Facts don't matter, and I suspect the intent of this counter-paper is to give talking heads a peer reviewed published paper they can riff off stating Hooker is wrong, media then amplifies, never mind the evidence.
I attended the funeral of a nurse in her mid 30s who died from cancer. I asked AI for a list of possible turbo cancers to which a fully vaxxed young woman would succumb. I was told turbo cancers are an internet myth and the shots are not responsible for any increase in cancer fatalities
STEVE YOU ARE HITTING THE TARGET RIGHT ON. WAS ASKED TO GIVE PROOF OF OUR/ MY CLAIMS. WELL I NEVER HAVE ANTYSO CALLED VACCINES OR JABS. MANY YERARS AGO THE DOCTOR JABBRD ME FAST BEFORE I COULD STOP HIM. HE STATYED SOMTHING TO HELP ME. WELL MY IMMUNE SYSTEM FINALY GAVE IN AND A NASTY FLU INFECTION SET IN.A FEW MONTHS LATER.. TRAINED BY BIG PHARMA. WHY WELL I SEE THE RESULTS OF THEM. ESPECIALY THE COVID JAB WITH RELATIVES ETC.AND NASTY ONES..
MY DOCTORS STATES THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING WRONG. AS OVERLOADED WITH VISITS TO SEE THEM.. HAVE NOT SEEN THEM FOR 5 YEARS. NO JABS OR SO CALLED VACCINES. IT IS WHAT IS PUT IN THE JABS ARE THE PROBLEM. I TAKE NATURAL SUBSTANCES TO BUILD UP MY IMMUNE SYSTEN INSTEAD.
It says "at 30 days to 60 days" but 30 is at the end of the line; if you're a fast reader you could miss it. I read very fast and that has happened to me if a word is small at the end of the line. My brain wants to hurry up and get to the next line.
There is an excellent clip of Gad Saad talking about how people will do almost anything to maintain their current belief systems, ignoring overwhelming factual evidence.
In the engineering field it is well known that the NIH (not invented here) syndrome runs riot. But in academia it seems people stick with their beliefs and refuse to bend. What is most alarming is that in the sciences, where constant progress is made, being this way is anti-scientific.
Voices for Vaccine "Experts" Paul Offit and Sean O'Leary are really only expert at promoting money-making, health-destroying toxic jabs. How many more millions have to be injured and die, before this vaccine fiasco is ended? .
Vaccines are a golden goose that keeps on giving. Pharma won't let that go until liability protections are removed. And why should they? They're making a fortune and no one in congress is about to end the protections(because they're all on the payroll as is most of the FDA).
Ninjas. Probably some ninjas are running around bumping off little girls who got jabbed. Anti-vax ninjas, I guess. Hey, I bet Big Pharma might fund me now.
To think our own medical field would intentionally kill children and babies. It surpasses all other EVIL that I could ever think possible. They need to be held accountable.
You are so bad at this. You're asking the wrong question. The problem isn't that critics can't name one magical confounder. The problem is that your study cannot calculate increased mortality risk because it includes only children who died. There are no surviving infants, no population denominator, and therefore no valid mortality comparison. Repeating the same flawed analysis 55 times doesn't produce 55 confirmations—it reproduces the same design flaw 55 times. That's why the paper was withdrawn.
Nobody can explain the signal" is false. The signal is explained by a study that conditions on death, lacks a comparison population, and then claims to estimate mortality risk. That's a design error, not a conspiracy.
You don't need the total population size for this kind of analysis.
You are looking for the time elapsed between an event and the deceased's death.
If you took all death records of people who had ever been in a car accident, and charted deaths per day on the Y axis, versus days since accident on the x axis, you would find a huge spike on day 1 and subsequent days, followed by a flattening as the deaths became randomly distributed.
You do not need to know the population size to observe that being in a car accident affects your chance of dying.
If you took another event - e.g. "went camping", and similarly charted days between camping and death, you would find that there is no spike, because camping does not affect risk of death.
In fact, this kind of analysis is even more powerful with childhood vaccine series, because everyone gets vaccinated at the same age, so the normal i.e. unvaccinated death profile from age of vaccination is available.
That's a false analogy. A car accident is an unexpected event that can immediately cause death. Infant vaccination is a scheduled event that occurs at nearly the same age for almost everyone. Since infant mortality also varies dramatically by age, you cannot infer increased mortality from timing alone. Without a comparison population of surviving infants, you cannot determine whether vaccinated infants died more often or whether deaths simply occurred after a common age-based event. Timing alone doesn't establish increased risk.
