1. Why now is @OurWorldInData pushing the ludicrous claim of 20 million lives saved by the covid vaxx based on the garbage modelling paper from Imperial that was published in 2022?

https://twitter.com/OurWorldInData/status/1860019061926559773

2. Here is the analogy I used to debunk that type of modelling in 2022

1. This post is about the new study by Ioannidis et al that claims millions of lives were saved by the covid vaxx.

Full reference links are in the subsequent parts of the thread:

Imagine that we want to test the claim that a special diet - let’s call it D - that consists of consuming 10,000 calories a day without any exercise will lead to weight loss of 50 pounds in 5 weeks. To make such a bold claim you would expect us to examine the evidence by comparing the recorded weight of people before and after being on the diet.

But suppose instead our ‘evidence’ is nothing other than following mathematical model:

Weight loss after n weeks in pounds = n x efficiency_D

where efficiency_D is the average weekly weight loss of diet D.

Suppose further that we assume:

efficiency_D = 10

Then, with these assumptions we compute

Weight loss after 5 weeks in pounds = 5 x 10 = 50

QED! We can now trust the claim that the special diet D does indeed lead to weight loss of 50 pounds in 5 weeks and we can believe this with full certainty (hand on heart).

Would you be convinced by this argument? Or would you be very uncomfortable and highly suspicious that there is some sleight of hand here? Bearing in mind the objective of the study is to test the claim don’t you find it odd that the main assumption in the model (namely efficiency_D = 10) is essentially the very claim we are endeavouring to test?!

Isn’t it all a bit circular and self-serving?

Well, it turns out that a study medrxiv.org/content/10.110… claiming to test the claim that the covid vaccine has saved millions of lives (just like a previous study from Imperial) is based not on any comparison of empirical mortality data between populations of vaccinated and unvaccinated, but rather on the above ‘scientific’ methodology.

This scientific study applied the same highly sophisticated logic and similar circular assumptions used to test the claims about the special diet, D, namely that:

Without vaccination Covid infects and kills a lot of people.

The vaccine is effective; specifically, people who do not get the vaccine are four times more likely to get covid than those who do.

The vaccine is perfectly safe, i.e. nobody dies as a side effect from the vaccine.

The first named author of this paper is none other than one of the most highly respected scientists in the world, John Ioannidis of Stanford University, who used real-world data in 2020 to demonstrate that Covid was nothing like as deadly as was being claimed.

And here, in its entirety, is the mathematical model contained within the paper which was used to claim that 14.8 million life years were saved by the vaccine:

For each population age group, the number of lives L saved in that age group is:

L = N x PI x IFR x VE

Where:

N: number of people in that age group

PI: number of people in that age group who (absent a vaccine) would be infected with covid

IFR: infection fatality rate in that age group (i.e. the proportion of people infected who die)

VE: the vaccine efficacy in the age group (which is one minus the ratio of the percentage vaccinated who get covid and the percentage unvaccinated who get covid)

With the exception of N, each of the actual values assumed in the equation are fanciful, being based on a myriad of unproven the assumptions, such as that Covid ‘case’ numbers were accurate. Specifically:

PI is assumed to be 20% (i.e. in the absence of the vaccine it is assumed 20% of the population are assumed to have got Covid).

IFR in each age group is based on Ioannidis’s work which showed that the elderly were at much higher risk; but the values are still based on the (flawed) assumptions that those classified as being Covid cases did in fact have the disease and those that died did indeed die from Covid disease.

The VE is based on the assumption that those classified as Covid cases did in fact have the disease. More importantly, the data used is based on studies that we have shown are systemically flawed. Likewise, the paper assumes (pre-Omicron) that VE = 75%, i.e. that an unvaccinated person is four times as likely to get covid than an unvaccinated person. This is nonsense.

While a number of people have publicly criticised the paper, one point that nobody seems to have raised is that it does, unwittingly, demonstrate an extremely important point, namely:

Since no real-world data provide evidence that the vaccines saved lives then we know that the estimates of vaccine effective - such as the 75% assumed in the study - are, empirically, wrong.

Perhaps this was the real discrete conclusion that Ioannidis hoped would be inferred from the paper? If not, why would he wish to be associated with garbage work operating under the misnomer that it is genuine ‘research’ is inexplicable if not mysterious.

The front cover of the paper states that there was no funding or conflicts of interest associated with the paper, although it states that “The work of John Ioannidis is supported by an unrestricted gift from Sue and Bob O’Donnell to Stanford University.”

