More Data On COVID-19 Jab Effectiveness

Health
#1

The official line has been that the injections protect the jabbed from serious risk of being hospitalized and dying, but 2 data analysts in the UK who have taken a critical look at the data are challenging that narrative:

Professor Norman Fenton is a mathematician, he is currently Professor of Risk Information Management at Queen Mary University of London

It’s a lot of information to take in I will try and summarize key points from the claims in comments as I get a clearer picture. These claims do seem to be extremely significant to me however if the analysis is correct, this is news that could bring governments around the world down (if it ever reaches enough people that is).

2 Likes
#2

A key point is that there seem to be a significant number of deaths coming [correction] between the first jab and 14 days immediately after the SECOND jab [end correction], this window is generally ignored in official statistics because the jabs are not considered to start being effective until after this period; therefore as I understand it in official stats people who die in this window are sometimes counted as UNvaccinated deaths (I’ll clarify this claim further as I’ve understood it better). (See from about 6 minutes into the first video for comments on this)

2 Likes
#3

Yes, I’ve seen several reports that places with high percentages of vaccinated people are having more cases and deaths, and that there are more deaths among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.
As far as bringing governments down if this becomes widely known, I doubt it. They’ve ignored this information till now and they’ll probably continue to, because it doesn’t fit with their agenda.

2 Likes
#5

I’ve done a longer write up at the Participator, here’s the expanded version:

Professor Norman Fenton is a mathematician, he is currently Professor of Risk Information Management at Queen Mary University of London. He appeared in an interview that was posted this week on a Youtube channel called Thinking Slow. During the interview (40 minutes long), he says that there are a significant number of deaths coming between the first jab and 14 days immediately after the SECOND jab, this time window is very significant because the jabs are not considered to start being effective until after this period; and so he says that in official statistics people who die in this window are sometimes counted as UNvaccinated deaths. Quote (@6:33):

some agencies actually count a person as un-vaccinated if they die within 14 days of the second dose, or after just one dose, … in the context of death attribution this doesn’t make sense at all.

In my mind this is very alarming because it opens the possibility I think that mortality data that could reveal the scale of potentially lethal side effects of the jabs is being suppressed. This is the most compelling evidence I have seen so far in fact of the dangers from the jabs. He continues (@8:53):

the age standardised mortality rate of the one dose, the partially vaccinated, is ten times higher than the equivalent of the unadjusted rate for that group.

The table shown on the screen at this point also shows that the age standardised mortality rate for the one dose jabbed is 3.5 times higher than for the (actually) unvaccinated. He points out some pecularities in the data, but concludes from his analysis that: (@10:00):

if these data are correct, this age standardised mortality calculations are correct, then it seems that the first dose in relative terms is really deadly , while the second dose is some kind of miracle treatment.

The interviewer offers a possible explanation for this, which in my own interpretation seems to amount to the suggestion that those who are most susceptible to the side effects of the jabs are being killed by the first jab and, thanks to the way the data is being presented in the official statistics, this is creating the false impression that the second jabs are having a beneficial effect in reducing mortality because those most likely to die from the side effects of the first dose are probably the most vulnerable people in general. The official presentation is also creating the damaging impression that there are many more deaths among those who have not been jabbed at all than is actually the case, an impression which is being used in propaganda against the unvaccinated.

2 Likes
#6

table_comparing_deaths_after_doses

2 Likes
#7

That fits right in with the way they’ve lied about the numbers of cases and deaths all along.
With all this data that’s been surfacing for over a year now, that’s been raising red flags and alarm bells, any decent, responsible, LEGITIMATE
government officials would have called a stop to the vaccines, not to mention the mandates.
The fact that they not only ignore this, but just keep doubling down on the mandates is proof that they are motivated by the complete opposite of what they should be concerned with - public safety.

2 Likes
#8

Exactly right.

2 Likes
#9

The Times has fallen very low:

Statisticians lambasted the Health and Security Agency for its weekly vaccine surveillance report, which erroneously suggests that vaccines make you more likely to contract Covid.

This is a newly re-branded public health agency, isn’t it curious how they have combined the words “Health and Security” in the title. However they have surprisingly been publishing findings which go AGAINST the official narrative, and come under fire for doing so!

2 Likes
#10

So the contradictions and confusion multiply.
When in doubt, on this you can rely -
Never trust the government!

2 Likes