High Igor, thanks for the work you're doing. Your work here inspired me to do a similar project for where I live in Ontario, Canada. Unfortunately our government doesn't seem to be tracking deaths by vaccination status, but they are tracking cases and hospitalizations by vaccination status. Recently, when reporting the numbers, they've increasingly stopped breaking down all of the numbers, and are now instead lumping "unvaccinated, one dose, unknown status" into the category of "not fully vaccinated," because the vaccinated case numbers keep rising relative to the unvaccinated numbers, so they want the unvaccinated numbers to look as high as possible.
Did you see the report the UK posted today for week 43? They stopped tracking the case rates per 100k, and left this little note at the bottom of each table:
"In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease. Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather
than because of COVID-19."
Hilarious. They either saw that their data was being used to write articles like this one, or they saw a concerning trend and are putting a stop to it. The UK wasn't always publishing their numbers for cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, so I wonder what made them start? What are these people seeing that we're not allowed to?
thanks for the very interesting articles. I am in NZ and our govt is well on the way to a Lithuania situation, very high vax rates, vax mandates, never ending lockdowns (now into month 3). Yet still the sheeple listen to the lying media and a handful of compliant govt employed "scientists". Looking at the UK MOH data, although the total numbers look very bad for the vaxxed, the fact checkers will simply say that the rate per 100,000 population gives the "true" situation.
The gaps are closing but for most age groups, the death rates are still triple or more in the vaxxed vs unvaxxed in terms of per 100,000 population. How do we account for this? I want to be able to counter these arguments.
I suspect that in the over 60s group, the vax rates are so high, that virtually the only people not vaxxed are just too old, frail, or sick to even be vaccinated due to risk of imminent death. In NZ our over 60 vax rate for first dose is now at 95% (pfizer). Second dose around 70%, and I have no reason to think that most first jabbers will not go for the second.
I would not be surprised if NZ ends up being the single most vaxxed country in the world, such is the obsession of out govt, the total complicity of MSM, and the utter mindless sheepish compliance of our population
Once a virus mutant finds that right combination for ADE, it will become a perfect storm. The vaccinated are more or less already weakened by the toxic spike protein cell factory producing mRNA-vaccines. They are like dry tinder dosed with gasoline for a fast spreading forest fire. Double whammy. Traditional COVID vaccine takers are "just" dry tinder but these mRNA-vaxxed are really screwed big time.
Hi again Igor, I am looking at the same PHE report referenced in your article. Unless I am reading something wrong, the absolute number of deaths is much higher in the vaxxed groups, but deaths per 100,000 population is far higher in unvaxxed. For example, on page 14, titled:
Table 4. COVID-19 deaths (a) within 28 days and (b) within 60 days of positive specimen or with COVID-19 reported on death certificate, by vaccination status between week 38 and week 41 2021
In the ≥80 group these are the numbers:
(total) 1,365
(unlinked) 6
(not vaccinated) 147
received one dose (1-20 days before specimen date) (0)
received one dose (1-20 days before specimen date) (37)
Second dose ≥14 days before specimen date (1175)
Rates among persons vaccinated with 2 doses (per 100,000) - (45.7)
Rates among persons not vaccinated (per 100,000) - (117)
These last 2 lines allow them to show that the rate of death among unvaxxed is still much higher compared to double dosed: rates among 2 dose vaxxed, are 45.7 per 100k population
vs: rates among not vaxxed 117 per 100k population.
So although the absolute deaths is much higher in vaxxed, the rate per 100k population is approx 2.5 times higher?
They will say this is because that vaccination in this age group is almost total, and the absolute number of vaxxed is far higher than vaxxed. But it appears that your risk of dying in the over 80s if unvaxxed is 2.5 times higher than double dose vaxxed.
You see what I mean?
I guess that the rates could be highly skewed against unvaxxed, in terms of rates per 100k, because in this group, almost the only reason not to be vaxxed is that the person is simply too old and frail. So that the vax itself could kill them. Therefore they do not vaccinate the most at-risk people in this group. Leading to the appearance of a much higher rate of death for unvaxxed?
