An emeritus professor of computer science and statistics, a professor of probability theory and a doctor/lawyer/entrepreneur discuss an article that Steve Kirsch also shared. The Substack article in question1The brief summary by the author of a study behind a paywall ends with a call to share it above all. In the absence of science journalism in our major magazines, I do this in my own way. The link to the Dutch translation of both Lataster's substack article2Latasters substack article as the review by Fenton, Neil and Engler3Fenton, Neil an Angel discussion (EN) is at the bottom of the article. First the mini-summaries (we know the material) and comments on the response to them from Fenton Neil and Engler.
Raphael Lataster
Lataster's analysis focuses on four relatively isolated Australian regions where there was little COVID mortality in 2020–2021 and lockdowns were limited, but where an increase in total mortality was visible during the period when vaccination rates increased rapidly. This puts pressure on the usual explanations for excess mortality – COVID itself or lockdown-related healthcare postponements – although this is emphatically an ecological analysis at population level.
An excerpt from his own summary:
"Het zijn de prikken. Als in deze regio's het aantal sterfgevallen is gestegen samen met de massale vaccinatie met de COVID-19-vaccins, en ze niet echt een COVID-19-probleem hadden of het soort lockdowns dat wijdverbreide gezondheidscrises kan veroorzaken, dan is het duidelijk dat de prik – waarvan al door de Australische en andere regeringen is erkend dat deze sterfgevallen veroorzaakt – een belangrijke rol speelt."
This is not a new argument4See Excess mortality on a continent without deferred care (Feb. 2023) a Dead Down Under (nov. 2022). De tegenwerping was destijds "de sterfte steeg toen de maatregelen werden versoepeld". Daarmee werd gemakshalve even vergeten dat de vaccins dus niet naar behoren hadden gewerkt. Dat terzijde.
Fenton, Neil an Angel
De bespreking van Latasters artikel op 'Where are the Numbers?' gaat verder en plaatst vraagtekens bij de wijze waarop luchtwegaandoeningen tijdens de pandemie werden getest, geclassificeerd en statistisch verwerkt. Dit zou het sterftebeeld in 2020 hebben beïnvloed en daarmee ook de interpretatie van latere oversterfte.
Fenton, Neil and Engler - as hard figures - come to remarkable statements. Three comments on that.
The first comment is in response to the following statement:
"Maar is het spike-eiwit echt de boosdoener?5See also an earlier article by Where are the numbers We have previously argued that there is nothing particularly alarming about the spike protein, or any other component of SARS-CoV-2"
"Er was geen unieke ‘covidziekte’, geen echt nieuw virus en geen pandemie in de zin zoals ons werd verteld. Wat zich ontvouwde, werd aangestuurd door gebrekkige wetenschap, twijfelachtige statistieken en testpraktijken die het verhaal vormden in plaats van het te verduidelijken."
De spike was dus niet speciaal toxisch, volgens hen. Nu hebben de veranderde behandelingsprotocollen -en de daarmee in paniek overboord gegooide kennis over respiratoire ziektes- ongetwijfeld een zware tol geëist in ziekenhuizen en met name op IC's, en aanpassingen van gangbare doodsoorzaakcoderingen deden de rest in de statistieken. Maar:
Als de spike-eiwitten niet toxisch zijn, wat is er dan zo dodelijk aan de vaccins...?
In de bijsluiter staan honderden aandoeningen vermeld, (waaronder Bell's palsy zie de kangoeroe die ik onlangs fotografeerde in de Australische outbacks; de vaccinatiegraad is daar echt enorm). Maar obducties hebben oorzakelijke verbanden aangetoond tussen vaccinspike-eiwitten en doodsoorzaak. Zijn de auteurs niet van die mechanismes op de hoogte?6Zie Jillis Kriek's What Covid-19 and mRNA vaccines have in common
The second comment gaat specifiek over een aanname van Fenton/Neil/Engler: Als er veel op een ziekte 'griep' ('flu') wordt gegoogled, dan heerst die ziekte ook, volgens de heren. Dan ga je er dus wel vanuit dat de gemiddelde googelaar zijn perfecte diagnose al had gesteld voordat hij ging googlen. En dat dan ook nog bij een ziekte waarvoor je eerst een test moest doen om te weten of je hem wel had. Dat vond ik wat kort door de bocht. Een epidemie kun je zo wel traceren maar niet het verschil tussen bijvoorbeeld SARS-CoV2 en influenza.
A third comment is meer van algemene aard, niet zozeer specifiek op deze artikelen van toepassing. Steeds weer worden gevaccineerde regio's, vaccinatiegraden en sterftepercentages vergeleken - begrijpelijk, wat moet je anders zonder adequate microdata. We hebben het zelf ook vaak gedaan. Ook vaccin-promotoren wezen op verschillen tussen vergelijkbaar gevaccineerde landen zoals Zweden: "flink gevaccineerd en minder oversterfte dus het kan het vaccin niet zijn." (nog even afgezien van de hypothese dat de natuurlijke immuniteit de Zweden beter heeft beschermd tegen de toxiciteit van de vaccin-spike.)
