All data indicate: the more often pricked, the more hospital admissions. Really a lot more. Then, of course, age plays a role: the older, the more jabs. Hospital admissions correlate with age, so it makes sense that vaccination status does. But to what extent is that correct: is there vaccine damage or are these hospital admissions mainly age-driven?
The reason to take a closer look at this was a dashboard of data analyst. @LCHF_Matt with the dates of New South Wales. For example, this graph of hospitalizations with/due to Covid.
- Light blue: admissions per 1 million vaccinated people.
- Dark blue: admissions per 1 million unvaccinated.
Is this really only due to age difference...?
The last six months of 2022 sprouted:
All graphs indicate: the more often pricked, the more shots. Really a lot more.
New South Wales is firmly in it
... while ATAGI (Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation) says otherwise.
Look at the last reported month, December 2022: that's shocking. Of the people who have had 4 or more vaccinations, 191.6 per million were hospitalized. Of the unvaccinated: 0.4 per million. Is that age?
The 4x gevaxten will be mostly elderly, but then the vaccination doesn't seem to help very well...? Then look at the boosters (3 jabs): 166 times as likely to get into the hospital as the unvaccinated.
In NSW, one third of children between the ages of 5-11 are double-vaccinated
Perhaps we can assume that the age difference between 0 and 1 dose is not so great. That first dose is also longer than a year ago. From July to December 2022, those with that one old jab in their bodies were on average 58 times as likely to get into the hospital with Covid as unvaccinated... with the outlier winter month of August: 107 times more often in the hospital with Covid. Between the other consecutive vaccinations, the difference is much smaller (see graph below). I don't really see how this can be explained by age. But that's emotional, so it's time for a number check.
Reference: CBS
At CBS, 'flu' falls under the diseases of the respiratory system. In the CBS archives here and here (more recent figures are welcome, I don't expect them to have changed much all of a sudden) the usual ratio in hospital admissions between people in their twenties and eighties was between 1:4 and 1:6. On average, about five times as many people in their eighties as people in their twenties.
Back to down under. Even in the hypothetical case that zero and ankle pickers would only be in their twenties and the quartet + skewers would only be in their eighties, there would still have to be at most 6x as many polypunctures in the hospital (with a vaccine without any effect). But for those with 1 jab, that is on average ten times as high: 58x. And it's only getting worse.
The graph below shows the ratios of 1, 2, 3 and 4+ jabs compared to 0 jabs. Here we even end up in the hundreds at 3x and 4x pricked.
If you compare each jab with the previous jab, all values are still above 1. The first jab was 58x more likely to be hospitalized, and each subsequent jab increases that chance by a factor of 1.2 to 1.5. Even prick 4 by a factor of 3 – but there may be confounding lurking there again. In any case, if a jab were to improve the situation over the previous jab, all spheres should be below 1.
Other explanations
Age discrimination to the max?
Covid may be more age-discriminatory than the flu. Then the age would weigh much more heavily. Whether that is really capable of increasing a factor of 6 to a factor of in the hundreds, I doubt that. In addition, this extreme age discrimination would have been seen – or certainly should have been seen – in 2020 after a few weeks (forward: months). You don't miss something like that. Then it is all the worse that young people and children have been clamped down to have a syringe in their arm, I cannot call it anything else, with all the threatening talk from the government and medical dignitaries. Because the fact that almost all the risk lay with the elderly means that children had nothing to fear. And the "then you do it for someone else" excuse was a children's doctor's lie for good with fatal consequences.
Wrong denominator? Neither...
In NSW, the age group 16+ is more than 95% vaccinated. From 12-15 years it is 85%. From 5-11 years: 50% (source). That says nothing about the unvaccinated.
From the UK we know the problem of the wrong denominator: if the number of unvaccinated people is misjudged, you quickly get strange figures. In this case, that group in NSW would have to have been estimated far too large to explain the low incidence. But then really dozens, hundreds of times too big. That's unlikely.
NSW has a population of 8.2 million. 7 million has had jab 1. So 1.2 million is NOT vaccinated. The dashboard calculates with 1.1 million, which makes no significant difference in the calculations. So that seems to be true.
Conclusion
It's actually the same as with the TGA report on Pfizer research. From everything emerges the image of a messy vaccine with unknown risks. See the Campbell video below. If you don't understand Australian, turn on the subtitles. His interlocutor, Prof. Clancy, was a vaccine assessor for TGA in his working life. He, too, finds it incomprehensible that the vaccines have been approved with such an assessment.
In short: junk, approved by FDA, EMA, CBG, rivm etc. and then rammed down our throats and the rest of the world's population.
Quackery, with Skepsis Foundation as one of the communication agencies.
And the media still doesn't run amok about it.
In Germany, it seems to be coming loose. See the heated discussion in the Bild video. Gunter Frank is a doctor who developed problems of conscience after taking eight jabs. He speaks harshly, believes that crimes have been committed and that the guilty should be brought to justice.
An investigation into the state of affairs surrounding corona should not be carried out by the perpetrators but by those who have been systematically ignored and ridiculed.
