The UK ONS admitted that the misinformation spreaders got it right and their stats are wrong. Which means that the COVID vaccine might not be helpful after all.
the entire point of my piece was to inject a more accurate count of the unvaccinated into the ONS data that was using a 2011 census to vastly undercount them and thereby rig apparent VE by ascribing "unvaxxed deaths" to too small a denominator.
i did that using the data that ONS themselves cited as "best data" when they were retracting their previous data (that you cite) as "unfit for purpose"
they were playing serious games with the unvaxxed base rate by using much too small a cohort by taking dated population figures and subtracting "known vaxxed" from it. this makes their whole analysis junk.
i used a VERY charitable set of assumptions to get to those figures.
and as can be seen, when one actually puts even the ONS's own ASMR data into an actual probabilistic stack that accounts for the full experience of getting to "boosted" (and mitigates the bad outcome shifting definitional game they play by ascribing the first 21 days to "other" categories you can see that it actually comes out worse than my prior est.
pay particular attention to how badly the double dosed fare. that's another of the denominator games they play to make "boosted" look good.
the point of my inquiry was to correct these failings.
i get how you're getting to your numbers, but i think you're ill advised to take their data at face value. (especially now that ONS themselves have repudiated it for just the failings i was trying to correct)
one could perhaps argue that even trying to use this ONS data at all is possibly pointless, but as the data once denominator adjusted or places in proper bayesian structure aligns pretty well with the current (and highly unexpected) excess deaths figures in UK on a pop weighted basis, i suspect my figures are in a pretty reasonable ballpark.
this would certainly be a lot easier of some of these agencies would open up their raw patient level data to allow definitive analysis, but we do the best we can with what we have.
This makes it clear the number of unvaccinated were underestimated in the prior ONS data, and makes that data poisoned. This is in line with the criticism Professor Norman Fenton made of the data.
The vaccine justifications were made using the faulty data.
From this new data we see the benefit of the vaccine is very limited below age 50 for healthy people, this is why the boosters have been withdrawn below age 50 in the UK.
This information would need to be compared to side-effect rates to see if in fact the vaccine did more harm than good, but I suspect that will be the case for younger ages.
We should acknowledge the positive benefit apparent for the vaccine at age 60+ or for those with co-factors at younger ages.
It should also be noted that no-one has good data for transmission effectiveness - if any - of the vaccine, particularly vs Omicron which ripped through the "vaccinated" population. Losing your job or being refused travel because you didn't get vaccinated has never been justified by any data - even the faulty ONS data.
You are wrong wrong wrong in attributing the calculations to me. It seems you don’t fact check very well. I have asked El Gato Malo to respond to your comment. He was the one who created the chart which is obvious if you clicked on it.
if you don't mind me asking, what are the specific numbers you are using in the numerator and denominator of your computations (i.e. deaths/total population) and what specific table of the document you link did you use to get those numbers? Also, I don't understand why you give "age-standardized" data. What is the purpose of that adjustment, when you are already talking about a specific age-range and you are not comparing data from different countries? What are the numbers without the adjustment?
Age standardization has only a small impact once you compare specific age groups, you could look at raw death rates for an age-group, but age-standardization still has some value.
It is known that vaccination was less popular with younger ages than older ages. For example 19% of age 18-39 are unvax, while it's 12% for age 40-49, 7% for 50-59, 5% of 60-69, 3% of 70-79.
So there is a clear trend that the older you are, the more likely you were to get vaccinated.
That means that unvax tend to be younger - even within an age band, for example for age 50-59 the unvax might have an average age of 54 vs 55 for vaccinated.
That means that age banding alone might lead to the unvax slightly outperforming the vaxed.
Age-Standardization of the mortality rates compensates for that.
I'm using table 5.
Unvaccinated as labelled in column F.
All the others I group as Vaccinated - that means weighting by Person-years (column H)
I'm using all-cause mortality only.
For the ratio I divide the ASMR of vaccinated (numerator) by unvaccinated (denominator)
I get the following results for the month of May '22
Male Female
Age G UnVax Vax Ratio UnVax Vax Ratio
18-39 12.7 22.0 1.73 17.7 20.4 1.15
40-49 52.7 86.7 1.65 77.8 90.7 1.17
50-59 284.1 290.8 1.02 298.1 228.6 0.77
60-69 1,001.9 813.0 0.81 730.7 602.6 0.82
70-79 2,496.4 2,233.6 0.89 2,290.7 1,617.0 0.71
80-89 6,838.2 7,310.7 1.07 6,234.7 5,557.9 0.89
90+ 17,203.7 19,868.4 1.15 14,661.2 16,791.0 1.15
Comments:
Age 18-39 No provable benefit/harm of the vaccine for Jan'21 - May'22. The ratio bounces around, some months more than 1, sometimes less. The male 1.73x ratio for May '22 might look awful, but death at this age is rare, so monthly rates are volatile. Still it must be admitted that with hindsight mandates at this age group were a disgrace.