The underlying assumption, on which all these analyzes are based, is that the vaccine itself should be a constant factor, both in terms of effectiveness and the degree of side effects. An understandable assumption because once you acknowledge that it was a lottery as to what was injected, the basis for all the correlations that you find when comparing different sales areas of that product disappears. Moreover, inconsistent quality in itself is an absolute no-go.
Unfortunately: the production quality of the vaccines was not constant. We know the hot lots, we know about the varying DNA contamination. And what about transport and storage at -60° C? Heard little more about it. That there bad batches waren, was al vroeg algemeen bekend - dat was vier jaar geleden al een ding7Over How bad is my batch and again in July 20238Half of side effects due to 5% of batches.
What a time to be alive
Zou de waarheid ooit nog boven komen? Engler beweerde eerder dat het hele lab leak-verhaal onderdeel kan zijn van de psyop om ons bang te maken. Een virtueel virus... Sommigen houden vol dat de hele pandemie vooropgezet en gepland was, dat schijnt dan weer in de Epstein-files te staan. Ik geloof die mensen niet en heb het zelf niet gezien, dus als iemand een link heeft, graag.
You will find the translations of both articles here.
Footnotes
- 1The brief summary by the author of a study behind a paywall
- 2Latasters substack article
- 3Fenton, Neil an Angel discussion (EN)
- 4See Excess mortality on a continent without deferred care (Feb. 2023) a Dead Down Under (nov. 2022)
- 5See also an earlier article by Where are the numbers
- 6Zie Jillis Kriek's What Covid-19 and mRNA vaccines have in common
- 7
- 8
The evidence is getting stronger. A nice study with fairly well controlled variables (if I can believe the summary...).
Here's a response (I still have to/will read the pieces by Fenton et al, maybe I'm off topic..)
The interesting thing about the vaccine rollout and correlation of excess mortality in Australia is that the rollout of the shot took place in the same months as in the Netherlands (from January 2021). In the Netherlands it is the middle of winter (and more people die in winter than in other months), so the correlation between giving a vaccine -> mortality in the Netherlands (as a devil's advocate or a journalist from the Volkskrant might say) is a typical case of 'correlation is not causation', because the correlation is explained by season.
In Australia, however, it is the middle of summer at that time, so you can eliminate the 'explanatory variable' season within the correlation between vaccine administration -> direct mortality.
Of course, there are other possible explanations - such as that the vaccine was first given to the elderly and sick - but it should be noted that these groups were (almost) not included in the Pfizer/Moderna/Astra/Janssen trials (exclusion criteria). How ethical is that? (Not)
The most tragic thing of all (in my opinion) is that the trials were stopped prematurely due to 'ethical principles' (within a few months) so that we do not, strictly speaking, know the long-term side effects.
But anyone who has their eyes open will see it immediately. A case of softenon, smoking, oxycodone (where the studies that took place at the time could not take into account the long-term effects or (actually always) never measured the really important end points (such as death). Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
A few (no pun intended!) comments about translation:
“computer science” is informatics in Dutch.
I generally think it is useful to display quotes in the source language; then they can be found quickly.
The comment (to my heart) from F,N and E that “it can be coherently argued that it is not a 'thing' at all but simply an artificial sequence.” is translated as “it can be coherently stated that it is not a 'thing' at all, but simply an artificial sequence.”
The translation suggests that F,N and E believe that SARS-CoV-2 is an artificial sequence while only claiming that this can be coherently argued for.
Furthermore, Anton writes in response to a quote from F, N and E in which the spike protein is not mentioned: “The spike was therefore not particularly toxic, according to them.” The response seems to relate to the following comment from F,N and E:
“But is the spike protein really the culprit?3 We’ve argued before that there’s nothing uniquely alarming about the spike protein, or any other component of SARS‑CoV‑2 for that matter:”
Computer science would then be computer science. Or Data science? I'll leave it alone, my son will study it too. Just search for computer science studies... Everywhere it is called Computer science. It's a thing in the academies. https://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/nl/onderwijs/bachelor/programmas/computer-science/waarom-deze-studie
I like to use Dutch translations for paragraphs of text.
I just removed the 'argue' argument. In my opinion, you also find something when you say that something can be argued for (or stated) coherently. It should have been the sentence you found anyway, that was a mistake indeed.
Thanks for the corrections Jeroen!
I asked a cell biologist about it, who says it just works, in the lab in a petri dish. The empirical reality.
?
Sorry, that should have been here: https://virusvaria.nl/debatje-a-i-en-totalitarisme/#comment-11277
"BUT IS THE SPIKE PROTEIN REALLY THE EVIL" In any case, the furin cleavage site present in this is a special phenomenon. This furin cleavage site was identified as a unique feature by top virologists during their telephone conference on February 2020. It is extremely interesting to know whether there is a difference in the biological effect of the spike proteins from the mRNA corona vaccine and the spike proteins from the virus most likely produced in Wuhan. (or later variants')