the many unfortunate 'errors' .. this 'confusion' when presenting the data by so many well-paid co-authors, each meant to be triple-checking one another's work, and especially the underlying math basis for the results they collectively advanced .. is not natural error
.. it is part of the entire product placement strategy .. part of the marketing directive .. part of the pharma manifesto
here is Australia's service and prayer .. a litany of confounding effects served-up with a bow on top, surrounded by a false aura of institutional legitimacy .. anointed Fauci acolytes repeating The Science
the errors followed by the errors stacked on top of the errors bound with the incomprehensible confusion on display in this paper by several multi-decade PhDs and a collaborating Professor from Sydney University, is not an unfortunate example of Human error(s) and frailty .. no
on display here is a paper written after the results were determined
a paper that places the names of Melanie Dunford, Claudia Slimings, Renee Foo, Bronwyn Wyatt and Mariam Baksh out front
.. but look under the hood
Kristine Macartney collaborated .. suggesting a source for the twisted turns and torturous abuse of the math
Kristine has served on Australia’s Advisory Committee on Vaccines (TGA’s ACV) and on ATAGI (Australia’s immunization technical advisory group) as an ex-officio member
her industry sponsors include the WHO, GlaxoSmithKline, and favourite of every reader here - Pfizer
.. oh .. and she has received funding from the not-really-benevolent Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
in other words, with Kristine on board, and as the senior academic scientist able to make (or break) a lesser co-author's career, you can bet your bottom dollar this flagging waving poster child for vaccines made sure the necessary spin we see was edged-in - and to damn with the real math and science - in order to pop-out a paper that can and will be used wrongly to spruik what a fantastic choice Australia's other bureaucrats and Ministers made when choosing to buy Bill's and the WHO's (not-novel but known to kill and maim prior to Covid) products
as Rebekah put it: ".. it is highly probable that this analysis will be proffered by government departments, academia, and professional bodies as evidence of vaccine effectiveness anyway"
no .. no errors or accidental miscategorisations occurred in this paper .. every element and 'finding' and statement in support was carefully crafted .. to deceive
after all, wasn't that the general rule for carrying off a successful Covid pandemic - deception?
Kristine et al have ticked off their box with this paper .. their contribution: "Deception deployed, over and out"
thank you Rebekah and associated sources .. for identifying and placing a spotlight on this never ending flow of Covid pharmaceutical propaganda .. this being yet another article of perhaps thousands now, that will - in time - make for some unbelievable PhD studies and students .. one day .. when it is finally acknowledged the enemy was never Covid, but these types of people .. inside the wire .. appearing to be all so benevolent and good for us
.. just like that one-time adorably cute little vaccine huckster Fauci was seen to be .. remember when everyone thought he was just the bees-knees?
now people around the world have a very different perception of the guy .. and a few choice and accurate names for the fellow .. yes, some real choice names right up there with those given to good ol' Josef Mengele
so what I am trying to say here Folks, is - same same .. same same here, but different
the pharmaceutical complex is global .. it infests Australia's backyard .. it has successfully invaded the bodies of millions of Australians
reminds me of the opinion about doing a coronial inquest - "you never start one unless you know the result".
I read your description of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd errors of the analysis and consider them not mistakes, but deliberate choices in order to obfuscate, or even change, the underlying result - that is that this rollout was bad, and will continue to be bad, for the people of this country.
But their results does not really show that.
Rubbish data in equals rubbish data out. Using data that sounds the same but is structurally different does indeed result in false signals or squewed results. And can be hard to spot, unless you really dig in. And then you sound like a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist when you document the inconsistencies.
"Authorities say the Covid vaccines were very effective, but refuse to produce the data to prove it. If belief requires blind faith, that’s not science - that’s a cult."
I think the cult like thinking drives the behaviour. The cult will not tolerate any deviance from the group think. The results will always support the cult. The people involved will take personal offence, or even consider it to be an attack, to question the cult.
Ahh.... the old don't count as jabbed until so many days after jabbing scam - despite many examples of people dying within a very short time of getting jabbed.
