1. As we requested, the ONS Nov 1 Deaths by Vacc Status Report now includes age categorised all-cause death numbers by vacc status. But, while it has data for age categories 60-69, 70-79 and 80+, there's only a single category of data for the age group 10-59.
2. In this ‘youngest’ age group all-cause mortality rate is currently around twice as high for those who've had at least one dose of vacc compared to unvacced. But as it includes such a wide age range it's still possible this extremely disturbing statistic is confounded by age
3. Where age categories are narrower, 60-69, 70-79 and 80+, age confounding effects are somewhat mitigated, and the data suggest there's lower all-cause mortality in vacced compared to unvacced in each of those age categories. BUT.....
4. .... there appears to be systemic problems with the data accuracy since the overall mortality rates are out of sync with other mortality data. Possible explanation is estimated proportion of vacced v unvacced in ONS population data is too heavily weighted toward vacced.
5. We are working on better understanding what the core problems are and hope to produce a full analysis soon. Our analysis of the previous ONS deaths by vacc status report is here: probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/10/compar…
1/5. To calculate how unlikely it is to see the cluster of pulmonary haemorrhage deaths in new borns - as discussed in the thread by Scott Mclachlan - it's not enough just to consider the probability of it happening at a single hospital in 1 month ....
2/5. We have to consider the probability it will happen at at least one hospital somewhere in the UK in one month sometime during, say, a year. Explanation and calculation are in this (3-minute) video
3/5. If it was a cluster of 4 it would be unlikely in a single hospital (about 0.07%, i.e. 1 in 143 chance) but very likely (81% chance) of happening somewhere in a year. But what if we observe a cluster of 8 in the same hospital?
3. But the conclusions of such studies are also confounded by failing to consider non-Covid deaths; this overestimate the safety of the vaccine if there were serious adverse reactions. In fact multiple confounding factors will overestimate vaccine effectiveness.
4. One factor is how/whether a person is classified as a Covid ‘case’, Covid ‘hospitalization’ & Covid ‘death’. These can differ between vacc & unvaccinated. The unvaccinated who die ‘with’ as opposed to ‘from’ Covid are more likely to be classified as Covid deaths.
5. Another critical factor is how/whether a person is classified as ‘vaccinated’. Any person testing positive for Covid or dying of any cause within 14 days of their second dose is now classified by the CDC as ‘unvaccinated’
1. This letter in the latest issue of the American Journal of Therapeutics is a summary of our analysis. Even after removing the contraversial Elgazzar study the results still support ivermectin being an effective treatment for #Covid_19. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
2. When #COVID19 first struck in 2020 we applied causal probabilistic models to better understand & explain the data (it's what we do) & were influenced only by academic findings. In fact, we initially concluded that widespread random testing was needed theconversation.com/coronavirus-co…
3. We published articles in peer reviewed journals about this and related issues on infection and fatality rates that were not considered 'contraversial' doi.org/10.1080/136698…
1. We've updated our Bayesian meta-analysis of the effectiveness of #ivermectin in treating #COVID19 to take acount of concerns about veracity of certain studies (notably Elgazzar). Summary with link to full paper: probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/07/iverme…
2. It evaluates sensitivity of the conclusions to any single study by removing one study at a time. In the worst cas (Elgazzar removed) results remain robust, for both severe and mild/moderate Covid-19. Ivermectin reduces mortality. Full paper: dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.…
3. (should be "worst case" not "worst cas"!!) So it supports the conclusions of @PierreKory@BIRDGroupUK etc
1. Here's confirmation email from .@SpursOfficial that starting Saturday they're party to the Government's removal of our civil liberties.
2. Moreover, the plan is for the Club to implement full medical apartheid starting September - when ONLY proof of vaccination (i.e. vaccine passport) will enable entry.
3. While it's disappointing that .@THSTOfficial, who are supposed to stand up for fans' rights, are supporting current restrictions (and even asking for more, like masking) I welcome their statement opposing the vaccine passports: thstofficial.com/thst-news/thst…