The study analyzed all 4.64 million people in Norway over 18, and correctly put people in the vaxxed camp on the day of the shot (not 14 days later as normal).
However, I observe that the results should be dismissed out of hand based on this quote by the authors:
"There was also a higher proportion of individuals with a risk condition among those vaccinated compared to those left unvaccinated through the study period ....
In all age groups, the rate of death was lowest among those that were fully vaccinated and highest among those that were unvaccinated."
If true, this means that those at most risk of dying (from kidney disease, liver disease, diabetes, obesity, chronic lung disease, blood cancer, immunodeficiency, cardiovascular disease, stroke, dementia, and other cancers - by their own definitions) were suddenly healed by mRNA shots, and died less than the unvaxxed. Not died less from covid, but died less from any cause. That's utterly implausible, and proves their data is either corrupted or mismanaged.
In the study period, only 6,015 Norwegians died of covid. That's a small percentage of all deaths (132,963), and therefore it's impossible that a covid shot should cause such massive changes to death rates as this paper claims:
"The rate of death for those that were fully vaccinated compared to those that were unvaccinated was 30% lower, 27% lower and 24% lower in the age-groups 18-44 years, 45-64 years and 65 years or older."
Note that the younger the age, the more likely the unvaxxed were to die relative to their vaxxed peers. That is also highly suspicious, since covid didn't typically kill anyone under 44.
So what this paper is claiming is:
1. Despite covid killing almost nobody, the mRNA shots save almost everyone from normal deaths, and
2. Those that refuse this miracle drug are now causing all the excess deaths on account of their increased likelihood of dying, despite being generally healthier.
One would need to be intellectually challenged to believe such nonsense.
Healthy user bias is present on the other end of the distribution, as well. In countries with a high level of vaccination, a good number of the people who are not vaccinated are the extremely unwell, who are doing so under medical advice -- their doctors think that even a mild reaction to the vaccine is likely to kill them. Or because their doctors already know their immune system is so compromised that they cannot mount an antibody defense, so there is
no point in giving them any more injections. In Sweden we measured the antibody response of people taking immuno-suppressing drugs, typically transplant recipients -- after first vaccination to find this out. But I don't see much of an effort being made to measure how large this effect is. Know of any?
One also has to keep in mind how the status of „vaccinated“ is defined. According to WHO and US health authorities (followed by many other countries - how about Norway?), individuals are considered „vaccinated“ only 10 (for Moderna) and 14 days (Pfizer) after receiving the second dose and any booster thereafter, so any adverse events occurring before these dates are counted among the „unvaccinated“. Selection bias at its best!
Yes, however in this study they claim: "Each individual was
counted as vaccinated from the date of vaccination and onwards" - of course they say this is not an efficacy study - only in efficacy studies they use these tricks, e.g. 7 or 14 days...
No surprises at all here, it's Standard Operating Procedure in which there can only be ZERO cause and effect correlation validating the 'in your face LIE' that these NON-CONFORM and unfit for human and animal use injectable 'products' were both safe and effective.
A study that would conclude otherwise would NOT be tolerated!!
Every single aIRR (adjusted incidence rate ratio) is lower than the corresponding IRR (incidence rate ratio). Why is that so? Adjustments are "for sex (man/woman), county of residence
(categorical), calendar time (quarter and year) and medical risk group at baseline (yes/no)". I consider the first three secondary. If risk group has that large an effect, then numbers of deaths should be tabulated accordingly, stratified by risk group/no risk group.
Very nicely done criticism, and important comments about interpretation of vaccination-status mortality!
Thanks Dr Rancourt for bringing your research, and that of your colleagues, out in the open for us all to read !
Do we have the isolation and purification of this new bird flu?
Avian flu virus H5N1: No proof for existence, pathogenicity, or pandemic potential; non-“H5N1” causation omitted
nlm.nih.gov
More fakery from the wizards
Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel Says They ‘Copied & Pasted’ the Spike Sequence From the Chinese Government
https://open.substack.com/pub/lionessofjudah/p/moderna-ceo-we-never-had-access-to?r=145evj&utm_medium=ios
Do we have the isolation and purification documents of Covid 19 it appears it never existed?
