Vaccinated Hospitalised for Non-Covid Reasons at FIVE Times the Rate of the Unvaccinated, U.K. Government Data Show
Over the past 15 months we’ve had a barrage of statistics presented to us shouting about how great the vaccines are at preventing hospitalisation from (or with) Covid. However, these statistics have been light on detail on how they were calculated and we’ve not seen much sight at all of the raw data that the statistics were based upon.
Until now. In April, a paper was published by the UKHSA (currently in pre-print, which means that it hasn’t yet undergone the usual peer-review process) on its statistical analysis of a selection of hospitalisation data by vaccination status. The intent of this paper was to support its statements that the vaccines prevent hospitalisation. However, the paper also includes the raw data upon which the UKHSA statistics were derived, and these data tell a very different story to that presented by the UKHSA. The data show:
- Far higher accident and emergency admission rates for reasons other than Covid in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated.
- Much higher rates of hospitalisation due to non-Covid acute respiratory illness in the vaccinated.
- Even higher A&E admissions and hospitalisations in the double-vaccinated (not boosted).
- Even where the data suggest that the vaccines offer some protection (the risk of admission to intensive care resulting from Covid infection) the results look like they might be an artefact created by the assumptions used by the UKHSA.
In addition, the data strongly suggest that the UKHSA is using an inappropriate method in its statistical analysis of vaccine effectiveness – the test-negative case-control (TNCC) method. It is likely that it has been significantly overestimating the effectiveness of the vaccines at preventing hospitalisation.
The data released by the UKHSA and expounded below aren’t proof that the vaccines have caused a great deal of harm and injury to the population, but they do raise a huge red-flag that something is amiss. Urgent investigations need to be undertaken to clarify the situation regarding the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines.
A note on the Test-Negative Case-Control (TNCC) method
The basic concept of measuring vaccine efficacy (in a trial) or effectiveness (based on real-world results) is relatively straightforward – simply calculate the ratio of the proportion of the vaccinated that get infected (or hospitalised) with the proportion of the unvaccinated that get infected (or hospitalised). However, while this simple method can work well, it can be affected by differences in the types of people vaccinated and unvaccinated and more powerful methods are preferred.
The ‘gold standard’ for measurement of vaccine efficacy/effectiveness (VE) is the prospective matched cohort design. This is quite simple in concept – you simply divide the study into a number of groups of individuals with similar characteristics, based on the vulnerability to the disease and the typical effectiveness of vaccines. Matched cohort studies nearly always split into groups of similar age and sex, and will usually include many other factors thought to be related to risk of disease. For example, for Covid these might include race, BMI and whether the individual has diabetes – all factors identified in early data as being relevant risk factors.
The ‘prospective’ part means that the individuals are placed into their groups before they are given their doses of vaccine, but this isn’t the only way – it is possible to undertake a retrospective study where people are placed into their different groups after they are vaccinated (potentially some time after).
The problem with matched cohort trials is that they’re rather expensive and also require you to know what factors to control for when calculating vaccine efficacy/effectiveness. This led to the development of the test-negative case-control method. With this method you compare the ratio of positive (have the disease) to negative (don’t have the disease) tests results for a given condition (e.g. admission to hospital). This method, when applied correctly, automatically corrects for many biases, such as propensity to be tested or seek medical care, and is both accurate and removes much of the complexity and costs associated with matched-cohort studies. The important part is the ‘when applied correctly’ – if it is applied incorrectly then you end up with inaccurate and potentially misleading results.
The UKHSA data – Emergency admissions
Let’s apply the TNCC method to the data in the UKHSA paper on vaccine effectiveness at preventing hospitalisation. Fortunately, it offers raw data in its supplementary document. I’ll start with hospitalisations ‘with symptomatic Covid’ for those aged over 65 who presented to A&E for reasons other than accident/injury (Table S12 in the paper), and to keep things simple will look at ‘any vaccine’ (i.e., any number of doses) vs ‘no vaccine’ and only for the Omicron period (the data covers the period from 22nd November to 2nd February).
To show the TNCC method in action we can use the figures in the table above to gain an estimate of VE using the TNCC methodology:
VE = 100 × (1 – (873÷140,931) ÷ (103÷1,705) ) = 90%
Thus even with this simplified case where we only consider the protection offered by the vaccines to the ‘vaccinated group’ (with any number of doses, though most are boosted in the over-65 age group), we can see that TNCC estimates that the vaccines offer significant protection from hospitalisation, around 90%.
But wait – those raw numbers for A&E presentation by vaccination status look more than a little suspicious. We know that during the study period approximately 10 million individuals aged over 65 had been vaccinated with at least one dose of vaccine, and around 600,000 remained unvaccinated. Thus we can present the raw figures above as a ‘per 100,000’ to remove the effect of the size of the vaccinated vs unvaccinated groups.
Wow. According to the raw data the vaccinated are presenting to A&E without having Covid at around five times the rate of the unvaccinated. Sure, there are more hospitalisations with symptomatic Covid in the unvaccinated, but only by eight per 100,000.
In Table 2 above I have also included an estimate of vaccine effectiveness based on these raw data. Now, I’m being a bit naughty here as the data aren’t meant to be used this way – this is why I’ve used the UKHSA trick of greying out the text in the hope that no-one will notice. Nevertheless, for population-wide data this shouldn’t be too far out.
Now, I’m sure that epidemiologists up and down the land are shouting that the data shouldn’t be used in this way – and they’re right. It certainly doesn’t prove that the vaccinated are getting ill because of the vaccine. There are a number of reasons why this result might be found:
- The vaccinated might be much more likely to be hypochondriacs/malingerers and thus be going to A&E even though they’re not ill at all. More realistically, the vaccinated might have a lower threshold for the severity of symptoms required to get medical assistance at A&E. If this was the case then there would be vaccinated individuals presenting themselves to A&E where the average unvaccinated person with similar symptoms wouldn’t.
- The vaccinated might be much more unhealthy in general than the unvaccinated.
However, the sheer scale of the differences between the A&E visits not-for-Covid is huge, and given that these are population-wide figures I’d suggest that it couldn’t all be explained either by health seeking behaviours or because of general health – but I’d accept they they could certainly contribute.
Nevertheless, the TNCC assumption would be that the vaccinated are simply the type of people that are five times more likely to go to A&E (whether because of differences in behaviour or health) and thus they’re also going to be five times more likely to attend A&E with symptomatic Covid. The researchers would therefore adjust the figures to allow for this difference between the groups, boosting VE. I’d suggest that this latter point isn’t necessarily the case – it is very often the case that behaviours aren’t proportional like this, for example, just because an individual chooses to drive at 40mph in a 60mph zone, doesn’t mean he or she will drive at 20mph in a 30mph zone.
The alternative explanation:
- Some of the visits to A&E might be due to a reaction / side-effect / complication of the vaccines.
- The vaccines might have an impact on the immune system for diseases other than Covid, resulting in increased illness and thus presentation to A&E.
Just to be clear – we don’t know whether the vaccinated are seeing much higher admissions rates to A&E due to a vaccine effect or simply because the vaccinated have different behaviours and general health to the unvaccinated. However, anecdotal data on pressures on A&E services and on the general health of the nation (‘worst cold ever’) suggest that the vaccines may be at least partially responsible.
More on the emergency admissions data
The UKHSA paper also includes incidence by vaccination status (Table S12 again). We have to be a bit careful here as we don’t know when the individuals were vaccinated, but we do know that the incidence of Covid varied substantially through the period. Without information on which individuals were vaccinated on which date we run the risk of introducing a bias. However, we do have information about some aspects of the vaccinated population:
- Around 600,000 individuals over the age of 65 remain unvaccinated, and this hasn’t changed much for over six months (this is why it was safe to use this assumption in the prior analysis).
- The vaccination data suggest that around 90,000 individuals over the age of 65 took the first dose of vaccine during spring 2021 but didn’t receive the second dose.
- The vaccination data suggest that around 440,000 individuals over the age of 65 took their first and second doses of vaccine according to the vaccination schedule (i.e., early/late spring 2021) but didn’t receive the booster/third dose.
Table S12 splits out hospitalisation data for those vaccinated with their first dose more than 28 days before their positive test, and vaccinated with their second dose more than 175 days before their positive test. Thus we can tentatively include these specific data in our analysis – individuals that had their first dose (only) or second dose (no booster) some time before the study period started.
Two points immediately stand out.
First, the hospitalisation rate with symptomatic confirmed Covid in those that had a single dose of vaccine ‘some time before’ the study period is similar to the hospitalisation rate in the unvaccinated but their A&E presentation rate for ‘not Covid’ is 2.5 times the rate of the unvaccinated. The TNCC assumption would be that the similarity in the symptomatic Covid rate is a fluke and what’s important is that on average they’re simply the type of individuals that would go to A&E more often and if that group of individuals hadn’t been vaccinated they’d have had 2.5 times more hospitalisation rates ‘with Covid’. I suggest that it is far more likely that the single-dose individuals have no vaccine induced protection against hospitalisation but that they are very much more likely to attend A&E.
Second, the A&E attendance rate of the double-vaccinated (only) without Covid is very similar to the A&E attendance rate of the vaccinated (any dose). However, their hospitalisation rate ‘with Covid’ is 2.5 times greater than that of the vaccinated (any dose) – the double-dosed that didn’t take their booster appear to have the ‘worst of both worlds’: increased A&E attendance (non-Covid) and increased admission rates ‘with Covid’.
