Anyway, nuff said....good luck
I have looked at data for European countries including Sweden - trends are very seasonal. Also.looked at death rates as proportion cases- after initial hump are steadily declining on a trajectory started before vaccinations. I.e. vaccination does not seem to affect rate of mortality in the countries I have studied.
i didn't read your whole article but aren't these vaccines tested and determined to be safe and effective ?? maybe i'm naive but vaccines seem to be the best first line defense against a highly contagious virus that has killed 5 million people / in plain language what is your alternative to vaccinating people ??
Hi Rohn, didn't you read Pfizer's own trial results submitted to the FDA?? Death by injection 3%. Supposed death by virus less than flu 0.26%. Lost participants +-25% of trial subjects, whereabouts unknown, hmmm. Adverse reactions of "safe and effective" vaccine over 50% neurologic problems. Yes the vaccines are tested, that doesn't mean they are any good. We know that they cause disease due to previous mRNA testing on animals, they all died when exposed to a life virus, so even Pfizer themselves determined that their vaccines where not safe but the FDA said, " if we just review the intro and ignore the footnotes, looks good, lets run with it... " Cheers Mark
3% of the people vaccinated with pfizer's trial vaccine died / you believe that ?? it's total nonsense and you post it like you know what you're talking about / over 50% neurologic problems / total nonsense / google it and find some factual vetted information / you are misinformed / i cannot understand why people want to believe this stuff / i don't trust the drug companies / i know what they're up to - making money https://rohn.substack.com/p/about-pharmaceuticals-and-their-commercials that doesn't mean they don't make effective products / 25% of trial subjects whereabouts unnown / hmmm maybe they were abducted by aliens for experimental purposes / https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pfizer-health-concerns/fact-check-clarifying-claims-around-pfizer-vaccine-deaths-and-side-effects-idUSKBN28K2R6
Yes you are naïve or at least uninformed.
You are right if we had safe and effective vaccines. However, that is not what we are dealing with here. VAERS has 26,000 deaths so far. The EU´s own EudraVigilance (official reporting system from the European Medicine Agency) is at above 40,000 deaths and more than 3 million injuries. And anybody who knows these systems know that there is a huge underreporting. So these figures can at least be multiplied with a factor 10.
The trial period for Pfizer and Moderna was 2 months. For a never before used technology. Did you know that the required trial period for any other gene therapy (that is what these ´vaccines´ actually are) is 5 years? Before that it is not allowed to test these pharmaceuticals on large populations. And what do we do with these mRNA-vaccines?
Never heard either that the spike protein is a known toxin and that scientists believed it would stay in the arm, but in vaccinated individuals it is found all over the body in brain, heart, ovaries, liver, etc, etc. Vaccinated sports people drop dead on the field like never before. Blood clots!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971221003647
Safe and effective? Look at Pfizer´s own data. Data Pfizer did not want to share. They requested 75 years to make their safety data public. Does that sound as a corporation to you that has nothing to hide? 1223 deaths in the first 3 months of use of these vaccines according to Pfizer. Have a look at table 1 yourself. And in the rest of the document to see what happened with the other just under 42,000 people in these trials that got injured by the vaccine.
https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
you don't trust the vaccines / i don't trust your cherry picked information / there you have it in a nutshell / i do know my brother died from covid and 2 of my friends just recently got sick with it - one seriously / a big strapping young man / 1 million dead in the US / there's a statistic for you and it's definitely under reported / 6 million worldwide and that is greatly under reported / many countries don't have the infrastructure to keep track of who died of what / i'm vaccinated and glad for it / if you're not you're one of the reasons this thing has gone on for so long and still going strong / i'll trust the experts on this / i really don't think fauci and the CDC are acting carelessly / they're trying to stop a pandemic / it would be nice if the rest of us could help them / can you imagine how many more people would have died or suffered without the vaccines ?? 10 million ?? 20 million ?? the virus doesn't care how many it infects or kills / without the vaccines there would be nothing to stop it except for social distancing shutdowns and mask wearing which people are opposed to as well / what's your solution my friend ??