The flaw is that you're confusing when deaths occurred with whether deaths occurred more often. Those are different questions. Without living infants as a comparison, you can't estimate increased mortality risk.
Wow. You're such an ardent defender of things you don't actively research. You seem to misunderstand SIGNALS and default to the industry's bumper sticker, "correlation does not equal causation." This makes you a parrot, not an intellectual.
I'm not parroting "correlation doesn't equal causation." I'm explaining why this particular correlation fails to establish causation. Simply calling every criticism "industry talking points" isn't an argument ,it's a way to avoid engaging with the methodology.
A signal is something you investigate, not something you declare to be causation. The difference between us is that I don't stop at the signal. I ask whether better-designed studies confirm it.
No you don't. You're confusing "unvaccinated among the children who died" with "the unvaccinated population." Those are not the same thing. Without the total vaccinated and unvaccinated populations at risk, you cannot determine whether one group died at a higher rate than the other. That's basic epidemiology.
I allowed this comment because it shows my readers how, when you cross people's belief systems, you get attacked with pure bullshit arguments.
The study was LIMITED because the state ONLY gave them death records. So they did they best that they could with the DATA they were allowed to get.
There was NOTHING wrong with the METHODOLOGY they used to show a signal.
if the vaccine has no effect on mortality, why did the data show it DOES in this method?
Answer: There is NO CONFOUNDER that can explain the study results using the LANDMARK methodology that they used.
The fact that a world-class EXPERT (with 14 followers) such as Creativologist CANNOT identify a confounder explaining the results of the Hooker study is DEVASTATING.
What do you mean "you allowed it?" Do you believe in freedom of speech and open debate or do you censor your comments to control the echo chamber? You already blocked me on Twitter.
False, I don't need to identify a magical confounder. The study is conditioned on death, lacks a living comparison group, and therefore cannot estimate mortality risk. That's a design flaw, not a missing confounder. Repeating "55 signals" doesn't fix invalid methodology.
You falsely framesthe criticism as "you can't explain the signal." In reality, critics ARE explaining it... they're saying the signal is an artifact of conditioning on a selected population (only deaths), not evidence that vaccines increased mortality. That's a methodological explanation, not an admission that the signal is unexplained.
Your tone implies bad faith, creativologist. You're trying to overcomplicate and overlook a conceptually sensible question. I have access to data which I cannot specify here for a specific population group and even that shows excessive deaths increased after the jab rolled out, but not right after covid arrived. It jumped after people got their vax. Going back and comparing almost 20 years there was an excessive increase in deaths only during the jabbing and boosters period. It's relevant and valid to wonder why that is.
It is completely valid to ask why excess deaths changed. What is not valid is treating an unspecified private dataset and a timeline as proof that vaccination caused the change.
“Deaths rose after vaccination began” is an ecological observation. Vaccination rollout also overlapped with major COVID waves, delayed medical care, healthcare disruption, aging, drug deaths and other changing factors. To isolate a vaccine effect, you need the actual population, age structure, causes of death, infection history, vaccination dates and appropriate comparison groups, not merely two lines that rise around the same time.
Excess deaths aligned with every covid wave globally.
Studies that actually linked individual vaccination records to deaths have generally found no increase in all-cause mortality after vaccination. England’s analysis of people aged 12–29 found no elevated all-cause death risk during the six weeks after vaccination, and large linked-record cohort studies likewise found lower—not higher—mortality among vaccinated groups, although researchers must account for healthy-vaccinee bias.
So yes, investigate the data. But “I possess secret data showing a jump” is not evidence anyone else can examine, reproduce or challenge. That is not bad faith; it is the minimum standard needed before blaming a medical intervention.
Facts don't matter, and I suspect the intent of this counter-paper is to give talking heads a peer reviewed published paper they can riff off stating Hooker is wrong, media then amplifies, never mind the evidence.
