The modern dialogue around medications and medical interventions has moved over much terrain in the last 100-200 years. Some of this is for the better, of course. Some of this change has served to make physicians, nurses, and pharmacists into nothing but rule following (algorithms and guidelines) technicians with no ability to read the patient in front of them. Papers, journals, conferences, and RCTs are excellent source of data, no one will refute that. However, the art of listening to a patient, really listening to them, and then using one’s knowledge to discern the way forward in the messy world of diagnosis is now almost completely lost. There are those like David Healy who will speak about this (
Great Analysis. I just drilled into some of the exact same info and noticed that you may have overlooked one serious issue with the PHAC data in that there are 8k deaths missing from Table 2 based on historical and current data. My look was Omicron Specific and had to work without this data but I do have it explained as well as the dates used and calculation of Risks from Morbidity to Mortality - absolutely no benefit to the jabs.
Yes indeed. Well done. For dumb math heads like myself you could dumb the explanations down even further but I'm not complaining, only saying.
There's a tendency for human beings to run off with the first authoritative pronouncement that makes sense to them.
That's what all the mad vaxxers and hysterical 'covid monster' folks have done.
And we don't like them for it.
But when we read things like this and don't completely and clearly understand the maths arguments in it we're inclined to do the same thing: run away shouting 'we've got proof' etc.
Makes us (me) as silly as them.
So that's why I'm 'just saying'.
Like to add it's about time 'authorities' such as yourselves spoke out against the RCT worship, too, I think. 'Holy Grail'. Not valid. Not at all. We've all seen quite clearly over the last two years that an RCT can be rigged deliberately before, during and after to be absolutely worthless or even deliberately misleading. The fact that it is an 'RCT' is far, far, from making a 'holy grail' of proof.
And another point I think good, solid, sensible and respected authorities such as yourselves ought to take on board for the sake of how effectively you can promulgate it is the question of 'protection'.
It is utterly wrong the way the MSM describes people as 'protected' and 'unprotected', isn't it?
We are always 'protected' by our Immune Systems, aren't we?
Before any vaccination.
And after any vaccination.
Vaccinations of themselves do nothing. The Immune System does all.
Always. Before, during, after.
I have met members of the public - met one an hour ago on a web thread - who really, truly believe that humans have NO 'protection' against covid and then suddenly have 100% protection after a vax. How they think that worked I don't know.
But they obviously have no clue.
And their comprehension is not helped by us using the same terminology:
"Here is the number of hospitalizations, deaths and cases across those who are unvaxxed, not fully protected (double vaxxed but not yet 14 days since 2nd shot), "
Far better, I think, to use phrases such as "Protection was, of course, diminished for two weeks after the injection because of the onslaught of the self manufactured spike proteins on the Immune System'.
I think this sloppy use of language and concepts - RCT's as a 'holy grail' of proof instead of merely the best way to do a trial which nevertheless could be completely rotten - 'protection' seen as a function of vaccinations - all that sort of thing is very damaging to getting the truth out there.
Great Analysis. I just drilled into some of the exact same info and noticed that you may have overlooked one serious issue with the PHAC data in that there are 8k deaths missing from Table 2 based on historical and current data. My look was Omicron Specific and had to work without this data but I do have it explained as well as the dates used and calculation of Risks from Morbidity to Mortality - absolutely no benefit to the jabs.
https://sheldonyakiwchuk.substack.com/p/vaccine-effectiveness-and-covid-omicron?s=w
p.s. On re-reading I see this:
" Pfizer’s data indicated that the vaxx would prevent 90+% of infections even if it completely had 0 impact on all cause mortality "
This is surely not right? Pfizer's data showed that their vax would cause an increase of 0.1% in Immune System efficacy.
90+% of infections were already 'prevented' . i.e. successfully dealt with by the Immune System.
After the vax the figure went up 0.1%.
At a pretty horrific cost when looked at in toto. We still haven't go anywhere near counting it all up.
Sloppy language sending entirely the wrong message.
Yes indeed. Well done. For dumb math heads like myself you could dumb the explanations down even further but I'm not complaining, only saying.
There's a tendency for human beings to run off with the first authoritative pronouncement that makes sense to them.
That's what all the mad vaxxers and hysterical 'covid monster' folks have done.
And we don't like them for it.
But when we read things like this and don't completely and clearly understand the maths arguments in it we're inclined to do the same thing: run away shouting 'we've got proof' etc.
Makes us (me) as silly as them.
So that's why I'm 'just saying'.
Like to add it's about time 'authorities' such as yourselves spoke out against the RCT worship, too, I think. 'Holy Grail'. Not valid. Not at all. We've all seen quite clearly over the last two years that an RCT can be rigged deliberately before, during and after to be absolutely worthless or even deliberately misleading. The fact that it is an 'RCT' is far, far, from making a 'holy grail' of proof.
And another point I think good, solid, sensible and respected authorities such as yourselves ought to take on board for the sake of how effectively you can promulgate it is the question of 'protection'.
It is utterly wrong the way the MSM describes people as 'protected' and 'unprotected', isn't it?
We are always 'protected' by our Immune Systems, aren't we?
Before any vaccination.
And after any vaccination.
Vaccinations of themselves do nothing. The Immune System does all.
Always. Before, during, after.
I have met members of the public - met one an hour ago on a web thread - who really, truly believe that humans have NO 'protection' against covid and then suddenly have 100% protection after a vax. How they think that worked I don't know.
But they obviously have no clue.
And their comprehension is not helped by us using the same terminology:
"Here is the number of hospitalizations, deaths and cases across those who are unvaxxed, not fully protected (double vaxxed but not yet 14 days since 2nd shot), "
Far better, I think, to use phrases such as "Protection was, of course, diminished for two weeks after the injection because of the onslaught of the self manufactured spike proteins on the Immune System'.
I think this sloppy use of language and concepts - RCT's as a 'holy grail' of proof instead of merely the best way to do a trial which nevertheless could be completely rotten - 'protection' seen as a function of vaccinations - all that sort of thing is very damaging to getting the truth out there.