Of course, the study was designed to show a different effect. But it "accidentally" revealed that the COVID and flu shots don't reduce your risk of hospitalization from the virus they are designed for
I honestly disagree, less with Steve's analyses, but strongly with the JAMA article.
1. The authors did not write anything about how they identified the „unvaccinated“. This is not trivial, as these individuals usually do not carry such a stamp in their documents or on their face.
2. They wrote „we enrolled all individuals with at least 1 hospital admission record between 2 days before and 10 days after a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 or influenza and an admission diagnosis for COVID-19 or seasonal influenza.“
Why did they require a positive test?
What about cases of sudden death, myocardial infarction, or cancer? Just not counted!
3. „We removed 143 participants hospitalized with both infections.“
Oh! I felt to have been told since March 2020 that coinfection could not exist …
OK, negligible when considering the 11k cases. Less negligible when considering the 600 deaths.
Summary: I recommend avoiding calculations on lousy data. They can only be misleading.
If the authors of these papers knew mucosal immunity they would have known that these studies were useless. Useless because they don't explain why the vaccines didn't work.
Nice study of vaxxed vs unvaxxed survival rates after hospitalisation with either or both Flu and Covid. Not sure if you covered the aspect of the massive financial rewards paid to hospitals for every Covid death of every patient that was 'ventilated' (to DEATH)?
For 4 years I've been trying to obtain a reason for the most important inexplicable issue relating to the 'vax makers' who have been able to sidestep responsibility for their deadly products. These evil and mercenary injection makers are encouraged to continue to depopulate the planet with total impunity as they enjoy ZERO LIABILITY. It is the most bizarre condition for such a dangerous but profitable business practice. But nobody wants to explain the logic behind this insane condition of use.
But there's a big kinda 'random' thing here. The chances of hospitalisation. You see there was/is no rigour to being hospitalised. Either hospitalised at all or hospitalised 'for covid'.
The 'for covid' thing gets much press even from critics like Kirsch. They claim many simply had a flu or whatever. That they got covid in hospital. That there is no covid. and so on.
We we can't have a reliable understanding of what it means to have a cohort that were hospitalised 'for covid'.
And similar applies to hospitalisations in any case.
The clear fact is that your risk of being hospitalised is a kinda 'political' risk. It depends on local politics.
And generally they went lunatic and hospitalised everyone. Which would effectively mask any true clinical needs. Is another aspect. Which should be clear enough from the records - if they really did that, as I say, hospitalised everyone madly - then hospitalisation numbers should have soared.
Keep in mind that the diagnosis of "Covid" has been so fraudulent (PCR >40) since the onset of the plandemic that analysis of any type is effectively futile.
Just left a lunch meeting with an old friend (age 57, I’m 51), who is off to have her flu jab and says she might get the shingles jab too.
I told her I never get those shots anymore and she said ever since she had pneumonia she gets the flu shot.
I didn’t even get into it, because she knows how I feel about it, but now I’ll have to just cross my fingers and pray, and hope that my friend doesn’t suffer a stroke or some other serious side effect from these vaccines.
Never trust "summaries" with percentages or "X times more than" statements. 2 people are 100% more people than 1 person. Always look for the number of participants, and where they came from.
I guess the point is that since 55% of each group was boosted, for example, and both groups came from the same VA population, we can say for sure that being boosted isn't any better at keeping you out of the hospital for Covid than it is at keeping you out for the flu. And if we assume it's no good for the flu, then we can say it also must be no good for Covid. I guess I'm not confident enough about that to totally agree yet. What confounders might there be?
Ok, Isreal is most vaxxed country in world, was used as a guinea pig. They are unfortunatley paying a price at a horrible time.If it spins out of control and becomes protracted and multi fronts. They do not have enough people for the army
OF COURSE THE COVID JAB DID NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE SIMPLY PUT IT IS NOT A VACCINE. WHEN WILL SOMEONE REALISE THIS. THE JAB IS A VERY DANGEROUS TOXIC SUBSTANCE DESCRIBED AS SIMILAR WITH SNAKE VENOM THAT ALSO CONTAINS SPIKE PROTIEN. CAN NEVER GET A LICENCE AS ONLY 1/3 REMAINS IN THE ARM MUSCLE THE REST SPREADS TO EVERY PART OF THE BODY CAUSING ALL SORTS OF PROBLEMS SOME VERY SERIOUS. SOME CAN ONLY SHOW UP AFTER THREE YEARS. THE JAB IS MORE LIKLEY TO TO PUT ONE IN HOSPITAL.THE JAB REMOVES ONES NATURAL DEFENCES OF COVID SO MANY CATCH IT. THE JAB MEANS O0NE LOOSES ONES NATURAL IMMUNITY TO COVID.
Covid Vax (and probably all the recent new 'miracle' injections) probably guarantee the recipient an increased chance of the unquantifiable statistic - a curtailed LIFE EXPECTANCY.
Even if the recipients think they got away with gambling their health on the experiments by taking part in the biggest health EXPERIMENT in human history!
I honestly disagree, less with Steve's analyses, but strongly with the JAMA article.
1. The authors did not write anything about how they identified the „unvaccinated“. This is not trivial, as these individuals usually do not carry such a stamp in their documents or on their face.
2. They wrote „we enrolled all individuals with at least 1 hospital admission record between 2 days before and 10 days after a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 or influenza and an admission diagnosis for COVID-19 or seasonal influenza.“
Why did they require a positive test?
