Is my latest survey GAME OVER for the vaccine narrative? I'm pretty sure it is because ANYONE can replicate the results in 24 hours and no "judgement" or "government data" is used. Is it bulletproof?
The cancers that result from the covid vaxxes are incubating and brewing now. Learn how to protect yourself and loved ones from cancer with fenbendazole, a safe, inexpensive, off patent, otc drug. So far it saved two people (make that THREE) close to me. Read the detailed Case Reports https://fenbendazole.substack.com
Breast, colon, prostate, glioma, lung, it doesn’t seem to matter, fenbendazole seems to eradicate them all.
I put in "disagree on both" -- but just because IMO the situation is more complex and nuanced and there's a missing option like "I agree with the spirit, but not with the letter."
First and foremost, in my opinion, Joel's analysis is plausible and Steve's data are a great attempt at getting insights into the real situation.
HHS and public health agencies worldwide should be doing this.
However, the analysis per se is not "devastating" in the slightest.
Let's look at it from the eyes of an average "highly educated scientist":
1) The dataset is biased, as many pointed out. This alone kills the whole thing.
2) The first step, the normalization is not supported by hard evidence, and thus is a conjecture.
3) The step of removing "Fauci protocol" deaths is not supported by hard evidence, and thus is a conjecture.
4) The rest of the analysis is just an attempt to explain the trends, which is not a proof of anything.
To summarize, in my opinion, Joel's analysis is a good, plausible stab at making sense out of a flawed dataset.
The dataset is too small and biased to make any statistically sound conclusions -- at this point.
Without those, this might as well have been a fart in the wind -- as much as I am grateful to both Steve and Joel for taking the time and spending this effort.
That being said, in a normal situation with sane people in science and in office this would've been a Nature "ahead of print" brief and an immediate cause for concern and a wider worldwide investigation.
But then again, VAERS alone should've been sufficient LONG time ago.
All that being said, this is yet another formidable brick in the foundation of the future gallows.
I am a biophysicists, coming from Physics, Mathematics and Computer Science. That's my background. The real problem with your data is, as you said:
"On December 15, 2022, I launched an all-cause mortality survey which asked a simple objective question of my followers"
Your population cohort is biased and you need an unbiased sample. There is an additional problem with that. Even if you do a random sampling within the general public of any given country or region, with enough representation of its constituents, COVID 19 has become a very powerful psychological phenomena and your sample would still be strongly biased.
Therefore you absolutely need to do what Joel has done, which is to compare the survey data with official data and check if it is consistent. In the case that you would obtain a sample as unbiased as possible, still you would only be able to tell that there are inconsistencies in relation to the official data and that further analysis need to be perform. You will never be able to prove that the official data is incorrect with a survey, you absolutely need further analysis, which is exactly what the government of Florida is trying to do. You need access to the raw data.
A big limitation of the survey is that it is only your readers. A truly random survey is needed. I was surprised at how well the survey lined up with the real-world data, but I think that is because most people here are seeking truth and although may be somewhat biased to point blame at the vaccine for deaths and promote therapeutics, they are much more honest than those on the other side of those arguments. However, the fact that the survey is only your readers will be used against you. I strongly suggest engaging with a professional polling organization to conduct a truly random survey to add credibility. It will likely not show as strong an argument, but it will still show that the assertions about vaccine safety, therapeutics, and vaccine effectiveness you have made have validity. It is clear from publicly available data from the CDC, World of Data, and other sources that excess deaths are correlated with vaccine rollout, that the numbers of deaths and injuries from the vaccines are greatly under-stated and that therapeutics and correct health care significantly reduces the likelihood of getting Covid-19 and reducing the death rate.
Different topic. I just found out that Amazon will not honor Robert Malones free Kindle offer for his new book, Lies My Government told Me. Basically it's a scam and Amazon charge the full price.
I have suggested many times to you that your playing the wrong data game. Enough with the defense !
(What's already happened with adverse effects & death.)
Please consider OFFENSE. Play their game but better. Use these floating millions $$$ you have and with others, coordinate a real-time blood assay by getting, say 5,000 random people to submit a blood sample for analysis. Use a free Vit-D test as an incentive.
Contract with an Accredited Lab to perform the following tests.