Summary so far:
- The UKHSA has provided us with some raw data on hospitalisations by vaccination status.
- Examination of the data suggests that ‘with Covid’ hospitalisation rates in the unvaccinated aren’t too far from those in the vaccinated (any dose). However, non-Covid admission rates for A&E are much much higher in the vaccinated (any dose) than the unvaccinated.
- The TNCC approach would suggest that the vaccinated are simply ‘the type of people’ more likely to attend A&E and that the vaccines really do offer substantial protection against hospitalisation ‘with Covid’.
- Examination of other data suggests that the single dosed have ‘with Covid’ rates similar to the unvaccinated but 2.5 greater A&E attendance (without Covid) and that the double dosed (only) appear to have the worst situation of all – much higher Covid hospitalisation and much higher non-Covid admission to A&E.
Admission rates for acute respiratory illness
Table S7 in the UKHSA paper presents data on hospitalisations after an A&E visit where the individual had symptomatic Covid (again, Omicron, over 65). This sounds like the condition for the previous table, but in that table the ‘Covid negative’ column counted all non-accident or injury A&E visits, whereas the data in Table S7 only consider those that had symptoms similar to Covid.
I’ll present only the rates this time (feel free to look up the raw numbers yourself).
That’s perhaps even more interesting. In terms of the overall ratios it is a similar situation to the previous table – approximately 40% lower hospitalisations with symptomatic Covid in the vaccinated compared with the unvaccinated, but around four-fold higher rates for admission with symptoms that look like Covid, but aren’t Covid. But the interesting part is in the detail:
- Even though the absolute rates are very much lower, the unvaccinated still have the lowest admission rate to A&E. However, the difference for the data in the table above is that a doctor had assessed the individual and determined that he or she was ill enough to warrant hospitalisation. Thus the data in the table above are not influenced by the ‘symptom severity threshold’ that different individuals have before they’ll go to A&E. This is particularly of note because it suggests that the very high rates of presentation to A&E in the vaccinated in Table 1 and 2 are unlikely to be simply because of the vaccinated are more likely to go to A&E for ‘more trivial reasons’ than the unvaccinated – it looks like the vaccinated as a group really are more likely to be ill.
- Over twice as many of the unvaccinated are hospitalised with symptomatic Covid than with a condition that looks like Covid but isn’t (17.5 vs 6.5 hospitalisations per 100,000). However, twice as many of the vaccinated are hospitalised with ‘looks like Covid but isn’t’ than ‘with Covid’ (23 vs 11 hospitalisations per 100,000).
This latter point is important – one of the potential problems with vaccines (in general) is viral interference, that is, that a vaccine changes the immune response to other infectious diseases. Is it the case that the vaccines are significantly increasing the incidence of other respiratory infections? I note that last autumn/winter we had a mini-epidemic of what was popularly called ‘the worst cold ever’ – is this related?
However, the hospitalisation rate for symptomatic Covid might be more complex than it looks. In the UKHSA paper it appeared to define hospitalisation ‘with’ Covid to 14 days after the first positive test; if the individual presented to A&E after this 14 day period his or her data was excluded. It is possible that vaccination delays (rather than prevents) disease progression, in which case some of the hospitalisations with a condition that ‘looks like Covid but isn’t’ might in fact be due to a Covid infection that took longer than 14 days to develop to the point where hospitalisation was necessary. In addition, if the vaccinated were more likely to test themselves earlier in the progression of the disease then they might also be more likely to ‘run out of time’ and present themselves after the 14 day period has finished.
There’s another interesting aspect of these data – overall, the unvaccinated appeared to get around 24 hospitalisations per 100,000 of an illness that ‘looked like Covid’ (whether it was Covid or not) whereas the vaccinated appeared to get around 34 hospitalisations per 100,000. By this measure, vaccination is associated with an increased risk of a serious respiratory illness (whether Covid or not).
Again, the single-dosed appear to have the same risk of Covid as the unvaccinated, but increased attendance with looks like Covid but isn’t, and the double-dosed appear to have the ‘worst of both worlds’ – increased rates of attendance both with Covid and with looks like Covid but isn’t.
One more point – comparing Table 4 with Table 3, there appear to be far fewer admissions to A&E with Covid than without Covid. This indicates the current pressures on NHS A&E services are not related to Covid infections but ‘other things’.
The UKHSA data – Secondary uses data
The UKHSA paper also offers data using the NHS ‘secondary uses dataset’ (Table S10). This covers all hospitalisations and offers more granularity on the reasons for the hospitalisation and the level of treatment offered. The authors use a selection of the full dataset, where the admission was for an acute respiratory illness, and for several levels of seriousness.
First up are the data on hospitalisations for admissions for an acute respiratory illness where the individual was discharged the same day.
Two aspects stand out:
- The rate of serious Covid infection that warranted admission into hospital but that was not serious enough for an overnight stay was higher in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated. This suggests that the vaccines increase the risk of being ‘somewhat unwell from Covid’. Note that this isn’t simply ‘infected’ – these individuals were deemed by experts to be sufficiently at risk of their illness to be admitted to hospital, even if they didn’t pass the threshold for an overnight observation/treatment.
- The hospitalisation rate of ‘somewhat serious but not Covid’ acute respiratory illness in the vaccinated was around twice as great as that in the unvaccinated, and even higher in those having only one or two doses of vaccine
This time we see that overall the risk of ‘somewhat serious’ acute respiratory illness (whether due to Covid or not) appears to be similar in the vaccinated and unvaccinated, and that those having taken one or two doses of vaccine (only) appear worst off.
What about a more serious symptomatic infection – perhaps acute respiratory illness requiring several days of hospitalisation and supplementary oxygen?
Here, at last, we appear to see some benefit from the vaccines – the unvaccinated appear to be rather more likely to be hospitalised for a few days following Covid infection (acute respiratory illness requiring supplementary oxygen), and even though they also appear to be less likely to be similarly hospitalised without Covid, this isn’t by so great a margin to remove the protective effect of vaccination.
But yet, I keep returning to the matter of the 14 day limit after the positive test. Individuals typically get to the point where they require supplementary oxygen some time after infection. If the unvaccinated aren’t testing themselves at the point where symptoms start but the vaccinated are, then they’ll be relatively more likely to get to the stage where oxygen is required within that 14 day period. Any delay in symptomatic disease in the vaccinated would only make this effect worse. Is the supposed effectiveness of the vaccines at preventing severe disease simply an artefact arising due to the fact that it takes longer to get to the point where the symptoms are severe, or due to the unvaccinated being more test-averse?
The UKHSA doesn’t report on the basis for the use of a 14 day limit – I’d very much like to see supporting data, or a sensitivity analysis in its paper, comparing rates for 14, 21 and 28 days after the positive test.
Conclusions
The UKHSA has at long last published raw data on hospitalisation rates by vaccine status, for those infected with Covid as well as those that aren’t. The results are very concerning, showing significantly higher A&E admission rates in the vaccinated for reasons other than Covid, and much less difference in admission rates for symptomatic Covid in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated than suggested by the estimates of vaccine effectiveness published by the UKHSA.
What I’ve shown here isn’t proof that the vaccines are causing harm – but it is a huge red-flag that strongly suggests that there might be a serious problem, and certainly indicates that a proper analysis of illness after vaccination needs to be undertaken urgently.
Furthermore, the significant differences in the ‘negative test’ arm of the UKHSA data suggest that the test-negative case-control method is not appropriate, and that a full retrospective matched-cohort study into vaccine effectiveness and safety should be undertaken.
Amanuensis is an ex-academic and senior Government scientist. He blogs at Bartram’s Folly.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
PLEASE REPEAT AFTER ME ‘THEY ARE NOT VACCINES’ ‘NOT ONE PERSON IN THE UK HAS BEEN VACCINATED’
THEN GO TO YOUR ROOM
I used to think “semantics”, but after listening to a US lawyer, explaining why calling them vaccines allowed them to be mandated (referencing the fines issued for non compliance with smallpox vaccination), I’m in agreement with you Cecil. Allowing them to be called vaccines has facilitated a world of coercion that doesn’t exist for any other medical intervention.
In the context of Covid 19 ‘vaccine’ is a word handed down to us by the Behavioural Insights Team
To use the word ‘vaccine’ in this context is to validated the work of the BHI
I think we can safely bet on the fact they wouldn’t have had the uptake had they called them something other than “vaccines”. And they *definitely* wouldn’t have had the uptake if it weren’t for the massive psyop the government embarked on. At least we are seeing a gradual decline in numbers partaking of subsequent injections offered. This is surely a heartening sign that people are wising up.
The psychologists knew full well that if the jabs were called Genetic Modification they’d have had very limited uptake. “Vaccine” is just one lie of many.
Isn’t it now getting easier to use the term “the Big Lie” to cover absolutely everything we see and hear from HMG and the media?
I just call it bollocks, fuckwittery and claptrap, myself.
But then I always was a bit of a rebel….
Too late for millions.
New coercion /inducement story recounted by a reliable friend : a prisoner known to her, ‘inside’ for soft drug offences and other circumstantial, potential criminality reports that he was told by prison staff that if he took the ‘vaccine’ he would be let out at once.
