Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Orwell2024🏒 Profile picture
@orwell2022
Jul 23, 2021 • 14 tweets • 12 min read • Read on X
1/ #Myocarditis/#Pericarditis rates after #vaccination.

#CDC #VAERS US data (June) versus German #PEI (July).

I start with the result graph. For details and source see below. Conclusion: the US and German data are very comparable. Image
2/ Sources.

CDC USA report: June 23, 2021, Tom Shimabukuro

Paul Ehrlich (PEI) Germany report, July 15, 2021
3/ Data preparation:

1) The CDC report is very well done and properly normalized. No further calculations are needed. All is done and ready.

2) The German report is poor. No normalization by doses, nor by sex. In General the report is of a very low quality.
4/ So for the German PEI report, some calculations and estimations were needed. The administered dose per age group are also not published and need to be estimated.

Approach: use German 2019 population pyramid and multiply by vaccination rate (estimated). Here the result. Image
5/ Remarks. Germany hasn't given a general recommendation for vaccinating children below 18.

Thanks to the #STIKO, they didn’t follow the unethical example of CDC.

That’s why the German curve begins at 18 only. The data below 18 is fortunately not available. Image
6/ The general quality of the German PEI reports are of low quality (lacking dose/age normalization etc.).

The comparison with the high quality report by CDC shows this very clearly. But judge for yourself.

@RWMaloneMD @waukema @AlexBerenson @Lareb_NL @CDCgov @rki_de
7/ Many thanks again to #STIKO and Prof. Dr. Thomas Mertens who resists the unethical pressure by @Karl_Lauterbach and other #zerocovid members.



@BrinkmannLab @ViolaPriesemann @jensspahn @hugodejonge @maybritillner
8/




9/ Bonus round: why vaccinating children is unethical:
Using the same type of normalization as decribed above, I estimated the age dependant vaccine CFR from the German PEI report and compared it with the C19 IFR for healthy. IFR source below here:
Image
10/ All safety features have fallen. This here is unprecedented. Politics make medical decisions now and ignore #STIKO. The kids must be vaccinated at all costs it looks like. And rumors say that STIKO will change it’s recommendation. Based on new data? No.
11/ Risk - Benefit the wrong way around. It’s absolutely “heartbreaking” (sorry for the sarcasm).

Unfortunately my little thread will grow bigger. There is a new PEI report available. I’ll update my graphs.

#STIKO #FDA #PEI #CDC shame on you.
12/ Interesting. Canadian data. Significant higher rates are seen, more in line with the the Israel data.
13/ Here is a graphical comparison: Canada vs. Israel (claimed source is a FOI request: )

Clearly CDC US and PEI DE have an underreporting issue while Canada and Israel show similar (higher) numbers.

What about @Lareb_NL ? Nothing to report? Silence? Image
14/ The potential root cause for the age curve has been discussed by @bringsmileback here: a combination of testosteron and stronger Th1 inflammatory response in young boys compared to older men:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Orwell2024🏒

Orwell2024🏒 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @orwell2022

Orwell2024🏒 Profile picture
Apr 12
1/ I was told non US GHCN “raw” is adjusted already.

-----TRUE-----

Now I see it. Gosh.

Composite. 2x adjusted. NOAA doesn’t even know where non-US stations are—or what they’re measuring. Their own US data (USCRN) is light-years better. But for “global”? It’s clown-tier level. Image
2/ And here it is—the DOUBLE-adjusted COMPOSITE.
Not raw. I doubted @connolly_s at first—like someone denying their 2nd-hand car is stolen, crash-salvaged, and repainted twice. Turns out he was right.
NOAA’s “global” QCU (non-US): not raw.
Image
Image
3/ Credit where due.
Normally I block on first bad-faith signal.
But intuition said: bait him back.
Let’s see what he hands over.
And he did:
✔ Clown location
✔ 120% urbanized
✔ Composite
✔ Adjusted twice
Thanks for the assist.
Image
Image
Read 5 tweets
Orwell2024🏒 Profile picture
Apr 10
1/ The WMO’s temperature station classification study isn’t a glamorous reading —but it’s the bare minimum anyone aggregating climate data should know about every single station. They don’t.

