my scientist father claims this lancet study "review" confirms vaccine efficacy.
"Long-term effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against
infections, hospitalisations, and mortality in adults: findings from a rapid living systematic evidence synthesis and meta-analysis up to December, 2022
Nana Wu, Keven Joyal-Desmarais, Paula A B Ribeiro, Ariany Marques Vieira, Jovana Stojanovic, Comfort Sanuade, Doro Yip, Simon L Bacon"
I believe the healthy bias is even more problematic than some believe. If we had worldwide partial immunity to Sars Cov2 due to exposure to the many other circulating coronaviruses, (cross reactivity has been documented) then most people had some immunity. So healthy low risk individuals without coronavirus exposure presumably have more risk than those with immune system exposure to previous coronaviruses. Study subjects, and ALL individuals should have had antigen testing prior to forced vaccination or study enrollment
University of Michigan has Facebook ads for a research opportunity recruiting volunteers who declined the vaccine because they had previous allergic reactions to other vaccines, or who had an allergic reaction to an initial covid vaccine and therefore avoided further covid vaccine doses.
They recognize that those people are out there, and should realize that this fact can contribute to healthy user bias.
What percentage of those who were on death's doorstep got jabbed, as compared top those who were not?
This is ONLY a meaningful comparison for people of specifically defined baseline health status within a particular age group. Most meaningful among those lacking significant pre-existing health issues of similar age.
I have an observational study of my own two people in my office counting myself did not get COVID-19 vaccinations we were never hospitalized did not get Covid and the mortality rate rate is 100% based on my observation maybe my study should be included in the review studies for the FDA CDC to consider their recommendations to report
Observational studies are basically what it is observing not a good study from my point of view to set policies only to do more your diligent research to find the correlation to cause finding I know multiple people have their observational studies As stayed in previous post I had a long conversation at a gathering about vaccination controversies and mandates one guy there had both Pfizer shots and boosters his conclusion is it worked he didn’t get Covid I said very interesting doesn’t prove anything I didn’t get any shots and never got Covid too so what’s the conclusion there is none from observational studies
Lol. "90% reduced mortality" yet we're seeing an astounding, unheard-of, 13 Sigma deviation in all cause mortality in the 0-24 age group (the group LEAST likely to suffer mortality), currently running in excess of 26%.
Another factor Has to be considered in the very beginning before the vaccine roll out there was no therapeutic therapeutics weren’t allowed they said wait I would gather that they started to treat patients early on the onset of illness after the vaccine roll out as they should’ve from the beginning of the pandemic which would make a huge difference in the mortality rate .
Mathew Crawford kept harping on HUB some considerable time ago. I paid little attention to it since it could be considered as but an academic exercise. What with a disease with ONE PER MILLE overall mortality, a figure additionally enhanced by directed medical mistreatment! No vax was ever needed in the first place, let alone the deadly slops injected into all and sundry. Doubtless the study authors would be capable of examining an excrement in the middle of the street, and find it smelled of roses if the pay was right.
There's an even more fundamental problem with this paper: The stats for Covid-related deaths are garbage. We know there were financial incentives for hospitals to classify deaths as Covid-related, which resulted in absurdities like gunshot victims being classified as Covid-related, because of some PCR test, which itself was garbage. GIGO
What percentage of those who died within a given age group had been gravely ill or critically injured prior to dying?
What were the comparative percentages of those who were gravely ill or critically injured, as compared to those who were not who got the jabs?
What would one expect the percentage of those for whom death was imminent to even have been getting the jabs in the first place?
The only meaningful comparison is the all cause death rates among people of the same age group and baseline health status. Therefore, those whose baseline health status was deemed unsuitable for getting the jabs at the times greatest percentage of those within their age group got the jabs must be excluded for any such comparison to be meaningful.
In all three papers by Arbel et al., almost all the valuable mortality data analyses, which the public is eager to access, are withheld. Their approach is akin to a black-box analysis. All three papers overlooked the crucial aspect of all-cause mortality. As Hoeg's team states at the end of their letter: "Inclusion of mortality not related to Covid-19 in all observational Covid-19 vaccine studies would provide important context."
my scientist father claims this lancet study "review" confirms vaccine efficacy.