In addition, he ‘alleged’ that every morning a Warder came to his cell with a syringe on a tray and offered him the same deal …which he refused.
So what do we make of this?
Prisoners are the low hanging fruit aren’t they. Hard to tell if they will quietly give up trying to inject the remaining hold outs though. I can’t quite decide whether it’s over or not. Momentum seems to have been lost.
Well, that’s not giving informed consent, is it?
Not exactly, no.
But hey – “prisoners”!
The sad fact is that millions were not informed but consented anyway.
“So what do we make of this?”
That it’s just another ‘anecdotal story’ without proof? The name of the prisoner, and the names of the prison staff offering him ‘the vaccine’ would be a good start… which prison?
Sorry, completely implausible. Courts order releases not prison staff.
I do not use the word vaccines for these vials of poison. As some on here will recognise I prefer to use ‘injections’ or ‘perforations.’
Most definitely if they had been called “gene therapy altering injections” take-up would have been remarkably different. At an educated guess might I suggest that take-up would have been somewhat reduced.
The word most commonly used by authorities was “jab”.
It’s almost as if some wanted a get-out clause.
‘We told you they were jabs, nothing more! You decided they were vaccines!’
Same. Or I say “vaccines”. Jabs or injections is how I refer to them usually.
At least we are seeing a gradual decline in numbers partaking of subsequent injections offered. This is surely a heartening sign that people are wising up.
I think they are, too.
If we are going to ensure that the horrors of this whole episode do not become the norm for our societies, we need to have the jabbed on side.
The jabbed can be vital witnesses for the prosecution, in all aspects of what happened (including the psyop to which they were subjected and how it made them feel).
They are our potential allies, and they should be regarded and treated accordingly.
But most people are self-absorbed. If they (or those close to them) haven’t been injured, then they won’t be interested in rocking the boat ”for the common good” – or at least, very few.
Absolutely. They knew it was going to divide us, but they didn’t stop with their divisory methods, therefore it was deliberate. Are they hoping now, that the division will remain?
In my opinion, we must not let that happen. In the beginning there was no way I was going to take this poison, and family/friends were getting angry at me. At first I argued back, and came near to losing friends and family. So I just had to give them space to see for themselves in their own time, revealing small amounts of knowledge now and again what I was finding out.
Being a retired hypnotherapist I could see they were hypnotised and resistance to a hypnotised person leads to ever stronger persistence of their beliefs.
Just like they were nudged into it by the propaganda (sometimes friendly and appearing compassionate), we need to nudge back in the same way.
With truth and understanding, they are, and I believe continue to be waking up. But they need to be ‘ready’ and willing to see both sides and then decide for themselves. They will be in a position then to know what is lies and what is truth.
Allso, the rules for developing & testing “vaccines” are different than for “not vaccines”. Can’t think why. . .
Well exactly. My understanding is that a vaccine confers immunity so that you don’t contract, get ill from or pass on the virus you’re wanting protection from, ( like duh!! ) hence getting a flipping jab for something in the first place. This pseudo vaccine achieves none of those fundamental objectives. We’ve had enough redefining of words and terms since this started so I’m in no way going to accept a redefinition of “vaccine” or “immunity” like it’s “the new normal”!
You do have a point — in particular, many people took these medical products thinking that they were ‘the same as’ traditional vaccines. They’re pulling the same stunt now with promoting boosters, saying that they’re the same as the boosters for influenza (they’re not).
But it isn’t the main problem here — the main question we should have is regarding the safety and effectiveness of the ‘vaccines’.
Agreed. And these products were also ‘sold’ to people on the ( now debunked because it was untrue ) basis that they were 95% effective at protecting them from getting Covid. Now the data show us that it is an abysmally low figure ( largely due to variant escape ) and any small ‘benefit’, due to a boost in antibodies, is very transient and short-lived. Obviously you wouldn’t be deriving any actual ‘benefit’ in taking these products anyway if you were never at serious risk from Covid in the first place either. A lot of underhand shenanigans involved by Big Pharma and the powers that be leading to a rather duped public, many of whom delude themselves that they’re any better off for their compliant behaviour.
The latest Pfizer document release from their “trials” indicates a RRR of 12% in the first 7 days & thereafter a RRR of 0.84%
The UKHSA data makes the gene altering toxin look good in comparison!
Have you taken a look at the raw data?
As far as I know the actually raw data is not available. If I was to release a layer and suggestions asked for raw data and I declined, the paper would be pulled.
Don’t overlook the other little “problem”, being the intense pressure to be jabbed, which effectively turned into compulsion in many cases.
…and the downright coercion – no jab, no job – that intensely pressurised many unhappy recipients of the shite in a syringe to ‘step forward and bare their arms’ – in order to work, to pay bills and put bread on the table. My blood boils every time I remember Matt Hancock’s smirking face when he urged the public to ‘do their duty’. Lying, cheating barsteward! I feel some sympathy towards his children who have to bear the shame that he is their father.
Indeed. I would think most people on this site realise and agree that this chemical concoction is not a vaccine.
But if you start smacking people around the face with that particular point, they will simply turn off and put you down as a conspiracy nutter/flat earther.
First and foremost is getting people to realise that the vaxxes are neither safe nor effective. Once that has been accepted, then is the time to point out that most of the corona vaccines are not and never were ‘vaccines’ and how important the renaming of the product was in getting people to enter the showers.
“Getting people to realise” – hasn’t worked very well so far.
Is it any longer worth the effort.
Everyone must undertake their own ‘journey of truth’ or not, as the case may be.
Leading horses to water comes to mind.
I think it’s worth the effort. They will be back in the autumn with the next ‘booster’, probably also with their apartheid app. It will be sold as a once-a-year jab just like the flu jab and a lot of people will fall for it all over again.
So yes, it’s worth it to help people to see the vaxx is neither safe nor effective.
I agree.
By the way, have you seen the spike to ‘substantial increase’ in excess mortality in England for those aged 75-85 at the point where they started the spring boosters for those aged >75? I’ve pointed it out here: https://bartram.substack.com/p/increased-deaths-in-england-for-the?s=w
This matches increases in excess mortality seen with prior vaccine drives, but the data this time are much cleaner:
Yes, I had seen this. It prompted me to try to find Dutch figures. Initially, the only thing I found was the RIVM (public health authority) saying there was significant excess mortality in the week of 14 April – 20 April. I mentioned this earlier this week, when I mistakenly said the 2nd booster started end of March. It started end Feb/beginning of March. The excess for the week mentioned is apparently primarily in the 75+ group. I did another search just now and came across a website of a man called Maurice de Hond, an opinion pollster, who has been critical of the corona circus in NL. It included an article that the Netherlands government corona dashboard had ‘corrected’ the excess mortality figures, which initially had not shown an increase over the upper limit of the predicted mortality. The site published an article on 2 May saying excess deaths were being undercounted – the corona dashboard mortality numbers were corrected on 3 May with the admission that the upper limit had been estimated too high. The Dutch goverment corona website now shows excess mortality as of 28 March and continuing for 4 weeks. Although not showing excess in the… Read more »
No surprise.
Yes ” a lot of people”, but they’ll have a hard job re-engineering sufficient fear and panic, which is what I believe accounted for the huge uptake of jabs first time around, in the public that will ensure the same amount get jabbed once more. We now have a LOT of scientific evidence which works in our favour. If people are that thick they *choose* to ignore that then there’s no helping them. Let them get on with it, I won’t be crying when it all ends in tears for the saps.
Those who cannot see by now are simply refusing to see at all.
It is the long term consequences of the Gene Therapy that they seem incapable of understanding – this is a slow burn immune system destroyer – they are still arguing that it stopped them getting “bad Covid”. All the evidence has been spelled out in the simplest language over and over again by very concerned/alarmed senior virologists around the world .
Having decided to take the shot, so many are just defending their ‘choice’ rather than looking at the growing mountain of data on adverse, long term and possibly fatal effects and angrily questioning the honesty of those in authority who told them so misleadingly, over and over again that was “just an ordinary vaccine”.
The late Luc Montagnier, the most Senior Virologist in France and a Nobel Prize winner, who oversaw dozens of safe vaccine roll-outs in France, summed it up when he said:
“These are not vaccines, they are poisons”
If Whitty’s opinion is preferred to his then arguing with them seems pointless to me. Time will tell who is right of course.
Agreed. Certainly we cannot help those who do not wish to be helped and deliberately choose to remain willfully ignorant. I’m tired and bored with being a broken record. To micro-manage another ‘competent’ adult is just tedious in the extreme.
I understand the “wilful ignorance”.
.
Those who have already been injected – the millions upon millions – can’t un-inject themselves.
I don’t mention the dangers, because it’s only gong to alarm and distress them. Where I can perhaps prevent someone from taking one of the “boosters” I do my best, but even there I confine myself to saying that they are useless.
Those I know well don’t want to talk about the subject at all. I have the feeling (it’s no more than that), that they are uneasy. The jab not only doesn’t prevent them from infection or infecting others, it might just be very unsafe.
Who wants to live with hopeless anger? Who wants to know that they have been poisoned with something for which there appears to be no antidote?
Amongst the many crimes in this whole terrible episode is the fact that the manufacturers and their agents must have known that the injected would not want to read of the dangers once the deed had been done.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it think ;).
