In February of this year, someone asked Sarah Caul (then of the ONS) on X why the all-cause mortality rate for between 21 days and 6 months after the 2nd dose of covid vaccine was so much higher than in the unvaccinated:
I think it’s best if statisticians evaluate what an intervention does, not how well it does what they’ve AssUMed it will do.
That way, for example, if it wasn’t a vaccine (& it’s irrelevant since there was no pandemic or public health emergency) but a material designed to injure, kill and reduce fertility in survivors, they’d detect that.
I remember reading this when you posted it and I didn’t understand her answer. But looking at it again, I think she’s admitting the difference is the people the shots killed. Look at her last line-“The number of deaths from the vaccine is reported monthly as part of monthly mortality analysis.” Seemingly random, but maybe not. “From the vaccine” as opposed to from cvd
The question was why more vxd had died and I think she says that the number killed by the jabs is included in all-cause mortality.
Am I completely off here and missing the point? Don’t want to be stupid…
Difficult to know what someone else truly means, but I think you may be right. One thing for sure is that the tweet certainly reflects institutional covidmania at the expense of all-cause effects - a pervasive establishment problem.
It's they way they are trained with respect to vaccines. Vaccines are seen as a one time acute event with adverse events lasting upto 8 weeks. Very much in a bubble. There are no off-target events because vaccines cannot cause such as thing since they're poof, gone in 8 weeks.
Ask Christine Stabell-Benn how she's done with doing real RCTs with vaccines and looking at off target events.
Just imagine how effective a gun with unlimited ammo would be to prevent any 1 particular type of death in the population. It could certainly prevent all cancer deaths. It could quite effectively prevent any type of death after a live birth and even still births, if they don't mind shooting the mother also.
This level of ignorant ineptitude is what you get for the price of an MBE nowadays.
I think it’s best if statisticians evaluate what an intervention does, not how well it does what they’ve AssUMed it will do.
That way, for example, if it wasn’t a vaccine (& it’s irrelevant since there was no pandemic or public health emergency) but a material designed to injure, kill and reduce fertility in survivors, they’d detect that.
Transfection. They are transfections, not vaccines.
Amen to that.
I remember reading this when you posted it and I didn’t understand her answer. But looking at it again, I think she’s admitting the difference is the people the shots killed. Look at her last line-“The number of deaths from the vaccine is reported monthly as part of monthly mortality analysis.” Seemingly random, but maybe not. “From the vaccine” as opposed to from cvd
The question was why more vxd had died and I think she says that the number killed by the jabs is included in all-cause mortality.
Am I completely off here and missing the point? Don’t want to be stupid…
Difficult to know what someone else truly means, but I think you may be right. One thing for sure is that the tweet certainly reflects institutional covidmania at the expense of all-cause effects - a pervasive establishment problem.
Because nothing else matters, like you said
It's they way they are trained with respect to vaccines. Vaccines are seen as a one time acute event with adverse events lasting upto 8 weeks. Very much in a bubble. There are no off-target events because vaccines cannot cause such as thing since they're poof, gone in 8 weeks.
Ask Christine Stabell-Benn how she's done with doing real RCTs with vaccines and looking at off target events.
Something which is becoming increasingly clear to me…. People will defend the bad decisions they make.
It's well known and documented by old research done by experimental psychologists.
People stick to their decisions and defend it as if their life depended on it.
I'm just wondering what someone from the ONS is doing, commenting on how a vaccine is supposed to work. Going off-reservation, rather !
Just imagine how effective a gun with unlimited ammo would be to prevent any 1 particular type of death in the population. It could certainly prevent all cancer deaths. It could quite effectively prevent any type of death after a live birth and even still births, if they don't mind shooting the mother also.
She was vaccinated against Stupid-19 but that failed. Just made her even stupider if anything.
There's a gene transfection product for practically anything these days.
👍 AssUMed
Good find
Wow.
Just wow!