Mark Reeder has shown how the dynamic matching methodology used by Barda and many other studies is seriously flawed because it employs informative censoring that can introduce bias. Matthew Crawford can explain it to you or to Al: https://zenodo.org/record/5243901
And then there is this paper from the journal Epidemiology showing that when an analysis of a drug shows an off-target benefit, that should be taken as an indication of bias/confounding: "Negative Controls: A Tool for Detecting Confounding and Bias in Observational Studies" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC3053408/
The fact that the study censored people who died is problematic. That means if you die of a heart attack, you are censored out of the study rather than counted as a heart attack. So the rates of many AE's is likely undercounted. If the AE's are more likely to lead to death among the vaccinated than among those with COVID, then the method will misrepresent comparative risk.
Also you can't compare vaccine to covid risks without taking age into account. They issued a clarification later that broke the results down by some age groups, but the age groups were very large so still difficult to say. For example their younger age group was under 50 or under 40, but we know vaccine myocarditis affects very young men most frequently. If you don't look at that group then you end up either underestimating or missing missing the effect altogether. What this tells us is that we need the analysis broken down by age and gender groups for all AE's not just myocarditis and the AE's examined need to be expanded beyond the 20 or so in that paper.
Steve, bring this up with Al: The Barda paper included people aged 16 and older and lumped them all together in the charts, calculations and results which it should NOT do. All the data so far that I have read over these last two years shows:
1. Teens and 20-somethings have the high vaccine myocarditis risk and the low Covid risk,
2. Middle aged adults have Covid risk similar to influenza and increased risk of vax induced sudden cardiac death.
3. Elderly have high Covid risk, higher than influenza and possibly higher than vax induced risk.
These three age groups should NOT be lumped together in the conclusion. The data should have been presented with different charts for each age range. It's not surprising that averaging groups of high vax risk/low covid risk with groups of high covid risk/low vax risk will obscure the signal in the data.
People keep arguing in "all or none" fashion that the vax is either "good" or "bad" for everyone. We have to get back to the sensible argument that the mRNA vaccine has a favorable risk/benefit profile for the elderly and obese, a questionable profile for those in middle age, and an awful profile for those under 30. Several countries in Europe have banned Moderna in the under 30s because of unacceptable myocarditis risk. But they didn't ban it in elderly.
Berenson had a great line in his last post "It’s about risking the hearts of healthy kids to make morbidly obese adults feel a little better". I would modify to say "morbidly obese adults and the elderly ......."
If you concede that the risk benefit profile of the vax in the elderly and obese is favorable, than Al and other open minded individuals may concede that the risk/benefit profile is unfavorable in the young. And maybe we would be able to halt this injection in young people.
Wow, this is interesting. I missed Round 1 but will check it out. After my Bell's Palsy diagnosis in January 2021 (pre-"vaccine"), I began researching the Covid "vaccines" and found a Lancet paper authored by Al O. and others that concluded there was a greater risk of BP with mRNA shots. My case was severe, I had no desire to undergo experimental injections and risk a relapse or permanent facial paralysis. I'm much better but still not back to normal, I may never be. There was a rebuttal to Al O's Lancet paper as well as the authors response that they stood by their findings.
Since we live in the same city and I work in healthcare, in July I emailed Al directly about the study and he responded quickly. I was surprised at his quick response as well as his polite, concerned and helpful tone, as he could have easily ignored me. We exchanged a couple of emails and we both acknowledged he could not advise me with what would normally be considered an individual medical decision. We do not live in normal times which has become increasingly clear since July.