HEART ATTACKS / MYOCARDITIS
- Troponin
- d-Dimer
- C-Reactive Protein
- Platelet Panel
COMPROMISE IMMUNE SYSTEM / CANCERS
CD8
CD4
Analyze this real-time data by the best statistical minds. The major Cohort comparisons. Compare the real-time test values vs. normal test ranges. Better are those with a blood history baseline over years to compare against.
- Vaxxed (2x, 3x, 4x)
- UnVaxxed
- Gender
- Age Stratified
- Shedding in the UnVaxxed
If you want to FULL-STOP these vaccines, just show the results (blood marker message / damage) of the walking to be dead. Or anyone who wants to walk in to test and validate their risk.
This is how you Red Pill the current Blue Pills who have had the Jabs (2-3X) and feel nothing is wrong with them and other family members after more than 18 months out from being vaxxed. You have to scare them with science & reality.
Covid is a blood disease.
Blood has special specific markers to highlight these organ / system damages. Would only take a month to complete with organization.
Please consider playing OFFENSE Steve.
We are running out of time.
We lose the infants & children, it is all over for us.
James Beck: It appears that you have a good, solid outline of what/how to research, compile, compose an analytical essay, have it peer-reviewed and then published, but to spend precious time, numerously trying to pawn it off to Steve & Joel who, in your OPINION, are "playing the wrong data game," can be considered to FALL SHORT of a STANDARD.
▪︎First of all, Steve, Joel, you, I and others like us, are NOT the target - the Biden administration's and the admin's allies ("Big Pharma," "Big Tech" and mainstream news propaganda [U.S. NARRATIVE]) ARE THE TARGET(S).
▪︎Additionally, IMHO, both your AND Steve's/Joel's compilations/methods will make GOOD "AMMUNITION" to fight our "ADVERSARY," from at least TWO FLANKS (DIRECTIONS)" ... being a Vietnam War veteran, I know that fighting from 2 or more flanks is MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE than a single flank battle.
▪︎We have a mass of strong, high-level allies in U.S. politics - here's the headline of a brand new LifeSite news article (its web link is below😉👍):
"Time we move on’: Half of all US governors urge Biden to end national COVID emergency"
▪︎Steve & Joel have worked HARD & LONG, with their OWN DATA/STRATEGY and I've volunteered to peer-review it, so let it BE.
☆I have a proposition for you, James: Compose YOUR OWN analytical essay, from YOUR sources, data, method(s) and thoughts, then contact me ... I'm quite willing to peer-review YOUR PIECE as well. Here's my email address:
Frankly, there's no way to convince Hotez and/or others like him - they've made up their (microscopic) minds, PERIOD, so the best way to deal with them is to IGNORE their name-calling, harrassment, etc and focus on people with open minds, who WANT to know the REAL truth. I've been using that stragedy (NOT a typo 😉) and it works great for me and others like me.👍
What percent of Steve's readers are in favor of mass covid vaccination? I bet is is much lower than 30%, which should tell you something when your own base is calling you out.
Just as it is important for the 30% to describe their criticisms, it is equally important to describe strengths. What have the other 70% of readers said about the specific strengths of this analysis, relative to other analyses? They are equally not so active in the comments. Truth be told, 90% of commenters have no clue what they are talking about, in either side of the fence. Sorry if I am in a frustrated mood today.
I greatly appreciate your work Steve, but I am far from convinced by this dataset, as presented in Joel Smalley's video. Here are several problems which spring to mind, given time I may think of more:
1. The assumption that in the absence of Covid deaths, percentages of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated deaths should align with percentages of each category in the population needs a detailed justification. Smalley just vaguely refers to inaccuracy of census data and to UK survey data indicating that official stats overstate % of population vaccinated. Since this initial "normalisation" of the raw data is absolutely key to his entire analysis, such vague hand-waving is totally unsatisfactory. For example, one could argue that, if vaccines reduce Covid illness then they will also reduce non-Covid mortality over time by leaving those who are vaccinated in a generally more healthy state.
2. Another possible explanation for why the percentage of unvaccinated deaths in the raw data exceeds the percentage of non-vaccinees in the population (after Aug 21) is that your readers, and hence also the people they know well, are more likely to be unvaccinated than the average in the population, hence more likely to know people who died who were unvaccinated.