Age 40-49 Clear benefit from May 21-March 22 but then it crosses over in May '22, the unvaxxed outperform the vaxed for that one month. The ONS really should update the data so we can see what's going on recently, was it a one-off or the start of a trend? It feeds conspiracy theories to stop publishing just as the numbers cross over.
Age 50-59,60-69,70-79,80-89. The vaccine maintains a substantial advantage right up to May '22, but it is waning over time in all groups. I do not agree with the figures in the article showing ratios > 1, in some cases >1.6 in the article. For all these age groups I have <1 as of May 22.
If I split by gender, I get only two boxes with ratio >1 for May 22 which are males 50-59 with ratio of 1.02 and males 80-89 for May '22 with ratio of 1.07. Both are spikes from previous months which showed outperformance for the Vaccine.
For all the other boxes for age 50-89 the vaccine strongly outperforms the unvaxed - as it has every month from Jan '21 - May '22
Age 90+ There was a benefit up to Feb 22, but it seems to have gone, even crossed over - I have 1.15x by May 22.
There is definitely room for concern though. The waning of the vaccine effectiveness is clear.
Back in May '21 these ratios were close to 0.4. The Vaccine was hailed as a great breakthrough.
One year later the ratios have closed to 0.8.
Crossing over (ie ratio >1), if sustained, would be a disaster, it would suggest the vaccine gave a short term benefit for long term loss. The data does not support that yet, but ONS really need to publish the rest of '22.
Thank you very much, James. An incredible answer. I appreciate the time you spent. When I saw your link, I also used Table 5, but in my case the rate was higher for vaccinated men (fairly close to your 6,838.2 7,310.7 values). It is clear that age-standardization substantially changes that result. Therefore, I see relevant to clarify how exactly the data is adjusted and why it is adjusted.
You say that age-standardization compensates for age differences. I read elsewhere that it's a way of weighting deaths differently to match a specific population distribution by age (e.g., from Wikipedia: "a technique used to allow statistical populations to be compared when the age profiles of populations are quite different"). In that case, the reason for the adjustment is different from what you say and I still don't see a real justification for that adjustment when you have data split by age. May be for an all-ages group there is a justification but I still don't see one for a 80-89 years old group.
Your analysis is sensible (it really is), but if they stop publishing data when the numbers go "bad" for them, I wouldn't talk about feeding "conspiracy theories." They are the ones who create distrust and the people who stop trusting them are not to blame. You say "but ONS really needs to publish the rest of '22". I agree with that, but perhaps they should remove it completely from the web, if it is as unreliable as they acknowledge it is for studying the efficacy of this "vaccine" (https://rumble.com/v26prsg-vaccinated-versus-not-vaccinated-mortality-data.html).
I hope the person who created the original figure, the one you criticized, will explain how he/she created it.
You may have seen that ElGato replied that he was doing a time weighted calculation and trying to adjust for deficiencies in the data.
ONS said they stopped publishing because the data was based on census 2011, and they were waiting for an update from census 2021.
The census update in 2021 has proven to be poison for the data, as it has shown this survey massively understated the proportion of unvaccinated and hazard ratios calculated with the prior data were flawed.
This data has led to the cessation of boosters for healthy people at ages below 50, due to a lack of effectiveness - see table 4 for "no risk group". Those NMV figures are likely higher than the incidence of severe side effects.
Maybe if you were living in Canada like I am and a Prime Minister who openly states the the government he admires most is that of China you would see things a little differently. For several years I was the manager of a research lab up here trying to develop better and more efficient food sources. Being blocked at very turn by people for their own political gratification convinced me to turn away from my career. I have never regretted that decision. Science cannot exist where politics holds sway. If your science doesn't match the political agenda the will stifle it. Because you have probably never personally experienced the ignorance and arrogance of of little men given too much power you are not in a position to say my mistrust is unwarranted.
The only thing that I truly can't grasp is why so many people are incapable of listening or understanding. All the evidence is out there screaming in your face. I have been trying to tell people this for 40 years and even though more than half of what I told them has come to pass they still think I am some sort of redneck conspiracy theorist.