FOIs reveal that health/science institutions around the world (225 and counting!) have no record of SARS-COV-2 isolation/purification, anywhere, ever
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/
They knew contagion didn't exist after the 1923 Lancaster Study, but they continued to push the fear narrative to keep a control on humanity.
https://en.rattibha.com/thread/1629159544348717061
ABOUT A YEAR INTO THE KANSAS FLU A STUDY CAME OUT CALLED THE THE
LANDMARK STUDY OF MILTON J.
ROSENAU, MD, "EXPERIMENTS TO DETERMINE MODE OF SPREAD OF INFLUENZA," WAS PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION IN 1919.
https://www.ggarchives.com/Influenza/TheRosenauExperiment-1918-1919.html
Thank you for this thoughtful analysis.
I just finished reading the study:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.12.15.24319058v1.full-text
The study analyzed all 4.64 million people in Norway over 18, and correctly put people in the vaxxed camp on the day of the shot (not 14 days later as normal).
However, I observe that the results should be dismissed out of hand based on this quote by the authors:
"There was also a higher proportion of individuals with a risk condition among those vaccinated compared to those left unvaccinated through the study period ....
In all age groups, the rate of death was lowest among those that were fully vaccinated and highest among those that were unvaccinated."
If true, this means that those at most risk of dying (from kidney disease, liver disease, diabetes, obesity, chronic lung disease, blood cancer, immunodeficiency, cardiovascular disease, stroke, dementia, and other cancers - by their own definitions) were suddenly healed by mRNA shots, and died less than the unvaxxed. Not died less from covid, but died less from any cause. That's utterly implausible, and proves their data is either corrupted or mismanaged.
In the study period, only 6,015 Norwegians died of covid. That's a small percentage of all deaths (132,963), and therefore it's impossible that a covid shot should cause such massive changes to death rates as this paper claims:
"The rate of death for those that were fully vaccinated compared to those that were unvaccinated was 30% lower, 27% lower and 24% lower in the age-groups 18-44 years, 45-64 years and 65 years or older."
Note that the younger the age, the more likely the unvaxxed were to die relative to their vaxxed peers. That is also highly suspicious, since covid didn't typically kill anyone under 44.
So what this paper is claiming is:
1. Despite covid killing almost nobody, the mRNA shots save almost everyone from normal deaths, and
2. Those that refuse this miracle drug are now causing all the excess deaths on account of their increased likelihood of dying, despite being generally healthier.
One would need to be intellectually challenged to believe such nonsense.
Healthy user bias is present on the other end of the distribution, as well. In countries with a high level of vaccination, a good number of the people who are not vaccinated are the extremely unwell, who are doing so under medical advice -- their doctors think that even a mild reaction to the vaccine is likely to kill them. Or because their doctors already know their immune system is so compromised that they cannot mount an antibody defense, so there is
no point in giving them any more injections. In Sweden we measured the antibody response of people taking immuno-suppressing drugs, typically transplant recipients -- after first vaccination to find this out. But I don't see much of an effort being made to measure how large this effect is. Know of any?
One also has to keep in mind how the status of „vaccinated“ is defined. According to WHO and US health authorities (followed by many other countries - how about Norway?), individuals are considered „vaccinated“ only 10 (for Moderna) and 14 days (Pfizer) after receiving the second dose and any booster thereafter, so any adverse events occurring before these dates are counted among the „unvaccinated“. Selection bias at its best!
Yes, however in this study they claim: "Each individual was
counted as vaccinated from the date of vaccination and onwards" - of course they say this is not an efficacy study - only in efficacy studies they use these tricks, e.g. 7 or 14 days...
The authors did not remove or disaggregate non-natural deaths. That's a mistake.
I think it was a feature.
Yes, but not one that Ben or another commenter pointed out
No vaccine or mRNA poison has ever been shown or proven to be safe and effective. There is never anything to vaccinate against.
No surprises at all here, it's Standard Operating Procedure in which there can only be ZERO cause and effect correlation validating the 'in your face LIE' that these NON-CONFORM and unfit for human and animal use injectable 'products' were both safe and effective.
A study that would conclude otherwise would NOT be tolerated!!
Every single aIRR (adjusted incidence rate ratio) is lower than the corresponding IRR (incidence rate ratio). Why is that so? Adjustments are "for sex (man/woman), county of residence
(categorical), calendar time (quarter and year) and medical risk group at baseline (yes/no)". I consider the first three secondary. If risk group has that large an effect, then numbers of deaths should be tabulated accordingly, stratified by risk group/no risk group.