This is just an example of how your dataset might not be a representative sample of deaths in the general population. There are other indications of such bias, for example Covid deaths are signficantly overrepresented in your raw data. Let's take 2021, where you have a full year of data. From Smalley's video (0:26ff), the total number of deaths per month is (approx., I'm estimating from the figure)
26, 20, 34, 26, 28, 29, 35, 40, 61, 49, 57, 75
Total for 2021: 480.
For Covid deaths (18:00ff) the numbers are
8,5,4,9,9,1,8,12,15,9,12,19
Total for 2021: 111
So 111/480 = 23,1% of reported deaths in the raw data are Covid deaths.
Now, according to Worldometers, the total number of US Covid deaths were as follows:
there were approx. 3,458,697 deaths in the US in 2021.
Thus 476,348/3,458,697 = 13,8% of all deaths were Covid deaths.
So Covid deaths are overrepresented by a factor of nearly 2 in your sample. We don't have a full year of data for 2022, but it seems to be a similar picture there.
So your dataset simply doesn't seem to be close to a representative sample of all deaths. It's perhaps not surprising: you asked respondents to submit the death the details of which they recalled best. And given the high profile of Covid, people are more likely to recall the details of deaths that involved Covid.
3. Smalley explains the spike in unvaccinated deaths in late summer 2021 as due to a kind of "survivor bias". But survivor bias could also explain the slow increase in the % of vaccinated deaths after March 2022, that it over time in general. Imagine for simplicity that there are only 2 kinds of people, healthy and unhealthy. The latter are more likely to die in any given time interval. Suppose now you have a vaccine with some positive efficiency, which is taken by the same percantage of healthy as unhealthy people. As time goes on, the percentage of deaths that are vaccinees will increase, not because the vaccine loses efficacy but simply because, amongst the unhealthy, the unvaccinated are dying off faster.
4. I don't think Smalley explains where he got his curve for the percentage of the population vaccinated over time. But his curve doesn't seem to align with, for example, the curve from Our World in Data.
There, for example, it says that as of March 31, 2022 the % who received at least one dose was 77.04%, not the 84% in Smalley's video. (And the % fully vaccinated on that date was only 66.15%).
Summary: Of the points above, #1 is most fundamental. If that "normalisation" could be properly justified, then maybe the dataset is then worth analysing further. Indeed, the overrepresentation of Covid deaths in the raw data should a priori strengthen a "not safe and effective" conclusion, assuming that the vaccines may prevent some Covid deaths but at the expense of deaths from adverse reactions. On the other hand, one would expect the % of deaths amongst vaccinees to be a priori higher than in the population at large, because vaccination rates are higher amongst the elderly and unhealthy. So this would require an extra normalisation. Your data may also be signficiantly non-representative in many other ways I haven't thought of. In short, there are so many problems I am not sure there is much valuable information to be extracted here.
One major flaw…”according to the CDC”. The CDC can in no way be trusted. We know the reported Covid deaths were highly inflated. When a motorcycle related trauma death is listed as Covid death, that is where statistics get blown away! This was done on purpose to scare the public . Big flaw right there!!
Gina: I agree that Covid death numbers are unreliable, though the number for total deaths is probably more or less correct: it corresponds to slightly above 1% of the US population, which is what one would expect for a year. The point, however, is that in the raw sample, Covid deaths are *overrepresented* (23.1% versus 13.8%), so if the true number of Covid deaths is smaller, it just means the bias in the raw data is worse, not better. Now, as I mentioned, this particular bias would actually strengthen a "not safe and effective" conclusion, assuming the vaccines reduce Covid deaths but increase other deaths. The problem is that, having identified one very large bias in the sample, one cannot rule out there being others. And the sample is very small: a total of approx 929 deaths (480 for 2021 and 449 for 2022) in the figures shown by Smalley. That's way too small a sample size, when there is already evidence for large biases. And, as I also mentioned, the fact that the unvaccinated are overrepresented in the raw data, after July 2021, is itself glaring evidence of statistical bias (or else, a priori evidence of vaccine efficacy). Smalley's "normalisation" is, in my view, not remotely adequately motivated. Finally, note that I am not claiming that the data suggests that the vaccines *are* either safe or effective. I am saying that this particular dataset seems to be of too low quality to be of use in drawing any meaningful conclusion whatsoever.
