Decline the jab

[Mike T]

I'm a few minutes in Mike. What is it you like about her that is excellent, because so far, by her own definition, I think I could describe this lady as an anti-vaxxer.

She goes to the data sources and the relevant papers, and always justifies any statement or opinion.

[Mike T]

Debunked

I stopped watching at 7 mins 30 secs in, when she said that non-Covid-19 deaths had been consistently higher in unvaccinated people throughout, when the ONS figures say otherwise.

If you look at the ONS spreadsheet I posted on the 11th September 2023, you will see there were 1416 non-Covid-19 deaths for unvaccinated people and 35304 for vaccinated people in May 2022. This shows that 3.8562 percent of deaths were for unvaccinated people, and 96.1438 for vaccinated.

If 88 percent of people have been vaccinated, as we have been let to believe, then the figures should have been 12 percent to 88 percent. But they weren't, and in this month non-Covid-19 deaths were lower in the unvaccinated group.

Confounders? It is not just simple numbers. Luckily I am in the "healthy vaccinee" group.

[Witton Park]

She goes to the data sources and the relevant papers, and always justifies any statement or opinion.

I didn't like her attitude. It's not a serious tone. I felt it was quite sneering and not appropriate for someone putting across serious points to a serious audience.

In the first minute or so she defined an anti-vaxxer as "people who spread disinformation about vaccines" and then her opening headline point is that "not everyone lives to old age" is apparently the first thing that anti-vaxxers are hiding from you.

What? Really?

You want me to watch this whole video? It's hard to take it seriously.

But I went on a little longer.

At 3 minutes in, she goes to the ONS data - coincidentally this is the same data source that the BBC Radio 4 programme guy Stuart MacDonald used.

This data as she explained uses the Census as a base and then links in to other data such as NIMS.

I did tell you I had contacted Mr McDonald and I did some follow up because his data suggests more than 90% vaccinated and his and your friends position lives or dies by this 90%+ figure.

In the UK we have an Office for Statistics Regulation.

The Director General on this matter got involved because there were discrepancies between ONS and UKHSA figures and it is important to know why.
People crunching the numbers were jumping on the data that best suited them.

In our view, although the number of people in each vaccination category is used in the (ONS) publication, it is only used to determine the age-standardised mortality rate (ASMR) of each group. The number of people in each group is not and should not be used as a measure of vaccine uptake in the UK. This is because the sample in this publication is not random: as indicated above, those missing from the sampling frame are more likely to unvaccinated. We will look to ONS to make this distinction clearer.

Overall, then, our view is that the Deaths by Vaccination Status publication does not provide information on vaccine effectiveness or vaccine safety, and should not be used in this way. We would advise use of the weekly COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report, published by UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), instead.

So this lady you like seems to me to fit in to one of two possible camps.

She either isn't aware of this and is making a mistake presenting that ONS data to demonstrate vaccine effectiveness

or

She does know and is a dishonest actor.

One thing ONS has done now is that it's reporting has gone from using the 2011 census as it's base to the 2021 census, so it will be closer to a representative dataset that it was 6 months ago, but the methodology is still the same.

I spent hours going through the BBC Radio 4 broadcast and I'm not going to spend a similar amount of time going through this lady's presentation which seems to be along similar lines.

It's out there for folk to read if interested.

I have one comment to end with.

The BBC 4 Programme really should have had someone opposite Stuart McDonald. There is an alternative view out there and conflicting data and it's only by having full and frank discussions that progress is made on contentious issues.

[Marco]

Confounders? It is not just simple numbers. Luckily I am in the "healthy vaccinee" group.

But it was simple numbers when it was decided to close the pubs, to work from home and to impose the lockdowns.

I get it; if the numbers support your view then it it's a case of 'following the data'. If they don't then it's a case of "It is not just simple numbers", or "Lies, damn lies and then statistics".

[Mike T]

"Overall, then, our view is that the Deaths by Vaccination Status publication does not provide information on vaccine effectiveness or vaccine safety, and should not be used in this way. We would advise use of the weekly COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report, published by UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), instead."

I have asked her to clarify!

[Witton Park]

"Overall, then, our view is that the Deaths by Vaccination Status publication does not provide information on vaccine effectiveness or vaccine safety, and should not be used in this way. We would advise use of the weekly COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report, published by UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), instead."

I have asked her to clarify!

If she disagrees, direct her to Ed Humpherson Director General for Regulation at UK Office for statistics regulation.

[Mossdog]

Now, 19 months later. The reasons for avoiding this gene therapy are clearer. The harm I have seen done by this treatment, to my own family, is heartbreaking. I did not take it, and as an old person, I have not been ill throughout this 'lockdown period', except for the constant worry for friends and family.

Glad you're keeping healthy Gary, despite the worry, and thanks for posting.

[Mossdog]

Oh Gosh. What a plethora of data and varying interpretations.

I'm reminded of that old saying:

'Figures won't lie: but liars will figure' (and yes that could perhaps equally apply to all sides of any debate).

More recently, a potential side-affect of COVID vaccines was reported in Nature: "COVID vaccines linked to unexpected vaginal bleeding: A large cohort study measured how frequently women reported bleeding after receiving COVID-19 jabs".

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02996-6

So it's good that some monitoring/research is continuing. But as Dr Andrew Bamji wrote:

"One thing bothers me, and always has – with this and all other disputed items [the issues of Covid and climate change have become interweaved]. If the so-called vaccine deniers who have done careful analyses of available data like this are wrong, why are these analyses not properly and scientifically debunked? All we get is bluster, very occasionally quoting improperly conducted trials. There is of course a good reason they are not debunked, and that is because they are correct. Am I wrong?

This concern is especially important right now as there are official mutterings about the worry of a coronavirus resurgence and the need for booster vaccinations. But there are many unknowns. What is the real risk of post-Covid vaccination myocarditis? What are the potential risks of DNA contamination of mRNA vaccines? Could the introduction of plasmids cause short or long-term changes within cells that have substantial and perhaps frightening consequences?

The answer is, we don’t know. Maybe, but maybe not. The research has not been done (or if it has the results have not been revealed). Given the potential risk, particularly the long-term risk of incorporating foreign DNA into cell nuclei, would it not be wise to suspend vaccination programmes until we do know?"

[Graham Breeze]

Oh Gosh. What a plethora of data and varying interpretations.

I'm reminded of that old saying:

'Figures won't lie: but liars will figure'

Or "people believe what they choose to believe".

[Mike T]

If she disagrees, direct her to Ed Humpherson Director General for Regulation at UK Office for statistics regulation.

Has he provided an interpretation from the different data, or just provided/advised the use of a different set of data?

As to Susan Oliver having a sneering attitude, that is of course subjective - I find her playfully jocular, yet serious at times - also subjective. By the way, have you seen her list of publications (gulp)? That does not make her right of course, but it is still impressive.