It is nice that people are still dismantling these “studies”, but it is absurd that any of these papers are published. I used to read these types of papers at the start of the pandemic, and the resulting rage at the obvious p hacking and data manipulation was worse for my health than any Covid infection could be. I had to quit. If you can’t the MSM to stop publishing these headline studies pushing CDC and pharmaceutical propaganda, then I don’t know if the effort is worth it.
Unfortunately CDC can publish these poorly designed biased studies in their MMWR because they are internally reviewed and must comport with CDCs mission. Until MMWRs are reviewed by an outside set of peers these p-hack studies that back up the narrative will continue. Even with a valid peer review system some of these studies will get through on political merit. VP is correct. It’s time to stop the test negative observation studies and run a RCT. I believe that may never happen because the results will likely show the CV19 vaccines are not as effective as we have been lead to believe.
Thank you dumbing this down for us non medical types! I never really followed any medical issues until Covid, something just didn't feel right about how it was being handled. I've followed you and ZDogg since then and been a "conspiracy theorist" to many because of it. Keep up the great work keeping us informed and not just about Covid issues.
No vaccines actually work. Whilst we are to believe they can cure a disease or kill a virus, that’s not true. It’s our immune system that protects us not the vile in a jab, especially if that jab has been designed to compromise the immune system so that it cannot function as it should and we become reliant on jabs. Do the MRNA drug - called a vaccine is not good for children.
Agreed. No vaccine creates a bubble around the person, and every single vaccine has both a primary failure rate and also secondary failure, or vaccine waning. The viruses still circulate and the only difference is a person who was recently vaccinated may show less or no symptoms, but they are still infected, or “boosted” by the virus. The fact that every vaccine carries risk, and some of those risks can be fatal or serious depending on host factors, make vaccination a risk filled medical intervention whose risks and benefits must be assessed by each person.
I don't think statistically speaking that young kids were ever at risk of catching severe Covid in the first place. I think there were something like 18 total kids who supposedly died from Covid (or with Covid) in the US and Canada combined during the plandemic. To my recollection, all of these kids had cancer or were severely immunocompromised.
I barely just started reading and already have an observation: they don’t test everyone for Covid equally. I would presume they are more likely to test you for Covid if you are unvaccinated and if you’ve never had Covid. That’s a total bias right there and by preferentially testing more unvaccinated people they will gather more unvaccinated Covid cases.
What about the insane, lockstep, pharma-peddling behavior of most MDs?
They're not "scared". They're expressing rational decision-making in a situation that could easily be classified as state-based violence or oppression.
Omg, I only have a few minutes and need to read this Stack and the study until I completely understand both but this sounds like the exact same study design of another earlier CDC study I can’t believe no one made a big deal about for not only being shit but revealing a total opposite in the data.
Side note: I think you know about the Bandim Health Project/ Dr Peter Aaby/ Dr Tracey Hoeg because, if I’m not mistaken, you’ve coauthored some papers with her and she recently did an audio SubStack with Dr Christine Stabell Benn.
Anyway, their big finding was that all killed vaccines have the non specific effect of higher mortality from other illnesses.
Ok, so assume the asshole data skewers know this. So if you want to skew a study, start with only looking at hospitalized patients. Why? Because the vaccine is going to cause increased hospitalization from OTHER respiratory illnesses. Now you say, oh look. Out of everyone in here with a respiratory illness, if you separate them into vaxxed and no vaxxed, a Smaller Percentage vaxxed tested positive for CoVid. Well no shit, that’s because there’s a huge number of vaxxed filling up the hospital with OTHER respiratory diseases (if Dr Aaby’s work is correct). The more important number to look at is not the percentage.
It’s who is filling up the hospital?
Vaxxed or Non vaxxed?
That’s all I care about. Keeping my kids out of the hospital. So I don’t have time to look at the study you posted and I only breezed your stack. But in this other study, the numbers were crazy if you do your own math. During Delta it was something like 97% vaccinated for other respiratory illnesses.
A better title would be: Vaccinated are filling up the hospital with other respiratory diseases.
I can’t wait to look at this study and do a similar thing I did here.
Oh btw, there were still over 90% vaccinated during Delta compared to non vaxxed if you do your own math. This was an intentionally child like looking science project I created for our school board when they were mandating the vax. The whole point is, if you just look at numbers and do your own math, you’ll see exactly what Dr Aaby said.
Looking at that study, 6 times as many fully vaccinated people presented with Covid like illness as unvaccinated people. So while the study may find a smaller percent of Covid illness in the fully vaccinated Covid like illness group, that group is still getting sick with something, sick enough to go to the hospital, so does full vaccination increase risk of non Covid infections?
Sorry. The data in this study disprove the claim that the non vaxxed were up the hospitals! The only redeeming quality supposedly left for the CoVid vax: reducing hospitalization.