These are good points. I really think a truly random poll is needed. Perhaps enlist a professional polling organization? I don't doubt at all the conclusions that there are significant safety and effectiveness issues, but for this to be credible and convincing, it cannot be based on a poll of readers because the bias and confounding variables are significant issues, and they will be used as justification to disregard the entire presentation. That's my 2 cents.
Good points. These are some of the many reasons why there needs to be transparent collaboration in terms of data collection and prespecified analysis plan. Otherwise there are just too many ways things can go wrong.
If one wanted to really do this robustly, there should be a working group on confounding. They did this with nonspecific effects of childhood vaccines:
These papers all but say "we have no idea wtf our studies say because there is so much confounding". A master list of all types of confounding that may occur should be compiled, and each should be discussed in relation to the proposed study.
Yes I know, non or this is our job. We don't have to do anything. But what we do have to do is avoid doing something that is wrong, misleading, or overstated.
FYI, Joel's presentation is just for the US, not the whole world.
I think a worldwide comparison would add credibility since there is significant correlation to less deaths in areas of the world with reduced vaccination. Several papers have been written on that and fairly easy to find. I think Steve has already posted some of those studies in the past.
David: I'm Texan American, I've lived in 5 countries on 3 continents (I currently live in the Philippines), I've visited 21 other countries for up to 2 weeks per stay and I've found that, because they think the U.S. is "the best country in the world," they tend to mimic it. That honestly stated, Joel's presentation IS for the WHOLE WORLD.😉👍
David: Regarding the last sentence: yes, I know. The figures I quoted from Our World in Data were for the US. If you follow the link, then first enter the US from the list of countries on the left to get the data for that country specifically.
Where did the data come from? It came from a self selected sample from your substack. Is that a random sample of 'western' folk? Of course it is not.
Now the interesting thing is it may well be 'close enough for government work' as we used to say. But in the world of proofs, beyond debate? It is not. "lipstick on a pig" comes to mind.
Sorry man, how it is.
EDIT I should say. I spent most of a career collecting and analyzing messy biologic data, some collected by industry to support their suppositions about what a 'sustainable' harvest level is. Lots of money involved, and the fate of this or that lumber mill. The first question us government gballs would ask as we sat around the table was "where did this data come from? What were the rules for collection?" because that would color everything else. I have a lot of experience in that realm.
Where did this data come from? How was it collected? What potential or real bias is associated with it? First step.
Yup. We have a lot of smart, conscientious people who have come alive to tackle covid madness. That can bring fresh eyes and novel analysis ideas that the experts would never think of. But it also brings a certain naivete about confounding.
BRIEFLY, HISTORY OF MEDICINE -
From here you reach further articles to understand how not to get sick, possibly how to heal. I also recommend reading James 5 to ask GOD.
https://andreasalvatorebuffa.substack.com/p/briefly-history-of-medicine
The cancers that result from the covid vaxxes are incubating and brewing now. Learn how to protect yourself and loved ones from cancer with fenbendazole, a safe, inexpensive, off patent, otc drug. So far it saved two people (make that THREE) close to me. Read the detailed Case Reports https://fenbendazole.substack.com
Breast, colon, prostate, glioma, lung, it doesn’t seem to matter, fenbendazole seems to eradicate them all.
Scientific cure without big pharma - Stop covid and cancer
http://stopcovid.canalblog.com/archives/2022/12/21/39753747.html
PUBLIC COMPLAINT AGAINST GOVERNMENTS 01/12/2022 - Action, legal action
http://legalaction.canalblog.com/archives/2022/12/02/39730603.html
F mn Espionage NATO, the revolutionary engine -
http://legalaction.canalblog.com/archives/2022/12/21/39753168.html
Best regards,
Andrea Salvatore Buffa
BRIEFLY, HISTORY OF MEDICINE -
From here you reach further articles to understand how not to get sick, possibly how to heal. I also recommend reading James 5 to ask GOD.
https://andreasalvatorebuffa.substack.com/p/briefly-history-of-medicine
I put in "disagree on both" -- but just because IMO the situation is more complex and nuanced and there's a missing option like "I agree with the spirit, but not with the letter."