Nothing personal Peter, but I think most individuals overestimate their analytical abilities and certainly are ignorant to distrust modern science, which is essentially self-correcting because of the basis of science in the scientific method.
So yes, I do believe your views are those of a conspiracy theorist, an uninformed one (compared to the information necessary to evaluate such situations w reasonable certainty), although I have no idea whether you're a redneck or not.
"Redneck" and "conspiracy theorist" do not necessarily go together, although rednecks, especially US Southerners and Westerners, seem to be full of unwarranted distrust of government, given that we've thrived (except for minorities) under a democratic/republican regime for over 200 years.
It is incredible to me that people still want to keep their eyes shut. People are dying live on the football field... again and again.... live - young fit athletes who have only one thing in common gen-stab-jab-thereapy... Again, "common sense" - seems to be a rare commodity.
The pharma industry is so corrupt they act like a mafia. Our bodies are made by nature - NOT by chemical pharma industries... Only Nature can heal... wake up.
Why would a "responsible government" suppress the power of vitamins create even a "Codex Alimentarius" as so many things guised as a good regulation overseer to ensure food safety! Now, they have the audacity to consider and regulate vitamins as toxins so that they can in future only be given out in low doses which won't work (see work of Andrew Saul below). There have been no death from vitamin therapy. Which is cheap and efficient.
Is this this censorship and misinformation a coincidence? I don't think so. But again, those who have not opened up to the sudden death syndrome around them - forecasted by Luc Montagnier (just a Nobel price laureate! Well, he did for sure not know as much as corrupt Mr Fauci...) that within 2 years after the jap death would occur...
Why have vitamin C IV suppressed because they work!
That all of this plandemic is not adding up as a benevolent work of governments should be easy
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, Jan 23, 2023
ZERO DEATHS FROM VITAMINS.
ZERO DEATHS FROM MINERALS.
Supplement Safety Confirmed by America's Largest Database
by Andrew W. Saul, Editor
OMNS (Jan 23, 2023) The 39th annual report from the American Association of Poison Control Centers shows zero deaths from vitamins. Confirming data is in Table 22B, p 1613-1615, at the very end of the lengthy report published in Clinical Toxicology. [1] It is interesting that it is placed way back there where nary a news reporter is likely to see it. But there it is: no deaths, none whatsoever, from vitamin A, niacin, pyridoxine (B-6) or from any other B-vitamin. There were no deaths from vitamin C, vitamin D, or vitamin E. There were no deaths from multiple vitamins. There were no deaths from any vitamin at all.
Furthermore, there were no fatalities from mineral supplements. Two fatalities from "Iron and Iron Salts" were clearly stated as not being due to supplemental iron (p 1607).
No deaths from vitamins. No deaths from minerals. Want to bet this will never be on the evening news? Well, have you seen it there? And why not? This is of real importance to the public. After all, at least two-thirds of the U.S. population takes daily nutritional supplements. A Harris Poll indicated that for American adults, the number is 86%. [2] But let's just use the lower number. Should each of those people take only one single tablet daily, that still makes over 220,000,000 individual doses per day, for a total of well over 80 billion doses annually. Since many persons take far more than just one single vitamin tablet, actual consumption is considerably higher, and the safety of vitamin supplements is all the more remarkable.
Throughout the entire year, coast to coast across the entire USA, there was not one single death from a vitamin or mineral supplement. If supplements are allegedly so "dangerous," as the FDA, the news media, and even some physicians still claim, then where are the bodies?
(Andrew W. Saul is Editor-in-Chief of the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, now in its 19th year of free publication. He is also a member of the Japanese College of Intravenous Therapy; the Orthomolecular Medicine Hall of Fame; and is author or coauthor of twelve books. He has no financial connection whatsoever to the supplement or health products industry.)
References:
1. Gummin DD, Mowry JB, Beuhler MC et al. (2022) 2021 Annual Report of the National Poison Data System (NPDS) from America's Poison Centers: 39th Annual Report, Clinical Toxicology, 60:12, 1381-1643, DOI: 10.1080/15563650.2022.2132768 https://doi.org/10.1080/15563650.2022.2132768
Contributing Editor: W. Todd Penberthy, Ph.D. (USA)
Contributing Editor: Ken Walker, M.D. (Canada)
Contributing Editor: Michael Passwater (USA)
Technology Editor: Michael S. Stewart, B.Sc.C.S. (USA)
Associate Technology Editor: Robert C. Kennedy, M.S. (USA)
Legal Consultant: Jason M. Saul, JD (USA)
Comments and media contact: drsaul@doctoryourself.com OMNS welcomes but is unable to respond to individual reader emails. Reader comments become the property of OMNS and may or may not be used for publication.