In my request for a medical exemption for my mainly remote healthcare job (which I've been doing remote for 20+ years, long story), I cited Al O.'s Lancet study and several others as well as my history of a severe adverse reaction to a flu shot in 2013 with permanent neuropathy. My request was denied by my new PCP who consulted a neurologist, both M.D.'s barely knew me, stating I did not meet the (narrow) CDC guidelines for medical exemption. My PCP suggested I consider the J&J. In my reply I pointed out that J&J had recently slapped on the "rare risk of GBS" warning. Bell's palsy is (in some studies) considered a mononeuritic variant of Guillain-Barre Syndrome. No response. My PCP earlier in a phone call acknowledged that "this is a tough situation" as the Board of Medicine was breathing down doctor's necks. I learned later he and apparently all M.D.s working in corporate healthcare faced fines, censure, shaming in their community and possible job loss by providing medical exemptions.
Strangely enough, today my employer inquired about the status of the medical exemption. It seems they still want me to be injected with mRNA in order to make phone calls. Makes perfect sense, right?
I'll post this here because I think a lot of your readers (and you) will be interested in another really good documentary on vaccine injuries (with about 100 Israelis detailing their post-vax situations). Please share and spread.
Study design manipulations that I see they did to ensure they got the results that followed the agenda:
People who started off in the control group for vaxx, who later got vaxxed, would still serve as control in the initial control group they were in. In an essence, they could be comparing vaxxd vs vaxxd - of course any relative side effects would be low.
People in control group for infection, who later got infected, would be excluded from control group they initially were in. This is different from criteria in the above paragraph.
To be included in vaxx group, they must not have had any contacts with health care setting for at least 7 days being getting vaxxd. This ensured they only included previously healthy people in vaxx group.
The same didn't apply to infection group. This means, people with full blown diabetes, renal failure, etc, etc who had been in and out of the hospital for their conditions, who then got infected, would be included in infection group. We know these people are more likely to get very sick when infected.
Ask him why is the precautionary principle applicable to something like "Man-Made Climate Change" wherein all use of necessary energy sources must be stopped because we may kill large portions of human population.... but it cannot equally apply to medicine, where instead we continue using medicines even though there is reason to doubt their long-term safety?
It is important to try and awaken those who can still be shaken awake. What do they fear more than breaking away from the safety of the mainstream narrative? Is there truth that causes them more concern and can motivate them to better protect their future and that of their loved ones? People who have not experienced tyrannical governance need a safe but emotional foretaste — movies, organ harvesting stories, etc. They need to heed the warning and protect their current God-given (not government-given) freedoms. If the people of western society are to remain the sovereign ruler of this democratic republic, we also need better civics training. Hillsdale College free online classes are a solution. Make them enticing!
Check out David Oates, the founder of Reverse Speech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RSdQcX51-s to hear what the voices of the unconscious are saying. I've had a number of sessions with David and he's the Carl Jung of this method of getting to the truth of the Spirit. The CDC knew about this "gain of function" right from the start. Check out his other recent videos of Biden, Fauci, Schwab, etc.
There are many many curious aspects of the Barda et al. paper.
Why is mortality omitted as an outcome? The sample is sufficiently large that deaths could have been compared.
How long is the surveillance period for the vaccinated? It is an immensely confusing aspect of the paper, but it is a simple and essential feature of the design. It appears to be 42 days. My own neurological symptoms became unmistakable (fasciculations, twitching, difficulty writing by hand) at around 5 weeks, but I was not able to see a neurologist for another month, which would have put me outside of the 42 day surveillance period.
Why is Bell's Palsy so rare? I personally know someone who had Bell's palsy, and yet the estimate is vanishingly small for a side effect that has become widely reported anecdotally. How could such a rare side effect have become so widely known and why is it so much more prevalent in VAERS?
Why does the sample skew so young?
Who was directly responsible for the data analysis and data management? This is essential because there is something very funny about a paper that produces a result where vaccination lowers your risk for side effects. I would want to replicate these findings with the data.
Why are the estimates of side effects substantially lower than those from Pfizer's own trial? Shouldn't the estimates be roughly similar?
I understand that there is a statutory requirement in the 1986 NCVIA that VAERS be maintained as a reliable source of data from which to assess adverse events. This was part of the negotiation that led to the grant of immunity. Ozonoff uses VAERS is tainted as a copout so he doesn’t have to address work by Rose and others. Convenient, but a weasel move by someone lacking an argument. But if VAERS data is unreliable then a statutory violation of NCVIA exists. I’m not sure about the consequence, if there are any. I’m sure that RFK Jr knows all about this.
