The more the skeptics police ourselves, the better. Everyone who is swallowing the narrative whole will pounce on every mote in our eyes as validation of the timber in theirs.
Peer review, when properly done, is always good. This type of honest scrutiny enhances the value of Mr Berenson’s work. Of course, it also highlights your integrity. Thanks!
"unvaxxed" cohort at this point seems to have reached 50-70% natural antibody prevalence, which might explain their convergence with the "vaxxed" rates.
Valid criticism. To note 21 vaxxed dead vs 17 placebo all cause mortality from Pfizer trial of 22K @ 6 mos (also broken by Berenson) supports this increase in all cause mortality however.
The selection bias is that currently infected do not leave the unvaccinated and 1 dose +21 days pools. So when 1st doses roll out the denominator suddenly bleeds the uninfected while the numerator has to keep the infected; eventually, the fact that the pool is simultaneously getting younger and younger compensates. When the 2nd dose rolls out, same exact thing, the denominator bleeds the uninfected while the numerator has to keep the infected.
For 1st dose <21 days, the distortion has a lot more cross-currents since uninfected individuals are entering and leaving the pool at the same time.
The 1st dose +21 days group is also more complicated since it selects for infected but doesn't have a easily definable default vulnerability starting point (how big is the denominator, who is in it).
But overall, the two 1st Dose groups together start sort out the uninfected in mass numbers in April (while, again, progressively getting younger).
I agree. Really appreciate Alex but he needs someone to bounce these types of posts off of before he puts them out there. Looking at all of the tables included in the spreadsheet that was used for this chart, I noted in table 8 that there were 92,711 total deaths of the unvaxed and that 34,474, or 37%, of those deaths "involved COVID". Those totals tie to the weekly age-specific tables 3 and 4. Hard to believe that is correct. When you mate unvaxed weekly totals for COVID deaths and total deaths, more than 50% of the total deaths in England for weeks 2 and 3 "involved COVID". Really question these stats and interested in your thoughts.
Presumably you have seen the splendid work being done by retired UK NHS senior statistician, head of clinical audit at a busy NHS teaching hospital? [https://www.facebook.com/groups/johndeealmanac]
See also Norman Fenton: I think he makes more sense of all the complex artefacts and variables than anyone else : and his stuff is understandable, which helps a poor soul like me:
Thanks for pointing this out. Hopefully they will continue collecting the data. It would be more useful if the age range were broken up into decades, although it still wouldn't beat actually maintaining a control group in a clinical trial. I guess that ship has sailed.
The more the skeptics police ourselves, the better. Everyone who is swallowing the narrative whole will pounce on every mote in our eyes as validation of the timber in theirs.
Alex has not been invaluable.
Alex IS invaluable.
Peer review, when properly done, is always good. This type of honest scrutiny enhances the value of Mr Berenson’s work. Of course, it also highlights your integrity. Thanks!
"unvaxxed" cohort at this point seems to have reached 50-70% natural antibody prevalence, which might explain their convergence with the "vaxxed" rates.
Take a look here - https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/uk-data-shows-no-all-cause-mortality? for another analysis.
Valid criticism. To note 21 vaxxed dead vs 17 placebo all cause mortality from Pfizer trial of 22K @ 6 mos (also broken by Berenson) supports this increase in all cause mortality however.
The dose timing mortality "mystery" was also covered at https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/all-cause-deaths-and-vaccination - same response I posted there:
The selection bias is that currently infected do not leave the unvaccinated and 1 dose +21 days pools. So when 1st doses roll out the denominator suddenly bleeds the uninfected while the numerator has to keep the infected; eventually, the fact that the pool is simultaneously getting younger and younger compensates. When the 2nd dose rolls out, same exact thing, the denominator bleeds the uninfected while the numerator has to keep the infected.
For 1st dose <21 days, the distortion has a lot more cross-currents since uninfected individuals are entering and leaving the pool at the same time.
The 1st dose +21 days group is also more complicated since it selects for infected but doesn't have a easily definable default vulnerability starting point (how big is the denominator, who is in it).
But overall, the two 1st Dose groups together start sort out the uninfected in mass numbers in April (while, again, progressively getting younger).
Look at England's Euromomo z scores in the age 10-44. Well above base. There is a signal.
Thanks for pointing this out, and thanks as well for the careful framing. You did both with great clarity.
I agree. Really appreciate Alex but he needs someone to bounce these types of posts off of before he puts them out there. Looking at all of the tables included in the spreadsheet that was used for this chart, I noted in table 8 that there were 92,711 total deaths of the unvaxed and that 34,474, or 37%, of those deaths "involved COVID". Those totals tie to the weekly age-specific tables 3 and 4. Hard to believe that is correct. When you mate unvaxed weekly totals for COVID deaths and total deaths, more than 50% of the total deaths in England for weeks 2 and 3 "involved COVID". Really question these stats and interested in your thoughts.
You can also watch Norman Fenton’s work in his YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6umArFc-fdc&t=2s
Presumably you have seen the splendid work being done by retired UK NHS senior statistician, head of clinical audit at a busy NHS teaching hospital? [https://www.facebook.com/groups/johndeealmanac]
See also Norman Fenton: I think he makes more sense of all the complex artefacts and variables than anyone else : and his stuff is understandable, which helps a poor soul like me:
https://rumble.com/vqbtjd-prof-norman-fenton-explaining-ons-vaccine-data-anomalies.html
Absolutely right to call attention to discrepancies .... the less ammo the better for the cultists! Hats off to you and AB.
Thanks for pointing this out. Hopefully they will continue collecting the data. It would be more useful if the age range were broken up into decades, although it still wouldn't beat actually maintaining a control group in a clinical trial. I guess that ship has sailed.
Excellent journalism!