First and foremost, in my opinion, Joel's analysis is plausible and Steve's data are a great attempt at getting insights into the real situation.
HHS and public health agencies worldwide should be doing this.
However, the analysis per se is not "devastating" in the slightest.
Let's look at it from the eyes of an average "highly educated scientist":
1) The dataset is biased, as many pointed out. This alone kills the whole thing.
2) The first step, the normalization is not supported by hard evidence, and thus is a conjecture.
3) The step of removing "Fauci protocol" deaths is not supported by hard evidence, and thus is a conjecture.
4) The rest of the analysis is just an attempt to explain the trends, which is not a proof of anything.
To summarize, in my opinion, Joel's analysis is a good, plausible stab at making sense out of a flawed dataset.
The dataset is too small and biased to make any statistically sound conclusions -- at this point.
Without those, this might as well have been a fart in the wind -- as much as I am grateful to both Steve and Joel for taking the time and spending this effort.
That being said, in a normal situation with sane people in science and in office this would've been a Nature "ahead of print" brief and an immediate cause for concern and a wider worldwide investigation.
But then again, VAERS alone should've been sufficient LONG time ago.
All that being said, this is yet another formidable brick in the foundation of the future gallows.
Hi Steve,
I am a biophysicists, coming from Physics, Mathematics and Computer Science. That's my background. The real problem with your data is, as you said:
"On December 15, 2022, I launched an all-cause mortality survey which asked a simple objective question of my followers"
Your population cohort is biased and you need an unbiased sample. There is an additional problem with that. Even if you do a random sampling within the general public of any given country or region, with enough representation of its constituents, COVID 19 has become a very powerful psychological phenomena and your sample would still be strongly biased.
Therefore you absolutely need to do what Joel has done, which is to compare the survey data with official data and check if it is consistent. In the case that you would obtain a sample as unbiased as possible, still you would only be able to tell that there are inconsistencies in relation to the official data and that further analysis need to be perform. You will never be able to prove that the official data is incorrect with a survey, you absolutely need further analysis, which is exactly what the government of Florida is trying to do. You need access to the raw data.
Access to our raw data from HHS or similar should be reachable via FOIA, right?
A big limitation of the survey is that it is only your readers. A truly random survey is needed. I was surprised at how well the survey lined up with the real-world data, but I think that is because most people here are seeking truth and although may be somewhat biased to point blame at the vaccine for deaths and promote therapeutics, they are much more honest than those on the other side of those arguments. However, the fact that the survey is only your readers will be used against you. I strongly suggest engaging with a professional polling organization to conduct a truly random survey to add credibility. It will likely not show as strong an argument, but it will still show that the assertions about vaccine safety, therapeutics, and vaccine effectiveness you have made have validity. It is clear from publicly available data from the CDC, World of Data, and other sources that excess deaths are correlated with vaccine rollout, that the numbers of deaths and injuries from the vaccines are greatly under-stated and that therapeutics and correct health care significantly reduces the likelihood of getting Covid-19 and reducing the death rate.
We evidently have quite a few allies who very likely have the needed leverage👍.....
LifeSite News headline: "Time we move on’: Half of all US governors urge Biden to end national COVID emergency"
https://daily.news.lifesitenews.com/link.php?AGENCY=LIFE&M=3326938&N=76325&L=38138&F=H&drurl=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubGlmZXNpdGVuZXdzLmNvbS9uZXdzL3RpbWUtd2UtbW92ZS1vbi1oYWxmLW9mLWFsbC11cy1nb3Zlcm5vcnMtdXJnZS1iaWRlbi10by1lbmQtbmF0aW9uYWwtY292aWQtZW1lcmdlbmN5Lz91dG1fc291cmNlPWRhaWx5LXVzYS0yMDIyLTEyLTIxJnV0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX2NvbnRlbnQ9Q016TXlOamt6T0ElM0QlM0Q=
Different topic. I just found out that Amazon will not honor Robert Malones free Kindle offer for his new book, Lies My Government told Me. Basically it's a scam and Amazon charge the full price.