This discrepancy between absolute deaths vs deaths in terms of per 100k population is apparent in all age groups except under 18s.
Note that it is acknowledged now that vaccine efficacy against infections declines over time such that after about 6 months, some reports put it as 4 months, protectiveness against infection is no better than the unvaccinated.
It had been assumed that it would just stop there after the 6 months. But the recent data suggest the protection gets WORSE than the unvaccinated after this time. However, this has only been intimated at by the way this being measured looking at infection rates for vaxxed and unvaxxed since January.
But clearly what needs to be done is to instead count the NUMBER OF INFECTIONS SINCE VACCINATED. This would show clearly that once you get past 6 months or so, you are worse off being vaxxed for protection against infection then being unvaxxed.
This is being judged by by infection rates. But is there an actual immunity system measurement that suggests also this is the case? There may indeed be one, and it may have just missed seeing this signal because it did the cut off at 6 months, *assuming* again the drop would not be below the standard baseline of the unvaxxed.
See the image and link to a CDC video here:
Robert Clark
@RGregoryClark
Replying to
@noorchashm
@amobeirne
and 2 others
In this CDC video Fauci acknowledges antibody titers even for vaccine tells us the degree of protection. So why not have everyone get their antibody levels tested? And why can’t they acknowledge prior infection also results in high antibody levels?
This data is what led the CDC saying booster shots would be needed but notice it is looking at actual antibody levels, not mere numbers of infections rates.
What needs to be done then is go beyond 6 months in this data to see if antibody levels drop *below* the standard baseline of the unvaccinated.
Then we would have two separate pieces of evidence to suggest the vaccine over sufficient time is actually damaging to our immune system.
Note this very strongly suggests the much feared “antibody dependent enhancement”(ADE) is occurring now. It is extremely important to find out if this is happening since all prior attempts to come up with a corona vaccine in animals failed with the animals all dying due to ADE.
High Igor, thanks for the work you're doing. Your work here inspired me to do a similar project for where I live in Ontario, Canada. Unfortunately our government doesn't seem to be tracking deaths by vaccination status, but they are tracking cases and hospitalizations by vaccination status. Recently, when reporting the numbers, they've increasingly stopped breaking down all of the numbers, and are now instead lumping "unvaccinated, one dose, unknown status" into the category of "not fully vaccinated," because the vaccinated case numbers keep rising relative to the unvaccinated numbers, so they want the unvaccinated numbers to look as high as possible.
Did you see the report the UK posted today for week 43? They stopped tracking the case rates per 100k, and left this little note at the bottom of each table:
"In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease. Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather
than because of COVID-19."
Hilarious. They either saw that their data was being used to write articles like this one, or they saw a concerning trend and are putting a stop to it. The UK wasn't always publishing their numbers for cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, so I wonder what made them start? What are these people seeing that we're not allowed to?
thanks for the very interesting articles. I am in NZ and our govt is well on the way to a Lithuania situation, very high vax rates, vax mandates, never ending lockdowns (now into month 3). Yet still the sheeple listen to the lying media and a handful of compliant govt employed "scientists". Looking at the UK MOH data, although the total numbers look very bad for the vaxxed, the fact checkers will simply say that the rate per 100,000 population gives the "true" situation.
The gaps are closing but for most age groups, the death rates are still triple or more in the vaxxed vs unvaxxed in terms of per 100,000 population. How do we account for this? I want to be able to counter these arguments.
I suspect that in the over 60s group, the vax rates are so high, that virtually the only people not vaxxed are just too old, frail, or sick to even be vaccinated due to risk of imminent death. In NZ our over 60 vax rate for first dose is now at 95% (pfizer). Second dose around 70%, and I have no reason to think that most first jabbers will not go for the second.
I would not be surprised if NZ ends up being the single most vaxxed country in the world, such is the obsession of out govt, the total complicity of MSM, and the utter mindless sheepish compliance of our population
Thank you for this analysis. Yes, the CDC is hiding data and media is maintaining the lie...and people will be hurt by this.