Re your last para – NO.
The word “vaccine” has an emotive association. People inherently believe that a vaccine is positive, it will do good and cannot harm.
These current injections are the exact opposite and if they were named appropriately then people might be tempted to do their own research.
Persisting with the use of vaccine simply reinforces their cuddliness and promotes their continued misuse; and uptake.
The power of language as Orwell made abundantly and repeatedly clear.
It is a fair point.
As a ‘scientific term’ there could be a case for calling them vaccines.
But the general public don’t view the world in such a way, and I’d accept that really they could have called these ‘medical products’ something else to avoid this confusion.
Just to be clear. Nothing stops people contracting a virus, it’s what the body does with it that makes transmission more, or less likely.
Good point – not often made!
See above reply.
Just to be clear, I’m using the word “contract” in the context of “catching and becoming ill as a result”. I could have contracted Covid now but I’m walking around fit as a butcher’s dog, happily asymptomatic, but a PCR might tell me otherwise. I’m sure you got my meaning and I’ve no interest in people being pedantic or resident ‘Fact Checkers’ preoccupied with one-upmanship.
It’s become a grim form of entertainment for my wife and I watching jabbed family members catch the disease, then claim they are still glad they got jabbed and their jab definitely worked because they didn’t go to hospital or die, even though they know of no one who was hospitalised or died of the disease before the jabs were rolled out. This would all be hilarious if it weren’t so twisted and evil.
What’s strange is that it’s not just the Labour Sheeple like that. That wouldn’t surprise me, given their total belief in climate nonsense. But plenty of 60ish Conservatives, presumably with a healthy sense of caution inside them, were completely bowled over too.
I live in one of the safest Conservative seats going, but I was truly amazed how many believed it all as if they were having their BCG all over again.
So very true. “It would have been so much worse” is an oft parroted phrase uttered by so many in absolute confidence. Quite how they can possibly know this is just one of many thought processes I completely fail to fathom. Even the claim they’ve ‘caught covid’ is very much open to debate in my view.
It is a ‘cop out’ phrase because they cannot face any other response.
The honest response might just be ” I have made a dreadful mistake but it was not my fault, I was mislead by those I trusted! “
This does appear to be the pattern they picked up from the ongoing vax propaganda
But then you and your wife, both unjabbed, are there as the inconvenient truth that, actually, you guys haven’t been hospitalized due to Covid so they’re kidding themselves if they think they’ve gained any advantage by being jabbed. You guys are the ‘control group’. Reality bites! LOL To me it sounds like your family are flailing around, desperately trying to justify their decision to themselves and anybody else who will listen. Just let them get on with it and you both can retain your status as the elephants in the room. They can do with that knowledge as they please.
Exactly! Don’t stop telling this to those who tell you they’ve been ‘vaccinated’ – they haven’t.
They’ve been injected, a bit like a junkie shooting up on smack.
Hasn’t the meaning of “vaccine” now been changed by the CDC? The word “immunity” has been replaced with other words like “protection” and ” immune response”! Double plus good!
As all the pronouncements and claims by these organisations are meaningless let them call it what they like.
We are in the twilight world of Tractor Production statistics in Stalinist Russia – the point being that no-one but the “Party Workers” either listens to or believes them!
Sheep still bleating for more and telling their tales of how the ‘vaccines’ saved them from even worse ‘Covid’ than the four consecutive bouts they have already had !
When the brain has ‘gone’…it has ‘gone’ to the land of no return.!
Quite correct.
Dr. Michael Yeadon said from the very outset that the Pfizer injections were “experimental genetic therapies” (because it was a brand new technology based on mRNA), and the others were “experimental medical therapies” (because they were based on traditional ‘dead virus’ traditional methods).
Considering that CDC Atlanta has tried to change the definition of what a ‘vaccine’ in should tell even the most myopic dimwits that this was a psyop.
I searched the internet for nearly two weeks and found zero studies that proved accepting the “vaccine” lessened the symptoms of COVID if you caught the virus. If you think about, how could there possibly be? I wonder if this is why Pfizer decided to “vaccinate” their original study control group?
Hence the calls for Nuremberg-style trials.
Please repeat after me: ‘naughty children who talk out of turn need a Head’s Det at 4pm Friday afternoon’.
Instead of saying “They’ve been vaccinated” I suggest “They’ve been vacated” i.e. brain removed.
It’s a close race between whether the jab was just a placebo, or whether it was harmful.
Oh I think definitely harmful. A placebo would have been the sensible option, but there’s a v limited supply of sense in this world.
A bit of both, I think. Just pot-luck what you got.
Some may have been placebos, but more likely they just didn’t contain the particular ingredients that actually cause the rush of short term harm. That probably wouldn’t alter the longer term downside too much and that is what we’re seeing now.
The article makes reference a couple of times or so, to an increased level of protection from boosters. This seems rather magical and I would suggest that any perceived protection comes from heavily massaged statistics and will likely disappear into the aether with time as that protection becomes undeniably negative.
It’s not that close at all.
Possibly mixed results by batch number.
Pfizer will have all the details.
There is a paper where different vaccine batches are analyzed. Some batches of the Pfizer vac had around double the active ingredients.
Different batches had different compositions, so you can’t generalise.
Harmful. Very.
See the Steve Hirsch analysis yesterday.
‘and certainly indicates that a proper analysis of illness after vaccination needs to be undertaken urgently.’
Or start another war, the choice is theirs
No, Cecil you can’t say that!
You must be pro-Putin.
They know. you know
Hepatitis in children mystery still being investigated as cases rise – BBC News
Election results day. Good day to change the narrative and bury bad news
UKHSA ‘there is no evidence of a link to covid 19 vaccine’ buried in the last line of this propaganda article
The previous narrative was that there was absolutely no link to the vaccine
This has now changed to ‘no evidence of’
Not semantics
‘No evidence’? There’s certainly a temporal link with the disease emerging about 12 months after they injected millions of people with adenovirus vector vaccines, where the risk of the viral vector regaining replication competency was known about and prior to 2021 all studies involving viral vector vaccines were monitored to check that they weren’t regaining the ability to replicate.
Yet the newspapers ignore this, and instead tell everyone that there might be a link to dogs, just because a few of the unfortunate families affected happened to have a dog.
It’s been ‘no evidence of’ since Jan 2021. ‘No evidence of long term harms from the vaccines’ ‘no evidence of harm when used during pregnancy and breastfeeding’. Easy to have no evidence when you haven’t done any trials or investigations. It still surprises me not more people have seen through this phrase.
As for dogs transmitting hepatitis, now, after tens of thousands of years, at probably the most hygienic period in history, dogs are suddenly causing hepatitis in children. Yet people will actually buy into this.
Give me strength.
The most recent Pfizer document release does show harms in pregnancy in rats. This information was not released to the public.
Jokes were going around such as:
Rat 1 to rat 2: ‘When will you take your jab?’
Rat 2: ‘When the human trials have finished, I expect.’
That was possibly in late 2020.
Are you saying that for AZ and J&J there has, to your knowledge, been no monitoring to check regaining of replication ability?
I’ve not seen any efforts.
I’d note that the Sputnik jab (also adenovirus) was refused an emergency licence in Brazil because evidence emerged that it had regained the ability to replicate (although that was in the vial, not via recombination with a wild strain).
And this is exactly the type of thing that real journalists should be jumping on, in all these articles about kids coming down with hepatitis, not this nonsense about dogs.
First time I’ve heard about one of the corona viral vector jabs regaining the ability to replicate.
eg https://www.science.org/content/article/russias-covid-19-vaccine-safe-brazils-veto-sputnik-v-sparks-lawsuit-threat-and
Note that the article above dates from April ’21
Perhaps referees whistles can reactivate the ability to replicate, if blown particularly loudly.
How many of these poor kids live near football grounds?
You are the BBC science correspondent and I collect my £5!
https://twitter.com/sanchak74/status/1521818622754127873
This was posted by the person publishing a paper with concerns about the risk of shedding the adenovirus vector virus before the launch of the Astra vaccine.
This shows the genomic sequence of adenovirus 41 and below are the viruses most aligned with the sequencing of this virus (Adeno virus 41 now highly suspected in the UK outbreak)
If you look at these similar virus, skip the highlighted simian adenovirus 25 and look at the Chimpanze adeno virus Y25.Very similar to adeno 41 and used as a vector in the Astra vaccine.
I’ve asked Prof Balloux(highly acclaimed virologist UCL, expert on sequencing of virus and very much pro vaccine) on his twitter account if this data is fake or not. No answer yet.
Good old ChAdOx1, eh?
I wonder if Sarah Gilbert is still clapping the good, old NHS who, on 04/01/21 became the first health service in the world to deploy the oxford jab?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/first-people-to-receive-oxford-universityastrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-today-4-january-2021
No evidence because they haven’t looked for any… of course.
Sounds to me like the UKHSA are saying they are actively looking for evidence as they suspect something is amiss, but it won’t be available for a while.
I also suspect the evidence will be (as it often is with such things) couched in techspeak / jargon so that they can argue ‘we did release it’ but that the Plebs won’t understand what it REALLY means and the MSM won’t make much of an effort to decypher it, mainly because they appear to be paid not to by those rich and powerful people/organisations/firms who have most to gain by this all going away.
