I got the jab then one (or was it two?) boosters, nothing since. Since the start of 2024 I've suffered through three upper respiratory infections back to back; RSV then bronchitis, currently something akin to RSV again but as yet unconfirmed. I'll be 75 in a few weeks, my health has always been pretty good. URI's maybe once a year (if that) since I was twelve.
Reading qualified reports of how mRNA technology (specifically the carrier mechanism) may be affecting human immune systems leaves me unconvinced that what we've been subjected to was ever A Good Idea other than perhaps for those with a profit motive in selling snake oil to an unsuspecting, captive audience.
Gosh that really sucks I'm sorry to hear of your recent rough run with your health. I agree, the LNPs are as concerning to me as the mRNA (what with frameshifting errors) and the contaminant DNA fragments. If I remember rightly, Aseem Malhotra pointed out while he was here - if you're going to indemnify the companies due to the rush job, then you can't guarantee that it's safe. If you're going to guarantee that it's safe, then there's no need to indemnify the manufacturers. Red flag.
I believe the death number has not changed for at least over 18 months. Why? Because people die from the damage that the vaccines caused and hospitals never mention that on the death certificates. My daughter is one of those cases.
Thanks Rebekah for t he nice summary. I had got the impression that actual data had evaporated, as the aggregator CovidLive seemed to be showing no changes. E.g., the website at https://covidlive.com.au/report/daily-vaccinations/wa shows 7 400 000 shots each week for WA from 15 Sep 23 to 1 Dec 23, when it suddenly and mysteriously jumped to 7 500 000 on 8 Dec 23, where it still sits a couple of months later. Previous data showed numbers to the single digit, but since September they seem show numbers to the nearest 100 000, presumably some sort of estimate (i.e. guess). I had assumed they'd stopped recording the data, but you seem to have more confidence in them. Are their other data more plausible than I have been assuming?
I think the weird jumps and plateaus could be to do with rounding, but I'm not really sure.
When NSW hospital data was still being published, up to 25% of patients typically were marked as 'unknown' vaccination status, which is suggestive that the Australian Immunisation Register and state record databases might not talk to each other very well. Especially as we know that in the only periods that there is any documentation available as to whether unknowns were vaxxed or unvaxxed, they were mostly or all vaxxed.
I don't lean strongly towards theories of data fixing, although Arkmedic has previously made a good case for it and I wouldn't rule it out. But there's still a lot you can do without actually fixing the data. You can refuse to publish it in a format that would tell you anything. You can chop and change your reporting parameters (switching age brackets around, changing from 'how many doses' to 'time since last dose'). You can misclassify patients and deaths through overly broad category definitions (eg: Unvaccinated = zero shots + all unknowns OR Covid death = tested positive within 30 days of death + no obvious traumatic non-Covid cause of death). Australian state, territory and federal governments have done all these things, so any data published has to be taken with a large shaker of salt in my view.
Thanks Rebekah. Rounding is not the problem; it's much more problematic than that.
There may or may not be some data manipulation going on, as many have observed or suggested, but when the data are not credible, it is almost better to not have any data at all. [I have commented on another recent post of yours in a little detail, indicating that the data do not seem to be internally consistent between states and the national level, so won't detail that comment here.]
Data. We have been captivated by data from the get-go. When I now see a graph my eyes glaze over and I just ignore it. It’s like data is the new reality. And what exactly does it say in respect to actual information? Or has it just become a validation tool? Whatever. Seems we’re captivated by the ‘science’ and that’s enough for automatic acceptance that whatever is posited is true. Seems we’ve become too clever by half (the scientists I mean).
Totally agree. That's why I wrote this one from the perspective of the lay person. I think the Experts have gotten so fixated on 95, 85, 75, 65, 55, 45, 35, 25% efficacy shown in tidy data tables, they're completely out of touch with how it looks, in reality, to everyone on the ground. I too have started glazing over at the data.
I got the jab then one (or was it two?) boosters, nothing since. Since the start of 2024 I've suffered through three upper respiratory infections back to back; RSV then bronchitis, currently something akin to RSV again but as yet unconfirmed. I'll be 75 in a few weeks, my health has always been pretty good. URI's maybe once a year (if that) since I was twelve.