Thanks Rebekah. Nice job. They are continuing the obfuscations and errors previously pushed. Presumably, trying to get some positive vaccine press in advance of the next Covid wave, which I heard announced recently on the radio. It's no longer challenging to detect the strategies ...
mResvia - just noticed that the TGA quietly approved the Moderna mRNA RSV vaccine at the end of March. https://www.tga.gov.au/resources/auspar/auspar-mresvia. I didn't see any publicity around this one? So, Australia is now accepting mRNA products for non-pandemic, low risk disease - no need for long term safety studies. I'm guessing this is also manufactured via plasmids in the same way as the covid shots.
(Sorry, off-topic) This is the reason for no publicity in Australia: mResvia was initially rejected by the TGA and the Advisory Committee on Vaccines (ACV) in June 2024 and NOT approved. Moderna appealed this decision under section 60 of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. Under section 60, one delegate reviews additional information and decides whether or not to approve – it doesn’t need to go back to the ACV. Even the TGA didn’t want this product.
Some quotes from the Auspar:
“no claim is made in the Australian Product Information that the product can prevent severe disease or hospitalisations”.
“There is currently a lack of longer-term efficacy and safety data, and the need for need for repeat vaccination is not yet known.”
“The ACV advised that that there was not a favourable benefit-risk balance for the proposed regimen of mRESVIA in the proposed population”.
So when the ABC starts spruiking this product this winter, we know the reality...
The NSW hospital admission data fits perfectly with the concepts of natural immunity being more robust than "vaccine" based immunity, and repeated jabs leading to more cases via rising levels of IgG4.
Anecdotally, my "unjabbed" patients have had fewer and less severe Covid infections than the jabbed ones.
The Cleveland Clinic data is the benchmark study for my money.
Rebekah, again, thanks for your awesome research & analysis. I'm staggered, and probably shouldn't be, that they're still withholding useful data! One wonders why. Surely there's nothing to hide?🥴
My reading of the data is that the column heights are per million of the TOTAL NSW POPULATION, not per million of each vax category.
If this is so then, given the very low percentage of population who were totally unvaxxed, the graph does not do what you were hoping for. Tis an own goal, in fact. The other thing to bear in mind is the confounder that the folk who'd taken four jabs by then were probably those in the community who were the frailest. Surprised Barry Kissane didn't see this.
It’s per million of popn by vax status (ie: proportional) as notated on the graphs. I think my para underneath is not clear enough on this point, will amend. It’s the opposite of an own goal. The mention of Simpson’s paradox is exactly speaking to your point about why so many 4+ jabbed were dying. Some weeks half of all deaths occurred in aged care. Does this mean the jabs were or were not working in this cohort? Were they all vaxxed to the eyeballs because of care protocols or were they stubborn unvaxxed hold outs? Were the jabs not working in some cohorts but working in others? The only ppl who can answer these questions are the federal and state governments who hold the data. But they won’t publish it, so all we’re left with is the appearance of negative efficacy and ‘just trust us bro.’
It is not at all clear that that is the proper interpretation. I really am interested to see the original source. It is looking like a case of "the hand is quicker than the eye" to me.:)
Ps from Matt, who made the data sheet and overlaid population vax rates on NSW Health datât:
“The source data of pop by vax status was maintained by someone that won some award for their contribution. I don’t remember what. I recall checking this data against the official records on a couple of occasions and found it to be correct. I decided therefore not to replicate this good work.”
Ok well I’ve explained it’s proportional to vax status in the population and so has Matt and it is explained also in the sheet and all data sources are available for double checking. If you still want to interpret it differently to what the sources, the datasheet creator and myself are saying, I can’t help further except to reiterate my suggestion that you redo all Matt’s workings for yourself (which I did at the time) to double check.
