Thank you. I live in the Netherlands myself. Zero 'vaccinations' by the way.
I am 100% convinced that these so called vaccines do more harm than good. All the evidence points that way. Probably no need to convince anyone in this thread:-)
I am pleased to see so many people working with the data. But.... I am a bit confused. Here's why:
The website of the CBS (Central Bureau of Statistics) which published this data mentions the following: Until this publication they considered people as 'vaccinated' 2 weeks after the second jab (Pfizer and Moderna mRNA jabs). They changed this definition and according to their website now consider people as vaccinated immediately after the second jab.
That means, people who die with one jab only are considered 'unvaccinated'. But when i look in the CSV link that you provide I see a description 'immediately after first dose' which seems to imply that they did count the single jabbers.
Have the CBS accidently shown more data than they had planned to share? I am a bit confused since I now see so many graphs and stats. For me it only makes sense when I undetstand the underlying data.
The CBS report included one set of statistics where people were considered vaccinated immediately after their first shot, and another set of statistics where people were considered vaccinated 2 weeks after their second shot (or after they were otherwise considered fully vaccinated following a couple of different rules): https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/longread/rapportages/2024/covid-vaccinatiestatus-en-sterfte/2-methode.
A challenge Steve posted then pulled. I can't recall the exact wording but along the lines of showing how his data could lead to anyone's private health info being disclosed.
No, he says that I didn't demonstrate sufficient evidence that the information I disclosed had the potential to cause harm to people or their families (even though I think I did).
I told my neighbor grandma that I would start blackmailing Kirsch if he doesn't give me the reward, because there were a couple of things I could've told Te Whatu Ora that might have caused legal problems to Kirsch, but I told her that I had hesitated to start using gangster tactics so she's now making fun of me because I still don't have the money.
I asked Kirsch to pay the 25k USD reward to my Bitcoin address on January 29th... Its value would've already increased by about 18k USD, which is almost twice my yearly income. God damn philantropists.
The reason why Kirsch has so much money is that he never gives it away, unless it's part of some scheme where he donates a million dollars to Bill Gates and Bill Gates donates a million dollars to him, so then neither of them have to pay taxes.
I thought you did a great job on it and it was obvious you put lots of time into it. With the case pending it's a pretty sensitive time. But the truth should, I believe, always be put above anything.
"Thus, likely given no efficacy, but proven harm, the entire rollout should have never taken place."
That is exactly what appears to be seen in New Zealand. Vaxx/never vaxx hospital deaths appear to be similar pro rata, while the proportion of vaxxed filling the hospitals escalated as numbers as the number in the population were shotted. A mess of confounding, but death in hospital reveals the absence of any utility of the shots. https://drlatusdextro.substack.com/p/new-zealand-moh-data
Hmmm. 'Efficacy' refers to the claimed studied or alleged relative or absolute risk. An odds ratio is considered useful, but ignored. 'Effectiveness' in the case of uncontrolled population wide shotting is a fraudulent modeled post hoc metric based upon prior alleged efficacy and matched to hospital admissions and deaths.
Dear Ben, I think it's quite simple. We are seeing the consequence of something we already know. A simultaneous decrease in vaccinated people along with their decreasing average age. This is why green generally dies less than red and with less seasonality over time. God bless the Netherlands, even if they have occasionally annoyed us in soccer. :-)
In your "All-cause Mortality by Vaccination Status" graphs, "Deaths per 100k population by vaccination status":
A) is that relative to respective populations (i.e. Vax Deaths per 100k Vax people) or
B) is that relative to combined populations (i.e. Vax Deaths per 100k ALL people), which is naturally higher for vax than non-vax, simply because there are more vaxed than non-vaxed ?
Can you please make this clear and bold in your article.
I would think 'Deaths per 100k population by vaccination status' means A).
Another clue might be the difference in ACM which seems around 10-15% higher for the jabbed. If B) were correct, with at least 3x more jabbed than unjabbed in the population, then the killer jab would be saving loads of lives.
If the age standardised mortality rate is showing a signal then is showing age standardised mortality rates by vaccination status going to help pin point at least where it may or may not be? Can that be obtained from that data?
Thank you. I live in the Netherlands myself. Zero 'vaccinations' by the way.
I am 100% convinced that these so called vaccines do more harm than good. All the evidence points that way. Probably no need to convince anyone in this thread:-)
I am pleased to see so many people working with the data. But.... I am a bit confused. Here's why:
The website of the CBS (Central Bureau of Statistics) which published this data mentions the following: Until this publication they considered people as 'vaccinated' 2 weeks after the second jab (Pfizer and Moderna mRNA jabs). They changed this definition and according to their website now consider people as vaccinated immediately after the second jab.