Scandal hiding in plain sight Image
2/ Class 1 is “bare minimum” for climate-grade weather station suitability. One means maybe ok.
met.no/publikasjoner/…
I’ll be counting impressions. I’ll know if you didn’t read.
(you’re allowed to LLM TlDR it.)
Next up: NOAA climate site requirements (HLR). 👇 x.com/orwell2022/sta…
3/ The NOAA HLR system makes WMO classes look gentle.
Most stations? Fail spectacularly.

Here a flow-down from high-level requirements into practical criteria:
orwell2024.substack.com/p/quality-requ…
(Use LLMs to TLDR.)
x.com/i/grok/share/u…
Ok, so ready for real fun after boring reading? x.com/orwell2022/sta…
Read 16 tweets
Orwell2024🏒 Profile picture
Mar 28
1/ Digging deeper, we find 3 USCRN sites with 2 IDs — a legacy historical one and a USCRN. That’s big. It means we can stitch together long-term time series for 3 “golden” stations. Why haven’t @NOAA or @hausfath done this? Not the “right” narrative result? 🙃 Let’s take a look Image
2/ Here is an example of such a pair. STILLWATER. Note that you can see the wind fence around the precipitation gauge on satellite picture — that round structure.
ncei.noaa.gov/access/crn/pdf…Image
3/ Well, let’s do it. We try. And...

...no hockey stick.

Despite STILLWATER being a growing urban area.
So... where’s the hockey stick? Anyone?
We're told it should be there. But the best data says no. Image
Read 43 tweets
Orwell2024🏒 Profile picture
Mar 19
1/ Mr. @hausfath packed multiple fallacies into one graph. We replicate: he used homogenized data. We get the same.

Bottom right shows the raw. His fallacy: claiming that USCRN-ClimDiv agreement in the modern era (where adjustments are ~zero) validates strong past adjustments. Image
Image
3/ His fallacy is blatant bad faith. Measurement validation isn't done by induction. He claims adjustments are valid because USCRN-ClimDiv align from 2008-2024—yet no adjustments were made in that period. Then he asserts past adjustments are proven. Exceptional level of malice. Image
4/ Another fallacy: He cherry-picked 1970—the coldest point in 100 years. He highlights only post-1970 warming in green, hiding earlier trends. But the real scandal? Extreme (false) pre-1970 adjustments, erasing the 1930s warmth with absurd corrections. Image
Read 15 tweets
Orwell2024🏒 Profile picture
Mar 19
1/ New tool - let's test with VALENTIA (hourly) overlay: solid agreement. A model (ERA5) is only as good as its ground truth measurements constraints it. We saw good US results before, but obvious heat bias in polar regions—nothing measured to compare with there anyway. Image
2/ Now we match the 1940-2024 range. Note temp vs. anomaly scale—same curve, just shifted. A trick to amplify range. Few notice. Climate stripes? Perfect for manipulation—e.g. add offset (ECMWF) to make it red “=warm"= behavior science (manipulative).
Image
3/ With the 1940–2024 range matched, comparison improves. For a clearer view, monthly temps are shown on top left, yearly in the middle—overlaying ERA5. Not perfect overlay, but ERA5 is A) a cell average (of a weather model) and B) fed by adjusted data. Image
Read 6 tweets
Orwell2024🏒 Profile picture
Mar 15
1/ Absolutely my worldview. But I haven’t found a trace of it in temperature measurements. Accuracy doesn’t seem to be a factor at all. Instead, they rely on bizarre software that arbitrarily alters the data. No station audits. No QMS existing. Nothing.
2/ This magic software even adjusts in various directions from day to day—without any explicit justification beyond it doing so. Is the sensor accuracy changing day to day?? No.

This finding by @connolly_s is important and exposes PHA being unrelated to measurement principles.
3/ Here’s clear proof of failure. If the @noaa adjustments were correct, they’d bring raw data closer to the high-quality USCRN reference station (designed bias/error free). Instead, PHA alters the classic (cheap) neighborhood station’s raw data to be wrong—to be false.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(