Data from England: vaccinations did not help against mortality

by Anton Theunissen | 13 aug 2023, 13:08

...or pay via paypal

cards

Reactions

Comments that are not related to the topic of discussion will be deleted. Always keep comments respectful and substantive.

13 Comments
  1. Hans Verwaart

    Anton, the source of these graphs is Table 2 from the last ONS dataset of February 21, 2023, the dataset that we also used (i.e. Table 5) for the piece about the null hypothesis.
    the rates of "Ever vaccinated" are calculated from the deaths and lost person-years of the six categories of vaccinated people.

    As far as I am concerned, the weakness lies in the calculation of the number of person-years lost. How that was done is not mentioned. That is why we have used a different source file for the vaccination rate per group over time. In this way we were able to eliminate the person-years.

    Kind regards, Hans

    Reply
    1. Anton Theunissen

      Thanks Hans, I've thought of that, but these graphs are going around in this form on Twitter. Without looking for the underlying data, nothing remains of it even in this form after critical consideration.
      That was the approach this time.

      Greetings back!
      Anton

      Reply
    2. bonne clock

      The weakness is mainly in the 1st 4 month. Because it is missing, you do not have a benchmark. NL data does show this, and then you see unvaccinated start low, and then skyrocket during vaccination. In 3 months, mortality triples. That is impossible. The bottom line is that you do not make a directly proportional distribution, and "unknowingly" have many people who will die quickly in this group. That is why that line drops back to the benchmark fairly quickly, and does not remain consistently high.

      Reply
  2. bonne clock

    1. Smart of those Englishmen, not to show the first 4 months of vaccination.

    2. I wanted to do it myself, but I see that you are now also working on it, I suspect, that that data is fairly similar to NL data. Graph S3, column B.
    There are the 1st 4 months to be seen, and that is not cheerful in terms of mortality. But you're smart enough to see the similarities.

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/05/31/2022.07.21.22277831/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf?download=true

    BTW, here's my thread on that.
    https://twitter.com/BonneKlok/status/1681649533036445696?t=MXG4Eu4G8rR32xDSDusetA&s=19

    Shall we dive into this together?

    P.S. Maarten, I don't know if you're reading along. I've had half a discussion with you about these charts a number of times now. Hardly anything substantive, and you would ask a bit more at jet NL research.
    Instead of placing the English graphs, you could have placed the NL graphs with the same ease. But you did not do this, because this did not create a favorable picture for the 1st 4 month. I think that's super underhanded about you, while you praised the existence of this research on Twitter.
    It is clear to me that you are not concerned with the real story, but that you want to promote the vaccine at all costs.

    Kind regards, an activist!

    12
    Reply
  3. Cees Mul

    Anton, I receive newsletters from Steve Kirsch via substack. His latest stack is about nursing homes and what the effect of the "vaccinations" has been there. This is so worrying that even I can hardly imagine that it is true. In 2020 0 deaths due to Covid, and immediately after vaccination (end of December 2020) 40 deaths within a short time. And this is just an example.
    https://substack.com/inbox/post/135922469
    I get so much information over me that it makes me dizzy every now and then. I am very curious about your opinion. I think Twitter is a terrible platform, so just through your own site.

    Reply
    1. Anton Theunissen

      Dramatic indeed. I don't have time to figure it out. I admire Steve Kirsch for his drive but I also see him go wrong sometimes so I don't dare to take what he writes at face value. It may well be that the case he describes was indeed a 'spoiled' batch or something, he says so himself. Nevertheless, that too should be a red if not a black flag. Without transparency, this is dismissed as collateral damage. "Every drug has unwanted side effects, that's always the case." It's heaven-shattering.