I attended the funeral of a nurse in her mid 30s who died from cancer. I asked AI for a list of possible turbo cancers to which a fully vaxxed young woman would succumb. I was told turbo cancers are an internet myth and the shots are not responsible for any increase in cancer fatalities
Ask https://alter.systems
STEVE YOU ARE HITTING THE TARGET RIGHT ON. WAS ASKED TO GIVE PROOF OF OUR/ MY CLAIMS. WELL I NEVER HAVE ANTYSO CALLED VACCINES OR JABS. MANY YERARS AGO THE DOCTOR JABBRD ME FAST BEFORE I COULD STOP HIM. HE STATYED SOMTHING TO HELP ME. WELL MY IMMUNE SYSTEM FINALY GAVE IN AND A NASTY FLU INFECTION SET IN.A FEW MONTHS LATER.. TRAINED BY BIG PHARMA. WHY WELL I SEE THE RESULTS OF THEM. ESPECIALY THE COVID JAB WITH RELATIVES ETC.AND NASTY ONES..
MY DOCTORS STATES THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING WRONG. AS OVERLOADED WITH VISITS TO SEE THEM.. HAVE NOT SEEN THEM FOR 5 YEARS. NO JABS OR SO CALLED VACCINES. IT IS WHAT IS PUT IN THE JABS ARE THE PROBLEM. I TAKE NATURAL SUBSTANCES TO BUILD UP MY IMMUNE SYSTEN INSTEAD.
How many deaths were there, vaccinated and unvaccinated?
The explanation of the graphs has a typo. It says children vaccinated before 60 days were excluded but it should say 30 days.
It says "at 30 days to 60 days" but 30 is at the end of the line; if you're a fast reader you could miss it. I read very fast and that has happened to me if a word is small at the end of the line. My brain wants to hurry up and get to the next line.
It's the Juice...
Fyi, I'd watch out for the US-based AIs, the Chinese ones are picking up most US traffic these days.
There is an excellent clip of Gad Saad talking about how people will do almost anything to maintain their current belief systems, ignoring overwhelming factual evidence.
In the engineering field it is well known that the NIH (not invented here) syndrome runs riot. But in academia it seems people stick with their beliefs and refuse to bend. What is most alarming is that in the sciences, where constant progress is made, being this way is anti-scientific.
https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/1l49kq0/why_do_smart_people_double_down_on_bad_ideas_dr/
Voices for Vaccine "Experts" Paul Offit and Sean O'Leary are really only expert at promoting money-making, health-destroying toxic jabs. How many more millions have to be injured and die, before this vaccine fiasco is ended? .
Vaccines are a golden goose that keeps on giving. Pharma won't let that go until liability protections are removed. And why should they? They're making a fortune and no one in congress is about to end the protections(because they're all on the payroll as is most of the FDA).
Yes the vaccines! Duh, they cause deaths!
@Lynn : https://dutytodissent.substack.com/p/do-we-have-a-sociopathic-culture?
Fabulous substack Steve
Ninjas. Probably some ninjas are running around bumping off little girls who got jabbed. Anti-vax ninjas, I guess. Hey, I bet Big Pharma might fund me now.
To think our own medical field would intentionally kill children and babies. It surpasses all other EVIL that I could ever think possible. They need to be held accountable.
"Medical field" is just the useful tool.
????https://dutytodissent.substack.com/p/do-we-have-a-sociopathic-culture?
Sociopaths sounds about right.
Then our so called healthcare professionals are sociopaths, too.
Some are just so brainwashed they actually believe they are doing good.
Any comment from RFK Jr?
You are so bad at this. You're asking the wrong question. The problem isn't that critics can't name one magical confounder. The problem is that your study cannot calculate increased mortality risk because it includes only children who died. There are no surviving infants, no population denominator, and therefore no valid mortality comparison. Repeating the same flawed analysis 55 times doesn't produce 55 confirmations—it reproduces the same design flaw 55 times. That's why the paper was withdrawn.
Nobody can explain the signal" is false. The signal is explained by a study that conditions on death, lacks a comparison population, and then claims to estimate mortality risk. That's a design error, not a conspiracy.
You don't need the total population size for this kind of analysis.
You are looking for the time elapsed between an event and the deceased's death.
If you took all death records of people who had ever been in a car accident, and charted deaths per day on the Y axis, versus days since accident on the x axis, you would find a huge spike on day 1 and subsequent days, followed by a flattening as the deaths became randomly distributed.
You do not need to know the population size to observe that being in a car accident affects your chance of dying.
If you took another event - e.g. "went camping", and similarly charted days between camping and death, you would find that there is no spike, because camping does not affect risk of death.
In fact, this kind of analysis is even more powerful with childhood vaccine series, because everyone gets vaccinated at the same age, so the normal i.e. unvaccinated death profile from age of vaccination is available.