thank you Rebekah,
.. and the theater continues
the many unfortunate 'errors' .. this 'confusion' when presenting the data by so many well-paid co-authors, each meant to be triple-checking one another's work, and especially the underlying math basis for the results they collectively advanced .. is not natural error
.. it is part of the entire product placement strategy .. part of the marketing directive .. part of the pharma manifesto
here is Australia's service and prayer .. a litany of confounding effects served-up with a bow on top, surrounded by a false aura of institutional legitimacy .. anointed Fauci acolytes repeating The Science
the errors followed by the errors stacked on top of the errors bound with the incomprehensible confusion on display in this paper by several multi-decade PhDs and a collaborating Professor from Sydney University, is not an unfortunate example of Human error(s) and frailty .. no
on display here is a paper written after the results were determined
a paper that places the names of Melanie Dunford, Claudia Slimings, Renee Foo, Bronwyn Wyatt and Mariam Baksh out front
.. but look under the hood
Kristine Macartney collaborated .. suggesting a source for the twisted turns and torturous abuse of the math
Kristine has served on Australia’s Advisory Committee on Vaccines (TGA’s ACV) and on ATAGI (Australia’s immunization technical advisory group) as an ex-officio member
her industry sponsors include the WHO, GlaxoSmithKline, and favourite of every reader here - Pfizer
.. oh .. and she has received funding from the not-really-benevolent Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
in other words, with Kristine on board, and as the senior academic scientist able to make (or break) a lesser co-author's career, you can bet your bottom dollar this flagging waving poster child for vaccines made sure the necessary spin we see was edged-in - and to damn with the real math and science - in order to pop-out a paper that can and will be used wrongly to spruik what a fantastic choice Australia's other bureaucrats and Ministers made when choosing to buy Bill's and the WHO's (not-novel but known to kill and maim prior to Covid) products
as Rebekah put it: ".. it is highly probable that this analysis will be proffered by government departments, academia, and professional bodies as evidence of vaccine effectiveness anyway"
no .. no errors or accidental miscategorisations occurred in this paper .. every element and 'finding' and statement in support was carefully crafted .. to deceive
after all, wasn't that the general rule for carrying off a successful Covid pandemic - deception?
Kristine et al have ticked off their box with this paper .. their contribution: "Deception deployed, over and out"
thank you Rebekah and associated sources .. for identifying and placing a spotlight on this never ending flow of Covid pharmaceutical propaganda .. this being yet another article of perhaps thousands now, that will - in time - make for some unbelievable PhD studies and students .. one day .. when it is finally acknowledged the enemy was never Covid, but these types of people .. inside the wire .. appearing to be all so benevolent and good for us
.. just like that one-time adorably cute little vaccine huckster Fauci was seen to be .. remember when everyone thought he was just the bees-knees?
now people around the world have a very different perception of the guy .. and a few choice and accurate names for the fellow .. yes, some real choice names right up there with those given to good ol' Josef Mengele
so what I am trying to say here Folks, is - same same .. same same here, but different
the pharmaceutical complex is global .. it infests Australia's backyard .. it has successfully invaded the bodies of millions of Australians
.. and .. it is deep within Our institutions
reminds me of the opinion about doing a coronial inquest - "you never start one unless you know the result".
I read your description of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd errors of the analysis and consider them not mistakes, but deliberate choices in order to obfuscate, or even change, the underlying result - that is that this rollout was bad, and will continue to be bad, for the people of this country.
But their results does not really show that.
Rubbish data in equals rubbish data out. Using data that sounds the same but is structurally different does indeed result in false signals or squewed results. And can be hard to spot, unless you really dig in. And then you sound like a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist when you document the inconsistencies.
"Authorities say the Covid vaccines were very effective, but refuse to produce the data to prove it. If belief requires blind faith, that’s not science - that’s a cult."
I think the cult like thinking drives the behaviour. The cult will not tolerate any deviance from the group think. The results will always support the cult. The people involved will take personal offence, or even consider it to be an attack, to question the cult.
"Vaccinations weren’t counted until 14 days after administration"
Wild that they are still trying to get away with this cheap parlor trick.
Ahh.... the old don't count as jabbed until so many days after jabbing scam - despite many examples of people dying within a very short time of getting jabbed.