Excellent observation. I think you are absolutely right that without accounting for potential detrimental nonspecific effects of vaccines, you can't use these test-negative studies as evidence of efficacy. That would stack the studies.
That's fascinating. I read a study done in... Vietnam I think.... on one of the trivalent flu shots, and that was also the result - less flu, but more non-respitory illnesses.
It doesn't matter what kind of trial you do if you're going to throw out the data - ie subjects - that doesn't match your narrative.
I was just watching the story of Maddie who is vaccine injured because she participated in the Pfizer vaccine trials for 12-15 year olds. They said her severe injuries were due to "anxiety", and she was never mentioned in the FDA proceedings. She was later diagnosed with a demylenation disease - something that happens with other vaccines too.
I have to look at the original study, but did they say whether they tested everyone at intake? Like maybe broken bones or some medical emergency should have been an additional control.
Yes, test-negative case control studies do seem to have the aroma of “having your cake and eating it to” or maybe it’s the odor of “if something seems to good to be true then it’s probably not true” or maybe what is detected could be the musky perfume of “getting something for nothing”.
I don’t understand how the study design makes any logical sense at all. If the rate of vaccination inside the hospital is 10% and the rate outside is also 10%, how is that supposed to convince me the vaccine is doing anything to keep babies with CoVid out of the hospital? Just because there are a whole bunch more babies who are hospitalized for other things doesn’t make the CoVid vaccine more effective at preventing CoVid.
I also don’t understand how anyone could look at this table and come away with the conclusion that 2+ doses is a clear benefit. Out of the vaccinated babies hospitalized for CoVid, 69% received 2 doses while only 31% received 1 dose. Also, for other respiratory illnesses, 74% were double jabbed while only 26% received 1 dose.
It is nice that people are still dismantling these “studies”, but it is absurd that any of these papers are published. I used to read these types of papers at the start of the pandemic, and the resulting rage at the obvious p hacking and data manipulation was worse for my health than any Covid infection could be. I had to quit. If you can’t the MSM to stop publishing these headline studies pushing CDC and pharmaceutical propaganda, then I don’t know if the effort is worth it.
Unfortunately CDC can publish these poorly designed biased studies in their MMWR because they are internally reviewed and must comport with CDCs mission. Until MMWRs are reviewed by an outside set of peers these p-hack studies that back up the narrative will continue. Even with a valid peer review system some of these studies will get through on political merit. VP is correct. It’s time to stop the test negative observation studies and run a RCT. I believe that may never happen because the results will likely show the CV19 vaccines are not as effective as we have been lead to believe.
RCTs are only as honest as the people running it. Which is not at all. This is the real problem.
Are you saying you doubt the results from the rigorous Missouri hairdresser case study? How dare you! /s
boom
Thank you dumbing this down for us non medical types! I never really followed any medical issues until Covid, something just didn't feel right about how it was being handled. I've followed you and ZDogg since then and been a "conspiracy theorist" to many because of it. Keep up the great work keeping us informed and not just about Covid issues.
No vaccines actually work. Whilst we are to believe they can cure a disease or kill a virus, that’s not true. It’s our immune system that protects us not the vile in a jab, especially if that jab has been designed to compromise the immune system so that it cannot function as it should and we become reliant on jabs. Do the MRNA drug - called a vaccine is not good for children.
Agreed. No vaccine creates a bubble around the person, and every single vaccine has both a primary failure rate and also secondary failure, or vaccine waning. The viruses still circulate and the only difference is a person who was recently vaccinated may show less or no symptoms, but they are still infected, or “boosted” by the virus. The fact that every vaccine carries risk, and some of those risks can be fatal or serious depending on host factors, make vaccination a risk filled medical intervention whose risks and benefits must be assessed by each person.
The Cleveland Clinic Study, over a year ago, showed the the more shots you had the more likely you were to catch Covid.
Yep, and our PCPs, in the Cleveland area, are not recommending covid vaccines for those under 65 who don’t have some sort of comorbidity.
I don't think statistically speaking that young kids were ever at risk of catching severe Covid in the first place. I think there were something like 18 total kids who supposedly died from Covid (or with Covid) in the US and Canada combined during the plandemic. To my recollection, all of these kids had cancer or were severely immunocompromised.
Blair-Or were killed by hospital protocol.
I barely just started reading and already have an observation: they don’t test everyone for Covid equally. I would presume they are more likely to test you for Covid if you are unvaccinated and if you’ve never had Covid. That’s a total bias right there and by preferentially testing more unvaccinated people they will gather more unvaccinated Covid cases.
I think they did test everyone for everything in this case. But in general, I think you're right, that always needs to be thought about.
"The media" scared them to get the shots?
What about the insane, lockstep, pharma-peddling behavior of most MDs?
They're not "scared". They're expressing rational decision-making in a situation that could easily be classified as state-based violence or oppression.