The only evidence any of the public authorities are looking for is whatever can exculpate them, no matter how flimsy. Any evidence that implicates them in pushing junk into people’s bodies will be swept under the carpet or a dog’s bum quicker than you can bat an eyelid.
There are too many variables for anyone to make any sense out of this at all.
“Amanuensis is an ex-academic and senior Government scientist. He blogs at Bartram’s Folly.” – so what’s his name? And Bartram’s Folly is on… you guessed it!…. Substack.
Do you want to tell us all your proper name and qualifications?
You’re right — there are just so many variables.
Which is why a simple technique like TNCC isn’t appropriate. My point is that the data show some worrying signs of there being a problem.
The right response isn’t to say ‘there isn’t a problem’ but to do some proper research using robust methods.
There’s surely a word to describe a person who is deeply suspicious of absolutely everybody, regardless of expertise or credentials.
Wise?
Paranoid Personality Disorder is more the term I’d use. With traits of good old shit-stirring and trolling.
EF is a warrior. Of some description; choose your own. I like to keep it simple. He’s a C You Next Tuesday warrior. The bravest of the brave.
Like EF, I also generally disregard claimed expertise and credentials.
Instead, I judge a person on the strength of their arguments. Amanuensis has given us ample reason to believe he deserves our respect and attention, at the very least.
I wish EF would quit the indiscriminate indignation and cynicism, he doesn’t do himself any favours.
I wish EF would just QUIT.
“When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”
Nobody fears what you say.
‘Sceptic’ ?
Accept nothing, question everything!
Nope. Cynical to a fault. You demonstrate your true self every time you post. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/cynical
With the brilliant investigations and analysis posted by Amanuensis, I wouldn’t be giving my real name out either. Too many people have met ‘accidents’ or had ‘sudden heart attacks’ after work like this.
Are you implying there’s something wrong with Substack?
“Implying ” yes.
Sewing cynical seeds of doubt and disguising personal views seems to be a common factor in many posts
Everyone but the most dense must now realise that covid 19 was the equivalent to spam in your email box; if you opened it by mistake and it took you to a site called NHS, you’re buggered. A total reboot will now be required, this will involve walking out of step for at least twelve months. If you’re a cyclist think ‘Road Closed’ means no traffic.
When on my bicycle I generally ignore all road signs, traffic lights, etc., preferring instead just to use my eyes and ears and proceed with caution and respect.
Use it or lose it.
Whilst I am aware that the first road sign in England was brought in to warn cyclists of steep descents ahead, let’s face it – the rest of our road furniture certainly isn’t/wasn’t for the two-wheeled wonder!
Precisely why people are demanding cyclists should be registered, insured, and pay for the wasted space known as cycle lanes. Their arrogance and frequent incompetence on the road is legendary, certainly in cities. Most of them believe using a pedestrian crossing without dismounting infers the same protection offered to pedestrians, but it doesn’t because they are not pedestrians unless they dismount. Most of them in my experience haven’t read the highway code (other than perhaps to pass a driving test 20 years ago) and are oblivious to there being a section devoted to them. Mind you, some pedestrians aren’t much better, bumbling around roads with their faces glued to mobile phone screens. Most simply don’t understand they have an obligation to keep themselves safe. A zebra crossing, for example, does not infer immunity from being mown down if it’s not used properly. Step onto one whilst a car driver is travelling at a legal speed but beyond his ability to stop safely in the distance given, invalidates the protection offered by the crossing. This is particularly notable with schoolchildren who largely believe stepping onto a zebra crossing offers them some divine right to survive an impact. It’s also worth noting… Read more »
If you are approaching a zebra crossing whilst in charge of a motor vehicle without being able to stop if pedestrians choose to use the zebra crossing, you’re driving too fast.
Don’t forget what the zebra crossing is: a section of pavement which has been lowered to allow vehicles to drive across it.
In my considerable experience (including being a driving instructor) it is the drivers of motor vehicles who cause the most trouble, having awesome power under their right foot which they don’t respect or understand.
Always drive such that you can stop safely within the distance you can see to be clear.
Nonsense. A pedestrian appears from behind a wall and steps straight onto a crossing in front of a car being driven at the legal limit?
Pedestrians have a responsibility for their own safety. A zebra crossing facilitates that, it doesn’t absolve them of their own responsibilities.
If you approach a crossing where there is a hidden danger (eg, the wall) then the onus is on the driver to slow down to a speed where they could stop if the danger materialised.
I’m afraid not. There is an obligation on pedestrians to take responsibility for their own safety.
As for slowing down, if there is a hidden danger, does one then slow down and stop at an empty Zebra crossing just in case a pedestrian appears and steps onto the crossing?
Of course not, A Zebra crossing doesn’t become ‘live’ until a pedestrian sets foot on it, therefore it’s perfectly legitimate to approach it at the legal speed limit.
Or, you need to define what speed would then be a safe speed to approach that Zebra crossing?
We also must be aware that drivers are also expected to drive to the speed limit, whenever safe and possible, to avoid frustrating following drivers.
Drivers slowing down when approaching an empty Zebra crossing, unless there is someone waiting to cross, are unnecessarily holding up following traffic.
Rule 18
At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should:
always check that the traffic has stopped before you start to cross or push a pram onto a crossing
Rule 19
Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. (my emphasis).
Always use the Green Cross Code because RedhotScot won’t always be there to help you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRUBMBi_lp4
Let me know when you want to learn to drive properly.
You’re wrong again, RedHotScot. Sorry.
Firstly, Zebra crossings in this country have very clear rules about the surroundings. There must not be any line of sight obstacles, basically. That’s why it’s illegal to park too close to a zebra, i.e. on the zigzags.
Secondly, when you conduct a heavy vehicle along the public highway, you must be aware of what you cannot see. It’s a matter of using your imagination. It’s called anticipation and hazard perception.
Obviously, if Usain Bolt sprinted from a building into the zebra crossing, you’d be forgiven… probably. But this is not what happens.
You’re correct about the pedestrian having responsibilities, of course.
There must not be any line of sight obstacles Define that. I can take you to innumerable Zebra crossings that conform to that policy in that, the driver has an unrestricted view of the crossing. It does not, however, legislate for the pedestrian’s approach to the crossing. There can be, and are walls, buildings and vegetation obscuring many pedestrian approaches to Zebra Crossings. anticipation and hazard perception. An entirely unquantifiable concept. We can take certain precautions e,g. slowing the closer one gets to parked vehicles when passing them, but it’s impossible to anticipate every eventuality. Obviously, if Usain Bolt sprinted from a building into the zebra crossing Have you never seen how quickly an exited child can move? Or how blissfully unaware an adult is whilst staring at their mobile phone? I have posted verbatim what it states in the Highway Code about Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. There is a reason for that. A pedestrian has no rights at a Zebra Crossing until they have stepped onto it. The Highway Code is also clear, Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved… Read more »
Funny that, I’m a former driving instructor, I’m also a Police trained pursuit driver, and a former RoSPA (RoADA these days) qualified driver. I have raced and rallied cars as well as acting as observer on numerous occasions. The most ridiculous thing about the claim of being a driving instructor is that there is no requirement to have advanced driving qualifications. It is possible (likely in many cases) to pass the DSA driving test as part of the qualification process, at a lower standard than learner drivers can achieve. Imagine sending your child to school and them being taught an English GCSE by a teacher who just scraped through their own GCSE exam. Always drive such that you can stop safely within the distance you can see to be clear. The correct wording is: Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear. Country roads – Rule 154 You are driving along a motorway, obeying the speed limit, the regulated distance from the car in front, and a deer jumps out in front of you. You can’t stop in time so hit it. Kindly explain how making sure you can stop within the distance you… Read more »
There are always exceptions. They prove the rule.
Truly unexpected circumstances are very rare. The actions of wild, unpredictable animals are one of those.
Good to read about your qualifications. We know about shit happens!
PS I have never had an issue with zebra crossings in the UK. They are very well placed, used selectively and very noticeable and generally very well illuminated. This is most definitely not the case in most other parts of the world.
Ridiculous concept.
But the actions of silly children are predictable, are they?
I’m with you on this one. Years ago, when I was living in England, I was waiting at a zebra crossing to cross over; traffic on the opposite side had already stopped (about 3 cars, so very noticeable). A car was approaching on my side, did not slow down in the least and very obviously had seen neither me nor the cars waiting in the other lane. I always look, even if I have a green light at a zebra crossing, to check that the driver sees me and is slowing down. Had I stepped onto the crossing at the time, there is no doubt I would have been hit and quite hard. The fact that the driver would have been at fault would not have been of much comfort had I ended up in a wheel chair or dead. I didn’t think it was intentional, I genuinely think the driver didn’t register the situation, preoccupied with something else. That is no excuse, but I agree with your point that it is important to take responsibility for your own safety too. When I lived in the UK the difference with NL was noticeable, drivers were much more cautious around crossings… Read more »
You illustrate my point nicely, thank you.
delete
Most drivers in my experience haven’t cycled on the highway (other than perhaps as a youngster 20 years ago) and are oblivious to the realities of cycling on the road.
I’d suggest that our roads would be far safer if as part of maintaining a valid driving licence every driver had to cycle across their closest city, and then walk back, maybe once every 5 years or so. This would give drivers much more understanding of the realities faced by other road users.