Reading qualified reports of how mRNA technology (specifically the carrier mechanism) may be affecting human immune systems leaves me unconvinced that what we've been subjected to was ever A Good Idea other than perhaps for those with a profit motive in selling snake oil to an unsuspecting, captive audience.
Gosh that really sucks I'm sorry to hear of your recent rough run with your health. I agree, the LNPs are as concerning to me as the mRNA (what with frameshifting errors) and the contaminant DNA fragments. If I remember rightly, Aseem Malhotra pointed out while he was here - if you're going to indemnify the companies due to the rush job, then you can't guarantee that it's safe. If you're going to guarantee that it's safe, then there's no need to indemnify the manufacturers. Red flag.
I forgot to mention I contracted Covid late November 2022. Symptoms lasted about a week, then bronchitis again about ten days later.
Here are links to some of the reports I referred to in my original comment:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9535996/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9012513/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10238-023-01264-1
So that means 95% of Aussies are antivaxxers now, right? Riiiiiight?!
Looks like it!
Fantastic summary of events, Rebekah!
Thanks Rebekah, factual information as always great to share around 🙏🏻💛
I believe the death number has not changed for at least over 18 months. Why? Because people die from the damage that the vaccines caused and hospitals never mention that on the death certificates. My daughter is one of those cases.
You lost your data after a Covid vax? Gosh that's devastating I'm so sorry.
*daughter
And then the Bureau of Statistics scrubs the under 44 death data...
Really? What do you mean?
Thanks Rebekah for t he nice summary. I had got the impression that actual data had evaporated, as the aggregator CovidLive seemed to be showing no changes. E.g., the website at https://covidlive.com.au/report/daily-vaccinations/wa shows 7 400 000 shots each week for WA from 15 Sep 23 to 1 Dec 23, when it suddenly and mysteriously jumped to 7 500 000 on 8 Dec 23, where it still sits a couple of months later. Previous data showed numbers to the single digit, but since September they seem show numbers to the nearest 100 000, presumably some sort of estimate (i.e. guess). I had assumed they'd stopped recording the data, but you seem to have more confidence in them. Are their other data more plausible than I have been assuming?
I think the weird jumps and plateaus could be to do with rounding, but I'm not really sure.
When NSW hospital data was still being published, up to 25% of patients typically were marked as 'unknown' vaccination status, which is suggestive that the Australian Immunisation Register and state record databases might not talk to each other very well. Especially as we know that in the only periods that there is any documentation available as to whether unknowns were vaxxed or unvaxxed, they were mostly or all vaxxed.
I don't lean strongly towards theories of data fixing, although Arkmedic has previously made a good case for it and I wouldn't rule it out. But there's still a lot you can do without actually fixing the data. You can refuse to publish it in a format that would tell you anything. You can chop and change your reporting parameters (switching age brackets around, changing from 'how many doses' to 'time since last dose'). You can misclassify patients and deaths through overly broad category definitions (eg: Unvaccinated = zero shots + all unknowns OR Covid death = tested positive within 30 days of death + no obvious traumatic non-Covid cause of death). Australian state, territory and federal governments have done all these things, so any data published has to be taken with a large shaker of salt in my view.
Thanks Rebekah. Rounding is not the problem; it's much more problematic than that.
There may or may not be some data manipulation going on, as many have observed or suggested, but when the data are not credible, it is almost better to not have any data at all. [I have commented on another recent post of yours in a little detail, indicating that the data do not seem to be internally consistent between states and the national level, so won't detail that comment here.]
Got it, thanks Barry
Data. We have been captivated by data from the get-go. When I now see a graph my eyes glaze over and I just ignore it. It’s like data is the new reality. And what exactly does it say in respect to actual information? Or has it just become a validation tool? Whatever. Seems we’re captivated by the ‘science’ and that’s enough for automatic acceptance that whatever is posited is true. Seems we’ve become too clever by half (the scientists I mean).
.
Totally agree. That's why I wrote this one from the perspective of the lay person. I think the Experts have gotten so fixated on 95, 85, 75, 65, 55, 45, 35, 25% efficacy shown in tidy data tables, they're completely out of touch with how it looks, in reality, to everyone on the ground. I too have started glazing over at the data.