Check out Karl Denniger's look at the statistics out of Israel
link to page 23 of the appendix he refers to in the link below!
http://market-ticker.org/cgi-ticker/akc ... ost=241961
Oh my, what happens when the fear porn folks bury the facts in an appendix?
It only works until they get caught when someone reads said appendix. Which of course the "Woke" and fear-porn peddling media will never do. Unfortunately for them I'm the sort of guy who stays up all night to read 1,000 page bills before they're voted on like Obamacare, and I was tipped off to this one, so I went digging -- and indeed, there it is.
On page 23 they got caught.
This is is a very large post-EUA vaccine study in Israel, which has been wildly stabbing people now for a few months. And it contains a very sobering set of statistics if you read the appendix.
It's also notable what's not included.
So let us begin.
First, this is roughly a half million people per arm -- vaccinated and control -- or about one million people in total. It therefore has a lot of statistical power, just on size. That's very good news because you need large numbers to get meaningful results when the outcomes in each arm are relatively rare.
Further, Israel is somewhat unique, in that they mandate membership in a "health fund" but let you choose one. This is the data from the largest, covering ~50% of the nation's population. As such it's remarkably free of the sort of self-selection bias that is in a lot of studies, and because Israel has electronic records for all of them the data quality is pretty good.
They also "matched" the control and study arms, which is good too. What this means is that as someone dropped out from one cohort for any reason, such as getting vaccinated, they had to either be replaced or their matching pair dropped.
So let's start here:
In the absence of systematic periodic testing for SARS-CoV-2 among asymptomatic people in Israel, documented asymptomatic infections do not account for all asymptomatic infections, and likely cannot accurately capture vaccine effectiveness for this outcome.
But who gives a crap about asymptomatic infection? Nobody with a brain. It produces only social and personal good; both personal immunity and contribution to population immunity. There has never been an epidemic in history during which asymptomatic cases have been material in the spread of disease and this is no exception; even JAMA now admits asymptomatic transmission in the highest-contact environment outside of medical settings, households, almost never occurs (0.7% probability .vs. 18%). Do recall that literally every "public mitigation" step including masks, closing schools and businesses and more centers around the lie that people without symptoms transmit the virus efficiently yet this is now known, by published, direct study to be false just as it always has been false in the past.
In other words, just to repeat, JAMA itself now admits there is no reason whatsoever to issue any mandate against non-symptomatic people -- and there never was any reason to do so. Such persons are less than 1/25th as likely to spread disease when in a confined space with other people for tens of hours at a time. Every person and official promoting and issuing such "mandates" including masks, closing schools, distancing and similar deserves to be in prison right here, right now and be asset-stripped to their underwear. They had no evidence behind their actions and the foremost medical journal in the United States has admitted this is and was the case in print.
Now let's look at the magnified infection curve for symptomatic infections. There is a significant bend in the curve. But notice something; only 0.9% of the unvaccinated people got infected and the spread is not the entire 0.6 -> 0.9; there was divergence right from the start which is a problem because until the person who gets the vaccine builds antibodies nothing happens. But it did.
This strongly implies either behavioral or matching problems between the populations.
Looking out the 42 days (when the study terminated) we find another oddity; there is no material bend in the curve among unvaccinated persons. Yet we took half a million in one of the health systems alone, out of four, out of the pool! Or did we? The data is that we did not; we may have taken them out of "documented infections" but they're spreading the virus, which means they're mutating it too. How do we know this? Because that immune pressure on spread would otherwise be seen in the unvaccinated cohort to a very significant degree and it was not.
That's a problem. In fact it's an extremely serious problem because under any reasonable interpretation it means that sterility did not occur with vaccination.
Note that Salk made the same mistake with polio. Fortunately Sabin figured out the danger in what was being done and saved the day with OPV, which is sterilizing. Had he not evasion and promotion of more-virulent strains may well have resulted in a "super polio" outbreak over time. We are now deliberately ignoring that which Salk and Sabin taught us decades ago and if we get it up the chute as a result, and I remind you there is emerging anecdotal reports of it occurring already, we will deserve it.
An even more-interesting factor came in, however, with hospitalization. In short the evidence is that the unvaccinated stopped getting sick enough to go to the hospital! So why would you now get vaccinated? After 35 days both curves flatlined and the vaccinated one was about 4-5 days in front of the unvaccinated.
Did the vaccine do anything to actually stop hospitalization or did the virus simply run out of vulnerable people?
The evidence is that it did the latter; the vulnerable got vaccinated first and the rest are not vulnerable and thus didn't wind up in the hospital. In other words widespread vaccination beyond the vulnerable conferred no benefit.
The same thing happened a few days later with "severe" Covid-19, which is expected; a case that deteriorates takes a few days to do so. Thus, among the unvaccinated the virus had burned itself out. This is point #2 in support of that explanation.
And then comes the kick in the nuts: The same thing happened with death, lagged 10 days which is approximately how long it takes to die from symptom appearance.
THAT'S ALL THREE ENDPOINTS, ALL OF WHICH CONCUR.
There will be people who will argue this is a "stunning success" based on the narrative in the study. They're lying and the data in the appendix conclusively proves it.
Once the vulnerable people got vaccinated, and those people went first in Israel as happened here in the US as well all further benefit to society as a whole disappeared. The not-vulnerable who were left in the unvaccinated cohort were never at risk of dying in the first place, nor of hospitalization, so they got nothing useful from the vaccine. All they got was risk from the shot itself. Nobody gives a crap if you sneeze and preventing sneezing is not worth the risk from a shot.
Worse, the differential in deaths between the two over those 42 days was only 19 souls; which across a million is not a very large number, and all of those were in high risk people who, as time went on, got vaccinated. The rest of the cohort who remained unvaccinated through the end of the 42 days had no harms from being unvaccinated as they stopped being hospitalized, getting a severe case and dying before the end of the 42 days yet they had not been jabbed.
You literally could not come up with a better argument for not vaccinating anyone other than those at significantly elevated risk than this study; it shows conclusively that the "unvaccinated" did not suffer at all if they were they not in the high risk categories; those who were "unvaccinated" and got hit with hospitalization, severe disease or death were all high risk people and as they were removed from the pool all three of those outcome stopped even though cases did not.
No, everyone should not get poked; there is no discernable benefit shown here for those not at specifically high risk.
If you take the jab voluntarily and are not at said high risk on the data you're stupid and deserve what you get.
Oh, and what else is missing?
All-cause mortality in both groups, and the study folks had that data just like they had the rest since everything is electronic. Those 19 lives that were saved -- how many were lost in that vaccinated group .vs. the non-vaccinated over that same time and what offset against those 19 souls must be applied due to other causes of mortality that were associated with getting jabbed?
After all, dead is dead -- right?
SO WHY WASN'T THAT REPORTED WHEN, IF IT SHOWED LOWER ALL-CAUSE MORTALITY AMONG THE VACCINATED IT WOULD GREATLY SUPPORT THE SAFETY ARGUMENT?
If you're not pissed off enough by the above watch this: https://www.bitchute.com/video/RqyafQHKY9Iy/
Youslob has deemed it "against community rules" and removed it; facts just are, but if they damage someone's fear porn control schtick they must, of course, be censored.