by Watchdog
This is conjectural.
I am running it by you not out of some intent to lay a reality on you but to invite you to look things over and draw your own conclusions.
What got me thinking is the claim by the Vax people that their new COVID vax, after a few weeks of trials – as opposed to the normal years or decades – is “90% effective!”
They keep banging on about it but what does that mean exactly?
It took me a while to get my head around this little bit of statistical slight-of-hand.
That “90%” that is bandied about looks impressive. It tells us – correct me if I got this wrong – that if you inject, say 1000 people with the new Vax and then expose them to the virus, only one in ten will catch it.
But what it leaves out is this comparable datum: if you took a 1000 people who are un-vaxed and exposed THEM to the virus, how many would catch it?
This is all about marketing – presenting the results in such a way as to maximise the good impression created.
Let’s take a simplified example for the purposes of illustration and imagine a bug called The Lurgy.
It is not a very nice bug for some people. For those who catch it, the vast majority, it is not particularly serious bug but is a pain in the proverbial on a par with the common cold or seasonal flu.
The Lurgy can manifest no symptoms at all in many people or mild to moderate symptoms in many others.
For a small percentage of people (about one in ten of those who catch it) it can be quite serious or even deadly. These people are the very old and/or already very ill; their ability to fight off illness is seriously inhibited. As such, The Lurgy is similar to the various viruses known collectively as The Common Cold or others known as The Flu. It is not generally understood, incidentally, that if you are very elderly and/or are suffering from life-threatening illnesses even the misleadingly named Common Cold is bad news and you really do not want to catch it.
In our hypothetical case, The Lurgy is similar and it can be serious or even deadly in about one in twenty of that vulnerable category.
On balance then,the Lurgy is not particularly worrying, especially as it hardly affects young people at all. This, incidentally is what the Chief Medical Officer told us about COVID19 in a briefing way back in May.
Be that as it may, let’s imagine we put together a random group of 1000 people and expose them to the Lurgy virus. Let us imagine further, The Lurgy being what it is, that within, say, the next month, 100 people catch The Lurgy to one degree or another – that’s one in ten.
So someone is developing a vaccine and they try out their new vaccine by taking a group of a thousand people to whom they give the vaccine and another group of a thousand people to whom they give no vaccine, the two groups are then exposed to the virus.
As we saw above, exposure of the un-vaccinated group to the Lurgy has established that one in 10 people catch it.
Now let’s take the group who are all vaccinated and then exposed to the virus. In our hypothetical case, let’s imagine for illustration purposes the vax is not very good and is in fact next to useless. When exposed to the virus one in ten of this group catch the bug and 9 out of ten (90%) don’t. So the vax is declared to be 9o% effective! This incidentally is no better than the un-vaxed group but that isn’t mentioned.
But sure enough, the hard facts are that out of that 1000 people vaccinated, 90% did not catch the virus when exposed to it. 90% of the vaccinated group turned out to be immune!
So, how good that 9o% is depends on what you are comparing it with. Suppose for example that while of the unvaxed group, 100 people caught the virus and of the vaxed group, 200 people caught it.
Out of 1000 people vaxed and exposed to the virus, 80% didn’t catch it’! Still sounds impressive. The manufacturer declares that in tests their vax was 80% effective! Pretty good! Unless you compare it with the unvaxed group. So don’t mention the unvaxed group.
Of course, the tests in this hypothetical example are rushed and done over a two month period for some reason or other so we only know how many vaxed people did or did not catch the Lurgy in those two months. To properly assess how good the vax is, we would need to see what happens to those people a year or two years from now.
The rushed testing also prevents us assessing the effects of the vax on general health in the medium and long term as well as just the short term.
For instance, does the vax have an effect on health that only shows up over time, say due to it having toxins such as Aluminium or Mercury in it? A degenerative disorder for example, or an increase of one’s chances of developing dementia later in life. We have no way of knowing without longer-term trials.
Of course we will know one day, if the government has its way and injects half the population with it. A year, two years or five years from now, problems might start to show up. They might not but if they do, by then it will be too late to save those who have been damaged.
Knowing the short, medium and long-term effects of the vax on health would also enable us to assess risk. If there is a 10% chance of catching the virus after being vaxed, there would be little to gain from taking it if it increased one’s chances of developing cancer or some other fatal illness to 12%.
While we are at it, it is worth reflecting that there are, theoretically at least, ways for an unscrupulous manufacturer to skew the tests and trials in favour of its new money-spinner.
For example, who is in the control group of unvaxed people? If that group, by an amazing coincidence, just so happens to have a large number of people in it with weak immune systems – for instance, due to Vit D or zinc deficiencies, poor diet, being on psych meds, being drinkers and so, then the number of people who catch the Lurgy will increase.
So imagine an extreme example for the sake of illustration: the control group of 1000 people comprises mainly heavy drinkers, heavy smokers and those who live on a diet of chips. Exposed to the virus, that group may see, say, 200 people come down with a dose of the Lurgy (20%)
Meanwhile, the vaccinated group is loaded with people with generally good immune systems, who get lots of fresh air and exercise and supplement vit D, C and Zinc. Exposed to the vax, even though the vax does not work, their infection rate is the same as what one would expect from a random sample of the population (1o% – see above)
So now the vaxed group’s results (10%) are twice as good as the unvaxed group (20%) and we have what appears to to a resounding success for the new vax!
To know whether the results have been deliberately or accidentally skewed or whether we have a truly meaningful comparison we would have to know WHO was in each group, their ages, health, diet, exercise habits, vitamin deficiencies and so forth.
Now, I do not know if this kind of cheating has gone on with the new vax.
Given the track record of vaccine companies and governments and the current orgy of deceit that has generated the fake emergency of the COVID hoax I admit I am very suspicious.
In my opinion, we would be wise not to take at face value anything we are told and really question everything, be as suspicious we we like. Our lives are on the line after all.
As laymen we are at a considerable disadvantage in trying to penetrate the smoke screen of “data”, “science” and statistics and truly understand them. It is very easy to pull the wool over our eyes or at least to enshroud us in a fog of obfuscation and confusion.
And nobody is acting as referee to ensure fair and honest play – nobody is inspecting on our behalf the labs and ongoing trials and so on to ensure full integrity and proper scientific methods and then ensuring things are explained to us with the purpose of us UNDERSTANDING it all, rather than being bewitched, bothered, bewildered and blinded by the “science”.
On a sane planet, that role would be performed by a government as a valuable service to the people.
It is a “hat” that is not at this time being worn.
On the contrary, our government acts as a marketing arm and sales force for the manufacturers.
In the interests of a happier, healthier and more harmonious country, this must now change.
Related Articles
On death traps and lethal weapons
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Leave a Reply