Although this Ioannidis paper has not yet been peer-reviewed it is already being used as ‘overwhelming evidence’ of how great the vaccines were. The 2022 Imperial paper, which claimed 20 million lives saved by the vaccine, was published in no less a journal than the Lancet despite being based on similar circular ludicrous assumptions. It has since been used in multiple reports and high-level forums as justifying the motivation to push for the continued roll-out of the vaccine. 2. As explained in this brief video (made after the ludicrous Imperial study was published in @TheLancet ) we cannot simply ignore or laugh at such nonsense:

1. Apparently most people are still completely unaware of this: 2. As covered in Chapter 1 of my book with @MartinNeil9 on 12 March 2020 the PM Boris Johnson was adamant there was no need for lockdown and in particular that no major sporting events should the cancelled as some were suggesting.

Covid, flu and excess deaths in Northern Ireland
1. Thanks to Kathy Gray we have replies to FOIs corroborating the main thesis in our book: covid was never a deadly pandemic, many flu deaths were likely classified as covid & responses to covid cause excess deaths. Key points: 2. In the entire 4-year period of covid up to March 2024 there were a total of just 275 deaths due to covid alone and that figure includes deaths which mentioned covid with pneumonia.

1. Our book “Fighting Goliath: Exposing the flawed science and statistics behind the COVID-19 event” is now available on Amazon in paperback, hardback and kindle. @MartinNeil9


Robert F. Kennedy Jnr @RobertKennedyJr

“Fenton & Neil were pioneers in exposing the extent to which flawed and easily manipulated data were used to mislead the public about Covid-19 vaccine safety. This book catalogues their findings.”amazon.com/Fighting-Golia… 2. With Foreword by Nick Hudson and special contributions from Clare Craig, Jonathan Engler, Jessica Hockett and Scott McLachlan @NickHudsonCT, @ClareCraigPath, @jengleruk, .@Wood_House76 and @LawHealthTech

Some of the testimonials we’ve had so far ....

1. This is quite a long thred and the new explosive information is in part 3 of the thread.
In June 2023 I reported about how a talk I was due to give at the NHS Health and Care Analytics Conference 2023 was cancelled not because of its content (it was about Bayesian network applications) but because of my ‘controversial views’ about the covid vaccines.

In July 2023 I reported on the heavily redacted response from Birmingham University (who were hosting the conference) to my subject access request. In August 2023 I reported on the astonishing response from the NHS to an FOI request that somebody, who I did not know, had made about the cancellation.

All these reports are on our blog wherearethenumbers (the one that X shadow bans links to ...) 2. After that I finally got a response from the NHS to my own subject access request about the cancellation. For legal reasons I never reported on that or what happened thereafter because The Free Speech Union lawyers submitted a formal request for an apology on my behalf and a small payment to a charity. Because there has as yet been no resolution there are still limits to what I can say publicly. But I can reveal some snippets of what the NHS and their lawyers said.

The NHS response to the subject access request contained a covering letter and 17 different heavily redacted documents, each of which contained a thread of one or more emails about me. Four of the documents were simply email threads in which I had participated before and after the cancellation - so nothing new there. Nine of the documents were correspondence from, presumably, members of the public who had made formal complaints to the NHS about my cancellation.

It was nice to know that people had complained on my behalf, but the most interesting aspect of the exchange was that the documents contained no responses from the NHS and no information as to whether the NHS ever did reply to these complaints.

The remaining four documents were internal communications announcing, and later confirming, that my talk was cancelled, instructing people to remove my name, close down the associated Eventbrite announcement, etc. Hence, there was little new in the subject access request response to shed light on the real reasons and process that led up to their decision to cancel my appearance. And, to this day, the Conference Chair Ben Goldacre has refused to respond to any of the multiple requests for information about this...

1. With the formal withdrawal of the AstraZeneca vaccine it's appropriate to remind people of this double page spread in The Times, March 2021 that hailed the AstraZeneca vaccine as 100% effective. But note the article highlighted bottom right ....... 2. ...the article by Tom Whipple has headline:
“Academics back ‘bizarre’ claim that jabs may kill”
The online version of this article explicitly named me as one of the academics.

1 .@TRobinsonNewEra has done more to wake up the British public to dangers of antisemitism and Israelophobia than any of Britain’s ‘official Jews’. The role of CAA @antisemitism in his arrest today is a disgrace & diverted attention away from what the rally was about.

https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1728776275022516390

Those 'official Jews' don't represent beliefs of majority of ordinary British Jew. If they'd listened to @TRobinsonNewEra's warnings, instead of helping censor & demonise, him antisemites & Israel haters wouldn't be running riot in our streets each week

https://x.com/ScoopUrban/status/1728837221103342058?s=20

1. Look at what we found in the House of Commons (Portcullis House entrance) today. A display taking over much of the concourse area promoting Agenda 21/WEF talking points on 'democracy'. Like this "Democracy is intertwined with tackling climate change"> 2. Here is what is in the leaflets being handed out (note this is sponsored by "The Speaker" (of the House of Commons).