That means, people who die with one jab only are considered 'unvaccinated'. But when i look in the CSV link that you provide I see a description 'immediately after first dose' which seems to imply that they did count the single jabbers.
Have the CBS accidently shown more data than they had planned to share? I am a bit confused since I now see so many graphs and stats. For me it only makes sense when I undetstand the underlying data.
The CBS report included one set of statistics where people were considered vaccinated immediately after their first shot, and another set of statistics where people were considered vaccinated 2 weeks after their second shot (or after they were otherwise considered fully vaccinated following a couple of different rules): https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/longread/rapportages/2024/covid-vaccinatiestatus-en-sterfte/2-methode.
Mongol, did Steve ever payout?
for what?
A challenge Steve posted then pulled. I can't recall the exact wording but along the lines of showing how his data could lead to anyone's private health info being disclosed.
No, he says that I didn't demonstrate sufficient evidence that the information I disclosed had the potential to cause harm to people or their families (even though I think I did).
I told my neighbor grandma that I would start blackmailing Kirsch if he doesn't give me the reward, because there were a couple of things I could've told Te Whatu Ora that might have caused legal problems to Kirsch, but I told her that I had hesitated to start using gangster tactics so she's now making fun of me because I still don't have the money.
I asked Kirsch to pay the 25k USD reward to my Bitcoin address on January 29th... Its value would've already increased by about 18k USD, which is almost twice my yearly income. God damn philantropists.
The reason why Kirsch has so much money is that he never gives it away, unless it's part of some scheme where he donates a million dollars to Bill Gates and Bill Gates donates a million dollars to him, so then neither of them have to pay taxes.
That's rule #1 with money. Don't give it away ;)
I thought you did a great job on it and it was obvious you put lots of time into it. With the case pending it's a pretty sensitive time. But the truth should, I believe, always be put above anything.
Well done anyway.
"Thus, likely given no efficacy, but proven harm, the entire rollout should have never taken place."
That is exactly what appears to be seen in New Zealand. Vaxx/never vaxx hospital deaths appear to be similar pro rata, while the proportion of vaxxed filling the hospitals escalated as numbers as the number in the population were shotted. A mess of confounding, but death in hospital reveals the absence of any utility of the shots. https://drlatusdextro.substack.com/p/new-zealand-moh-data
Yes, and that's why the WHO says: "To be approved, vaccines are required to have a high efficacy rate of 50% or above" https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/vaccine-efficacy-effectiveness-and-protection
Because any intervention, any medication has side-effects.
Hmmm. 'Efficacy' refers to the claimed studied or alleged relative or absolute risk. An odds ratio is considered useful, but ignored. 'Effectiveness' in the case of uncontrolled population wide shotting is a fraudulent modeled post hoc metric based upon prior alleged efficacy and matched to hospital admissions and deaths.
Dear Ben, I think it's quite simple. We are seeing the consequence of something we already know. A simultaneous decrease in vaccinated people along with their decreasing average age. This is why green generally dies less than red and with less seasonality over time. God bless the Netherlands, even if they have occasionally annoyed us in soccer. :-)
Much appreciated your work.
Most important technical question however:
In your "All-cause Mortality by Vaccination Status" graphs, "Deaths per 100k population by vaccination status":
A) is that relative to respective populations (i.e. Vax Deaths per 100k Vax people) or
B) is that relative to combined populations (i.e. Vax Deaths per 100k ALL people), which is naturally higher for vax than non-vax, simply because there are more vaxed than non-vaxed ?
Can you please make this clear and bold in your article.
Regards
(from designer of Canada Vital Statistics (Deaths) Tracker - https://o-canada.shinyapps.io/vitals)
I would think 'Deaths per 100k population by vaccination status' means A).
Another clue might be the difference in ACM which seems around 10-15% higher for the jabbed. If B) were correct, with at least 3x more jabbed than unjabbed in the population, then the killer jab would be saving loads of lives.
A) - i have calculated the vaccinated/unvaccinated populations based on OWID data.
Whole point of the exercise.
If the age standardised mortality rate is showing a signal then is showing age standardised mortality rates by vaccination status going to help pin point at least where it may or may not be? Can that be obtained from that data?
None of these figures makes any sense unless you also show the total population in each of the two groups.