VAERS data “will never convince him?” Perhaps the 11 minute video of testimony on Capitol Hill of people permanently disabled including a devastated single father who lost his only child to this insanity will open his eyes.
I wouldn’t count on it though as he suffers from mass formation and the institution that pays his salary, namely Harvard, is part of the cabal of globalist individuals and institutions who are in lockstep with China’s agenda and the implementation of The Great Reset. Communist China owns them.
Their gleeful usurpation of human rights and personal liberty and eradication of the individual must be fought with every ounce of our energy. Those things, after all, are the only thing that makes you, YOU. You, your children and your future mean absolutely nothing to them.
A certain portion will never see evil for what it is. Leave them behind.
Why don't you start with the negative efficiency of the shots in getting Covid as step 1? Or ask why the NY state covid dashboard uses an outdated "study" to "estimate" the number of vaccinated people in the hospital with covid? Why wouldn't they just count them rather than linking to an outdated study that ended almost 6 months ago to them "estimate" how many of the people in the hospital with covid today are "vaccinated."
I've seen people become more curious about the terrible side effect profile once they see the replicated, massive, and irrefutable data - conveniently provided in English by the UK and Denmark -that the vaccines have negative efficiency at preventing the disease.
VAERS is all we have, but it is crap in terms of actually predicting rates of adverse events - particularly under the current "stick your head in the sand" medical community regime where they refuse to file adverse events then claim the few that are reported are "unconfirmed."
Mark Reeder has shown how the dynamic matching methodology used by Barda and many other studies is seriously flawed because it employs informative censoring that can introduce bias. Matthew Crawford can explain it to you or to Al: https://zenodo.org/record/5243901
And then there is this paper from the journal Epidemiology showing that when an analysis of a drug shows an off-target benefit, that should be taken as an indication of bias/confounding: "Negative Controls: A Tool for Detecting Confounding and Bias in Observational Studies" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC3053408/
The fact that the study censored people who died is problematic. That means if you die of a heart attack, you are censored out of the study rather than counted as a heart attack. So the rates of many AE's is likely undercounted. If the AE's are more likely to lead to death among the vaccinated than among those with COVID, then the method will misrepresent comparative risk.
Also you can't compare vaccine to covid risks without taking age into account. They issued a clarification later that broke the results down by some age groups, but the age groups were very large so still difficult to say. For example their younger age group was under 50 or under 40, but we know vaccine myocarditis affects very young men most frequently. If you don't look at that group then you end up either underestimating or missing missing the effect altogether. What this tells us is that we need the analysis broken down by age and gender groups for all AE's not just myocarditis and the AE's examined need to be expanded beyond the 20 or so in that paper.
Steve, bring this up with Al: The Barda paper included people aged 16 and older and lumped them all together in the charts, calculations and results which it should NOT do. All the data so far that I have read over these last two years shows:
1. Teens and 20-somethings have the high vaccine myocarditis risk and the low Covid risk,
2. Middle aged adults have Covid risk similar to influenza and increased risk of vax induced sudden cardiac death.
3. Elderly have high Covid risk, higher than influenza and possibly higher than vax induced risk.
These three age groups should NOT be lumped together in the conclusion. The data should have been presented with different charts for each age range. It's not surprising that averaging groups of high vax risk/low covid risk with groups of high covid risk/low vax risk will obscure the signal in the data.
People keep arguing in "all or none" fashion that the vax is either "good" or "bad" for everyone. We have to get back to the sensible argument that the mRNA vaccine has a favorable risk/benefit profile for the elderly and obese, a questionable profile for those in middle age, and an awful profile for those under 30. Several countries in Europe have banned Moderna in the under 30s because of unacceptable myocarditis risk. But they didn't ban it in elderly.
