1. Sorry I had to delete the important thread I just put up as I said "consistent underestimation of the proportion of the population vaccinated" when it should have been "consistent underestimation of the proportion of the population UNVACCINATED". Here is the correct version .
2. Our ongoing analysis of the ONS Nov 1 Deaths by Vacc Status Report is showing consistent underestimation of the proportion of the population unvaccinated. Example: Look at this plot of mortality rate for non-Covid deaths (age category 60-69) during the summer weeks...
3. The fact the mortality rates for vacced and unvacced are so different makes no sense. Assuming the vacc is doing no harm, these plots should be similar. Only reasonable possible explanation is that the proportion of the population unvaccinated is underestimated.
4. And there are also problems in the population estimates of different categories of vaccinated as this plot shows (mortality rate for single dosed up to 10 times higher than double dosed)
4. And there are also problems in the population estimates of different categories of vaccinated as this plot shows (mortality rate for single dosed up to 10 times higher than double dosed)
5. Our report will show these problems are systemic, which means that none of the reported mortality rates (age adjusted or not) can be trusted. The reported all cause mortality rates for unvaccinated are too high, while mortality rates for vaccinated are too low
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.....
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