TNKPhDCFA Profile picture
Feb 19, 2022 9 tweets 4 min read Read on X
Something's rotten in Scotland, and it's not the haggis. PHS (Public Health Scotland) has now decided that it's CRUCIAL to adhere to best practices in data presentation and analysis. As such, they will stop reporting data by vaccination status. And I found something very 🐟y 🧵
Man, does PHS have REASONS tho to stop reporting by vax status! Many of these have been analyzed in excellent articles I will link below. But they suddenly seem seriously concerned about non-comparable cohorts, a veritable standard of C19 "The Science".
"Bully", you say? "Good for them, standing up for scientific rigor!" Except they only gained science religion once the data weren't looking so great for the vax mandate crowd. And the sources of "data rot" are many they say. One of which is shown here.
That's right, the sample size is too small among those pesky folks not "up to date" on their vax. (Tell that to Pfizer). This phrase appears twice in the final report publichealthscotland.scot/media/11763/22…
Except I don't think the sample size is small at all. You were expecting like 48 people right? How does 1.5 Million sound (of a 5.5 M pop)? Yes that is their small population (for deaths). 1.5 Milllllionnn!
This is their mortality data. See what I mean? Also note the 2 dosers' mortality rate doesn't look so hot vs unvaxed. If 1.5 M doesn't cut it for sample size, what should we make of Pfizer's 21k sample size? There's something else interesting here too...
Look at the raw numbers of deaths. The 3 dose pop size is 2x the unvaxed, but the deaths are ~4x. But the "age-standardized mortality rate" is about 1/8th when the raw numbers make it look like it is 2x: Twice the pop, 4x the deaths, 1/8 death rate. "standardized" I guess...
But if the "standardization" shifts the rates that much, why doesn't it for 1 and 2 dose. There the rates approx match raw numbers. Approximately - not perfect of course but not off 16x like the mortality rates for the vaxed appear to be.
Somebody tell me what I am missing here. It's Friday night 🍷🍻.
Articles with more info (not this particular issue tho): theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz…
eugyppius.com/p/public-healt…

• • •

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

Keep Current with TNKPhDCFA

TNKPhDCFA 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 @TTBikeFit

Apr 3, 2023
PCR test issues, summarized from our Twitter Spaces yesterday:🧵

👉PCR was never designed to diagnose a disease - it’s a lab test to find tiny amounts of rna for research purposes, and without clinical observations it is useless for diagnosis.

From the ThermoFisher manual:
👉 PCR test results drive all the other pandemic statistics: Cases, hospitalizations, fatalities, vax “efficacy.” They are also used to force quarantine, restrict travel, and shut down schools. Yet they were never meant to be used for broad surveillance.
👉 High CT PCR positives detect as little as a single copy of RNA - far higher amounts are required for a culturable or replication-competent infection. Presence of a tiny amount of RNA implies nothing about infection or infectiveness. “Asymptomatic infection” = oxymoron 🤡🌎
Read 7 tweets
Jun 27, 2022
My colleagues @ClareCraigPath and Dr Andrew Bostom (banned from Twitter) warned about the concerning heart damage signals a year ago. Key points apply to the recent Nature study too -> dailysceptic.org/archive/raisin…
“A 4x increase above baseline was evident in the seven days after the first dose for under-24 yo rising to over 27x for the 7days after the 2nd dose. The rate/M in males 12-17 was 17x higher than in men >50, 7days after the 1st dose, rising to 74x 7days after the second dose.”->
“For young and old it is not a clinically obvious diagnosis and it is likely that milder cases will have gone undiagnosed. Even for these mild cases, the long term outcome is unknown...Currently, more than half of the reports in VAERS are from patients under the age of 30. ->
Read 6 tweets
May 20, 2022
Do not arouse the wrath of the great and powerful FAUCI!

Terrifying!

But what is behind that green curtain?
Wait - who could it be?
Holy flying monkeys - it's NIH Head of Clinical "Bioethics" - Fauci's WIFE Christine Grady - in place for 12 years. Hmm, who knew? And why didn't we? It's not like there is any conflict there, right?
Read 7 tweets
Apr 7, 2022
💥State (RI) pediatric hospitalization data analyzed:

👉Only 1/3 of 0-18yrs Covid19 hospitalizations could possibly have been DUE TO C19.

@andrewbostom @ifihadastick and I have been looking at this ICD code data and there will be much more analysis to come. 1/6
Pop of RI 0-18 is ~220k. We also looked at flu hosps with primary dx of flu vs C19 hosps w primary dx U071 (=+C19 test). 100% of flu hosps had codes consistent w flu while only 56% of C19 primary dx were even possibly hosp DUE TO C19. 2/6
Looking at the ICD codes of these supposed pediatric C19 hospitalizations is shocking. There are children there w primary dx for attempted suicide, abuse, severe trauma, poisoning, cancer etc with a U071 Covid code thrown in.

💥folks these kids are not hospitalized for Covid 3/6
Read 6 tweets
Mar 31, 2022
These are the kinds of clowns that want to shut up anyone who dares question their approved narrative. Fact: a free society is built on open debate and free speech - never in history have the censors been the good guys. Censorship has never been for anyone’s good but the censors. Image
Gavin Yamey (Prof MD MPH!) is the poster boy for zero Covid nut jobs who have spent the last 2 years grifting for funds at your expense. He blocks anyone who disagrees rather than debating. He lies incessantly and moves to the next lie. No accountability in his echo chamber. Image
2 lies in that single tweet. Characterizing PANDA as “anti v” because we are are critical of the data and the unsupported assertions. 2nd, the GBD authors are not scientific advisors. Par for the course for these folk. Which is exactly why they love censorship. But looky here -> Image
Read 5 tweets
Mar 18, 2022
Fun math exercise via El Gato Malo, prompted by the @CDCgov 's "adjustment" of it's C19 mortality data.

If the avg person gets 2x colds per year, even just mild feeling crappy stuff, if we were mass PCR testing >35Ct for "colds", How many "cases" do you think we would get? ->
Well now what if we counted any death for a month after your "+ cold PCR" as a "Cold death?"

That means for every person, there are 2 months out of 12 where they will flag as a "cold death." 17% of the year.

Since 2.9M die in the US annually, x17% equals 490k "cold deaths" ->
Now those are just 490,000 deaths, WITH a "positive cold test" in the past month. How many actually died FROM a cold? Some, but nowhere near all. This leaves out skewed risk in older folks, seasonality etc, but you get the point. ->
Read 6 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!

:(