Tweet

Prof Norman Fenton

Jan 20 • 5 tweets • 3 min read

1. Important news. The Statistics Regulator has finally responded to our complaint about the ONS data on vaccine mortality. They agree that the data should not be used to make any claims of vaccine efficacy or safety.
wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/uk-statistic…

2. Many researchers & news organisations have made claims of vaccine efficacy & safety based on the ONS reports. We therefore now call on all those who have made such claims to publicly retract them.

@BBCNews

3. They also agree the ONS underestimates the true population proportion unvaxxed as we have long argued. The .@BBCNews must surely now retract their ludicrous claim of only 8% (as of May 2022) made in the documentary #unvaccinated (to portray unvaxxed as tiny fringe minority).

4. Unfortunately, as expected, the Regulator went to extreme lengths to defend the integrity of the ONS. In particular, they put forward the ‘healthy vaccinee effect’ to explain its data anomalies. We previously dealt with that & we will be further dismantling it soon.

@BBCNews

5. When will .@BBCNews finally admit to the fact that the heavily repeated "8% adult unvaccinated" in #unvaccinated was a lie. The true figure at the time was certainly over 20%. Their lies were used to marginalise the unvaccinated like .@nazarinveronica further.

• • •

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

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @profnfenton

Prof Norman Fenton

@profnfenton

Jan 14

@TheLancet

1. Latest astonishing update in saga of .@TheLancet refusal to publish response exposing serious issues with the paper they published on Pfizer vaxx efficacy. Perfectly encapsulates censorship & deceit of the whole covid narrative. Corruption of science wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-lancet-h…

2. This is the summary. Key thing is, having been humiliated into agreeing to publish our letter or an update. They then decided not to publish anyway. Both decisions made by Editor-in-Chief Richard Horton

@stkirsch

3. And here is .@stkirsch take on the story stevekirsch.substack.com/p/proof-the-la…

Read 4 tweets

Prof Norman Fenton

@profnfenton

Dec 29, 2022

1. Someone reminded me the flawed conclusion in recent Canadian study (claiming vaxx hesitancy increased risk of traffic crash) was similar to the problem described in this video (where data suggests it's safest to drive when roads are most treacherous)

2. As is common in observational studies, you cannot use correlation & regression equations for risk assessment. You have to consider underlying causal factors that explain observed data and account for these in risk assessment decisions.

3. In this case, of course, while road conditions are worse in winter months than summer, people tend not only to drive more slowly but they also make fewer journeys. This explains why there are more fatalities in summer than winter.

Read 4 tweets

Prof Norman Fenton

@profnfenton

Dec 26, 2022

Why we can't simply laugh at how ludicrous the Lancet paper was claiming that "the vaxx saved 20 million lives". Like it or not it is being used to close down debate on vaxx injuries & deaths

@AndersonAfDMdEP

@AndersonAfDMdEP

Iskra Reic (see video in thread) wrote this OpEd in July 2021
astrazeneca.com/media-centre/a…

Read 4 tweets

Prof Norman Fenton

@profnfenton

Dec 24, 2022

Another ludicrously flawed modelling study published in the Lancet - this one claiming vaxx program in Brazil "saved the lives of at least 303,129 adults". Just look at how they defined who was a vaxxed case 🤡🌎 thelancet.com/journals/lanam…

And it gets even worse (part 2/3): If a person was vaxxed having recently had a PCR pos test and then at ANY time after vaxx was seriouly ill or died with covid they were classified as unvaxxed 🤡🌎

(3/3) And just look at the vaxxed who were excluded:

Read 4 tweets

Prof Norman Fenton

@profnfenton

Dec 20, 2022

@LardelliP

1 .@LardelliP Actually, even if we assume no common influence (such as both vaxxed from same faulty batch) the probability of such coincidences are much lower than people think. While the probability would be 1 in 250 billion for any SPECIFIC pair of closely related people ...

https://twitter.com/LardelliP/status/1605105877186289665

2. We have to consider how many pairs of closely related vaxxed people there are (in the world?). Even in a typical vaxxed household of 5 people there are 10 different pairs. So in 10 million such households we already have 100 million pairs....

3. ..that brings the probability you'll find at least one pair both injured down to around 1 in 2,500. Still very unlikely - so finding such a couple still provides probabilistic evidence that the rate of serious adverse reactions is more than 2 per million..

Read 6 tweets

Prof Norman Fenton

@profnfenton

Dec 11, 2022

1. Lots of people talking about the new Rasmussen poll of 1000 adult Americans surveyed on attitudes to the vaxx. But commentators have missed something very significant which I discuss in the 2-minute video