Live in the UK. In January 2021 after the Stabbinations were rolled out to applause and tears (against the 0.3% death rate), I emailed these idiots and asked basic questions. This was repeated 3 or 4 times. I kept the replies.
1-Will you track injury or death from the Jabs?
2-Will you have a control group of unstabbed to compare to the Stabbed?
3-Will you do statistical analysis, using variables, dependencies and other norms to ascertain efficacy of the stabbed vs the unstabbed?
Answers for 2 years were all the same. 'No but we might in the future....'
They never did and they won't. They don't care. It is not a 'health system', but a drug pushing system.
The lack of integrity of politicians (and other leaders) is stunning. It's not that they were ever perfect but the slider has been shifted significantly to the bad side.
That circular firing squad is something that occurred to me; if they succeed. Simpler reason, one goal - who will be King of the World? Unfortunately, we will be the collateral damage in that fight and it could be nuclear or serious biological. Just takes one madman who cannot accept defeat.
I can understand why narcissists in positions of power like China and "Communism". I like the thought of not having to negotiate everything in groups but I hope I would always be willing to. Otherwise life would soon become a very lonely place.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, calculations abound in this article.
Example May 2022, age 80-89 age-standardized mortality rates:
Female Male
Unvaccinated 6,234.70 6,838.20
Ever Vaccinated 5,011.83 4,968.90
Weighted ratio: 0.77
Yet the article claims a ratio of 1.63
My suggestion - get the data for yourself, see how bad Mr Kirch's calculations are and ignore his analysis.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland
the entire point of my piece was to inject a more accurate count of the unvaccinated into the ONS data that was using a 2011 census to vastly undercount them and thereby rig apparent VE by ascribing "unvaxxed deaths" to too small a denominator.
i did that using the data that ONS themselves cited as "best data" when they were retracting their previous data (that you cite) as "unfit for purpose"
(see here: https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/uk-statistics-regulator-agrees-with?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web )
you can find that data here:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/vaccines#vaccination-rates
they were playing serious games with the unvaxxed base rate by using much too small a cohort by taking dated population figures and subtracting "known vaxxed" from it. this makes their whole analysis junk.
i used a VERY charitable set of assumptions to get to those figures.
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/uk-age-stratified-all-cause-death
and as can be seen, when one actually puts even the ONS's own ASMR data into an actual probabilistic stack that accounts for the full experience of getting to "boosted" (and mitigates the bad outcome shifting definitional game they play by ascribing the first 21 days to "other" categories you can see that it actually comes out worse than my prior est.
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/another-look-at-uk-all-cause-mortality
pay particular attention to how badly the double dosed fare. that's another of the denominator games they play to make "boosted" look good.
the point of my inquiry was to correct these failings.
i get how you're getting to your numbers, but i think you're ill advised to take their data at face value. (especially now that ONS themselves have repudiated it for just the failings i was trying to correct)
one could perhaps argue that even trying to use this ONS data at all is possibly pointless, but as the data once denominator adjusted or places in proper bayesian structure aligns pretty well with the current (and highly unexpected) excess deaths figures in UK on a pop weighted basis, i suspect my figures are in a pretty reasonable ballpark.
this would certainly be a lot easier of some of these agencies would open up their raw patient level data to allow definitive analysis, but we do the best we can with what we have.
Great answer, thank you.
You wrote "even trying to use this ONS data at all is possibly pointless" this point may be the best conclusion when we look at the latest update.
See the new publication at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1131409/appendix-1-of-jcvi-statement-on-2023-covid-19-vaccination-programme-8-november-2022.pdf
This makes it clear the number of unvaccinated were underestimated in the prior ONS data, and makes that data poisoned. This is in line with the criticism Professor Norman Fenton made of the data.
The vaccine justifications were made using the faulty data.
From this new data we see the benefit of the vaccine is very limited below age 50 for healthy people, this is why the boosters have been withdrawn below age 50 in the UK.
This information would need to be compared to side-effect rates to see if in fact the vaccine did more harm than good, but I suspect that will be the case for younger ages.
We should acknowledge the positive benefit apparent for the vaccine at age 60+ or for those with co-factors at younger ages.