Gunter Frank
Sounds familiar, right?
Question marks
That was the hospital occupancy. If we look at the ICU, the non-pricked score the lowest there as well. (I can't explain what happens to the "One dose" group in December. Data error?)
In mortality, the 0-dose group scores worse than those who have had 1 or 2 jabs. Those are nowhere near the differences we saw earlier, but still, it does make a difference. Do they take a PCR test for everyone who dies, does anyone know? How else do they know? Are most people perhaps positive, they also do not notice the infection and does Covid have nothing to do with the cause of death? The numbers are so small that those differences and outliers may not even be significant.
ICU occupancy (with Covid)
Mortality (with Covid)
Error in the labels
If someone dives into the numbers: the bars per graph show the proportions correctly. But the monthly charts between them are not correct. Compare November and December on the mortality chart: both 9 cases at 'No dose', which is 1.9 per million in November and 3.8 per million a month later. That would mean the population halved in December. I have contacted the author about this and there is indeed an error in the text labels, at least from December. They all seem to be divided by 5... He adjusts it.
[He now indicates that he has fixed it, but I don't see the visualization discussed anymore. However, line graphs with the same data.]
Good piece again. Robert Clancy is a breath of fresh air. You have to use very bizarre twists of thought to maintain that the 'vaccines' have had a positive effect, The discussion with Gunter Frank is nice to see. Now something like this in the Netherlands.
I assume you know this one too:
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/hospital-admissions-double-and-its-got-to-be-down-to-the-vaccines/
Doubling of hospital admissions in New Zealand in 2021 with reasons. Zero Covid in 2021, but completely packed. Same story in West Australia. If you add all those signals together, it's not a discussion anymore, is it? It looks legitimate.
But I'm still seen as a village idiot at work. Most people have no idea, they don't want to hear it. I don't keep my mouth shut anymore, even if they say they don't want to talk about it. Rather the village madman than a mak sheep.
Fine, Cees! I am also still amazed at how this scandal is still being kept quiet in the Netherlands. From the origin of the virus to the nonsense of the measures and ignoring the lethality of the vaccines. Not to mention the uselessness of that terrible corona admission ticket. Do Marion and Hugo have such a huge influence that 'people' just don't see it? Are our media so corrupt and bribed that NONE of this comes to light? Yes, continuing to talk about it is the best we can do. Every Dutchman who sees the truth is a gain, in my view! I myself have seen a sporty 20-year-old boy succumb in my area 1 day after vaccination, and know how much that hurts... And, at the same time, the pain caused by people who don't want to see it.
Not wanting to know the majority of the Dutch reminds me suspiciously of the cowardly attitude that was also taken in 40-45 by the vast majority of the population (given the threat somewhat understandable).
Just as most Dutch people supported the resistance after the war, it will now be the same again in this COVID slaughter. There was and has hardly been any courage when it came to it. A sad conclusion that unfortunately I cannot see otherwise.
In the Netherlands, the figures are even more manipulated because relatively many very weak people, almost all of whom have been vaccinated from the 2,400 care and nursing homes, are less likely to be admitted. RIVM only assumes the corona hospital admissions when calculating the effectiveness of the shots.
Not only are infected people in homes less admitted to hospitals; the chance that they will be admitted to ICU is even smaller because we have above-average strict criteria for this in the Netherlands. So especially younger, less weak people end up in ICU, who are less vaccinated in percentage terms. Vulnerable people are relatively much more vaccinated, more than 90 percent. Those will therefore die faster if they are and shorter in ICU.
lie. So when you say: Of the ICU occupancy today, 60 percent have not been vaccinated, that says little.
Furthermore, ICU occupancy rates and hospital figures are polluted, because many people who are very weak do not get a shot because they die quickly or because they take certain medications or have chemo. Together with the youth who were almost always hospitalized with corona and the thousands of heavily pregnant women who are relatively less vaccinated, they pollute the ratio of grafted versus non-grafted enormously.
Moreover, in hospitals in 2021, the percentage who were not admitted by corona, but only rightly or wrongly tested positive in the hospital, had risen to an average of 50-55 percent and in 2022 to above 90 percent.
This analysis is dubious. Not only are the numbers of admissions of unvaccinated people particularly low, but the numbers of admissions in the "Unkown" group are also particularly high (percentages above 20%). Anyone with any practical experience with statistical analyses should immediately start ringing alarm bells.
What is going on there?
My suggestion: the administrative system of hospitals classifies unvaccinated people as unknown in many cases.
We see the same picture in ICU occupancy, but in deaths there is a mirrored picture: little in the group unknown and a lot more in the group
unvaccinated.
This confirms my suggestion: ICU occupancy is of course also hospital, deaths of course often outside of it.
In short: nothing can be concluded from these figures.
"Nothing can be concluded at all from these figures." It rattles, but a solid dataset is not at our disposal. These are the figures that are communicated to us, so we are expected to take them in. This means that we must try to understand them, try to give them meaning. I do that here.