Mathew Crawford is your guy. @EduEngineer on Twitter
Zero likes or responses.
I haven't always agreed with Steve's hard promoted viewpoints, so I became actively ignored and denigrated. It's been a revealing experience.
Steve.
I have suggested many times to you that your playing the wrong data game. Enough with the defense !
(What's already happened with adverse effects & death.)
Please consider OFFENSE. Play their game but better. Use these floating millions $$$ you have and with others, coordinate a real-time blood assay by getting, say 5,000 random people to submit a blood sample for analysis. Use a free Vit-D test as an incentive.
Contract with an Accredited Lab to perform the following tests.
HEART ATTACKS / MYOCARDITIS
- Troponin
- d-Dimer
- C-Reactive Protein
- Platelet Panel
COMPROMISE IMMUNE SYSTEM / CANCERS
CD8
CD4
Analyze this real-time data by the best statistical minds. The major Cohort comparisons. Compare the real-time test values vs. normal test ranges. Better are those with a blood history baseline over years to compare against.
- Vaxxed (2x, 3x, 4x)
- UnVaxxed
- Gender
- Age Stratified
- Shedding in the UnVaxxed
If you want to FULL-STOP these vaccines, just show the results (blood marker message / damage) of the walking to be dead. Or anyone who wants to walk in to test and validate their risk.
This is how you Red Pill the current Blue Pills who have had the Jabs (2-3X) and feel nothing is wrong with them and other family members after more than 18 months out from being vaxxed. You have to scare them with science & reality.
Covid is a blood disease.
Blood has special specific markers to highlight these organ / system damages. Would only take a month to complete with organization.
Please consider playing OFFENSE Steve.
We are running out of time.
We lose the infants & children, it is all over for us.
James Beck: It appears that you have a good, solid outline of what/how to research, compile, compose an analytical essay, have it peer-reviewed and then published, but to spend precious time, numerously trying to pawn it off to Steve & Joel who, in your OPINION, are "playing the wrong data game," can be considered to FALL SHORT of a STANDARD.
▪︎First of all, Steve, Joel, you, I and others like us, are NOT the target - the Biden administration's and the admin's allies ("Big Pharma," "Big Tech" and mainstream news propaganda [U.S. NARRATIVE]) ARE THE TARGET(S).
▪︎Additionally, IMHO, both your AND Steve's/Joel's compilations/methods will make GOOD "AMMUNITION" to fight our "ADVERSARY," from at least TWO FLANKS (DIRECTIONS)" ... being a Vietnam War veteran, I know that fighting from 2 or more flanks is MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE than a single flank battle.
▪︎We have a mass of strong, high-level allies in U.S. politics - here's the headline of a brand new LifeSite news article (its web link is below😉👍):
"Time we move on’: Half of all US governors urge Biden to end national COVID emergency"
▪︎Steve & Joel have worked HARD & LONG, with their OWN DATA/STRATEGY and I've volunteered to peer-review it, so let it BE.
☆I have a proposition for you, James: Compose YOUR OWN analytical essay, from YOUR sources, data, method(s) and thoughts, then contact me ... I'm quite willing to peer-review YOUR PIECE as well. Here's my email address:
clydemorron@proton.me
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/time-we-move-on-half-of-all-us-governors-urge-biden-to-end-national-covid-emergency/?utm_source=daily-usa-2022-12-21&utm_medium=email
Steve, please offer to debate Peter Hortez! He is calling you a killer!
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/the-branch-covidians-are-calling-us-killers/
Frankly, there's no way to convince Hotez and/or others like him - they've made up their (microscopic) minds, PERIOD, so the best way to deal with them is to IGNORE their name-calling, harrassment, etc and focus on people with open minds, who WANT to know the REAL truth. I've been using that stragedy (NOT a typo 😉) and it works great for me and others like me.👍
What percent of Steve's readers are in favor of mass covid vaccination? I bet is is much lower than 30%, which should tell you something when your own base is calling you out.
Just as it is important for the 30% to describe their criticisms, it is equally important to describe strengths. What have the other 70% of readers said about the specific strengths of this analysis, relative to other analyses? They are equally not so active in the comments. Truth be told, 90% of commenters have no clue what they are talking about, in either side of the fence. Sorry if I am in a frustrated mood today.