Once a virus mutant finds that right combination for ADE, it will become a perfect storm. The vaccinated are more or less already weakened by the toxic spike protein cell factory producing mRNA-vaccines. They are like dry tinder dosed with gasoline for a fast spreading forest fire. Double whammy. Traditional COVID vaccine takers are "just" dry tinder but these mRNA-vaxxed are really screwed big time.
Hi again Igor, I am looking at the same PHE report referenced in your article. Unless I am reading something wrong, the absolute number of deaths is much higher in the vaxxed groups, but deaths per 100,000 population is far higher in unvaxxed. For example, on page 14, titled:
Table 4. COVID-19 deaths (a) within 28 days and (b) within 60 days of positive specimen or with COVID-19 reported on death certificate, by vaccination status between week 38 and week 41 2021
In the ≥80 group these are the numbers:
(total) 1,365
(unlinked) 6
(not vaccinated) 147
received one dose (1-20 days before specimen date) (0)
received one dose (1-20 days before specimen date) (37)
Second dose ≥14 days before specimen date (1175)
Rates among persons vaccinated with 2 doses (per 100,000) - (45.7)
Rates among persons not vaccinated (per 100,000) - (117)
These last 2 lines allow them to show that the rate of death among unvaxxed is still much higher compared to double dosed: rates among 2 dose vaxxed, are 45.7 per 100k population
vs: rates among not vaxxed 117 per 100k population.
So although the absolute deaths is much higher in vaxxed, the rate per 100k population is approx 2.5 times higher?
They will say this is because that vaccination in this age group is almost total, and the absolute number of vaxxed is far higher than vaxxed. But it appears that your risk of dying in the over 80s if unvaxxed is 2.5 times higher than double dose vaxxed.
You see what I mean?
I guess that the rates could be highly skewed against unvaxxed, in terms of rates per 100k, because in this group, almost the only reason not to be vaxxed is that the person is simply too old and frail. So that the vax itself could kill them. Therefore they do not vaccinate the most at-risk people in this group. Leading to the appearance of a much higher rate of death for unvaxxed?
This discrepancy between absolute deaths vs deaths in terms of per 100k population is apparent in all age groups except under 18s.
I am trying to understand why this is the case?
Note that it is acknowledged now that vaccine efficacy against infections declines over time such that after about 6 months, some reports put it as 4 months, protectiveness against infection is no better than the unvaccinated.
It had been assumed that it would just stop there after the 6 months. But the recent data suggest the protection gets WORSE than the unvaccinated after this time. However, this has only been intimated at by the way this being measured looking at infection rates for vaxxed and unvaxxed since January.
But clearly what needs to be done is to instead count the NUMBER OF INFECTIONS SINCE VACCINATED. This would show clearly that once you get past 6 months or so, you are worse off being vaxxed for protection against infection then being unvaxxed.
This is being judged by by infection rates. But is there an actual immunity system measurement that suggests also this is the case? There may indeed be one, and it may have just missed seeing this signal because it did the cut off at 6 months, *assuming* again the drop would not be below the standard baseline of the unvaxxed.
See the image and link to a CDC video here:
Robert Clark
@RGregoryClark
Replying to
@noorchashm
@amobeirne
and 2 others
In this CDC video Fauci acknowledges antibody titers even for vaccine tells us the degree of protection. So why not have everyone get their antibody levels tested? And why can’t they acknowledge prior infection also results in high antibody levels?
https://youtu.be/X2CESL6Ej1M
2:13 PM · Aug 20, 2021·Twitter for iPad
https://twitter.com/RGregoryClark/status/1428782183938920455?s=20
This data is what led the CDC saying booster shots would be needed but notice it is looking at actual antibody levels, not mere numbers of infections rates.
What needs to be done then is go beyond 6 months in this data to see if antibody levels drop *below* the standard baseline of the unvaccinated.
Then we would have two separate pieces of evidence to suggest the vaccine over sufficient time is actually damaging to our immune system.
Note this very strongly suggests the much feared “antibody dependent enhancement”(ADE) is occurring now. It is extremely important to find out if this is happening since all prior attempts to come up with a corona vaccine in animals failed with the animals all dying due to ADE.
Robert Clark
Is the CDC hiding data or do they just not bother to gather any?