What about cases of sudden death, myocardial infarction, or cancer? Just not counted!
3. „We removed 143 participants hospitalized with both infections.“
Oh! I felt to have been told since March 2020 that coinfection could not exist …
OK, negligible when considering the 11k cases. Less negligible when considering the 600 deaths.
Summary: I recommend avoiding calculations on lousy data. They can only be misleading.
If the authors of these papers knew mucosal immunity they would have known that these studies were useless. Useless because they don't explain why the vaccines didn't work.
https://t.co/qbncrTmmLX
Nice study of vaxxed vs unvaxxed survival rates after hospitalisation with either or both Flu and Covid. Not sure if you covered the aspect of the massive financial rewards paid to hospitals for every Covid death of every patient that was 'ventilated' (to DEATH)?
For 4 years I've been trying to obtain a reason for the most important inexplicable issue relating to the 'vax makers' who have been able to sidestep responsibility for their deadly products. These evil and mercenary injection makers are encouraged to continue to depopulate the planet with total impunity as they enjoy ZERO LIABILITY. It is the most bizarre condition for such a dangerous but profitable business practice. But nobody wants to explain the logic behind this insane condition of use.
Thanks!
Mick from Hooe (UK) Unjabbed to live longer!
Very disappointing list.
But there's a big kinda 'random' thing here. The chances of hospitalisation. You see there was/is no rigour to being hospitalised. Either hospitalised at all or hospitalised 'for covid'.
The 'for covid' thing gets much press even from critics like Kirsch. They claim many simply had a flu or whatever. That they got covid in hospital. That there is no covid. and so on.
We we can't have a reliable understanding of what it means to have a cohort that were hospitalised 'for covid'.
And similar applies to hospitalisations in any case.
The clear fact is that your risk of being hospitalised is a kinda 'political' risk. It depends on local politics.
And generally they went lunatic and hospitalised everyone. Which would effectively mask any true clinical needs. Is another aspect. Which should be clear enough from the records - if they really did that, as I say, hospitalised everyone madly - then hospitalisation numbers should have soared.
Keep in mind that the diagnosis of "Covid" has been so fraudulent (PCR >40) since the onset of the plandemic that analysis of any type is effectively futile.
Just left a lunch meeting with an old friend (age 57, I’m 51), who is off to have her flu jab and says she might get the shingles jab too.
I told her I never get those shots anymore and she said ever since she had pneumonia she gets the flu shot.
I didn’t even get into it, because she knows how I feel about it, but now I’ll have to just cross my fingers and pray, and hope that my friend doesn’t suffer a stroke or some other serious side effect from these vaccines.
I hate what the propaganda has done to people.
How did that work out for your friend? Mick.
Never trust "summaries" with percentages or "X times more than" statements. 2 people are 100% more people than 1 person. Always look for the number of participants, and where they came from.
I like how the CDC post has to footnote the sentences with "variant" and "risk". As if those words should need a legal disclaimer attached to them.
An amazing post and a very notable study!
I also discussed it:
https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/huge-veterans-study-covid-and-flu
I guess the point is that since 55% of each group was boosted, for example, and both groups came from the same VA population, we can say for sure that being boosted isn't any better at keeping you out of the hospital for Covid than it is at keeping you out for the flu. And if we assume it's no good for the flu, then we can say it also must be no good for Covid. I guess I'm not confident enough about that to totally agree yet. What confounders might there be?
Remember Kurt,
the 'vax' makers demand ZERO LIABILITY for their poisons! Isn't that convincing enough?
Mick from Hooe (UK) Unjabbed since 2019 - never again!
I think our society will survive only if enough people learn how to think!
The sampson senario becomes more viable?
the sampson scenario?
Ok, Isreal is most vaxxed country in world, was used as a guinea pig. They are unfortunatley paying a price at a horrible time.If it spins out of control and becomes protracted and multi fronts. They do not have enough people for the army
And now we know why all populations of “first world” countries were vaxxed. Disabling (and killing) your enemy is crucial to winning the real war.
The vaxx might be our achillies heal! You are right too!
Thanks Steve, please look at my Irael question about mrna and troop si e I would love your opionion or more facts
post a link to it here. substack has never been able to search comments.
OF COURSE THE COVID JAB DID NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE SIMPLY PUT IT IS NOT A VACCINE. WHEN WILL SOMEONE REALISE THIS. THE JAB IS A VERY DANGEROUS TOXIC SUBSTANCE DESCRIBED AS SIMILAR WITH SNAKE VENOM THAT ALSO CONTAINS SPIKE PROTIEN. CAN NEVER GET A LICENCE AS ONLY 1/3 REMAINS IN THE ARM MUSCLE THE REST SPREADS TO EVERY PART OF THE BODY CAUSING ALL SORTS OF PROBLEMS SOME VERY SERIOUS. SOME CAN ONLY SHOW UP AFTER THREE YEARS. THE JAB IS MORE LIKLEY TO TO PUT ONE IN HOSPITAL.THE JAB REMOVES ONES NATURAL DEFENCES OF COVID SO MANY CATCH IT. THE JAB MEANS O0NE LOOSES ONES NATURAL IMMUNITY TO COVID.
Covid Vax (and probably all the recent new 'miracle' injections) probably guarantee the recipient an increased chance of the unquantifiable statistic - a curtailed LIFE EXPECTANCY.
Even if the recipients think they got away with gambling their health on the experiments by taking part in the biggest health EXPERIMENT in human history!
Mick from Hooe (UK) Unjabbed to live longer!