1. Some researchers & legal scholars are expressing concerns about the #LucyLetby trial. Today I interviewed one such prominent researcher @LawHealthTech to discuss his concerns 2. The concerns of @gill1109 are that the errors in previous 'killer nurse' cases may have been repearted here
mdpi.com/2075-471X/11/5…

1. Since censorship/poor treatment following things people said on twitter is a current hot issue, I decided to make this my new pinned tweet. It's the email I got announcing the cancellation of my invited talk at a big NHS conference in July 2023. 2. And here's just a small number of examples of how the #muttoncrew attempted to get me sacked from my job at Queen Mary University of London simply for retweeting a report about the dangers of the covid vaxx for pregnant women

1. I strongly recommend people follow @LawHealthTech for coverage of the Lucy Letby case (she is the nurse accused of murdering babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital in Chester). The full reports are on the substack:

https://t.co/BoKdFevuhMlawhealthandtech.substack.com/p/ll-part-5-th…
2. This case is also being monitored by @gill1109 with whom @david_lagnado and I wrote this paper about certain previous 'killer nurse' cases
doi.org/10.3390/laws11…

1. I just had the privilege of meeting and doing a short interview with Dr Heiko Schöning who was famously arrested in Hyde Park in London for talking to people about covid 2. You can follow Heiko on telegram t.me/heiko_schoening and find it all out in his book here

1. Finally Sheldrick has been forced to apologise for his fraud claim against @drpaulmarik1. Sheldrick is one of a group of 'scientists' who've been trying to discredit anybody who challenged the 'official' covid narrative. We showed his 'analysis' was based on ignorance.

https://twitter.com/Jikkyleaks/status/1663102844143296512

2. Our original article (now updated with today's news) that showed just how ludicrous Sheldrick's claims were is here:
wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-curious-…

But the BBC uses Sheldrick and his cronies as authoritative sources for 'debunking covid misinformation'

1. My only ever interaction with @mariannaspring was to reply to her tweet about her "Verify!" initiative with a thread about misinformation in BBC documentary #unvaccinated that @nazarinveronica & @vickyborman could ask her to investigate. Naz & Vicky both said they wanted to 2. She didn't reply to requests from Naz & Vicky (victims of BBC misinformation). And here's her response to me. I normally block back if I don't know them .. but there's no point here as @mariannaspring boasted of having multiple fake accounts who follow dissenters 🤡🌎

1. Since twitter pushed this garbage on to my timeline, I may as well suggest that one of the first things "BBC Verify?" should investigate are the many mistruths and hate propagated in its own documentary "Unvaccinated" screened July 2022

https://twitter.com/mariannaspring/status/1660557049376256000

2. A particularly serious example were these ludicrous claims made by Dr Mehool Patel which went unchallenged in the programme:

1. Within 60 seconds of me uploading this 2-minute clip about the AstraZeneca vaccine (from my testimony to the Corona Investigative Committee, Germany) YouTube removed it and gave me a strike: 2. I asked @YouTube which claims in the video “contradict expert consensus from local health authorities or the World Health Organisation (WHO)”:

1. The MHRA is not fit for purpose. This is a slide from a recent talk by June Raine (CEO of MHRA). It supposedly shows the number of Yellow Card reports (of adverse reactions to drugs/vaccines) per 100K of the population by region. 2. Can it possibly be correct that the number of reports DECREASED in 2021 - the year the covid vaccines were introduced? The slide suggests about 43 reports per 100K UK population in 2021. That's about 2,800 total reports for the whole UK.

1. Reminder of what ‘net zero’ really means. This graphic from UK Govt FIRES project. Key points: all airports except Heathrow, Belfast & Glasgow to close by 2030. NO FLYING at all by 2050. No new petrol/diesel cars by 2030; by 2050 road use restricted to 60% of today’s level. 2. Food, heating and energy restricted to 60% of today’s level by 2050. That means either a colder, hungrier population or massive depopulation. To those who think this is conspiracy theory here is the Govt approved document:
repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/hand…

1. With conservative assumptions made about YellowCard reporting in my latest article we estimate there was 1 death per 5348 doses of Astra Zeneca vaxx. No surprise it was quitely 'withdrawn' in UK - even before Dame Sarah Gilbert got that standing ovation at Wimbledon for it 2. Some personal evidence of the extent of under-reporting of vaxx deaths in Yellow Card system.

1. The response to my subject access information request for @TheLancet internal correspondence discussing our letter re flawed Pfizer study was heavily redacted. But this thread will show that even unredacted bits reveal their unprofessional behaviour wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-lancet-h… 2. It's clear I was being discussed in a negative light as they were referring to me as 'an ongoing issue'. Also clear they only reached out after I publicised their initial delayed rejection letter on twitter (they were getting a lot of heat as a result of that).