I greatly appreciate your work Steve, but I am far from convinced by this dataset, as presented in Joel Smalley's video. Here are several problems which spring to mind, given time I may think of more:
1. The assumption that in the absence of Covid deaths, percentages of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated deaths should align with percentages of each category in the population needs a detailed justification. Smalley just vaguely refers to inaccuracy of census data and to UK survey data indicating that official stats overstate % of population vaccinated. Since this initial "normalisation" of the raw data is absolutely key to his entire analysis, such vague hand-waving is totally unsatisfactory. For example, one could argue that, if vaccines reduce Covid illness then they will also reduce non-Covid mortality over time by leaving those who are vaccinated in a generally more healthy state.
2. Another possible explanation for why the percentage of unvaccinated deaths in the raw data exceeds the percentage of non-vaccinees in the population (after Aug 21) is that your readers, and hence also the people they know well, are more likely to be unvaccinated than the average in the population, hence more likely to know people who died who were unvaccinated.
This is just an example of how your dataset might not be a representative sample of deaths in the general population. There are other indications of such bias, for example Covid deaths are signficantly overrepresented in your raw data. Let's take 2021, where you have a full year of data. From Smalley's video (0:26ff), the total number of deaths per month is (approx., I'm estimating from the figure)
26, 20, 34, 26, 28, 29, 35, 40, 61, 49, 57, 75
Total for 2021: 480.
For Covid deaths (18:00ff) the numbers are
8,5,4,9,9,1,8,12,15,9,12,19
Total for 2021: 111
So 111/480 = 23,1% of reported deaths in the raw data are Covid deaths.
Now, according to Worldometers, the total number of US Covid deaths were as follows:
Dec 31, 2020: 376,411
Dec 31, 2021: 852,759
=> 476,348 Covid deaths in 2021.
According to CDC data
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7117e1.htm
there were approx. 3,458,697 deaths in the US in 2021.
Thus 476,348/3,458,697 = 13,8% of all deaths were Covid deaths.
So Covid deaths are overrepresented by a factor of nearly 2 in your sample. We don't have a full year of data for 2022, but it seems to be a similar picture there.
So your dataset simply doesn't seem to be close to a representative sample of all deaths. It's perhaps not surprising: you asked respondents to submit the death the details of which they recalled best. And given the high profile of Covid, people are more likely to recall the details of deaths that involved Covid.
3. Smalley explains the spike in unvaccinated deaths in late summer 2021 as due to a kind of "survivor bias". But survivor bias could also explain the slow increase in the % of vaccinated deaths after March 2022, that it over time in general. Imagine for simplicity that there are only 2 kinds of people, healthy and unhealthy. The latter are more likely to die in any given time interval. Suppose now you have a vaccine with some positive efficiency, which is taken by the same percantage of healthy as unhealthy people. As time goes on, the percentage of deaths that are vaccinees will increase, not because the vaccine loses efficacy but simply because, amongst the unhealthy, the unvaccinated are dying off faster.
4. I don't think Smalley explains where he got his curve for the percentage of the population vaccinated over time. But his curve doesn't seem to align with, for example, the curve from Our World in Data.
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
There, for example, it says that as of March 31, 2022 the % who received at least one dose was 77.04%, not the 84% in Smalley's video. (And the % fully vaccinated on that date was only 66.15%).
Summary: Of the points above, #1 is most fundamental. If that "normalisation" could be properly justified, then maybe the dataset is then worth analysing further. Indeed, the overrepresentation of Covid deaths in the raw data should a priori strengthen a "not safe and effective" conclusion, assuming that the vaccines may prevent some Covid deaths but at the expense of deaths from adverse reactions. On the other hand, one would expect the % of deaths amongst vaccinees to be a priori higher than in the population at large, because vaccination rates are higher amongst the elderly and unhealthy. So this would require an extra normalisation. Your data may also be signficiantly non-representative in many other ways I haven't thought of. In short, there are so many problems I am not sure there is much valuable information to be extracted here.
One major flaw…”according to the CDC”. The CDC can in no way be trusted. We know the reported Covid deaths were highly inflated. When a motorcycle related trauma death is listed as Covid death, that is where statistics get blown away! This was done on purpose to scare the public . Big flaw right there!!