Thanks Rebekah. Nice job. They are continuing the obfuscations and errors previously pushed. Presumably, trying to get some positive vaccine press in advance of the next Covid wave, which I heard announced recently on the radio. It's no longer challenging to detect the strategies ...
mResvia - just noticed that the TGA quietly approved the Moderna mRNA RSV vaccine at the end of March. https://www.tga.gov.au/resources/auspar/auspar-mresvia. I didn't see any publicity around this one? So, Australia is now accepting mRNA products for non-pandemic, low risk disease - no need for long term safety studies. I'm guessing this is also manufactured via plasmids in the same way as the covid shots.
(Sorry, off-topic) This is the reason for no publicity in Australia: mResvia was initially rejected by the TGA and the Advisory Committee on Vaccines (ACV) in June 2024 and NOT approved. Moderna appealed this decision under section 60 of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. Under section 60, one delegate reviews additional information and decides whether or not to approve – it doesn’t need to go back to the ACV. Even the TGA didn’t want this product.
Some quotes from the Auspar:
“no claim is made in the Australian Product Information that the product can prevent severe disease or hospitalisations”.
“There is currently a lack of longer-term efficacy and safety data, and the need for need for repeat vaccination is not yet known.”
“The ACV advised that that there was not a favourable benefit-risk balance for the proposed regimen of mRESVIA in the proposed population”.
So when the ABC starts spruiking this product this winter, we know the reality...
Interesting, thank you
The NSW hospital admission data fits perfectly with the concepts of natural immunity being more robust than "vaccine" based immunity, and repeated jabs leading to more cases via rising levels of IgG4.
Anecdotally, my "unjabbed" patients have had fewer and less severe Covid infections than the jabbed ones.
The Cleveland Clinic data is the benchmark study for my money.
Rebekah, again, thanks for your awesome research & analysis. I'm staggered, and probably shouldn't be, that they're still withholding useful data! One wonders why. Surely there's nothing to hide?🥴
My reading of the data is that the column heights are per million of the TOTAL NSW POPULATION, not per million of each vax category.
If this is so then, given the very low percentage of population who were totally unvaxxed, the graph does not do what you were hoping for. Tis an own goal, in fact. The other thing to bear in mind is the confounder that the folk who'd taken four jabs by then were probably those in the community who were the frailest. Surprised Barry Kissane didn't see this.
It’s per million of popn by vax status (ie: proportional) as notated on the graphs. I think my para underneath is not clear enough on this point, will amend. It’s the opposite of an own goal. The mention of Simpson’s paradox is exactly speaking to your point about why so many 4+ jabbed were dying. Some weeks half of all deaths occurred in aged care. Does this mean the jabs were or were not working in this cohort? Were they all vaxxed to the eyeballs because of care protocols or were they stubborn unvaxxed hold outs? Were the jabs not working in some cohorts but working in others? The only ppl who can answer these questions are the federal and state governments who hold the data. But they won’t publish it, so all we’re left with is the appearance of negative efficacy and ‘just trust us bro.’
It is not at all clear that that is the proper interpretation. I really am interested to see the original source. It is looking like a case of "the hand is quicker than the eye" to me.:)
Sources are all linked in the datasheet (linked under graphs in article). Check it out sometime!
Ps from Matt, who made the data sheet and overlaid population vax rates on NSW Health datât:
“The source data of pop by vax status was maintained by someone that won some award for their contribution. I don’t remember what. I recall checking this data against the official records on a couple of occasions and found it to be correct. I decided therefore not to replicate this good work.”
"Rate of events per 1M population by vaccination status" could mean either
(A) Rate of events (per 1M population) by vaccination status.
OR (B) Rate of events (per 1M population by vaccination status).
It really is ambiguous. I am leaning to the former.
Ok well I’ve explained it’s proportional to vax status in the population and so has Matt and it is explained also in the sheet and all data sources are available for double checking. If you still want to interpret it differently to what the sources, the datasheet creator and myself are saying, I can’t help further except to reiterate my suggestion that you redo all Matt’s workings for yourself (which I did at the time) to double check.
Had another look and a drop down box indicates that I was wrong.
How to reconcile with this, though. Remember it, from late in 2021.
https://youtu.be/ggHuVl4jrqo?si=lndm9z_y0ZVNEZ2R