Have there been any additional double-blind controlled studies for the vaccines, especially over a 12-24mo period? Besides the original Pfizer one which showed no benefit?
no because the manufacturers will not allow you to get the drugs to do this test and there are civil and criminal penalties for obtaining them through deceit to do it (not to mention ethics boards and other gatekeepers)
also the original trials weren't double blind either, see Brook Jackson's whistle rblower complaint, among a long list of other issues
I can’t get over the idea that the huge selection bias involving the vaccine (in personality traits and culture->occupations/habits) is why we see higher mortality rates in the unvaccinated
controlling for household income erases any claimed "efficacy" and that's even with the various dishonest bayesian games of categorizing who is and isn't "vaccinated"
is why we see higher mortality rates in the unvaccinated
these numbers are comically manipulated and various governments who were releasing the best data data when it supported their claims (and were subject to the bayesian games I talked about) either stopped doing this entirely or would only release manipulated numbers with made up denominators when those numbers flipped
My angle is that (1) the relevant mortality figure is over time, not “deaths from Covid”, because of potential complications of vaccine to longterm health and the fact that the vaccine is ineffective for mutations and post-8mo; (2) the “selection bias” effect means that people who opt in for health interventions are genuinely healthier, and this is exacerbated by the chronically ill Americans who are more likely to opt out of all health interventions (alcoholics, addicts, agoraphobics, hoarders, schizophrenics, morbidly obese and others); (3) the cultural divide among vaccination is significant because of differences in urban versus rural health / obesity / diabetes, stress and occupational hazard in blue collar labor, differences in drug and alcohol consumption
Wealth variables are a workable proxy for (2) and (3) at least in the US. I suspect this is because wealth correlates to something else and that something else is the better proxy for pretty much all life outcomes, health included. As far as I know, I've never seen a public health or science publication on vaccine efficacy which makes adjustments for the health/wealth correlation. Once you notice it, you start to notice a pattern of how the gap is used to manipulate results on health interventions, e.g., where trial sites are chosen, which populations are recruited, what is controlled for, etc.
One interesting thing I remember from 2021 which hits on this topic was some backwards looking efficacy numbers for the early injection campaign. One example I remember provides evidence for your selection bias hunch; the injections seemingly reduced mortality rates for things outside of covid19 or related illness. The report takes number from the CDC October VSD report. Look at the standardized mortality rate at the end of the report. Look at the relative mortality risk by age group. Wow, it's 60-70% effective at preventing non-Covid mortality! This thing is a wonderdrug!
Or there is something else which explains this obvious nonsense. When you look up total mortality for these age groups, you find car accidents, suicides, and homicides, account for approx. 80% of all mortality in these younger groups. In order to accept these at face value, you would have to believe covid injections are at least ~25-30% effective at preventing motorcycle accidents, suicide, and being shot by others.
additionally, you would also need to account if there were different treatment protocols for injected and uninjected, e.g., in the US, people without the injection were more likely to receive remdeathivir when looking at comparison numbers among a wide variety of other issues, one of which you've hit on
total mortality is heavily correlated with covid vaccine rollouts to the point where you can tell when mass campaigns began at different times in different countries across the world by looking at their mortality and covid numbers
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
no because the manufacturers will not allow you to get the drugs to do this test and there are civil and criminal penalties for obtaining them through deceit to do it (not to mention ethics boards and other gatekeepers)
also the original trials weren't double blind either, see Brook Jackson's whistle rblower complaint, among a long list of other issues
controlling for household income erases any claimed "efficacy" and that's even with the various dishonest bayesian games of categorizing who is and isn't "vaccinated"
these numbers are comically manipulated and various governments who were releasing the best data data when it supported their claims (and were subject to the bayesian games I talked about) either stopped doing this entirely or would only release manipulated numbers with made up denominators when those numbers flipped
My angle is that (1) the relevant mortality figure is over time, not “deaths from Covid”, because of potential complications of vaccine to longterm health and the fact that the vaccine is ineffective for mutations and post-8mo; (2) the “selection bias” effect means that people who opt in for health interventions are genuinely healthier, and this is exacerbated by the chronically ill Americans who are more likely to opt out of all health interventions (alcoholics, addicts, agoraphobics, hoarders, schizophrenics, morbidly obese and others); (3) the cultural divide among vaccination is significant because of differences in urban versus rural health / obesity / diabetes, stress and occupational hazard in blue collar labor, differences in drug and alcohol consumption
Wealth variables are a workable proxy for (2) and (3) at least in the US. I suspect this is because wealth correlates to something else and that something else is the better proxy for pretty much all life outcomes, health included. As far as I know, I've never seen a public health or science publication on vaccine efficacy which makes adjustments for the health/wealth correlation. Once you notice it, you start to notice a pattern of how the gap is used to manipulate results on health interventions, e.g., where trial sites are chosen, which populations are recruited, what is controlled for, etc.
One interesting thing I remember from 2021 which hits on this topic was some backwards looking efficacy numbers for the early injection campaign. One example I remember provides evidence for your selection bias hunch; the injections seemingly reduced mortality rates for things outside of covid19 or related illness. The report takes number from the CDC October VSD report. Look at the standardized mortality rate at the end of the report. Look at the relative mortality risk by age group. Wow, it's 60-70% effective at preventing non-Covid mortality! This thing is a wonderdrug!
Or there is something else which explains this obvious nonsense. When you look up total mortality for these age groups, you find car accidents, suicides, and homicides, account for approx. 80% of all mortality in these younger groups. In order to accept these at face value, you would have to believe covid injections are at least ~25-30% effective at preventing motorcycle accidents, suicide, and being shot by others.
additionally, you would also need to account if there were different treatment protocols for injected and uninjected, e.g., in the US, people without the injection were more likely to receive remdeathivir when looking at comparison numbers among a wide variety of other issues, one of which you've hit on
total mortality is heavily correlated with covid vaccine rollouts to the point where you can tell when mass campaigns began at different times in different countries across the world by looking at their mortality and covid numbers
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link