It should also be noted that no-one has good data for transmission effectiveness - if any - of the vaccine, particularly vs Omicron which ripped through the "vaccinated" population. Losing your job or being refused travel because you didn't get vaccinated has never been justified by any data - even the faulty ONS data.
You are wrong wrong wrong in attributing the calculations to me. It seems you don’t fact check very well. I have asked El Gato Malo to respond to your comment. He was the one who created the chart which is obvious if you clicked on it.
Hi James,
if you don't mind me asking, what are the specific numbers you are using in the numerator and denominator of your computations (i.e. deaths/total population) and what specific table of the document you link did you use to get those numbers? Also, I don't understand why you give "age-standardized" data. What is the purpose of that adjustment, when you are already talking about a specific age-range and you are not comparing data from different countries? What are the numbers without the adjustment?
Thank you
Age standardization has only a small impact once you compare specific age groups, you could look at raw death rates for an age-group, but age-standardization still has some value.
It is known that vaccination was less popular with younger ages than older ages. For example 19% of age 18-39 are unvax, while it's 12% for age 40-49, 7% for 50-59, 5% of 60-69, 3% of 70-79.
So there is a clear trend that the older you are, the more likely you were to get vaccinated.
That means that unvax tend to be younger - even within an age band, for example for age 50-59 the unvax might have an average age of 54 vs 55 for vaccinated.
That means that age banding alone might lead to the unvax slightly outperforming the vaxed.
Age-Standardization of the mortality rates compensates for that.
I'm using table 5.
Unvaccinated as labelled in column F.
All the others I group as Vaccinated - that means weighting by Person-years (column H)
I'm using all-cause mortality only.
For the ratio I divide the ASMR of vaccinated (numerator) by unvaccinated (denominator)
I get the following results for the month of May '22
Male Female
Age G UnVax Vax Ratio UnVax Vax Ratio
18-39 12.7 22.0 1.73 17.7 20.4 1.15
40-49 52.7 86.7 1.65 77.8 90.7 1.17
50-59 284.1 290.8 1.02 298.1 228.6 0.77
60-69 1,001.9 813.0 0.81 730.7 602.6 0.82
70-79 2,496.4 2,233.6 0.89 2,290.7 1,617.0 0.71
80-89 6,838.2 7,310.7 1.07 6,234.7 5,557.9 0.89
90+ 17,203.7 19,868.4 1.15 14,661.2 16,791.0 1.15
Comments:
Age 18-39 No provable benefit/harm of the vaccine for Jan'21 - May'22. The ratio bounces around, some months more than 1, sometimes less. The male 1.73x ratio for May '22 might look awful, but death at this age is rare, so monthly rates are volatile. Still it must be admitted that with hindsight mandates at this age group were a disgrace.
Age 40-49 Clear benefit from May 21-March 22 but then it crosses over in May '22, the unvaxxed outperform the vaxed for that one month. The ONS really should update the data so we can see what's going on recently, was it a one-off or the start of a trend? It feeds conspiracy theories to stop publishing just as the numbers cross over.
Age 50-59,60-69,70-79,80-89. The vaccine maintains a substantial advantage right up to May '22, but it is waning over time in all groups. I do not agree with the figures in the article showing ratios > 1, in some cases >1.6 in the article. For all these age groups I have <1 as of May 22.
If I split by gender, I get only two boxes with ratio >1 for May 22 which are males 50-59 with ratio of 1.02 and males 80-89 for May '22 with ratio of 1.07. Both are spikes from previous months which showed outperformance for the Vaccine.
For all the other boxes for age 50-89 the vaccine strongly outperforms the unvaxed - as it has every month from Jan '21 - May '22
Age 90+ There was a benefit up to Feb 22, but it seems to have gone, even crossed over - I have 1.15x by May 22.
There is definitely room for concern though. The waning of the vaccine effectiveness is clear.
Back in May '21 these ratios were close to 0.4. The Vaccine was hailed as a great breakthrough.
One year later the ratios have closed to 0.8.
Crossing over (ie ratio >1), if sustained, would be a disaster, it would suggest the vaccine gave a short term benefit for long term loss. The data does not support that yet, but ONS really need to publish the rest of '22.
At one point they were updating this every month.
Hi James,
this seems to be the source of the figure: https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/uk-age-stratified-all-cause-death
Thank you very much, James. An incredible answer. I appreciate the time you spent. When I saw your link, I also used Table 5, but in my case the rate was higher for vaccinated men (fairly close to your 6,838.2 7,310.7 values). It is clear that age-standardization substantially changes that result. Therefore, I see relevant to clarify how exactly the data is adjusted and why it is adjusted.
