When academics write conclusions that are worded as inconclusive and provisional or less than provisional, using words like "suggests," do they know that most people are not critical thinkers and know not even one milligram of nuance about anything, and they just jump to conclusions and argue that someone has proved that XYZ because of their misleading paper?
What I want to know is whether academics simply engage in accidental propaganda or they actively and knowingly produce subtle forms of propaganda.
The speculation that age would make all the difference was... incorrect. It doesn't seem to be that age dependent after all. You insisted on the 'incorrect' 'suggestion' after he cleared up the age thingy and the withholding of the data. Well, directness has its pitfalls. But maybe there are other confounders, who knows. Let's put some pressure on releasing the data. I think the Danes did a good step forward in that, despite the limitations. Pfizer has something to explain.
I just did, really. I see the problem of missing correction for age (3 reasons) and they reply with the percentages of 70+ in each trendline. How unlikely that may seem: if these figures are correct, that looks like a valid counter argument. Maybe there's something wrong with the data. We've seen that before (in Germany).
They are using reported AEs. It is quite possible that older age groups were less likely to report, or have their AEs taken into honest consideration by their doctors
This is about the difference between batches. It's not plausible that the older age groups were more or less likely to report, depending on their batch number.
Yes, and the batches were distributed in order of age. First were the elderly and front-line hospital workers. Then they opened up more of the population by decreasing age groups. The batches that were manufactured later in time would have been distributed to a higher proportion of younger people for the first 2 doses.
For the older age cohorts - they are also more likely to have negative health effects in general. This gives their doctor (who they would report an AE to) reason to dismiss any AE as a natural cause instead of jab-induced. This is on top of the massive pressures already being applied in their industry to not report already.
This would give the appearance of a lower reported % of AEs in higher age groups as presented by the researchers of this paper. However, Denis and his team have done a great job at using the all-cause mortality data to suggest there is an increase in AE risk with age.
Also - I would also expect the older generation to be less inclined to report an AE just due to their lower access to technology/information and more self-reliant attitudes in general
You insist that the earlier batches were given to more elderly people. As you may have missed, the Danish researchers replied that all 3 'cohorts' show a similar percentage of people over 70 years of age.
This similarity between the 3 cohorts contradicts your assumption regarding orders and ages. Also the age-dependent likeliness to report shouldn't differ between the 3 groups (an earlier point I made).
I feel that we can't just dismiss this information from the Danish researchers.
And of course I totally agree with you that Denis and his team are doing a great job! I wrote my first article about excess deaths and the possible relation with vaccinations in august 2021. I'm very happy that the subject has gained a lot of traction since then and is now taken seriously by splendid researchers all over the world.
I found this article and its reference to Jessica Rose's analysis convincing. Before this, I was totally "bought into" the Schmeling et al. analysis. Now I find myself in agreement with Denis.
Steve Kirsch has done a study of nursing home data that showed different nursing homes had different outcomes which may be due to different lot numbers. Given your analysis that the difference in lot number outcomes was primarily due to age dependences, and nursing home data may offer a fairly well stratified age grouping, could you test your thesis using SK’s nursing home data? He provides data spreadsheets. “US nursing home data shows clearly that the COVID vaccines made things much worse
You might like
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/urgent-please-remove-all-reference
OK, yes, good that you did that.
Scientific proof the Covid 'pandemic' was a hoax? Research by Dr. Denis Rancourt https://rumble.com/v2z6yqi-there-was-no-pandemic-a-bold-statement-yes-but-first-view-the-evidence-then.html
When academics write conclusions that are worded as inconclusive and provisional or less than provisional, using words like "suggests," do they know that most people are not critical thinkers and know not even one milligram of nuance about anything, and they just jump to conclusions and argue that someone has proved that XYZ because of their misleading paper?
What I want to know is whether academics simply engage in accidental propaganda or they actively and knowingly produce subtle forms of propaganda.
The speculation that age would make all the difference was... incorrect. It doesn't seem to be that age dependent after all. You insisted on the 'incorrect' 'suggestion' after he cleared up the age thingy and the withholding of the data. Well, directness has its pitfalls. But maybe there are other confounders, who knows. Let's put some pressure on releasing the data. I think the Danes did a good step forward in that, despite the limitations. Pfizer has something to explain.
Eeek... Maybe read it all again. :)
I just did, really. I see the problem of missing correction for age (3 reasons) and they reply with the percentages of 70+ in each trendline. How unlikely that may seem: if these figures are correct, that looks like a valid counter argument. Maybe there's something wrong with the data. We've seen that before (in Germany).
They are using reported AEs. It is quite possible that older age groups were less likely to report, or have their AEs taken into honest consideration by their doctors
or just died
This is about the difference between batches. It's not plausible that the older age groups were more or less likely to report, depending on their batch number.
Yes, and the batches were distributed in order of age. First were the elderly and front-line hospital workers. Then they opened up more of the population by decreasing age groups. The batches that were manufactured later in time would have been distributed to a higher proportion of younger people for the first 2 doses.
For the older age cohorts - they are also more likely to have negative health effects in general. This gives their doctor (who they would report an AE to) reason to dismiss any AE as a natural cause instead of jab-induced. This is on top of the massive pressures already being applied in their industry to not report already.
This would give the appearance of a lower reported % of AEs in higher age groups as presented by the researchers of this paper. However, Denis and his team have done a great job at using the all-cause mortality data to suggest there is an increase in AE risk with age.
Also - I would also expect the older generation to be less inclined to report an AE just due to their lower access to technology/information and more self-reliant attitudes in general
You insist that the earlier batches were given to more elderly people. As you may have missed, the Danish researchers replied that all 3 'cohorts' show a similar percentage of people over 70 years of age.
This similarity between the 3 cohorts contradicts your assumption regarding orders and ages. Also the age-dependent likeliness to report shouldn't differ between the 3 groups (an earlier point I made).
I feel that we can't just dismiss this information from the Danish researchers.
And of course I totally agree with you that Denis and his team are doing a great job! I wrote my first article about excess deaths and the possible relation with vaccinations in august 2021. I'm very happy that the subject has gained a lot of traction since then and is now taken seriously by splendid researchers all over the world.
I found this article and its reference to Jessica Rose's analysis convincing. Before this, I was totally "bought into" the Schmeling et al. analysis. Now I find myself in agreement with Denis.
It would be great to know the age data, for sure.
Thanks for the insight.
Steve Kirsch has done a study of nursing home data that showed different nursing homes had different outcomes which may be due to different lot numbers. Given your analysis that the difference in lot number outcomes was primarily due to age dependences, and nursing home data may offer a fairly well stratified age grouping, could you test your thesis using SK’s nursing home data? He provides data spreadsheets. “US nursing home data shows clearly that the COVID vaccines made things much worse
CMS publishes record-level nursing home data by week. When you analyze this data different ways, the conclusion is always the same: the vaccines were a disaster, increasing the death rate from COVID.“https://kirschsubstack.com/p/us-nursing-home-data-shows-clearly?utm_source=%2Finbox&utm_medium=reader2”
It's great to belong to the disposable class.
https://open.substack.com/pub/dee746/p/the-first-to-be-vaxxed-were-sacrificed?r=1g1b1r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web