Case 1: Vaccinated people die more often from covid than unvaccinated
A persistent message keeps circulating. From its popularity, you can deduce how badly people can deal with numbers.
"62% of all covid deaths were vaccinated" even the English health service reports! (English Public Health). For example, vaccination is interpreted as increasing the risk. Unfair; Thierry Baudet also falls for it..
Quite weeded that the percentage of vaccinated is rising among the covid deaths. If in some time the entire population is vaccinated, then 100% of all covid deaths have been vaccinated. Then only vaccinated people die from Covid. We are not that far yet, so let's assume a 50/50 scenario: the older half of the population is vaccinated. The younger half hardly died from Covid anyway, vaccination makes no sense there.
Even if only a few elderly people die of Covid, that will still be a large percentage of the total – due to a lack of deceased young people. The vulnerable and elderly used to make up 99% of all covid deaths. For every young person who died of Covid, 99 vulnerable people died (99/1). If that is now 62%, that has been reduced to less than two older people compared to each young person (62/38 > 2/1). Is that due to something other than vaccination? The milder Delta variant could also be a good option. Lower contagious doses due to the summer: also possible. We don't know all this yet either. And yet there are plans to vaccinate all babies...
In Gibraltar, 116% of the population is fully vaccinated. That will be the entire population plus temporary holiday workers etc. Still, it's great that the virus still manages to find those few sneaky unvaccinated people!
Case 2: Preventing 3 corona deaths costs 2 vaccine deaths
Related to this was a scientific study that calculates that two vaccine deaths are needed to prevent three covid deaths. That seems very stiff.
An article about this study (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693) was in my drafts for a long time. The study comes from a professor who has 200 peer-reviewed studies to his name. He has broad expertise in various methods of clinical, experimental and meta-research. The study was peer reviewed, but in my opinion there were some debatable things in it, for example that they considered the Lareb reports representative of the situation in Europe. They couldn't find better data, but I didn't really dare to just copy their conclusions.
Lareb contains all reports, including reports that are not vaccine-related. That would therefore lead to an overestimation. From the other side, for example, of all deaths after vaccination only 5% reported in Lareb. Then you would have to multiply the Lareb data by twenty again to arrive at a realistic picture. I just waited.
In the meantime, the article has been withdrawn. I hope someone can make a better calculation than this professor because the approach was critical and the logic seemed to be right. He still maintains that his thesis has not been debunked and strictly speaking it has not been because there is little falsification by the 'fact checkers' and 'debunkers'. They can only question claims because of lack of data. However, the fact that you can arrive at a ratio of 2:3 with some debatable assumptions (because there are no better data!) says something about the availability and quality of the data. That in itself is an important bright red flag. With so much essential missing data, you should not act as acted.
The most important debunk criticism is - as always with 'fact-checkers' - that there is no scientific evidence for assumptions made. That sounds solid, but the proof that it is right is no more there. This indicates how much knowledge is still missing. It has not been shown that the statement is incorrect or impossible. That it cannot be proven on the basis of the available data, that is more than plausible because of the lousy data.
Benefits outweigh the risks: wet finger work
It also becomes painfully clear that there is no clear criterion for effectiveness versus side effects. The usual criteria (such as NNTV, Number needed to vaccinate) are for some reason not applied to corona. Cost considerations neither, it may all cost billions with unprecedented and unlimited costs per year of life saved. FDA and EMA keep it up: "the benefits outweigh the risks" and that is strictly speaking still the case with two vaccine deaths per three covid lives saved – at least if you don't look at something like years of life lost.
That "outweighing the risks" is a nonsensically low requirement for a vaccine. Normally, vaccination campaigns are already discontinued in the event of a handful of suspicious deaths or serious side effects. If you are going to inject healthy, not especially vulnerable people (which is the intention of a vaccine), then as far as I am concerned, there should be no side effect whatsoever. Only with "if it does not benefit then it does not harm" I would accept vaccination of children. And if it seems to go wrong with one in a million, OK, then you can wonder whether that person was 'healthy'. If something happens at 0.1%, it is already a completely different story, certainly in relation to the disease risk. Somewhere in between there must be a limit. It is a great pity that this limit is only determined with the wet finger.
So what if the wrong assumptions from this study are corrected, what do you end up with? Will it actually still be acceptable: 1:10? 1:1.000? 1: 100.000 ? You hardly come close to such a trade-off when hardly anyone dies from the disease in question, within a well-defined population group.
Case 3: Vaccines create variants
The experimental nature of the 'vaccine' roll-out cannot be better illustrated than with the above headlines. One expert says that the variants come from unvaccinated people. The other expert says that the half-baked vaccinations only eliminate the weakest virus mutations and only give the strongest all the space they need, so that they can displace the dominant variant.
Both sounds are not isolated. It is the widely promoted government position in the face of the understated protest. Between when those concerned scientists are really virological leaders (although that seems to be a contradiction in terms). Luc Montagnier, Professor Theo Schetters, Guy Vandenbossche, Wolfgang Wodarg, Sucharit Bhakdi, Martin Kulldorff, they all make similar noises: these vaccinations do no good. These are not obscure scientists with questionable resumes. They have all worked for decades in medical science (microbiology, virology, immunology, epidemiology) or in the vaccine industry and nothing is (yet) known about a personal interest that could distort their judgment. So they are not stuck in a structure that pushes them in a certain direction.
Now, fact-checkers are often journalists who test claims against established science. Every new insight will therefore by definition become 'debunked'. When I sometimes read fact checks in NRC, VK or AD, I saw that the fact checkers on the RIVM site went to see if it was correct. In less turbulent times, this may be the appropriate strategy, but if reality turns away from under you with mutating variants and varying vaccination rates with aerosol and seasonal mechanisms through it, then a fact check, browsing a droplet-based history becomes quite pointless. This involves ideas, hypotheses, daring to assess probabilities, combining observations. You won't find them on the RIVM website or in the triple-blind heuristically randomized mass scale trials with statistical relevance.
So who are the variant factories now? I would say: as yet undecided – but I tend to the vaccinated because of the filtering effect of the incomplete vaccine immunity (60% now, with the Delta variant). The dominant version of the virus, smothered by the vaccinations, does not get the chance to immunize the entire population with broad-spectrum immunity. More contagious and possibly more dangerous variants fall on fertile soil in the "spike-only" immunity.
Will it really run at such a speed that it will lead to major disasters? I don't think so, but yes who am I. In any case, doomsday scenarios have not yet come true, so why this scenario... My expectation is rather that we will again be overwhelmed by something totally unexpected. Hopefully of natural origin, then our immune system is a little better equipped than with this construct that hopefully degenerates again as quickly as it originated.
Bonus Fake check: Fartters flies out of the corner
Theo Schetters draws conclusions from Nivel figures, gp registrations. The gp has been formally removed from Covid care. He doesn't seem to take that into account.
If van Dissel really used it to illustrate Covid infections... Was everyone sleeping there?
"Attention! The numbers of people with COVID-19 in the sample of the Monitoring Stations cannot be compared with the results of the GGDs. Currently, most people with flu-like symptoms are tested by the GGDs. The results of the Monitoring Stations are based on people who come for a consultation with the general practitioner."
Disclaimer Nivel
Those Wappies always do, they ruin it for the others! 💉😫
