Thread by @TTBikeFit

Why would a C19 vax increase NON-C19 all-cause mortality in the unvaxed, but decrease NON-C19 mortality in the vaxed? @profnfenton and colleagues think they know, and it has nothing to do with the vax. In fact a placebo would show the same effect IF deaths are miscategorized.

The video above👆 recreates Prof Fenton's analysis where a placebo vax is rolled out rapidly in a population. Expected all-cause mortality rates (50/100k) are equal for unvaxed or vaxed...

...but if vaxed folks who die the first week after vax are classified as unvaxed...we see an apparent (but false) increase in unvaxed mortality and a decrease in vaxed mortality. This is a classic example of how sloppy data lead to sloppy conclusions. And all the data is sloppy.

Why should a medical treatment reduce mortality from conditions it isn't designed to treat, while increasing mortality in those who do not take the treatment? Surely this indicates some type intentional or unintentional data games. These same patterns show up in the UK data.

Prof Fenton et al. point out that apparent peaks in NON-C19, unvaxed mortality in the UK age-stratified data do not align with each other (i.e. as expected due to seasonality), but instead align with the peaks in vax rollout for each age group.

Prof Fenton and colleagues determined adjustment factors based on normal life tables, and the blue peaks disappear when adjusted.

While Fenton et al. looked at possible demographic, health or behavior differences between the vaxed/unvaxed groups, they failed to explain the anomalies. They conclude that data miscategorizations are most likely responsible.

Bottom line, Fenton et al. state that:

"Whatever the explanations for the anomalies, the data is unreliable and conclusions regarding vaccine efficacy are specious."
and
"The ONS data provide no reliable evidence that the vaccine reduces all-cause mortality."

For more info see probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/12/possib…

researchgate.net/publication/35…