According to Victoria Derbyshire and her followers if her brother hadn’t had 3 jabs he’d be hospitalised or worse. I’d love to see the evidence for this.
I should clarify: while her followers say that the triple jabbed like her brother who get Covid are actually being saved by the vaxx, Victoria didn’t say that. But I find her follow up strange
Actually I retract the clarification. Victoria is now explicitly claiming what I said she was:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. Here is the full lecture by David Healy which we hosted earlier this week. Extremely important (and concerning) information about the way vaccine safety is evaluated and presented.
1. YouTube has removed my video that showed why the Government claim that "1 in 3 people with the virus have no symptoms" was wrong. It had over 80,000 views. They say they will not allow content that 'spreads medical misinformation that contradicts local authorities or the WHO'.
2. But the medical misinformation was in the Govt claim - which wrongly equated a person 'having a positive PCR test result' with a person 'having the virus'. We only used data from the ONS and the Cambridge Univ study of asymptomatics
3. During the period we studied the Cambridge data, over 10,000 samples from asymptomatics were PCR tested. Only 43 were positive and of these 36 were found to be FALSE positives when subject confirmatory testing. So over 80% of asymptomatics testing positive were false
1. New blog post with .@MartinNeil9: Is vaccine efficacy a statistical illusion? Turns out that, simply by delayed reporting of deaths by 1 week, it's inevitable a placebo will appear to reduce mortality in those who receive it compared to those who don't probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/11/is-vac…
2. Here's the graph that results from a one week delay in reporting deaths in a simple example where both the 'vaxxed' and the 'unvaxxed' actually have the same constant mortality rate of 15 deaths per 100K people
3. And here's the graph from the latest ONS report on mortality by vaxx status. Compares non-covid mortality rates of vaxxed v unvaxxed. Notice the similarities with placebo example. Suggests it's a statistical illusion unexplainable by any real impact of vaxx on mortality rates
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.
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?