Of course, the problem with this idea is that rather too many of them would get killed or injured in the process.
The suggestion that offering government more ideas for control should be anathema to all on here.
👍
Rules for the sake of rules are abhorrent. But a properly thought through road safety strategy would save thousands of lives a year.
I assume then you would force pedestrians to learn to cycle and drive a car. Similarly cyclists learn to drive a car. Would you also impose that a motorcyclist pass a cycling test as well? perhaps pass a motorcycling test before being allowed to drive a car. I think, perhaps, a better idea might be to ensure cyclists pass a test before taking to the road. Personally I would like to see that as a prequalification before driving a car. I would also like drivers restricted by power to weight ratio of the vehicle they are able to drive, by qualification. For example, pass your driving test and you can drive, say, a Ford Kia restricted to a certain BHP. The next test would allow you to drive, say, a family sized car restricted BHP. A final test pass would allow unrestricted access to cars, designated as they are now. Something similar operates with motorcycles already. I would also propose mandatory retesting every 5 years or so, unless a membership and attendance for regular driver updates with, say RoSPA or IAM are maintained. It is a ludicrous concept that a driver in the UK can learn to drive in a… Read more »
I’d suggest that as you become more of a danger then you need to have more training. So there’s no need for a pedestrian or cyclist to learn to drive first, but there is an argument to ensuring that those that pose the most risk understand the characteristics of those that pose lesser risk.
I’d note that very very few car drivers suffer anything but the most minor of physical injuries after collision with a pedestrian or cyclist.
I’d be content with there being some minor qualification for riding a bike on the highway, but I think it is probably covered in most cases by the cycling proficiency test taken by children; Bicycles are much slower than cars and most hazards are telegraphed in advance — the exception being car drivers doing stupid things.
I agree about the need for advanced driving training for higher performance cars.
I’d suggest that as you become more of a danger A danger to who, yourself or someone else? If a pedestrian doesn’t understand the limitations of bicycle or cars braking limitations then they can’t be expected to understand when it’s safe to cross the road. There is a high expectation of intuition, but you’ll note the Highway Code does not include stopping distances for cars in the pedestrian section. Why is that? Don’t they need to understand how long it takes a car to stop for their own safety? I’d note that very very few car drivers suffer anything but the most minor of physical injuries after collision with a pedestrian or cyclist. I’d note that is an assumption you make. Probably correct but nevertheless, without the data we can’t know. I agree about the need for advanced driving training for higher performance cars.I’d be content with there being some minor qualification for riding a bike on the highway…… Minor qualification? Wouldn’t adequate qualification be more appropriate? but I think it is probably covered in most cases by the cycling proficiency test taken by children; Which follows the same pattern of car driving. In 20 years time the Laws and… Read more »
Back in the day, before car ownership expanded, teenagers cycled, because that gave huge independence and access to paper rounds, Saturday jobs etc. Then you progressed to mopeds and small motorbikes, because these machines brand new were reliable and only the same price as a clapped out Ford which you’d spend more time fixing than driving. Hence most car drivers did an apprenticeship on 2 wheels before they could afford 4.
Then folk got richer, kids were driven everywhere, and their first car was bought for them, and all the cars have ABS etc etc and driving skills have reduced despite additional theory tests. Add in piss poor manners and scant regard for others and there you have the latest generations of drivers.
Decades ago there were primary school competitions to learn the highway code by heart – used to be concise and well written, and perfectly manageable for 10 and 11 year olds to learn off pat. It was a point of pride to be able to recite it from memory! Now it’s expanded like the tax code and become inpenetrable, and no primary school would dare to make a kid learn anything by heart.
I agree with you up to a point. But when I did my ‘apprenticeship’ on the road via cycling and clapped out motorcycles there was no incentive to read the highway code. And the only instruction I got when I was at school was via the 1970’s Green Cross Code public service adverts on the TV, and that was confined to pedestrians. I didn’t read the Highway Code until I learned to drive a car.
I don’t believe driving skills have reduced with additional driver aids, frankly, they couldn’t get much worse than they were.
A properly trained driver doesn’t need additional aids, although they can prove helpful.
Roadcraft: The Police Drivers Handbook is available for anyone to buy and explains everything anyone would want to know about driving to a higher standard. It was, and probably still is the authority on driving to an exceptional standard and is used by emergency services around the world and described as The System of Car Control.
RoSPA driving courses evolved from the League of Safe Drivers, formed in 1955. Some history is here http://www.roadar-hants.org.uk/history.html
Very little has changed since.
I think some people may have missed the point I was trying to make. The cycling and walking out of step comments were meant to be analogies for making an attempt to think differently.
No, it was a point well made.
Too late — everyone has gone off on a tangent already.
Including you.
The problem is, there’s no ‘anti-virus’ for those who’ve taken the non-vaccine.
I’m not understanding how the hospital admissions ( e.g 23 vs 4 ) for unvaxxed is so much higher than vaxxed. We now have Omicron ( or it’s equally benign cousin ) circulating, so if there’s now a variant on a par with a cold to the vast majority how have these very same people not been hospitalized previously due to the much more pathogenic variants? Why is Omicron affecting them so seriously but they’ve been perfectly fine and non-hospitalized up until now? Weird. *Disclaimer*, I skimmed the article and not read it thoroughly yet.
We don’t understand why, which is why we need some proper studies to be done.
I wouldn’t put it past them ensuring anyone unvaccinated and with a normal respiratory illness “testing positive” regardless of what they’re actually suffering from.
Or more likely, “we’ve decided to admit you because you have had a positive test and you are dangerously unvaccinated, have some monulpiravir and other assorted harmful experimental drugs”.
On the other hand “we’ve decided not to admit you because despite your symptoms and positive test, you have been boosted and are completely safe, and those terrible adverse reactions showed us that the vaccine was doing it’s job”.
I agree — there’s probably an element of this in the data.
Perhaps there is direct connection between taking the ‘vaccines’ and developing variants of the virus?
Does that help?
I do agree that the vaccines have almost certainly created a substantial evolutionary pressure to create immune escape variants, however, these will probably also affect the unvaccinated. That said, the jury is still out on whether there’ll end up being more virulent infections in the vaccinated specifically (ie, GvdB’s hypothesis).
Why will they affect the unvaccinated if they have healthy immune systems?
They will likely not fall victims to the virus to any degree worthy of hospital treatment, which in large part has been required only by the vulnerable elderly with pre-existing conditions ( unless that is you have been vaccinated when all bets are off !)
Thanks Amanuensis. This does look like very interesting data indeed. It’s always been the case that we should be looking at all cause hospitalisation/admission/death etc by vaccination status, rather than covid labelled hospitalisation and death and this looks like an opportunity to analyse that using this data. Of course the UKHSA vaccination surveillance reports (until they ceased publishing data by status) only looked at positives/emergency care admissions/deaths labelled as covid which is to me the wrong comparison. We know from the ONS vaccination status reports, that the ONS report the unvaccinated in older age groups have higher non-covid mortality after the vaccination program starts than the experimentally vaccinated in their age group, and this reported effect whilst most prevalent immediately after the vaccination program, still to some extent continues over the longer term based on their vaccination data. This is in contrast to what we are seeing here in terms of looking at all cause hospitalisation. Here non-covid hospitalisation rates are higher in the vaccinated. So at face value the vaccinated are more likely to be (all cause) hospitalised according to the data from this paper, but less likely to (all cause) die according to the ONS reports; doesn’t look… Read more »
Great work. But, it further highlights the scandal of UKHSA removing any comparative data from the weekly vaccine surveillance reports. As deficient as they were they were interesting that they showed the declining position of the boosted. They were also useful insofar as they trashed the Prof Spiegelhalter/More or Less argument about NIMS v ONS population data.
I am not in a good mood today so I will indulge in some schadenfraude.
We warned you we said it was exotic technology, untried, untested. But no, you believed the telly!
Many more people have been vaccinated than not, and a lot more older people have even vaccinated than younger people. Think elderly vs children. So it isn’t any surprise that hospital admissions are higher for the vaccinated. Sorry, but this is just fake news.
The data are per 100,000, so already account for proportions vaccinated.
I’ve done no analysis on the impact of the vaccines for those aged under 65 — I don’t know why you bring children into your comment.
The reason why I didn’t analyse hospitalisations for those aged under 65 is because there’s too much variation in hospitalisation risk by age and non-uniform vaccination rates by age. That said, even with this restriction the data do also suggest increased hospitalisations in the vaccinated aged under 65.
So if 90% of over 65s are vaccinated, and 10% not, are you saying that this doesn’t have a bearing on the rates of hospitalisation in general? Bearing in mind that the 10% might be relatively fit and healthy, and that the 90% covers almost all other people?
Per 100,000 cases ‘so already account for proportions vaccinated’!
No, because it is 100,000 of two potentially very different groups.
It’s like saying “the rate of couch potatos being admitted to hospital is lower than the rate for people who regularly exercise”…
Congratulations! You win the dumbest take of the comments award.
The figures were per 100,000!
I thought the ‘vaccine’ was supposed to stop you even contracting the virus never mind spreading it or needing hospital treatment – why don’t we talk about the ‘fake vaccine’ that simply doesn’t work in the manner originally claimed but does appear to make you ill?