You say that age-standardization compensates for age differences. I read elsewhere that it's a way of weighting deaths differently to match a specific population distribution by age (e.g., from Wikipedia: "a technique used to allow statistical populations to be compared when the age profiles of populations are quite different"). In that case, the reason for the adjustment is different from what you say and I still don't see a real justification for that adjustment when you have data split by age. May be for an all-ages group there is a justification but I still don't see one for a 80-89 years old group.
Your analysis is sensible (it really is), but if they stop publishing data when the numbers go "bad" for them, I wouldn't talk about feeding "conspiracy theories." They are the ones who create distrust and the people who stop trusting them are not to blame. You say "but ONS really needs to publish the rest of '22". I agree with that, but perhaps they should remove it completely from the web, if it is as unreliable as they acknowledge it is for studying the efficacy of this "vaccine" (https://rumble.com/v26prsg-vaccinated-versus-not-vaccinated-mortality-data.html).
I hope the person who created the original figure, the one you criticized, will explain how he/she created it.
Thank you, James.
You may have seen that ElGato replied that he was doing a time weighted calculation and trying to adjust for deficiencies in the data.
ONS said they stopped publishing because the data was based on census 2011, and they were waiting for an update from census 2021.
The census update in 2021 has proven to be poison for the data, as it has shown this survey massively understated the proportion of unvaccinated and hazard ratios calculated with the prior data were flawed.
Newer data is available here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1131409/appendix-1-of-jcvi-statement-on-2023-covid-19-vaccination-programme-8-november-2022.pdf
This data has led to the cessation of boosters for healthy people at ages below 50, due to a lack of effectiveness - see table 4 for "no risk group". Those NMV figures are likely higher than the incidence of severe side effects.
Appreciated this information. Also, Tap into Dailyclout.io for additional research information from Naomi Wolf Team.
Great info. I also keep up with Daily Clout.IO and their research.
Deliberate murder for profits: Massive spike in excess deaths sparks calls for an 'urgent investigation'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11671587/Massive-spike-excess-deaths-sparks-calls-urgent-investigation.html
Maybe if you were living in Canada like I am and a Prime Minister who openly states the the government he admires most is that of China you would see things a little differently. For several years I was the manager of a research lab up here trying to develop better and more efficient food sources. Being blocked at very turn by people for their own political gratification convinced me to turn away from my career. I have never regretted that decision. Science cannot exist where politics holds sway. If your science doesn't match the political agenda the will stifle it. Because you have probably never personally experienced the ignorance and arrogance of of little men given too much power you are not in a position to say my mistrust is unwarranted.
The only thing that I truly can't grasp is why so many people are incapable of listening or understanding. All the evidence is out there screaming in your face. I have been trying to tell people this for 40 years and even though more than half of what I told them has come to pass they still think I am some sort of redneck conspiracy theorist.
Nothing personal Peter, but I think most individuals overestimate their analytical abilities and certainly are ignorant to distrust modern science, which is essentially self-correcting because of the basis of science in the scientific method.
So yes, I do believe your views are those of a conspiracy theorist, an uninformed one (compared to the information necessary to evaluate such situations w reasonable certainty), although I have no idea whether you're a redneck or not.
"Redneck" and "conspiracy theorist" do not necessarily go together, although rednecks, especially US Southerners and Westerners, seem to be full of unwarranted distrust of government, given that we've thrived (except for minorities) under a democratic/republican regime for over 200 years.
I read the title of the article and laughed out loud. Yeah, that makes it all better. /s
@Steve Kirsch - I believe this is misleading. They didn't write to the ONS. I'll pay you £1 million if you can prove me wrong.
It is incredible to me that people still want to keep their eyes shut. People are dying live on the football field... again and again.... live - young fit athletes who have only one thing in common gen-stab-jab-thereapy... Again, "common sense" - seems to be a rare commodity.
The pharma industry is so corrupt they act like a mafia. Our bodies are made by nature - NOT by chemical pharma industries... Only Nature can heal... wake up.
Why would a "responsible government" suppress the power of vitamins create even a "Codex Alimentarius" as so many things guised as a good regulation overseer to ensure food safety! Now, they have the audacity to consider and regulate vitamins as toxins so that they can in future only be given out in low doses which won't work (see work of Andrew Saul below). There have been no death from vitamin therapy. Which is cheap and efficient.
