But wait, any minute now. I can see a MORON "scientist" responding with:
"Did these numbers include an evaluation of OTHER variables such as race, income, gender, etc.?"
You see, the trendy thing to do these days, is to argue that UNLESS you "granulated" or "stratified" into a thousands different subsets, to "account for" all OTHER possible variables, (BESIDES vaccination status) then all other possible variables somehow became "confounding variables."
I'm actually engaged in this particular argument with a FREAK who says that a variable is always equivalent to a "confounding variable." He's SERIOUSLY trying to say that all variables ALWAYS confound the variable of interest being examined.
The worst morons on the planet are often PhDs. They've often lost all ability to reason.
I agree the shots are garbage. But analysis need to be kept transparent to avoid misrepresenting data which pharma and the regulators are guilty of.
The demographics of the vaccinated and unvaccinated are not the same - the unvaccinated are younger. The UK has about 68 million people, 30% of that is 20.2 million. If this unvaccinated group had a normal distribution reflective of the whole population it would expect about 8 deaths per 1000 population per year barring any disasters or vaccines. Over two years normal mortality would be about 325,000 deaths. If the unvaccinated 30% of the population only experienced 61,000 deaths, that would be a mortality rate of 1.5 per 1000 population or about 5x below normal morality. A mortality rate of 1.5 / 1000 is the normal mortality rate for the 40-49 year old demographic.
For any of these mortality comparisons to be definitive they have to compare each age cohort vaccinated against unvaccinated per 1000 population.
Let’s keep it real, the true story about the mRNA shots is bad enough, we don’t need to lose credibility misrepresenting the data.
Fair call. I think you need to post this comment at expose-news.com
A "normal2 distribution of the population and a 8/1000 death rate implies that 18% of the population is under 18 and 47% is between 18 and 65 and the balance of 15% over 65
It is ironic that "we don't need to lose credibility misrepresenting data " when the government not only misreprsents data but activley conceals it,
Peter, Was punching some quick numbers yesterday, using Alberto's (welcometheeagle) data and making some assumptions from NZ. You have for the UK something like 2% deaths in the vaxxed, 0.3% deaths unvaxxed, over a 3-year time. Wild guessing 50% (not the 95%) total NZ population vaxxed in NZ, came up with 1.67% for vaxx deaths over 3-years. The issue is shown clearly in Steve's presentation and Alberto's NZ dashboard curves, these death curves are still heading up, not down...how much longer can this be hidden?
The 30% figure is very misleading. It includes tons of people under 18 who due much, much slower than the older age groups. 75.8% of the over 18 have three shots. Somewhat higher percentages would have 2 shots and 1 shot. The vaccines are undoubtedly bad, it is just hard for us to quantify how bad because of the lack of all the necessary data. They are hiding the data because it is not good...
Hi Peter, the Monday videos are on Twitter or Dr Malone's website. Acc to Dr Malone, the Sgt of Arms blocked the film crews from filming, only 1/3 of attendees were allowed to enter meeting rm, video all hand held video. Here's one from Dr Mike Yeadon that was pre-recorded: Dr. Mike Yeadon's address to the Members of UK Parliament (4 December 2023) - https://x.com/_aussie17/status/1731978883069878374?s=20 - transcript is also posted. Hopefully someone will compile the entire set of 22 9-min. presentations.
But wait, any minute now. I can see a MORON "scientist" responding with:
"Did these numbers include an evaluation of OTHER variables such as race, income, gender, etc.?"
You see, the trendy thing to do these days, is to argue that UNLESS you "granulated" or "stratified" into a thousands different subsets, to "account for" all OTHER possible variables, (BESIDES vaccination status) then all other possible variables somehow became "confounding variables."
I'm actually engaged in this particular argument with a FREAK who says that a variable is always equivalent to a "confounding variable." He's SERIOUSLY trying to say that all variables ALWAYS confound the variable of interest being examined.
The worst morons on the planet are often PhDs. They've often lost all ability to reason.
I agree the shots are garbage. But analysis need to be kept transparent to avoid misrepresenting data which pharma and the regulators are guilty of.
The demographics of the vaccinated and unvaccinated are not the same - the unvaccinated are younger. The UK has about 68 million people, 30% of that is 20.2 million. If this unvaccinated group had a normal distribution reflective of the whole population it would expect about 8 deaths per 1000 population per year barring any disasters or vaccines. Over two years normal mortality would be about 325,000 deaths. If the unvaccinated 30% of the population only experienced 61,000 deaths, that would be a mortality rate of 1.5 per 1000 population or about 5x below normal morality. A mortality rate of 1.5 / 1000 is the normal mortality rate for the 40-49 year old demographic.
For any of these mortality comparisons to be definitive they have to compare each age cohort vaccinated against unvaccinated per 1000 population.
Let’s keep it real, the true story about the mRNA shots is bad enough, we don’t need to lose credibility misrepresenting the data.
Fair call. I think you need to post this comment at expose-news.com
A "normal2 distribution of the population and a 8/1000 death rate implies that 18% of the population is under 18 and 47% is between 18 and 65 and the balance of 15% over 65
It is ironic that "we don't need to lose credibility misrepresenting data " when the government not only misreprsents data but activley conceals it,
Peter, Was punching some quick numbers yesterday, using Alberto's (welcometheeagle) data and making some assumptions from NZ. You have for the UK something like 2% deaths in the vaxxed, 0.3% deaths unvaxxed, over a 3-year time. Wild guessing 50% (not the 95%) total NZ population vaxxed in NZ, came up with 1.67% for vaxx deaths over 3-years. The issue is shown clearly in Steve's presentation and Alberto's NZ dashboard curves, these death curves are still heading up, not down...how much longer can this be hidden?
The 30% figure is very misleading. It includes tons of people under 18 who due much, much slower than the older age groups. 75.8% of the over 18 have three shots. Somewhat higher percentages would have 2 shots and 1 shot. The vaccines are undoubtedly bad, it is just hard for us to quantify how bad because of the lack of all the necessary data. They are hiding the data because it is not good...
Yep. The truth is out there and is being censored. The truth belongs to us, not those who do the censoring. We pay for it.
These Covid deaths usually just mean a positive test and dying of other things possibly related to jabs. Which ever way one looks at this, jabs bad.
Hi Peter, the Monday videos are on Twitter or Dr Malone's website. Acc to Dr Malone, the Sgt of Arms blocked the film crews from filming, only 1/3 of attendees were allowed to enter meeting rm, video all hand held video. Here's one from Dr Mike Yeadon that was pre-recorded: Dr. Mike Yeadon's address to the Members of UK Parliament (4 December 2023) - https://x.com/_aussie17/status/1731978883069878374?s=20 - transcript is also posted. Hopefully someone will compile the entire set of 22 9-min. presentations.
Most of them have been jabbed. THIS is what's "ailing" humanity right now.