There is a web of deliberate deception at work here and discussing who and who is not in hospital gets nowhere near addressing it!
It definitely wasnt a deadly pandemic by any standards, many of us realised that from the start and the politicians by their actions appeared to also, so they must have wanted it to look like a pandemic for other reasons
“It definitely wasn’t a deadly pandemic by any standards”
That’s about it, as far as a ‘virus’ is concerned, but there has been a pandemic of State Control and Profiteering.
New UK government data shows the COVID vaccines kill more people than they save (Steve Kirsch) – https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/uk-government-data-shows-nobody-should?s=r
Steve is late to that party — we were discussing prior releases to these data back in November (see posts by Prof Norman Fenton).
Also Joel Smalley – ONS manipulating figures/data fraud, article from him today.
Metatron substack.
(Apologies if referred to elsewhere)
There’s certainly something weird going on with the ACM data. I’ve got my own hypothesis (who was vaccinated and when), but the only way we’ll find out is by looking into it — which is something our authorities seem very keen to avoid doing.
I would like to ask Amanuensis a question.
You’re claiming that vaccinated people are being hospitalised at 5x the rate of the non vaccinated. But given that over 90% of the population have been vaccinated, that should mean that the overall hospitalisation rate is also not far off 5x what it was before.
I’m pretty sure that is not the case!
You’re right — these rates need to be compared with actual hospitalisation data, which aren’t vastly higher.
But note that these data are for illness only (even the test negative). The majority of hospitalisations are after accidents or injury, so you’d not expect to see the 5x difference in total admissions.
Also note that anyone attending hospital more than 14 days after their positive test wouldn’t be included in the numbers (at all) — given the huge numbers infected during the Omicron wave this’ll also remove many hospitalisations from the rates presented in this post.
The post was for data for those aged over 65 — the data are less clean for those aged under 65 and while the data do show a similar effect it is smaller in magnitude.
Finally, we’re still in a period where the NHS are begging people to stay away, yet total A&E rates are still high.
I’d like to understand that in context (ie what percentage of overall admissions are covered by your figures) but I can’t find stats which break down admissions by condition.
A fivefold increase in admissions is just massive. So great, that you would surely expect staff to notice and for it to cause an immediate crisis in an NHS which was on the edge in the first place.
But that has happened – any suggestions why?
At least half of A&E admissions are due to accident/injury. Also, most admissions are in those aged <65, and then mostly accident/injury — the data suggests a lower excessive hospitalisation rate in the vaccinated aged under 65.
I’d guess that a 5x increase in hospitalisations resulting from illness in those aged >65, and 2x in those aged <65 (that’s a guess based on what we can see) should lead to a 50% increase in overall A&E admissions.
We’ve not seen this overall increase — however, as I suggested upthread this is at a time where the NHS are begging people to stay away — if the NHS pleadings would have managed to reduce A&E admissions by 30% then my calculated 50% increase would get you back to ‘normal levels’.
I’d also note that the NHS does seem to be in an immediate crisis.
Thanks for the figures.
As you say, your analysis implies a circa 50% increase in A&E admissions. This hasn’t happened, so you need to find reasons why not.
I think there is evidence to suggest some people were not presenting for care as readily as in normal times (although this is declining). Although that also means they were less likely to be particularly sick in the first place.
However, there’s a strong counter-acting pressure from GPs into A&Es and NHS 111, because the GPs can’t handle it. I know for a fact that’s happening on a significant scale in my town. Increased difficulty in getting GP appointments is a major issue across the country.
Your figure is just too big to be explained by behavioural factors. Either something is wrong in the figures, or some additional explanation is missing.
Why don’t you get off your fat arse and do it instead of instructing others.
Typical socialist.
If that’s your hypothesis, then find the evidence for, and against it.
One minute you’re instructing people on what they should do, the next your presenting your vague idea on something with no evidence.
Present your factual evidence then.
I was suggesting a reason that might help his argument.
Re the 50%: If the prominent efforts to discourage people from attending A&E managed to reduce attendance ‘for ordinary reasons’ by 30% then the additional 50% I’ve suggested would get figures back into the normal range. I’d suggest that a 30% reduction isn’t an unbelievable figure.
But I’d accept that the figures do show something is up that isn’t easily explainable — that’s why we need proper studies to be done, and also why using the TNCC methodology isn’t appropriate for these data (and thus indicates that the UKHSA’s estimates of VE are likely to be misleading).
Ok, thanks
Bollox. I spent the best part of 6 months in hospital over 2020/2021 and didn’t see or hear of covid.
One ward I was in was completely empty other than me.
Appreciate that however, my point was that Fingal just talks out his backside.
That was probably at the request of the other patients
Yeah. I’m not stupid enough to get vaccinated like you.
Refusing vaccinations come with considerable benefits. Imbecile……
It’s not a claim, it’s data analysis.
Thanks — it is an important point. The data show that the vaccinated have 5x the A&E admission rate than the unvaccinated. The question that needs to be answered is why. It isn’t necessarily that it is due to the vaccines (could be health or behavioural) — but we won’t know unless we look.
It’s a tough job when you’re surrounded by experts like Fingal……………..
Appreciated by most of us though. As you suggest, if we don’t ask, we don’t get.
Jefferey Jaxen “NEW DATA SHOWS TROUBLING TREND IN VACCINATED” – https://rumble.com/v11zuuo-new-data-shows-troubling-trend-in-vaccinated.html
Public Health England data from about 5 minutes 45 seconds into the video
Nicely understated there. ‘Don’t worry, vaccinated person. You’re just part of a troubling trend.’
I prefer Spike Milligan’s version. There’s a lot of it about!
It would be interesting to see a study on the causes of A & E admission between jabbed and un-jabbed.
I suspect heart attacks, strokes, blood clots and myocarditis will feature far more highly in the jabbed population.
We do have the data on hospital emergency consultations.
In this we don’t see much change at all in terms of consultations with cardiac specialists. This might be because we don’t have data by age and the very high consultation rate in those aged over 60 would dominate; any increases in consultation rates in those aged under 50 or so would be very small in comparison (even if very high and worrying for that age group).
We do see a significant rise in emergency consultations due to stroke.
There’s also a significant increase in consultations due to cancer, but this is probably (not definitely) due to lack of medical surveillance and early treatment during lockdown.
Thanks for the analysis, excellent work. I just want to make sure I understand the rates – does the data show increased rates of stroke and cancer amongst the vaccinated? Or just an overall uptick?
Just an uptick — they don’t give the numbers by vaccination status.
I’ve heard eye emergencies have spiked. Includes blindness.
(This is not an advertisement)
If you are an attention seeking, drug taking hypochondriac, keen on being seen as a pin cushion for untested medication then you’re going to love our latest vaccine, which WE guarantee won’t work. With too many side effects to count, our latest vaccine will really
changechallenge your immune system. Pop along to your localdrugsupplierDoctor for details and remember, being completely mental isn’t a crime.But it would be so much WORSE if…
Hmm. Maybe not.
This only proves that everyone needs to take another shot. And then another, and so on. The problem is people not having enough of this safe and effective… ‘stuff’ injected into their bodies. Anyone that thinks otherwise is obviously deranged.
Regards,
Bill.
However, I’ll say thanks but no thanks to your kind offer of a shot for me personally. I’ve considered it very carefully and I’ve decided to make my doses available to the rest of the world’s people.
Sincerely
Bill.
I’ve donated all my shots to members of my state government.
How right you are. Anything that is effective at making you safe, should be encouraged. Or, better still, enforced. You know, to keep everyone else safe too. You can’t be too safe. Everything that makes you safer is, by definition, good and desirable. Just imagine a world where everyone is so safe, that they simply don’t know what being in any kind of danger means any more. Surely living in such a world is so desirable that everything else should be sacrificed in order to achieve it. And it is possible, if only everyone were to comply fully with our benefactors who know best. So get more and more jabs. You know it makes sense.
These gene-based injections are a depopulation bio-weapon.
The globalist element within our governments wants to murder us and our children.
Resist.
Avoid digitisation.
Use cash.
Meditate.
Connect.
This ‘data’ could just as much be because of the psychological effects on people depending upon when the get ill compared to the date of their latest COVID jab, plus, of course, the fact that the older age groups are jabbed to a far higher degree than younger age groups and are generally far more likely (taking the pandemic out of the equation) to be hospitalised.
What scientists, clinicians and journalists SHOULD be concentrating on is the huge raft of data on their ‘vaccine’s’ safety and efficacy being issued by the likes of Pfizer after that court case in the US. Notice how there has been a virtual blackout in the mainstream media on that subject.
The data are per 100,000, so already take into account percentage jabbed.
I agree, it is possible that at least some of the effect seen is behavioural — that’s one reason why we really need to do proper analysis on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines, and not rely on TNCC (which hasn’t been validated for Covid).
The Pfizer data would also support a proper and substantial study being undertaken.
“Safety and effectiveness” 2,000 dead in UK attributed directly to the ‘vax’ , 20,000 plus dead the EU . 20,000 plus dead in the US plus millions suffering from serious side effects ….these figures judged to be the authorities to be underestimates at best.
Add ‘official’ acknowledgement that the vaccines (1) do not prevent you from being infected by the virus and (2) do not stop you from transmitting he virus to others.
Exactly what specific further “study” would like to see before forming an opinion on their “safety and effectiveness”?