Is this this censorship and misinformation a coincidence? I don't think so. But again, those who have not opened up to the sudden death syndrome around them - forecasted by Luc Montagnier (just a Nobel price laureate! Well, he did for sure not know as much as corrupt Mr Fauci...) that within 2 years after the jap death would occur...
Why have vitamin C IV suppressed because they work!
That all of this plandemic is not adding up as a benevolent work of governments should be easy
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, Jan 23, 2023
ZERO DEATHS FROM VITAMINS.
ZERO DEATHS FROM MINERALS.
Supplement Safety Confirmed by America's Largest Database
by Andrew W. Saul, Editor
OMNS (Jan 23, 2023) The 39th annual report from the American Association of Poison Control Centers shows zero deaths from vitamins. Confirming data is in Table 22B, p 1613-1615, at the very end of the lengthy report published in Clinical Toxicology. [1] It is interesting that it is placed way back there where nary a news reporter is likely to see it. But there it is: no deaths, none whatsoever, from vitamin A, niacin, pyridoxine (B-6) or from any other B-vitamin. There were no deaths from vitamin C, vitamin D, or vitamin E. There were no deaths from multiple vitamins. There were no deaths from any vitamin at all.
Furthermore, there were no fatalities from mineral supplements. Two fatalities from "Iron and Iron Salts" were clearly stated as not being due to supplemental iron (p 1607).
No deaths from vitamins. No deaths from minerals. Want to bet this will never be on the evening news? Well, have you seen it there? And why not? This is of real importance to the public. After all, at least two-thirds of the U.S. population takes daily nutritional supplements. A Harris Poll indicated that for American adults, the number is 86%. [2] But let's just use the lower number. Should each of those people take only one single tablet daily, that still makes over 220,000,000 individual doses per day, for a total of well over 80 billion doses annually. Since many persons take far more than just one single vitamin tablet, actual consumption is considerably higher, and the safety of vitamin supplements is all the more remarkable.
Throughout the entire year, coast to coast across the entire USA, there was not one single death from a vitamin or mineral supplement. If supplements are allegedly so "dangerous," as the FDA, the news media, and even some physicians still claim, then where are the bodies?
(Andrew W. Saul is Editor-in-Chief of the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, now in its 19th year of free publication. He is also a member of the Japanese College of Intravenous Therapy; the Orthomolecular Medicine Hall of Fame; and is author or coauthor of twelve books. He has no financial connection whatsoever to the supplement or health products industry.)
References:
1. Gummin DD, Mowry JB, Beuhler MC et al. (2022) 2021 Annual Report of the National Poison Data System (NPDS) from America's Poison Centers: 39th Annual Report, Clinical Toxicology, 60:12, 1381-1643, DOI: 10.1080/15563650.2022.2132768 https://doi.org/10.1080/15563650.2022.2132768
2. https://osteopathic.org/2019/01/16/poll-finds-86-of-americans-take-vitamins-or-supplements-yet-only-21-have-a-confirmed-nutritional-deficiency/
Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine
Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org
Find a Doctor
To locate an orthomolecular physician near you: http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n09.shtml
The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.
Editorial Review Board:
Albert G. B. Amoa, MB.Ch.B, Ph.D. (Ghana)
Seth Ayettey, M.B., Ch.B., Ph.D. (Ghana)
Ilyès Baghli, M.D. (Algeria)
Ian Brighthope, MBBS, FACNEM (Australia)
Gilbert Henri Crussol, D.M.D. (Spain)
Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D. (USA)
Ian Dettman, Ph.D. (Australia)
Susan R. Downs, M.D., M.P.H. (USA)
Ron Ehrlich, B.D.S. (Australia)
Hugo Galindo, M.D. (Colombia)
Martin P. Gallagher, M.D., D.C. (USA)
Michael J. Gonzalez, N.M.D., D.Sc., Ph.D. (Puerto Rico)
William B. Grant, Ph.D. (USA)
Claus Hancke, MD, FACAM (Denmark)
Tonya S. Heyman, M.D. (USA)
