Thanks for patience in dragging out this report from them. It was as I thought. All their numbers are based on results for 80+ year olds. And for the few under 80's that died we can't tell their vax status. We know they most likely had comorbidities and therefore were vaccinated. 138 deaths were 3+ doses and 16 were zero dose.
Looking forward to trawling through this report to see what trickery they used with "Bayes" logistic regression.
Your analysis and reporting are among the most comprehensive and convincing I've found on the Internet. I just got a paid subscription so I don't miss any of your future dispatches ... And I want to go back and read all of your previous articles. Thanks and keep up the great work!
I really hope Peak Prosperity covers this as.. this is really blatant corruption. I've been rather shocked by how low they've stooped on this one despite everything I've seen over the last 3 years. At first, I couldn't believe what I was reading. I hadn't slept well and was second-guessing my mental aptitude. What this shows, in my view, is a deliberate, conscious attempt to deceive the public. The fact that they dropped this extended release much later on once the initial attention had faded further points to malice.. especially considering that the initial release coincided with the bivalent rollout push which has zero evidence of benefit (in an increasingly IgG4 dominant environment).
It's not that they're stupid or incompetent.. this is clearly intentional. You can't simply stumble into making these kinds of errors.
My guess is that the Profs leading the study are so on board with the a priori that vaccines are safe and effective that they think they're doing the right thing or, at the least, they just think they're right. As for SA Health, there may be a Matt Hancock behind the scenes.
HI Rebekah, this isn't data. It's a news report! There is no way to verify this crap and it has red flags all over it, such as the narrow window of analysis and the fact that the hospitalisation data is completely opposite from the NSW data. Are you happy to FOI the original data including the data of vaccination of all the vaccinated people and the date of vaccination of those patients who were deemed unvaccinated but have a medicare record, and whether the patients has a verifiable medicare record with which they could have documented vaccination. It is likely that most of these "unvaccinated" people are those in whom a medicare record was not found.
Tables 1 and 2. Can anyone tell what they mean by percentage? Doesn't seem to make sense. They certainly don't add anywhere to 100%
It all seems to be based on 70,000 people who reported they had COVID in that period. At this stage in Australia this number is irrelevant. There is no obligation to report COVID. Who knows what type of people are reporting COVID.
What we can tell is:
for people under 60 no-one with zero doses died
The only deaths under 60 were 2 people with 1 or 2 doses
150 deaths were in people with 1,2,3+ doses
16 deaths were in people with 0 doses
The summary tells us that for age 80+ those with 0 dose are more likely to die than with vax. So therefore of those 16 deaths with 0 dose. Most of them must be over 80!
The report is a work of genius to come up with these results. They deserve a government award.
Analysis-lite given data-lite, but temporal relationships and ratio between hospitalisation in jabbed and death in jabbed turns out to be much the same as hospitalisation in unjabbed and death in unjabbed (other than x12 +ve confounding in jabbed).
Aaah statistics, a tool often manipulated and leveraged, and a frequent tool of the stupid & the corrupt alike. I'm very familiar with SA Gov's internal workings, and these reports are most typical 😉
What are the %ages with respect to? i.e what are the denominators? When you see exact numbers like 50.00 and also numbers like 21.21 this should raise suspicions of human infuence...
So if you read the doc it's a Bayesian exercise, so they have N (a vaxxed female) and everything is analysed in relation to N. I'm not across the finer points of Bayesian analysis, hence didn't get into the weeds on it. Hopefully someone else will!
At this point, to those in the narrative there will never be anything that will convince them otherwise. Ditto for those who will never get another injection again. Nevertheless, there is still good work to be done in holding those to account who murdered our families. Well done.
As you already know, I've done a few ACM analyses for Australia, though not explicitly using vax status as an explanatory variable:
1. https://metatron.substack.com/p/australia-begins-to-reap-what-it
2. https://metatron.substack.com/p/excess-deaths-in-australia-are-substantially
3. https://metatron.substack.com/p/new-south-wales-australia-covid-update
4. https://metatron.substack.com/p/dead-down-under
And there was this paper by Rancourt et al.
5. https://metatron.substack.com/p/probable-causal-association-between
Awesome thanks Joel. Pinned!
Thanks for the nice mention!
Thanks for patience in dragging out this report from them. It was as I thought. All their numbers are based on results for 80+ year olds. And for the few under 80's that died we can't tell their vax status. We know they most likely had comorbidities and therefore were vaccinated. 138 deaths were 3+ doses and 16 were zero dose.
Looking forward to trawling through this report to see what trickery they used with "Bayes" logistic regression.