Berenson had a great line in his last post "It’s about risking the hearts of healthy kids to make morbidly obese adults feel a little better". I would modify to say "morbidly obese adults and the elderly ......."
If you concede that the risk benefit profile of the vax in the elderly and obese is favorable, than Al and other open minded individuals may concede that the risk/benefit profile is unfavorable in the young. And maybe we would be able to halt this injection in young people.
Ask him why Delta was mostly affecting the vaccinated and tell him how deaths even when recently vaccinated count as unvaccinated.
Also toss him the book virus mania. You should read it too
Wow, this is interesting. I missed Round 1 but will check it out. After my Bell's Palsy diagnosis in January 2021 (pre-"vaccine"), I began researching the Covid "vaccines" and found a Lancet paper authored by Al O. and others that concluded there was a greater risk of BP with mRNA shots. My case was severe, I had no desire to undergo experimental injections and risk a relapse or permanent facial paralysis. I'm much better but still not back to normal, I may never be. There was a rebuttal to Al O's Lancet paper as well as the authors response that they stood by their findings.
Since we live in the same city and I work in healthcare, in July I emailed Al directly about the study and he responded quickly. I was surprised at his quick response as well as his polite, concerned and helpful tone, as he could have easily ignored me. We exchanged a couple of emails and we both acknowledged he could not advise me with what would normally be considered an individual medical decision. We do not live in normal times which has become increasingly clear since July.
In my request for a medical exemption for my mainly remote healthcare job (which I've been doing remote for 20+ years, long story), I cited Al O.'s Lancet study and several others as well as my history of a severe adverse reaction to a flu shot in 2013 with permanent neuropathy. My request was denied by my new PCP who consulted a neurologist, both M.D.'s barely knew me, stating I did not meet the (narrow) CDC guidelines for medical exemption. My PCP suggested I consider the J&J. In my reply I pointed out that J&J had recently slapped on the "rare risk of GBS" warning. Bell's palsy is (in some studies) considered a mononeuritic variant of Guillain-Barre Syndrome. No response. My PCP earlier in a phone call acknowledged that "this is a tough situation" as the Board of Medicine was breathing down doctor's necks. I learned later he and apparently all M.D.s working in corporate healthcare faced fines, censure, shaming in their community and possible job loss by providing medical exemptions.
Strangely enough, today my employer inquired about the status of the medical exemption. It seems they still want me to be injected with mRNA in order to make phone calls. Makes perfect sense, right?
I'll post this here because I think a lot of your readers (and you) will be interested in another really good documentary on vaccine injuries (with about 100 Israelis detailing their post-vax situations). Please share and spread.
https://truthunmuted.org/the-testimonies-project-israeli-citizen-documents-vaccine-injury/
Thanks Steve and Al. Al is showing lots of courage. And he speaks volumes of you listen carefully to his words and acts.
Steve,
Study design manipulations that I see they did to ensure they got the results that followed the agenda:
People who started off in the control group for vaxx, who later got vaxxed, would still serve as control in the initial control group they were in. In an essence, they could be comparing vaxxd vs vaxxd - of course any relative side effects would be low.
People in control group for infection, who later got infected, would be excluded from control group they initially were in. This is different from criteria in the above paragraph.
To be included in vaxx group, they must not have had any contacts with health care setting for at least 7 days being getting vaxxd. This ensured they only included previously healthy people in vaxx group.
The same didn't apply to infection group. This means, people with full blown diabetes, renal failure, etc, etc who had been in and out of the hospital for their conditions, who then got infected, would be included in infection group. We know these people are more likely to get very sick when infected.
Ask him why is the precautionary principle applicable to something like "Man-Made Climate Change" wherein all use of necessary energy sources must be stopped because we may kill large portions of human population.... but it cannot equally apply to medicine, where instead we continue using medicines even though there is reason to doubt their long-term safety?
