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% van alle covid-doden waren gevaccineerd" rapporteert zelfs de Engelse gezondheidsdienst! (English Public Health). Zo wordt vaccinatie geïnterpreteerd als risicoverhogend. Onterecht; Thierry Baudet trapt er ook in..
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 from Covid, that will still be a large percentage of the total - due to a lack of young people who have died. The vulnerable and elderly previously made up 99% of all Covid deaths. For every young person who died from Covid, 99 vulnerable people died (99/1). If that is now 62%, this has been reduced to fewer than two elderly people for every young person (62/38 > 2/1). Is that due to something other than vaccination? The milder Delta variant could also be good. Lower infectious 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.
The article has now been withdrawn. I hope someone can make a better calculation than this professor because the approach was critical and the logic seemed to be correct. He still maintains that his statement has not been refuted and, strictly speaking, that is not the case because little is falsified by the 'fact checkers' and 'debunkers'. They can only question claims due to lack of data. However, the fact that you can arrive at a ratio of 2:3 with some questionable assumptions (because there are no better data!) certainly 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 you did.
The most important debunking criticism is - as always with 'fact checkers' - that there is no scientific evidence for assumptions made. That sounds sound, but there is no evidence that it is working properly. This indicates how much knowledge is still lacking. It has not been shown that the statement is incorrect or impossible. That it cannot be proven based on the available data is more than plausible because of the poor data.
Benefits outweigh the risks: wet finger work
Ook wordt pijnlijk duidelijk dat er geen duidelijk criterium is voor effectiviteit versus bijwerkingen. De gebruikelijke criteria (zoals NNTV, Number needed to vaccinate) worden om een of andere reden niet toegepast op corona. Kostenoverwegingen ook niet, het mag allemaal miljarden kosten met ongekende en onbegrensde kosten per gered levensjaar. FDA en EMA houden het steeds op: "the benefits outweigh the risks" (de voordelen wegen zwaarder dan de nadelen) en dat is bij twee vaccindoden per drie geredde covidlevens strikt genomen nog steeds het geval - tenminste als je niet kijkt naar iets als verloren levensjaren.
Dat "outweighing the risks" is een onzinnig lage eis voor een vaccin. Normaal gesproken worden vaccinatiecampagnes al gestaakt bij een handvol verdachte overlijdens of ernstige bijwerkingen. Als je gezonde, niet speciaal kwetsbare mensen gaat inspuiten (wat toch de bedoeling is van een vaccin), dan mag er wat mij betreft geen enkele bijwerking zijn. Alleen bij "baat het niet dan schaadt het niet" zou ik vaccinatie van kinderen accepteren. En als het bij één op de miljoen toch fout lijkt te gaan, OK, dan kun je je afvragen of diegene dan wel 'gezond' was. Gebeurt er iets bij 0,1% dan is het al een heel ander verhaal, zeker in relatie tot het ziekterisico. Ergens daartussen moet er toch een grens liggen. Erg jammer dat die grens alleen met de natte vinger wordt bepaald.
So what if the incorrect assumptions from this study are adjusted, 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 decision if 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' rollout cannot be better illustrated than with the headlines above. One expert says 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 space, so that they can displace the dominant variant.
Both sounds are not isolated. It is the widely promoted government position towards the suppressed protest. Among these concerned scientists there are real virological leaders (although that is slowly starting to seem like 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 dubious resumes. They have all worked in medical science (microbiology, virology, immunology, epidemiology) or in the vaccine industry for decades 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 be 'debunked'. When I sometimes read fact checks in NRC, VK or AD, I saw that the fact checkers went to the RIVM site to check whether it was correct. In less turbulent times this may be the appropriate strategy, but when reality turns away from you with mutating variants and varying vaccination rates with aerosol and seasonal mechanisms mixed in, then a fact check, browsing through a droplet-based history, becomes quite pointless. This involves ideas, hypotheses, daring to assess probabilities, and combining observations. You will not find this on the RIVM site or in the triple-blind heuristic randomized mass scale trials with statistical relevance.
Dus wie zijn nu de variantenfabrieken? Ik zou zeggen: vooralsnog onbeslist - maar ik neig naar de gevaccineerden vanwege de filterende werking van de onvolledige vaccin-immuniteit (60% nu, bij de Delta-variant). De dominante versie van het virus, gesmoord door de vaccinaties, krijgt niet de kans de hele populatie te immuniseren met een breed-spectrum immuniteit. Besmettelijkere en héél misschien gevaarlijkere varianten vallen op vruchtbare grond in de "spike-only" immuniteit.
Will things really progress so quickly that they will result in major disasters? I don't think so, but who am I? In any case, none of the doomsday scenarios have come true yet, so why this scenario does... My expectation is that we will be surprised again by something completely unexpected. Hopefully it is of natural origin, then our immune system is slightly better equipped than with this construct that will hopefully degenerate again as quickly as it was created.
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 this to illustrate Covid infections... Was everyone sleeping there?
"Let op! De aantallen mensen met COVID-19 in de steekproef van de Peilstations kunnen niet vergeleken worden met de resultaten van de GGD’en. Momenteel worden de meeste mensen met griepachtige klachten getest door de GGD’en. De resultaten van de Peilstations zijn gebaseerd op mensen die op consult komen bij de huisarts."
Disclaimer Nivel
Those Wappies always do, they ruin it for the others! 💉😫
