Discover more from Unreported Truths
Exploding the myth that Covid jabs protect against death in two charts
The public health industry (yes, it's an industry) relies on bad math and worse data collection to argue the Covid shots work. But the truth is out there.
(This one’s a bit technical, but unfortunately explaining how mRNA advocates use sleight of hand requires some time in the weeds. I’ve tried to keep it as straightforward as I can.)
For two years, mRNA jab advocates have used “age-adjusted rate ratios” to claim unvaccinated people have higher Covid hospitalization and death rates than the vaccinated.
(JUST HOW HIGH CAN THE SUBSCRIBE NOW BUTTON GET? LET’S FIND OUT! SERIOUSLY, THOUGH, THESE ARTICLES ARE WORTH PAYING FOR. AT LEAST I SAY THEY ARE.)
As I have written before, these ratios have huge flaws, especially in the United States, which collects data in ways that systematically overestimate vaccine effectiveness. But since these ratios come up whenever an mRNA skeptic questions the jabs, it’s worth repeating the problems:
We underestimate the overall number of unvaccinated people (some counties claim that over 100 percent of their residents have received at least one jab). But we overestimate Covid hospitalizations and deaths of unvaccinated people, since anyone who is hospitalized without a known vaccine status is considered “unvaccinated.”
So the numerator - ill unvaccinated people - is too high, and the denominator - all unvaccinated people - too low.
The United States also calls vaccinated people “unvaccinated” until at least a week after they have received their second jab. Other drugs don’t get this special treatment, and it is particularly stupid for the mRNA “vaccines,” which work for a few months at most and likely increase the risk of infection after the first dose.
All these errors work the same way, to make vaccines appear more protective than they actually are. That fact is not a coincidence. The people collecting and processing the data are the same ones who pushed the jabs.
But the biggest problem with the any vaccine data is deeper and more unfixable than the biases in the data collection around the mRNAs. It is what epidemiologists call “healthy vaccine user bias.” People who take the time to be vaccinated tend to care more about their health and have better access to health care than those who do not.
Further, mass vaccination campaigns for the elderly usually exclude people who are so sick or near death that they or their physicians believe vaccination will not benefit them. In Britain, for example, vaccination rates peak for people in their late seventies and then decline, because a greater percentage of people over 80 are simply too frail to be jabbed.
About 4 percent of nursing home residents in Britain who received a first Covid jab did not finish their vaccination with a second, implying they or their carers believed they could not tolerate the side effects of a second dose.
Measuring healthy vaccine bias can be tricky, but recent British vaccine data offer an glimpse at the phenomenon. Why Britain?
Britain’s Covid data is generally more honest than what’s available in the United States. Britain has a national health care system and a national immunization registry, so it collects more accurate numbers than the United States.
More importantly, to process the raw data, Britain has an “Office of National Statistics,” a bureaucracy that reports to the British Parliament and is not part of any government ministry its data might embarrass. No government organization can ever be completely immune from political pressure, but ONS is closer than most.
So ONS prints data about the vaccines and deaths that the United States government will not. For example, besides the age-adjusted ratios, it reports raw monthly numbers of deaths by vaccination status. It breaks out deaths by age, splits them into Covid and non-Covid deaths, and even provides the number and timing of shots the people who died had received.
And in doing so, it provides a beautiful look at healthy vaccine user bias.
Here’s all-cause death data from June 2021. England had very few Covid deaths that month, so these numbers will not be skewed by any protection the shots offered against Covid (remember, for a few months after they were given in 2021, the shots did reduce Sars-Cov-2 infections and Covid hospitalization and death).
First off, note that vaccinated people are a far larger group than the unvaccinated. The second column from the right shows that about 125,000 70-79 year olds in England had not been vaccinated, compared to almost 4.5 million who had.
All by itself this huge gap makes comparisons between the two groups nearly impossible. The 3 percent of seventy-somethings who are not vaccinated are probably very different than the 97 percent who are.
Now check the rightmost column. That figure shows the death rates in the various groups, per 100,000 person years. In other words, an unvaccinated 70-something had about a 4.5 percent chance of dying for the year - 1 in 22 odds.
Meanwhile, a “fully vaccinated” person - someone more than 21 days past his second dose - had only a 1.8 percent annual risk of death. That’s 1 in 56, less than half the risk of an unvaccinated person.
(Yay vaccines! They reduce your risk of death from all causes by more than 50 percent! At least that’s what this chart suggests.)
Now jump ahead a year, to June 2022. Again, England had very few Covid deaths that month, so whatever impact the shots have on Covid won’t matter to these figures. Seasonal patterns in mortality shouldn’t matter either, since both charts use June.
Several points jump out.
The pool of unjabbed people remains very small, but death rates in the group have fallen notably - from an annualized rate to 4.5 percent to only 3.2 percent (3226 per 100,000 in the top right column). Why?
The most likely reason is that some people who went unvaccinated because they were too sick to be jabbed and had a very short life expectancy died between 2021 and 2022. Without that artificial statistical boost, death rates in the unvaccinated group are reverting to more normal levels.
But even more interesting is that all the vaccinated groups with the exception of people who received a third-dose/booster more than 21 days earlier now have a HIGHER death rate than the unvaccinated.
Most of those groups are very small, but the two-dose unboosted group is not. In fact, it is larger than the unvaccinated group. And it has an annual death rate of almost 5.5 percent (5,484 per 100,000 in the rightmost column) - 1 in 19 people per year, almost twice the level of the unjabbed group.
Why? How come the two-dose regimen, which was an apparent lifesaver in June 2021, turned to poison a year later? How come death rates in that group have roughly tripled?
One possibility is that the jabs themselves become far more dangerous a year after they’re given. But in that case, how to explain the bottom right column, which shows that people who have received at least three doses dose have a risk of death that is lower than both the unjabbed and two-dose groups - about 2.1 percent, or 1 in 47?
So two jabs sharply raise all-cause mortality, but a third lowers it?
That explanation is biologically implausible, to say the least.
No, in reality, those two charts are a perfect illustration of healthy vaccine user bias.
People who have received two Covid shots and then became sick - from the jabs, or just coincidentally - are not getting a third. They are stuck in a pool of people who are at much higher risk of death than people who are healthy enough to be jabbed again.
The key here: these swings in all-cause mortality are huge, far higher than the jabs or any medical treatment would produce even if it worked. In other words, ALL THIS STATISTICAL MOVEMENT IS INDEPENDENT OF ANY BIOLOGICAL CHANGES THE JABS PRODUCE. It doesn’t prove the jabs are helpful - or harmful. It doesn’t prove only that people who receive them appear healthier for a while afterwards because they are healthier before.
It is noise that makes finding a real signal harder.
And that’s why, for the Covid jabs, we needed real, large placebo-controlled clinical trials that measured safety and effectiveness and all-cause mortality over a period of years, not months (because when a government is giving or forcing a treatment on healthy adults, all-cause mortality is what matters).
But we never got those.
And now we never will. Instead we’re left with hopelessly corrupted epidemiological data from hopelessly corrupted health agencies.