It is important to try and awaken those who can still be shaken awake. What do they fear more than breaking away from the safety of the mainstream narrative? Is there truth that causes them more concern and can motivate them to better protect their future and that of their loved ones? People who have not experienced tyrannical governance need a safe but emotional foretaste — movies, organ harvesting stories, etc. They need to heed the warning and protect their current God-given (not government-given) freedoms. If the people of western society are to remain the sovereign ruler of this democratic republic, we also need better civics training. Hillsdale College free online classes are a solution. Make them enticing!
Check out David Oates, the founder of Reverse Speech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RSdQcX51-s to hear what the voices of the unconscious are saying. I've had a number of sessions with David and he's the Carl Jung of this method of getting to the truth of the Spirit. The CDC knew about this "gain of function" right from the start. Check out his other recent videos of Biden, Fauci, Schwab, etc.
Robert F Kennedy, Jr. Explains Why They’re Going After the Kids — And It’s Not What You Think (VIDEO)
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/robert-f-kennedy-jr-explains-going-kids-not-think-video/
There are many many curious aspects of the Barda et al. paper.
Why is mortality omitted as an outcome? The sample is sufficiently large that deaths could have been compared.
How long is the surveillance period for the vaccinated? It is an immensely confusing aspect of the paper, but it is a simple and essential feature of the design. It appears to be 42 days. My own neurological symptoms became unmistakable (fasciculations, twitching, difficulty writing by hand) at around 5 weeks, but I was not able to see a neurologist for another month, which would have put me outside of the 42 day surveillance period.
Why is Bell's Palsy so rare? I personally know someone who had Bell's palsy, and yet the estimate is vanishingly small for a side effect that has become widely reported anecdotally. How could such a rare side effect have become so widely known and why is it so much more prevalent in VAERS?
Why does the sample skew so young?
Who was directly responsible for the data analysis and data management? This is essential because there is something very funny about a paper that produces a result where vaccination lowers your risk for side effects. I would want to replicate these findings with the data.
Why are the estimates of side effects substantially lower than those from Pfizer's own trial? Shouldn't the estimates be roughly similar?
Steve, ask Al how many coincidences = a fact?
I understand that there is a statutory requirement in the 1986 NCVIA that VAERS be maintained as a reliable source of data from which to assess adverse events. This was part of the negotiation that led to the grant of immunity. Ozonoff uses VAERS is tainted as a copout so he doesn’t have to address work by Rose and others. Convenient, but a weasel move by someone lacking an argument. But if VAERS data is unreliable then a statutory violation of NCVIA exists. I’m not sure about the consequence, if there are any. I’m sure that RFK Jr knows all about this.
VAERS data “will never convince him?” Perhaps the 11 minute video of testimony on Capitol Hill of people permanently disabled including a devastated single father who lost his only child to this insanity will open his eyes.
I wouldn’t count on it though as he suffers from mass formation and the institution that pays his salary, namely Harvard, is part of the cabal of globalist individuals and institutions who are in lockstep with China’s agenda and the implementation of The Great Reset. Communist China owns them.
Their gleeful usurpation of human rights and personal liberty and eradication of the individual must be fought with every ounce of our energy. Those things, after all, are the only thing that makes you, YOU. You, your children and your future mean absolutely nothing to them.
A certain portion will never see evil for what it is. Leave them behind.
Why don't you start with the negative efficiency of the shots in getting Covid as step 1? Or ask why the NY state covid dashboard uses an outdated "study" to "estimate" the number of vaccinated people in the hospital with covid? Why wouldn't they just count them rather than linking to an outdated study that ended almost 6 months ago to them "estimate" how many of the people in the hospital with covid today are "vaccinated."
I've seen people become more curious about the terrible side effect profile once they see the replicated, massive, and irrefutable data - conveniently provided in English by the UK and Denmark -that the vaccines have negative efficiency at preventing the disease.
VAERS is all we have, but it is crap in terms of actually predicting rates of adverse events - particularly under the current "stick your head in the sand" medical community regime where they refuse to file adverse events then claim the few that are reported are "unconfirmed."