Your analysis and reporting are among the most comprehensive and convincing I've found on the Internet. I just got a paid subscription so I don't miss any of your future dispatches ... And I want to go back and read all of your previous articles. Thanks and keep up the great work!
Thank you Bill, I appreciate it!
Here here.
I really hope Peak Prosperity covers this as.. this is really blatant corruption. I've been rather shocked by how low they've stooped on this one despite everything I've seen over the last 3 years. At first, I couldn't believe what I was reading. I hadn't slept well and was second-guessing my mental aptitude. What this shows, in my view, is a deliberate, conscious attempt to deceive the public. The fact that they dropped this extended release much later on once the initial attention had faded further points to malice.. especially considering that the initial release coincided with the bivalent rollout push which has zero evidence of benefit (in an increasingly IgG4 dominant environment).
It's not that they're stupid or incompetent.. this is clearly intentional. You can't simply stumble into making these kinds of errors.
My guess is that the Profs leading the study are so on board with the a priori that vaccines are safe and effective that they think they're doing the right thing or, at the least, they just think they're right. As for SA Health, there may be a Matt Hancock behind the scenes.
Indeed, I'm very familiar with the UoA inner workings, esp Pub Health..
HI Rebekah, this isn't data. It's a news report! There is no way to verify this crap and it has red flags all over it, such as the narrow window of analysis and the fact that the hospitalisation data is completely opposite from the NSW data. Are you happy to FOI the original data including the data of vaccination of all the vaccinated people and the date of vaccination of those patients who were deemed unvaccinated but have a medicare record, and whether the patients has a verifiable medicare record with which they could have documented vaccination. It is likely that most of these "unvaccinated" people are those in whom a medicare record was not found.
Agree, it's a joke of a PR exercise. Yes I can request that 'actual' data.
Closer look at the report.
Tables 1 and 2. Can anyone tell what they mean by percentage? Doesn't seem to make sense. They certainly don't add anywhere to 100%
It all seems to be based on 70,000 people who reported they had COVID in that period. At this stage in Australia this number is irrelevant. There is no obligation to report COVID. Who knows what type of people are reporting COVID.
What we can tell is:
for people under 60 no-one with zero doses died
The only deaths under 60 were 2 people with 1 or 2 doses
150 deaths were in people with 1,2,3+ doses
16 deaths were in people with 0 doses
The summary tells us that for age 80+ those with 0 dose are more likely to die than with vax. So therefore of those 16 deaths with 0 dose. Most of them must be over 80!
The report is a work of genius to come up with these results. They deserve a government award.
They will probably give themselves a medal.
Analysis-lite given data-lite, but temporal relationships and ratio between hospitalisation in jabbed and death in jabbed turns out to be much the same as hospitalisation in unjabbed and death in unjabbed (other than x12 +ve confounding in jabbed).
Temporal relationship of jabs to cases and consequences (NZ): https://drlatusdextro.substack.com/p/nz-excess-death-nothing-and-in-the
New Zealand MOH Data: Hospitalisation / ICU / Death / Injection Status (no age data)
https://drlatusdextro.substack.com/p/new-zealand-moh-data
https://drlatusdextro.substack.com/p/new-zealand-moh-data-ii-conclusion
https://drlatusdextro.substack.com/p/moh-data-iii-post-script-cont/comments
Err from the Numpties that urged you not to catch a football right?
Table 3 shows 0.32% of people with 0 doses dying, but 0.38% of people with 3+ doses.
Aaah statistics, a tool often manipulated and leveraged, and a frequent tool of the stupid & the corrupt alike. I'm very familiar with SA Gov's internal workings, and these reports are most typical 😉
Their level of education would appear to be inversely correlated to their ability..
What are the %ages with respect to? i.e what are the denominators? When you see exact numbers like 50.00 and also numbers like 21.21 this should raise suspicions of human infuence...
So if you read the doc it's a Bayesian exercise, so they have N (a vaxxed female) and everything is analysed in relation to N. I'm not across the finer points of Bayesian analysis, hence didn't get into the weeds on it. Hopefully someone else will!
Can we ask Prof Norman Fenton - he is expert on Bayes analysis?
good work rebekah. i blogged this on 22 july 2022 i think.
https://blog.justgeorgeous.net/justgeorgeous/current-research/sars-cov-2/the-more-vaccine-you-have-the-more-likely-you-are-to-end-up-in-hospital-with-covid-and-die-vaccineshavefailed-stop-using-them/
At this point, to those in the narrative there will never be anything that will convince them otherwise. Ditto for those who will never get another injection again. Nevertheless, there is still good work to be done in holding those to account who murdered our families. Well done.
Thank you so much Rebekah!