In the Virusvaria series '... for Dummies' 'HVE for dummies' should of course not be missed. My short 144-letter explanation on X seemed sufficient to me to understand the phenomenon. But Herman is not so easy with that and built an article with a surprising practical case at the end.
If you understand my concise X-description, it is still worth reading Herman's article. He doesn't just explain the phenomenon step by step using simple calculations with easy example figures.
It only gets really interesting when he then tests it against 'real world data' from Italy. What do you think? Unbelievable Mike: it's exactly right!
This strengthens the underpinning of the previous post in which I suggested that Nivel has turned the HVE to vaccine safety. Actually, that's a fact now. So where is that security now?
Below is Herman's full post, taken live from his new site steig.nl
And now with real figures from England : https://jdee.substack.com/p/primary-clinical-outcomes-for-a-single-90d?utm_campaign=email-post&r=ug3ao&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Ja dank! Ik ben daar mee bezig dankzij de vorige link die je stuurde. Kijken of ik er iets van kan maken.
Zoals ik het nu begrijp als leek:
1 Miljoen mensen Verw. sterfte In Procenten
1,000,000 2,500 0.25%
Zonder HVE effect Verw.Sterfte
Gevaccineerd 90% 900,000 2,250 0.25%
Ongevaccineerd 10% 100,000 250 0.25%
1,000,000 2,500 0.25%
Veroorzaakt door HVE effect (Ernstig Zieken NIET gevaccineerd, Gezonde WEL i.v.m. vrijheid)
Gevaccineerd 90% 898,750 997 0.11% =0.4×0.25% = 0.4 x 0.25%
Ongevaccineerd 10% 101,250 1,503 1.48% =5.9×0.25% = 6 x 0.25%
1,000,000 2,500 0.25%
(Ongevaccineerd lijkt nu 10x zoveel overlijdens, 1.48% tegen 0.11%, te hebben door de ernstig zieken)
Statistische correctie? De 1250 overlijdens van ongevaccineerden bij gevaccineerden tellen?
Gevaccineerd 90% 900,000 2,500 0.278%
Ongevaccineerd 10% 100,000 250 0.25%
1,000,000 2,500 0.25%
This then gives a kind of unpolluted 0 position?
(Doesn't apply to a vaccination rate of e.g. 50% in my opinion)
So the seriously ill who have died should be counted among the vaccinated anyway,
Simply because they would have been vaccinated in a healthy state given the politics.
Then you are going to add the non-seriously ill Covid deaths to the vaccinated and unvaccinated?
Or would it not be better to exclude all seriously ill people?
"So we have to count the seriously ill who have died among the vaccinated anyway, simply because they would have been vaccinated in a healthy state given politics." That's a strong one indeed.
Exclusion is another possibility. According to Nivel, mortality will then be HIGHER! See the last post by Maurice. It's a mess.
I proposed more than three years ago as a compromise that this exclusion would therefore lead to a more credible calculation of the 'vaccine' effectiveness. I then offered an article about this to the Volkskrant, among others. Three minutes later I was told that they were not going to post it.
P.S. Also (younger) people who take/use certain drugs (chemo) against cancer in particular were not vaccinated or were vaccinated much later (if they were still alive)
They also have a greater chance of dying unvaccinated.
I had made a nice overview in Excel and I had made the same visual with spaces in my comment, but all spaces have been removed and it becomes a mess. Unfortunately I couldn't post a picture with my presentation. I find math in online text very difficult and in states it comes across much better visually to me. If you want, I can email it to you.
yes go ahead. You can also include the HTML in the comment, if you know how HTML works. See, for example, https://tableconvert.com/excel-to-html
here's an HTML attempt 🙂
Statistical Analysis of Mortality Rates
table {
width: 100%;
border-collapse: collapse;
font-family: Arial, sans-serif;
}
th, td {
border: 1px solid #ddd;
padding: 8px;
text-align: center;
}
th {
background-color: #f2f2f2;
font-weight: bold;
}
.subtitle {
background-color: #e8e8e8;
font-weight: bold;
text-align: left;
padding-left: 8px;
}
.note {
font-size: 0.9em;
color: #555;
padding-top: 8px;
}
Statistical Analysis of Mortality Rates
1 Million People
Expected mortality
In percentages
1,000,000
2,500
0.25%
Without HVE effect
Group
Population
Expected mortality
In percentages
Vaccinated 90%
900,000
2,250
0.25%
Unvaccinated 10%
100,000
250
0.25%
Total
1,000,000
2,500
0.25%
Veroorzaakt door HVE effect (Ernstig Zieken NIET gevaccineerd, Gezonde WEL i.v.m. vrijheid)
Group
Population
Expected mortality
In percentages
Computation
Vaccinated 90%
898,750
997
0.11%
0.4% = 0.4 x 0.25%
Unvaccinated 10%
101,250
1,503
1.48%
5.9% = 6 x 0.25%
Total
1,000,000
2,500
0.25%
Statistische correctie? De 1250 overlijdens van ongevaccineerden bij gevaccineerden tellen?
Group
Population
Adjusted mortality
In percentages
Vaccinated 90%
900,000
2,500
0.278%
Unvaccinated 10%
100,000
250
0.25%
Total
1,000,000
2,500
0.25%
So the seriously ill who have died should be counted among the vaccinated anyway,
Simply because they would have been vaccinated in a healthy state given the politics.
Then you are going to count the non-seriously ill Covid deaths among the vaccinated and unvaccinated?
I am still missing an important factor that seems to have disappeared in the violence. Or maybe it's been repaired in the meantime. The 'vaccinated' status was only granted weeks after (usually the second) vaccination in all countries involved. Everyone who died within a few weeks after vaccination was therefore unvaccinated. Norman Fenton said that this is how you can make the biggest poison appear effective.
This was already clear in 2021 in the statistics of ONS (which at the time provided more insight than the Dutch authorities). It was just in there.
It seems to me that this factor makes the HVE pale in comparison.
These studies, with those Kaplan-Meier graphs, are really from the puncture date.
The explanation can be found in the Meester/Jacobs report. HVE is (also in my opinion, I agree with Cees) peanuts compared to the following (quote report Meester/Jacobs)
'Another possible factor, we know, is that some people have not given permission for their vaccination records to be included in central research registers. As a result, they are logically not included in CIMS, even though they have indeed received a vaccination. These people are therefore counted as "unvaccinated". It is unclear exactly how often this has occurred (reported, but not precise, figures speak of ±7%); The large mortality spike among unvaccinated people suggests that this has happened disproportionately and remarkably often in people who died shortly after vaccination.'
Die ontbrekende 7% is door Nivel grotendeels aangevuld vanuit hun patiënten databases. Die hadden kennelijk geen probleem met de non-consenters. Zie eerdere artikelen of kijk op https//steig.nl voor meer cijfermatige info.
Regarding the pollution of the NIVEL data:
The unregistered have also not had a vaccination passport.
When the QR code was introduced, these people could still register in CIMS. That was necessary to get a vaccination passport. Apparently a fairly large group did not make use of it. Why not? Were they so principled or were they already dead or almost dead by then?
This group must be disconnected from the unvaccinated. Any research that lumps these two groups together is in fact pointless.