Recently released Australian Road Deaths data confirm that the @epiphare study claiming that COVID vaccination reduced road deaths by 32% was, as suspected, a complete fake.
Here are the actual road deaths data plotted from the Australian BITRE data repository using a trendline for 2000-2019 (excluding 2020 as it was a quiet year)
The pink area shows the inflection and increase in road deaths over the predicted number.
Note that road deaths have a downward trend despite an increase in population (due to safety measures and slowing of traffic).
So the question becomes...
"what is the probability that - if the @epiphare study was real (showing a 32% reduction in road deaths after vaccination) - the Australian road deaths (where nearly 100% of the adult population was vaccinated) would increase by 36%"?
Well if you're a Bayesian mathematician like @profnfenton you can do that by Bayes but..
For the rest of us we can use the provided 95% confidence interval from @epiphare which is here in table 2:
[0.68 (0.61-0.75)]
to estimate the probability that there was an increase...
By working out how many standard deviations from that Epiphare estimate the real Australian data (+36% increase, based on 2023-2024 data) is... And then calculating the probability of that point estimator.
And here you are
What this shows is that the Aus real-life value is is over 10 sigma outside Epiphare's own upper estimate of the miraculous "risk reduction for car crashes"
This is impossible. That is, there are so many zeroes on this probability it cannot exist.
(p<0.0000000000000000001)
So, either @Epiphare fabricated a paper (by producing biased data that they didn't check) to support a claim that was never rational..
Limitations:
The data are not adjusted for population as this is likely to overestimate the discordance and the road death numbers have their own built-in confounder that is not independent of the population. Furthermore, the vaccination rate of the population is unknown but claimed to be over 95% of adults. It is assumed that the population is 100% vaccinated for this exercise as it would be illogical to expect the increase in road deaths to be wholly attributed to the small number of unvaccinated adults (<2%) in the population given the Epiphare estimator.
Different trend lines can be curated giving a different value of the estimator but the magnitude of the discordance is still huge.
Debbie's tweet was about her case against @HHSGov when her son developed Type 1 Diabetes after a routine vaccine, when he had a negative glucose test prior.
So it was clearly vaccine linked, but her case was denied.
Not only was the case denied (despite clear evidence of a new diagnosis immediately after vaccination) but the case was used by the "judge" to essentially ban ANY further cases that alleged a link between new diabetes and a routine vaccine.
I'll say it again. The vaccine industry [KNOWINGLY] hijacked cell pathways that cause cancer in order to induce antibody responses so that they can claim that their product "worked" by demonstrating those antibodies - even if they offered zero protection.
To explain, when you induce an immune response you have an immune debt to pay. You can't just keep creating an immune response - or, as in the case of cancer, you will die.
A vaccine creates an artificial immune response...
Which might be fine if it was done every now and again. But what they didn't tell you was that the human body will not respond to an injected antigen alone. It will ignore it (thankfully) and the generic immune system will mop it up, no antibodies required.
Just putting this into context. @DrCatharineY was originally DOD then published on a DARPA grant. One of her few co-authors is Stephanie Petzing of the "Center for Global Health Engagement"
All one big OneHealth family to nudge you into believing this @epiphare slop is real.
For the explanation as to why these "real world data" with "data not available" publications are absolutely junk and shouldn't be accepted to any major journal please see arkmedic.info/p/pharma-hell-…
Dr Young (DARPA/DOD) is clearly now working as an ambassador to cover for the actions of the corrupt Biden regime who we are learning covered up huge amounts of adverse events from their COVID program whilst funding pharma in the "cancer moonshot"
It looks like we found our vector.
They moved from spraying live (cloned) viruses to putting them in drinking water.. which we thought wasn't possible due to chlorine.
Well, it turns out that it is, if you use a stabiliser.
The @NIH told us that they stopped funding GOFROC research but they clearly didn't.
This is a modified live virus. That is, they took a pathogenic influenza and genetically modified it and propagated it using infectious clones (reverse genetics). nature.com/articles/s4154…
"MLVs were diluted in distilled water containing Vac-Pac Plus (Best Veterinary 418 Solutions, Columbus, GA, USA) to neutralize residual chlorine and adjust the pH"
There are a lot of pharma agents celebrating on twitter recently because the now-conflicted @cochranecollab dropped their standards and published something on HPV vaccination they didn't understand.
To explain it you need to understand the difference between the two studies quoted.
The first (Bergman) analysed a bunch of real studies (including RCTs) and concluded that the effect on cancer couldn't be seen - despite nearly 20 years of follow up.
The second (Henschke) cherry picked a bunch of "real world data" studies and concluded that the vaccine prevented a gazillion cervical cancers, pretending that it analysed 132 million patient records. It did nothing of the sort. What it did was look at two studies, take out the bit where it showed that the vaccine increased the risk of cancer (Kjaer 2021, over 20s) - replicated in multiple country statistics, split them into three studies, ignore the other studies showing the opposite, and ignore the fact that none of this data is verifiable.
Notably, one of the major studies (Palmer 2024, which was found to be seriously flawed) has been excluded from the meta-analysis because it did not show a cancer benefit in the under 16 age group.
It is very difficult to "fix" a randomised controlled trial.
It is very easy to "fix" a meta-analysis of observational studies where the data is "not available".
There is a huge difference between "real" studies and "real world data" studies because the latter are cherry picked or even fully synthetic, and the authors don't have access to the data. They are produced by vested interests groups to sell a narrative.
This was the most corrupted review that Cochrane have ever performed and this time they shot themselves in the foot by contradicting their own reviews. cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.10…