Omg, I only have a few minutes and need to read this Stack and the study until I completely understand both but this sounds like the exact same study design of another earlier CDC study I can’t believe no one made a big deal about for not only being shit but revealing a total opposite in the data.
Side note: I think you know about the Bandim Health Project/ Dr Peter Aaby/ Dr Tracey Hoeg because, if I’m not mistaken, you’ve coauthored some papers with her and she recently did an audio SubStack with Dr Christine Stabell Benn.
Anyway, their big finding was that all killed vaccines have the non specific effect of higher mortality from other illnesses.
Ok, so assume the asshole data skewers know this. So if you want to skew a study, start with only looking at hospitalized patients. Why? Because the vaccine is going to cause increased hospitalization from OTHER respiratory illnesses. Now you say, oh look. Out of everyone in here with a respiratory illness, if you separate them into vaxxed and no vaxxed, a Smaller Percentage vaxxed tested positive for CoVid. Well no shit, that’s because there’s a huge number of vaxxed filling up the hospital with OTHER respiratory diseases (if Dr Aaby’s work is correct). The more important number to look at is not the percentage.
It’s who is filling up the hospital?
Vaxxed or Non vaxxed?
That’s all I care about. Keeping my kids out of the hospital. So I don’t have time to look at the study you posted and I only breezed your stack. But in this other study, the numbers were crazy if you do your own math. During Delta it was something like 97% vaccinated for other respiratory illnesses.
A better title would be: Vaccinated are filling up the hospital with other respiratory diseases.
I can’t wait to look at this study and do a similar thing I did here.
Oh btw, there were still over 90% vaccinated during Delta compared to non vaxxed if you do your own math. This was an intentionally child like looking science project I created for our school board when they were mandating the vax. The whole point is, if you just look at numbers and do your own math, you’ll see exactly what Dr Aaby said.
https://substack.com/profile/117037158-athina-kaviris/note/c-39689708?r=1xoig6&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
I know you already explain the study is biased
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm
Looking at that study, 6 times as many fully vaccinated people presented with Covid like illness as unvaccinated people. So while the study may find a smaller percent of Covid illness in the fully vaccinated Covid like illness group, that group is still getting sick with something, sick enough to go to the hospital, so does full vaccination increase risk of non Covid infections?
Sorry. The data in this study disprove the claim that the non vaxxed were up the hospitals! The only redeeming quality supposedly left for the CoVid vax: reducing hospitalization.
Athena-There’s not one RCT that shows they reduce hospitalization.
Filling*. Wow. So crazy the blatant lies.
Excellent observation. I think you are absolutely right that without accounting for potential detrimental nonspecific effects of vaccines, you can't use these test-negative studies as evidence of efficacy. That would stack the studies.
That's fascinating. I read a study done in... Vietnam I think.... on one of the trivalent flu shots, and that was also the result - less flu, but more non-respitory illnesses.
The War on Kids by Robby Starbuck
https://x.com/robbystarbuck/status/1754223954342858752?s=46&t=YLvTxVb1Nk56SGVu2qG4aw
It doesn't matter what kind of trial you do if you're going to throw out the data - ie subjects - that doesn't match your narrative.
I was just watching the story of Maddie who is vaccine injured because she participated in the Pfizer vaccine trials for 12-15 year olds. They said her severe injuries were due to "anxiety", and she was never mentioned in the FDA proceedings. She was later diagnosed with a demylenation disease - something that happens with other vaccines too.
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2024/02/covid-vaccine-trials-sharyl-attkisson/
I have to look at the original study, but did they say whether they tested everyone at intake? Like maybe broken bones or some medical emergency should have been an additional control.
Yes, test-negative case control studies do seem to have the aroma of “having your cake and eating it to” or maybe it’s the odor of “if something seems to good to be true then it’s probably not true” or maybe what is detected could be the musky perfume of “getting something for nothing”.
And it is still dangerous especially for boys: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38365960/
Your first example also leaves open the possibility that the vaccine makes Covid illness worse as a hypothesis.
You said many times covid-19 vaccines are good... What made you change your mind doc? You grew a conscience?
I don’t understand how the study design makes any logical sense at all. If the rate of vaccination inside the hospital is 10% and the rate outside is also 10%, how is that supposed to convince me the vaccine is doing anything to keep babies with CoVid out of the hospital? Just because there are a whole bunch more babies who are hospitalized for other things doesn’t make the CoVid vaccine more effective at preventing CoVid.
I also don’t understand how anyone could look at this table and come away with the conclusion that 2+ doses is a clear benefit. Out of the vaccinated babies hospitalized for CoVid, 69% received 2 doses while only 31% received 1 dose. Also, for other respiratory illnesses, 74% were double jabbed while only 26% received 1 dose.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7248a2.htm#T2_down