We need a proper large scale matched-cohort longitudinal study.
It would have been better if was randomised and prospective, but it is too late for that now.
The lack of such studies is inexplicable. Sure, there was an ‘urgency’ at the start of vaccination as they tried to get through the most vulnerable — but they could have been preparing the way at the time they were giving out the very first jabs. This would have been expensive, but nothing like the costs of Covid so far (including the pathetic track and trace). Also, the costs to the economy of illness and disability is huge, and a proper study would have almost certainly been cost effective.
They could even have done this with the younger jabs (<30) and boosters, but they didn’t even bother with those.
It is almost as it our authorities are doing everything in their power to avoid doing a proper study.
That’s why you need rival organisations trying to show how clever they are, without fear of cancellation. Otherwise the vested interests of a medical system attempting to govern a country will eventually kill many of us by neglect and blind dogma.
We need accurate and honest reports on the number of deaths verified by coroners as a direct result of taking the jab and to investigate the large number of ‘side-effects/vaccine damaged’ people many of of whom do not report their problems or attribute then to the vax .
It seems that the underplayed and under publicised ‘ Yellow Card’ system has all but given up accepting reports of the injuries being caused .
We also need more of those previously healthy people, who are ill to begin to be encouraged to attribute their varied conditions and health problems to the vaccinations which currently many seem not to do and we need the Medical profession to take their concerns seriously which currently appears not to be the case!
This whole process has been smothered in obfuscation and a refusal to face the facts – the ‘vaccine’ is dangerous for far too many people to be considered either “safe” and we all know it is not “effective” .
Anyone would think they had something to hide.
Per 100k does not take into account the nature of the groups – just the numbers affected. What they need to do is take into account all factors so that they can compare people on a like-for-like basis, which ain’t easy, as you’d have to take out the following factors: Age, general health (including what other ailements they may have and their severity and what treatments they are getting), race (because genetics may play a part), size (height, build) and physical condition (fitness, level of muscularity/fat in combo with size), allergies, sex, financial and mental health. Rather tricky to do, given most people tend not to give all that sort of data, even when giving a ‘history’ to a doctor, let alone when getting a jab. To me, of the older age groups, those not getting the COVID jab are likely to come from three main groupings or a combination thereof: a) those who clinically cannot have them; b) those who are well above average in terms of health / fitness for their age, and who don’t like relying on pills / medical interventions unless absolutely necessary (and who likely are quite savvy / intelligent – though not necessarily acamedically);… Read more »
Plus, unless im mistaken, its also important that each of age groups above 65 are at similar levels of vaccination uptake, especially above 70. Ie there is not a big bias in having lots more of 65-70 year olds (healthier in theory and hence potential to lower the rates in unvaxxed group unfairly) in comparison to over 80s. 65-70 is about 3-4% down in vax uptake compared to 80 plus, but 70 plus is all very close.
Pilots Injured by COVID Vaccines Speak Out: ‘I Will Probably Never Fly Again’
Great work Amanuensis.
Thanks!
Amanuensis, you’ve mentioned before that you think the vaxx might simply delay progression of disease, rather than prevent it. I think you’re right – an individual’s immune system either clears the virus or it doesn’t.
Have you seen the latest feedback on Pfizer’s Paxlovid drug? In a small percentage of people the viral load declines after taking the expensive pfizermectin, only to rebound some 10 days later. Pfizer has apparently said that the same thing happened to approx. the same number of people in the placebo group. Both the vaxx and the drug appear to provide some relief against symptoms but for some individuals only temporarily. I think this backs up your theory of delaying progression rather than prevention of disease.
Those Who Lined up to Get injected with a Bioweapon Hospitalised for Non-Covid Reasons at FIVE Times the Rate of the Unvaccinated, U.K. Government Data Show
Fixed the title for you.
“Covid and with looks like Covid but isn’t.”
Covid looks like Covid, but also isn’t.
“a proper analysis of illness after vaccination needs to be undertaken urgently.”
Exactly. And we know it won’t be, as we also know that a myriad of other aspects of this whole business require proper analysis. Because our leaders are incompetent and/or evil, take your pick. Even a dummy like me can come with all sorts of questions that seem obvious that no government or other relevant body has looked into. They are all idiots or liars.
You can certainly come up with alternative explanations for the possible issue that amanuensis has kindly flagged here, but what I believe you cannot do is point to any remotely conclusive data anywhere that shows how the unprecedented trillions spent on covid measures, lockdowns, testing, vaccines, masks have had any statistically significant, measurable positive impact on public health – in fact the data point mainly in the opposite direction.
If covid was the unprecedented threat it has been portrayed as, and the vaccines and other bollocks were anywhere near useful, after several trillion dollars spent worldwide you’d think it would not be too hard to show a positive impact.
The biggest problem is that the medics and scientists mark their own homework.
There need to be conferences where they are required to face brutal criticism, based on trenchant but dispassionate analysis.
But what do they do? They organise a meeting with the RSM to ‘reflect on the two year learning journey of Covid19’.
That meeting needs serious barracking and interruption by protestors.
We really need to have robust, independently agreed, defined metrics for every policy introduced before they’re started. That way we can avoid the trick of deciding what constitutes ‘success’ after the event (and cherry-picking the thing that looks best) — or even just ignoring success criteria altogether. But, of course, politicians never ever ever do this — it is beaten into them at the earliest opportunity that to do so will only result in people realising that they’ve failed to do what they said they’d do. This is seen in all aspects of politics, from having a new roundabout installed in a town all the way to national-scale fiscal policy. The public really do need to be educated on the types of tricks used by politicians, but (of course) the politicians make it such that the public aren’t informed of their tricks wherever possible. A good example of this is the current plans to make ‘disinformation’ more or less illegal. A reasonable solution would be for governments to have to define rigidly what things are disinformation, and then if it turns out that the government was incorrect they should have to offer a public apology (paid to be on the… Read more »
“A good example of this is the current plans to make ‘disinformation’ more or less illegal. A reasonable solution would be for governments to have to define rigidly what things are disinformation, and then if it turns out that the government was incorrect they should have to offer a public apology (paid to be on the front page of newspapers etc) and compensation to those that they claimed were spreading dis/misinformation.”
Sorry but why should a government be in the business of defining what constitutes disinformation? They are the last people you’d want doing that.
“The public really do need to be educated on the types of tricks used by politicians, but (of course) the politicians make it such that the public aren’t informed of their tricks wherever possible.”
Someone posted the other day that people should be taught statistics and specifically how statistics can be used to manipulate data and present things in different ways to support different conclusions for the same data. That seemed like a good idea. I discussed with someone who has recently (last 10 yeas) been in secondary education in the UK. Their sociology GCSE (or some GCSE anyway) did indeed cover this. Guess what – the example was how the wicked Far Right distort the amount of benefit fraud. Perhaps they indeed do, but the trouble is that because education in the UK has now been more or less completely taken over by the political left, what kids will learn is never going to be balanced. What they truly need to learn more than anything else is how to spot the Noble Lie, but they won’t get taught that because the educational and political establishment are all busy telling Noble Lies.
Apparently the fact that most of us are still alive is all the proof some people need.
In comments under a DM article about some woman who was vaxxed + boosted and had corona for the second time, some (probably paid) commenter kept saying that “she was still alive, wasn’t she”, as if that were proof enough that the vaxx and masks were worth it. Forget most people didn’t wear masks to start with (and many never wore them at all) and there was no vaxx for almost a year – and yet, the vast majority of us are still here to tell the tale.
This is why we, the unofficial ‘control group’, are more important ( and obvious ) now than ever. Keep shoving it in people’s faces, I would! Anything to help the pennies start to finally drop. We are the inconvenient contradiction to their cult-like belief system and they’re going to have to acknowledge that sooner or later.
….
The Government did better than I expected in the local elections or if you prefer, musical chairs.
I’ve been thinking about a suitable replacement for BJ and reached the conclusion that we may only actually need a scam detector. I’m quite sure it’s not beyond the wit of man to create such a thing, obviously it would need to be able to detect scams both externally and internally, simple!
Unfortunately, democracy so often means voting for the party most likely to ensure that the ones you don’t like don’t get in.
The one thing that’s fairly certain is that, no matter how badly the Tories have managed this pandemic, it would have been worse had Labour been in charge
(I’m trying to no be party-political here — Labours utterances on the Tories’ Covid policies have mainly been to say that not enough was being done of whatever it was the Tories were doing. In terms of ‘parties’ etc, it is clear that a decent proportion of each political party was up to the same activities).
“Unfortunately, democracy so often means voting for the party most likely to ensure that the ones you don’t like don’t get in.”
I used to think that, but these days I am more inclined to agree with Peter Hitchens – conservatives should have stopped voting Conservative a long time ago, and spoiled their ballot papers or voted for actual conservative candidates, in order to destroy the Conservative party and allow an actually conservative major party to emerge. He’s a bit of a pessimist these days and thinks it is too late now – perhaps he’s right.
Watch on YouTube:
‘Russ Abbot, Lie Detector.’
About 3 minutes.
Not really relevant to this topic, but hilarious.
Thanks for this analysis. And thanks to all those who made this type of analysis possible I.e those smart enough to maintain an all important control group of 100% unjabbed. Always knew that this would be key in uncovering the true nature of this democidal scandal