Huh? -- Your chart shows the unvaccinated dying at much greater rates than any of the vaccinated. So you'd be better off getting Moderna than staying unvaccinated, even if Moderna is harder on you than Pfizer. Now that's not what I've been seeing for years while thanking my lucky stars for staying unvaccinated. Unless that top black line…
Huh? -- Your chart shows the unvaccinated dying at much greater rates than any of the vaccinated. So you'd be better off getting Moderna than staying unvaccinated, even if Moderna is harder on you than Pfizer. Now that's not what I've been seeing for years while thanking my lucky stars for staying unvaccinated. Unless that top black line with the huge "death spike" is something other than "unvaccinated"?
The unvaccinated spike in mid 2021 in the chart may be in part a reflection of the massive amount of people who got jabbed during the first rollout & died but were <2 weeks post jab & therefore classed as unvaccinated. The rationale from the authorities being it took at least 2 weeks for people once jabbed to be "protected".
I believe it’s the “healthy user bias” that you are seeing. People on their death bed did not take the vaccines. The mortality being greater in the unvaccinated during times of no Covid deaths shows this healthy user bias because the vaccines do not boost good health in general. They can’t. They were only created to prevent Covid severity, which can’t happen if there is no Covid.
It is called the "cheap trick". Each time you received a vaccine dose you were counted for 14 days as unvaccinated. So 90% of the vaccine deaths, car accidents, etc. blow up the deaths in the unvaccinated group and make the vaccinated group appear to have lower all-cause mortality. If Pfizer was administered 4x more than Moderna, it would also push their all-cause mortality curve further down than the other... this is probably what is going on here. As you can see the curves are ordered exactly by the percentages they were administered. Watch Norman Fenton's Youtube videos to understand how this works.
Like I said before in a comment, all the data is just FUBAR. Using it for anything is basically like reading tea leaves at this point.
Yes, there are definitely multiple ways to confuse the public with statistics. One of them is the "healthy user bias" that I mentioned. You mention the statistical tricks that they played for the covid injections, which was a unique trick never seen before. There were others as well, like only counting people as "vaccinated" if they received the vaccine at the hospital that was reporting the statistics. I'm sure there were a lot of other ways to hide the true data.
The only thing that we really needed to know was that when they ran the initial "trials" or demonstrations, more people died in the injected group than in the "placebo" group. The fact that this did not shut down the deployment amongst the population shows intent to harm. I can not think of any other reason that they would deploy an injection that lead to higher ACM in the test group than intent to harm.
Huh? -- Your chart shows the unvaccinated dying at much greater rates than any of the vaccinated. So you'd be better off getting Moderna than staying unvaccinated, even if Moderna is harder on you than Pfizer. Now that's not what I've been seeing for years while thanking my lucky stars for staying unvaccinated. Unless that top black line with the huge "death spike" is something other than "unvaccinated"?
The unvaccinated spike in mid 2021 in the chart may be in part a reflection of the massive amount of people who got jabbed during the first rollout & died but were <2 weeks post jab & therefore classed as unvaccinated. The rationale from the authorities being it took at least 2 weeks for people once jabbed to be "protected".
I added this to my article. This was covered in the earlier articles as well.
Selection bias and other factors create the illusion you cut your death rate in half. No such thing is happening.
THIS IS WHY PEOPLE WHO USE UNVACCINATED AS A COMPARATOR ARE MISLED.
Is the problem, that unvaccinated are not in the database unless they die?
That could explain the bias.
If they were there, then one could make easy comparison with unvaccinated/vaccinated at random selection based on birth year.
Did not study the data to know this.
That’s part of the problem. If you get vaccinated, they know you exist. If you’re unvaccinated, they don’t know you exist until you die.
A-ha! got it. Didn't make sense the unvaxed were dying at twice the rate of the vaxed. So... lying with statistics once again.
I believe it’s the “healthy user bias” that you are seeing. People on their death bed did not take the vaccines. The mortality being greater in the unvaccinated during times of no Covid deaths shows this healthy user bias because the vaccines do not boost good health in general. They can’t. They were only created to prevent Covid severity, which can’t happen if there is no Covid.
It is called the "cheap trick". Each time you received a vaccine dose you were counted for 14 days as unvaccinated. So 90% of the vaccine deaths, car accidents, etc. blow up the deaths in the unvaccinated group and make the vaccinated group appear to have lower all-cause mortality. If Pfizer was administered 4x more than Moderna, it would also push their all-cause mortality curve further down than the other... this is probably what is going on here. As you can see the curves are ordered exactly by the percentages they were administered. Watch Norman Fenton's Youtube videos to understand how this works.
Like I said before in a comment, all the data is just FUBAR. Using it for anything is basically like reading tea leaves at this point.
Yes, there are definitely multiple ways to confuse the public with statistics. One of them is the "healthy user bias" that I mentioned. You mention the statistical tricks that they played for the covid injections, which was a unique trick never seen before. There were others as well, like only counting people as "vaccinated" if they received the vaccine at the hospital that was reporting the statistics. I'm sure there were a lot of other ways to hide the true data.
The only thing that we really needed to know was that when they ran the initial "trials" or demonstrations, more people died in the injected group than in the "placebo" group. The fact that this did not shut down the deployment amongst the population shows intent to harm. I can not think of any other reason that they would deploy an injection that lead to higher ACM in the test group than intent to harm.