"Long-term effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against
infections, hospitalisations, and mortality in adults: findings from a rapid living systematic evidence synthesis and meta-analysis up to December, 2022
Nana Wu, Keven Joyal-Desmarais, Paula A B Ribeiro, Ariany Marques Vieira, Jovana Stojanovic, Comfort Sanuade, Doro Yip, Simon L Bacon"
I believe the healthy bias is even more problematic than some believe. If we had worldwide partial immunity to Sars Cov2 due to exposure to the many other circulating coronaviruses, (cross reactivity has been documented) then most people had some immunity. So healthy low risk individuals without coronavirus exposure presumably have more risk than those with immune system exposure to previous coronaviruses. Study subjects, and ALL individuals should have had antigen testing prior to forced vaccination or study enrollment
University of Michigan has Facebook ads for a research opportunity recruiting volunteers who declined the vaccine because they had previous allergic reactions to other vaccines, or who had an allergic reaction to an initial covid vaccine and therefore avoided further covid vaccine doses.
They recognize that those people are out there, and should realize that this fact can contribute to healthy user bias.
So they suggest we should look at all-cause mortality between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups?
Yes, let's do that. We've been saying that all along.
What percentage of those who were on death's doorstep got jabbed, as compared top those who were not?
This is ONLY a meaningful comparison for people of specifically defined baseline health status within a particular age group. Most meaningful among those lacking significant pre-existing health issues of similar age.
I have an observational study of my own two people in my office counting myself did not get COVID-19 vaccinations we were never hospitalized did not get Covid and the mortality rate rate is 100% based on my observation maybe my study should be included in the review studies for the FDA CDC to consider their recommendations to report
Observational studies are basically what it is observing not a good study from my point of view to set policies only to do more your diligent research to find the correlation to cause finding I know multiple people have their observational studies As stayed in previous post I had a long conversation at a gathering about vaccination controversies and mandates one guy there had both Pfizer shots and boosters his conclusion is it worked he didn’t get Covid I said very interesting doesn’t prove anything I didn’t get any shots and never got Covid too so what’s the conclusion there is none from observational studies
Lol. "90% reduced mortality" yet we're seeing an astounding, unheard-of, 13 Sigma deviation in all cause mortality in the 0-24 age group (the group LEAST likely to suffer mortality), currently running in excess of 26%.
PFIZER LIES.
The possibility people in an unblinded RCT might thus choose to switch study arms might argue for blinding.
How do you have a “significantly lower mortality rate” for a disease that is NOT deadly to over 99% of the world??????
Another factor Has to be considered in the very beginning before the vaccine roll out there was no therapeutic therapeutics weren’t allowed they said wait I would gather that they started to treat patients early on the onset of illness after the vaccine roll out as they should’ve from the beginning of the pandemic which would make a huge difference in the mortality rate .
Well would you look at that
You can rest easy, all you "conspiracy theorists, whackjobs, nutters & tin-foil-hatters"
For 3+ years, the truths you've been telling have been shoved in the corner . . . You've been ridiculed,… https://twitter.com/pepedownunder/status/1685115575603986432?s=66&t=Th6yewb9qWG5Znlyfj_X0w
Mathew Crawford kept harping on HUB some considerable time ago. I paid little attention to it since it could be considered as but an academic exercise. What with a disease with ONE PER MILLE overall mortality, a figure additionally enhanced by directed medical mistreatment! No vax was ever needed in the first place, let alone the deadly slops injected into all and sundry. Doubtless the study authors would be capable of examining an excrement in the middle of the street, and find it smelled of roses if the pay was right.
There's an even more fundamental problem with this paper: The stats for Covid-related deaths are garbage. We know there were financial incentives for hospitals to classify deaths as Covid-related, which resulted in absurdities like gunshot victims being classified as Covid-related, because of some PCR test, which itself was garbage. GIGO
Some simple questions:
What percentage of those who died within a given age group had been gravely ill or critically injured prior to dying?
What were the comparative percentages of those who were gravely ill or critically injured, as compared to those who were not who got the jabs?
What would one expect the percentage of those for whom death was imminent to even have been getting the jabs in the first place?
The only meaningful comparison is the all cause death rates among people of the same age group and baseline health status. Therefore, those whose baseline health status was deemed unsuitable for getting the jabs at the times greatest percentage of those within their age group got the jabs must be excluded for any such comparison to be meaningful.
In all three papers by Arbel et al., almost all the valuable mortality data analyses, which the public is eager to access, are withheld. Their approach is akin to a black-box analysis. All three papers overlooked the crucial aspect of all-cause mortality. As Hoeg's team states at the end of their letter: "Inclusion of mortality not related to Covid-19 in all observational Covid-19 vaccine studies would provide important context."