Patrick Holford, BSc (United Kingdom)
Suzanne Humphries, M.D. (USA)
Ron Hunninghake, M.D. (USA)
Bo H. Jonsson, M.D., Ph.D. (Sweden)
Dwight Kalita, Ph.D. (USA)
Felix I. D. Konotey-Ahulu, MD, FRCP, DTMH (Ghana)
Jeffrey J. Kotulski, D.O. (USA)
Peter H. Lauda, M.D. (Austria)
Alan Lien, Ph.D. (Taiwan)
Homer Lim, M.D. (Philippines)
Stuart Lindsey, Pharm.D. (USA)
Pedro Gonzalez Lombana, MD, MsC, PhD (Colombia)
Victor A. Marcial-Vega, M.D. (Puerto Rico)
Juan Manuel Martinez, M.D. (Colombia)
Mignonne Mary, M.D. (USA)
Jun Matsuyama, M.D., Ph.D. (Japan)
Joseph Mercola, D.O. (USA)
Jorge R. Miranda-Massari, Pharm.D. (Puerto Rico)
Karin Munsterhjelm-Ahumada, M.D. (Finland)
Tahar Naili, M.D. (Algeria)
Zhiyong Peng, M.D. (China)
Isabella Akyinbah Quakyi, Ph.D. (Ghana)
Selvam Rengasamy, MBBS, FRCOG (Malaysia)
Jeffrey A. Ruterbusch, D.O. (USA)
Gert E. Schuitemaker, Ph.D. (Netherlands)
Han Ping Shi, M.D., Ph.D. (China)
T.E. Gabriel Stewart, M.B.B.CH. (Ireland)
Thomas L. Taxman, M.D. (USA)
Jagan Nathan Vamanan, M.D. (India)
Garry Vickar, M.D. (USA)
Anne Zauderer, D.C. (USA)
Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D. (USA), Editor-In-Chief
Associate Editor: Robert G. Smith, Ph.D. (USA)
Editor, Japanese Edition: Atsuo Yanagisawa, M.D., Ph.D. (Japan)
Editor, Chinese Edition: Richard Cheng, M.D., Ph.D. (USA)
Editor, Norwegian Edition: Dag Viljen Poleszynski, Ph.D. (Norway)
Editor, Arabic Edition: Moustafa Kamel, R.Ph, P.G.C.M (Egypt)
Editor, Korean Edition: Hyoungjoo Shin, M.D. (South Korea)
Editor, Spanish Edition: Sonia Rita Rial, PhD (Argentina)
Editor, German Edition: Bernhard Welker, M.D. (Germany)
Associate Editor, German Edition: Gerhard Dachtler, M.Eng. (Germany)
Contributing Editor: Thomas E. Levy, M.D., J.D. (USA)
Contributing Editor: Damien Downing, M.B.B.S., M.R.S.B. (United Kingdom)
Contributing Editor: W. Todd Penberthy, Ph.D. (USA)
Contributing Editor: Ken Walker, M.D. (Canada)
Contributing Editor: Michael Passwater (USA)
Technology Editor: Michael S. Stewart, B.Sc.C.S. (USA)
Associate Technology Editor: Robert C. Kennedy, M.S. (USA)
Legal Consultant: Jason M. Saul, JD (USA)
Comments and media contact: drsaul@doctoryourself.com OMNS welcomes but is unable to respond to individual reader emails. Reader comments become the property of OMNS and may or may not be used for publication.
As Pfizer still says, "That's not Myocarditis, it's just your heart swelling with pride every time you get boosted!"
Worryingly, even doing ones own calculations, it is empirically clear that taking this covid injection and boosters is statistically inadvisable!
Live in the UK. In January 2021 after the Stabbinations were rolled out to applause and tears (against the 0.3% death rate), I emailed these idiots and asked basic questions. This was repeated 3 or 4 times. I kept the replies.
1-Will you track injury or death from the Jabs?
2-Will you have a control group of unstabbed to compare to the Stabbed?
3-Will you do statistical analysis, using variables, dependencies and other norms to ascertain efficacy of the stabbed vs the unstabbed?
Answers for 2 years were all the same. 'No but we might in the future....'
They never did and they won't. They don't care. It is not a 'health system', but a drug pushing system.
Worrying thing is, even when you do your own calculations, it still empirically demonstrates that the vaccines are dangerous!!
The lack of integrity of politicians (and other leaders) is stunning. It's not that they were ever perfect but the slider has been shifted significantly to the bad side.
That circular firing squad is something that occurred to me; if they succeed. Simpler reason, one goal - who will be King of the World? Unfortunately, we will be the collateral damage in that fight and it could be nuclear or serious biological. Just takes one madman who cannot accept defeat.
I can understand why narcissists in positions of power like China and "Communism". I like the thought of not having to negotiate everything in groups but I hope I would always be willing to. Otherwise life would soon become a very lonely place.
Define "unvaccinated."
Quick, hide the data! Or hire some CIA folks to "massage" and "correct" the data ...