That's a false analogy. A car accident is an unexpected event that can immediately cause death. Infant vaccination is a scheduled event that occurs at nearly the same age for almost everyone. Since infant mortality also varies dramatically by age, you cannot infer increased mortality from timing alone. Without a comparison population of surviving infants, you cannot determine whether vaccinated infants died more often or whether deaths simply occurred after a common age-based event. Timing alone doesn't establish increased risk.
The flaw is that you're confusing when deaths occurred with whether deaths occurred more often. Those are different questions. Without living infants as a comparison, you can't estimate increased mortality risk.
Wow. You're such an ardent defender of things you don't actively research. You seem to misunderstand SIGNALS and default to the industry's bumper sticker, "correlation does not equal causation." This makes you a parrot, not an intellectual.
I'm not parroting "correlation doesn't equal causation." I'm explaining why this particular correlation fails to establish causation. Simply calling every criticism "industry talking points" isn't an argument ,it's a way to avoid engaging with the methodology.
A signal is something you investigate, not something you declare to be causation. The difference between us is that I don't stop at the signal. I ask whether better-designed studies confirm it.
>Since infant mortality also varies dramatically by age, you cannot infer increased mortality from timing alone.
It's a good thing we have the baseline data from the unvaccinated children to compare it with then, isn't it?
No you don't. You're confusing "unvaccinated among the children who died" with "the unvaccinated population." Those are not the same thing. Without the total vaccinated and unvaccinated populations at risk, you cannot determine whether one group died at a higher rate than the other. That's basic epidemiology.
Think.
I allowed this comment because it shows my readers how, when you cross people's belief systems, you get attacked with pure bullshit arguments.
The study was LIMITED because the state ONLY gave them death records. So they did they best that they could with the DATA they were allowed to get.
There was NOTHING wrong with the METHODOLOGY they used to show a signal.
if the vaccine has no effect on mortality, why did the data show it DOES in this method?
Answer: There is NO CONFOUNDER that can explain the study results using the LANDMARK methodology that they used.
The fact that a world-class EXPERT (with 14 followers) such as Creativologist CANNOT identify a confounder explaining the results of the Hooker study is DEVASTATING.
What do you mean "you allowed it?" Do you believe in freedom of speech and open debate or do you censor your comments to control the echo chamber? You already blocked me on Twitter.
False, I don't need to identify a magical confounder. The study is conditioned on death, lacks a living comparison group, and therefore cannot estimate mortality risk. That's a design flaw, not a missing confounder. Repeating "55 signals" doesn't fix invalid methodology.
You falsely framesthe criticism as "you can't explain the signal." In reality, critics ARE explaining it... they're saying the signal is an artifact of conditioning on a selected population (only deaths), not evidence that vaccines increased mortality. That's a methodological explanation, not an admission that the signal is unexplained.
Do you understand yet?
Your tone implies bad faith, creativologist. You're trying to overcomplicate and overlook a conceptually sensible question. I have access to data which I cannot specify here for a specific population group and even that shows excessive deaths increased after the jab rolled out, but not right after covid arrived. It jumped after people got their vax. Going back and comparing almost 20 years there was an excessive increase in deaths only during the jabbing and boosters period. It's relevant and valid to wonder why that is.
It is completely valid to ask why excess deaths changed. What is not valid is treating an unspecified private dataset and a timeline as proof that vaccination caused the change.
“Deaths rose after vaccination began” is an ecological observation. Vaccination rollout also overlapped with major COVID waves, delayed medical care, healthcare disruption, aging, drug deaths and other changing factors. To isolate a vaccine effect, you need the actual population, age structure, causes of death, infection history, vaccination dates and appropriate comparison groups, not merely two lines that rise around the same time.
Excess deaths aligned with every covid wave globally.
Studies that actually linked individual vaccination records to deaths have generally found no increase in all-cause mortality after vaccination. England’s analysis of people aged 12–29 found no elevated all-cause death risk during the six weeks after vaccination, and large linked-record cohort studies likewise found lower—not higher—mortality among vaccinated groups, although researchers must account for healthy-vaccinee bias.
So yes, investigate the data. But “I possess secret data showing a jump” is not evidence anyone else can examine, reproduce or challenge. That is not bad faith; it is the minimum standard needed before blaming a medical intervention.
🤣😅😁