Gina: I agree that Covid death numbers are unreliable, though the number for total deaths is probably more or less correct: it corresponds to slightly above 1% of the US population, which is what one would expect for a year. The point, however, is that in the raw sample, Covid deaths are *overrepresented* (23.1% versus 13.8%), so if the true number of Covid deaths is smaller, it just means the bias in the raw data is worse, not better. Now, as I mentioned, this particular bias would actually strengthen a "not safe and effective" conclusion, assuming the vaccines reduce Covid deaths but increase other deaths. The problem is that, having identified one very large bias in the sample, one cannot rule out there being others. And the sample is very small: a total of approx 929 deaths (480 for 2021 and 449 for 2022) in the figures shown by Smalley. That's way too small a sample size, when there is already evidence for large biases. And, as I also mentioned, the fact that the unvaccinated are overrepresented in the raw data, after July 2021, is itself glaring evidence of statistical bias (or else, a priori evidence of vaccine efficacy). Smalley's "normalisation" is, in my view, not remotely adequately motivated. Finally, note that I am not claiming that the data suggests that the vaccines *are* either safe or effective. I am saying that this particular dataset seems to be of too low quality to be of use in drawing any meaningful conclusion whatsoever.
Point taken. Adequate sample size is imperative. Thank you.
These are good points. I really think a truly random poll is needed. Perhaps enlist a professional polling organization? I don't doubt at all the conclusions that there are significant safety and effectiveness issues, but for this to be credible and convincing, it cannot be based on a poll of readers because the bias and confounding variables are significant issues, and they will be used as justification to disregard the entire presentation. That's my 2 cents.
You mean like the polling company that just did a poll, and got the same kind of results, that kind of polling company?
Good points. These are some of the many reasons why there needs to be transparent collaboration in terms of data collection and prespecified analysis plan. Otherwise there are just too many ways things can go wrong.
If one wanted to really do this robustly, there should be a working group on confounding. They did this with nonspecific effects of childhood vaccines:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2009.02301.x
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2009.02302.x
These papers all but say "we have no idea wtf our studies say because there is so much confounding". A master list of all types of confounding that may occur should be compiled, and each should be discussed in relation to the proposed study.
Yes I know, non or this is our job. We don't have to do anything. But what we do have to do is avoid doing something that is wrong, misleading, or overstated.
FYI, Joel's presentation is just for the US, not the whole world.
I think a worldwide comparison would add credibility since there is significant correlation to less deaths in areas of the world with reduced vaccination. Several papers have been written on that and fairly easy to find. I think Steve has already posted some of those studies in the past.
David: I'm Texan American, I've lived in 5 countries on 3 continents (I currently live in the Philippines), I've visited 21 other countries for up to 2 weeks per stay and I've found that, because they think the U.S. is "the best country in the world," they tend to mimic it. That honestly stated, Joel's presentation IS for the WHOLE WORLD.😉👍
David: Regarding the last sentence: yes, I know. The figures I quoted from Our World in Data were for the US. If you follow the link, then first enter the US from the list of countries on the left to get the data for that country specifically.
Of course it is not bullet proof.
Where did the data come from? It came from a self selected sample from your substack. Is that a random sample of 'western' folk? Of course it is not.
Now the interesting thing is it may well be 'close enough for government work' as we used to say. But in the world of proofs, beyond debate? It is not. "lipstick on a pig" comes to mind.
Sorry man, how it is.
EDIT I should say. I spent most of a career collecting and analyzing messy biologic data, some collected by industry to support their suppositions about what a 'sustainable' harvest level is. Lots of money involved, and the fate of this or that lumber mill. The first question us government gballs would ask as we sat around the table was "where did this data come from? What were the rules for collection?" because that would color everything else. I have a lot of experience in that realm.
Where did this data come from? How was it collected? What potential or real bias is associated with it? First step.
Yup. We have a lot of smart, conscientious people who have come alive to tackle covid madness. That can bring fresh eyes and novel analysis ideas that the experts would never think of. But it also brings a certain naivete about confounding.
Worse than a complete waste of time.
Why can’t someone invent the thing in sci-fi movies that takes over broadcasts? Put the truth on