      Reply
  4. Cees Mul

    Thanks for your reply, Anton. That's exactly why I doubt it. It's TOO bad, and maybe Kirsch is jumping to conclusions. But let's see what else he comes up with. He's opened up a kind of poll on his stack for people to comment on. The request is then to collect real-life experiences (with care homes). I think that in itself is a good idea. If you can prove 3 such situations, then the end should be discussion. I know better, of course.
    What is actually bizarre: a completely new way of 'vaccinating' is being introduced worldwide, and those who are victims have to prove that the drug does not work and causes far too many serious side effects. If they're still alive... Should be the other way around. At the first suspicious signal, recall the trade.... Unfortunately.

    Reply
  5. C.Kempeneers

    What we already knew from the Pfizer trails is now also supported by the data from England.
    The primary and secondary endpoint of the Pfizer study was the effect of the vaccines on reducing mild and moderate (flu-like) symptoms.
    Not on the occurrence of serious complaints and / or death.
    The (vulnerable) group with co-morbidities that were more susceptible to serious complaints/ death fell under the exclusion criteria of the study. ( the vaccine could come out worse in the research......)
    Despite this, the vaccines scored poorly on preventing deaths.
    See the article below.
    https://jaaphanekamp.com/posts/2022-02-08-de-covid-prik-effectiviteit-en-het-coronatoegangsbewijs/
    Jan Bonte asked the important questions that were not answered in the Pfizer study

    Here are the key questions that a good study of the efficacy and safety of a vaccine should answer:

    What is the effectiveness of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in reducing hospitalizations, ICU admissions and mortality?
    What is the effectiveness of the vaccine for the above outcome measures in the longer term, in this case a period longer than two months?
    What is the safety of the vaccine in the longer term, in this case a period longer than two months?
    What do we know about rare, but perhaps potentially serious side effects such as autoimmune disorders, side effects that can still occur in the longer term and for which this study did not have the required duration and power?
    Is the vaccine able to break the chain of transmission? Which means that the vaccine is able to prevent transmission of the virus from one person to another?

    Reply
    1. Anton Theunissen

      Those are certainly unanswered questions. Hence the call for micro-data with vaccination status.

      Reply
  6. Pyotr

    In addition to all the arguments and reasons in the article and comments, one reason is overlooked. Thousands of people whose life expectancy is minimal do not receive injections. And if they do get injections and die (quite) quickly, they are registered as unvaccinated dead a few weeks after the second shot, so sometimes two to three months. The same applies to seriously ill cancer patients who are not allowed to have a shot due to chemotherapy or certain medication.

    Reply
    1. Anton Theunissen

      We don't know how many thousands that is, and I know that even hospices were vaccinated. If only to give people some hope.

      Reply
    2. Bonne

      I want to go back to that. You see this effect much less at 90+ and 50-.
      I also think that this effect becomes stronger the higher the vaccination rate. Groups where mortality is already quite high also have less of this effect. But I'm also pretty sure this effect of seriously ill people not getting vaccinated is the biggest "bummer."
      In addition, you also see the increased mortality drop back to normal proportions quite quickly. In my opinion, these are indeed the seriously ill, who want to die.

      Funny to see in Dutch research, that everything is compensated for the vaccinated, but not for the unvaccinated.
      I think it should be fairly easy to understand which people are in hospice, and to remove these people from the dataset.

      Anyway, every trick to show a good vaccination effect is used. It doesn't surprise me either.

      Greetings Bonne.

      Reply
  7. godfather

    I'm not so much talking about people in hospice who are allowed to stay there for up to three months. Rather about people who are likely to die within a week and or are so weak that a shot speeds up the dying process. That's already at least two percent of deaths. Whether they had a shot or no shot is not that relevant by counting someone who had the second shot two weeks earlier. Because then we're two or three months down the road. Together with the boosters, this means that people who were vaccinated in 2021 were always registered as unvaccinated for a quarter of the time. So even if they are deceased.
    People who have not been vaccinated due to medication etc. also have a much higher risk of death than ordinary citizens.

    Reply

Post a Comment

Je e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd. Required fields are marked with *