Yesterday I stated that the government misled the public regarding the effectiveness of the jabs. It was deliberate and was done for a multitude of reasons. Not the least of these was the need in America to create a situation where rampant voter fraud could take place in the 2020 presidential election. But there were many other countries that followed the same playbook in locking down their citizens. In all countries the goal was to condition the public to blindly accept the diktats of political leaders. Dissent was not allowed.
Fifty years ago an intrepid journalist or two would go out and uncover the truth. Sometimes this led to a Pulitzer Prize. Today such journalists do not exist. Sunlight is provided by those intrepid people who go out and mine data on the Internet and then publish their results for anyone to see.
Today I will go into the definitions of vaxxed and unvaxxed that have been deliberately muddied by those in charge of public health. This post does not delve into the issue of “waning” effectiveness where the public health officials have been trying to move people from vaxxed to unvaxxed by timing them out. It will be focused on the two weeks after any jab, first or second.
I am no longer surprised by the level of scientific and moral depravity among the people who are supposedly leading the battle against this virus. It’s now a race between how blatantly they can lie to us and how much faster the impact of their actions puts us on an irreversible downward spiral.
Anyone who has listened at all to the early PSA’s regarding the jabs knows that there was no claim of protection after the first dose of the COVID vaccine. The issue is that there is a two-week window of immune suppression post jab. During the trials before the emergence of any of the variants, the chances of healthy people catching COVID were roughly doubled during this window. Delta and Omicron appear to have made that window of time even riskier.
Shouldn’t people know what the risk is if they are to make an informed choice about getting jabbed? El Gato Malo provides a great analogy:
you’re a soldier pinned down in a foxhole. across the field from you is a bunker. getting into the bunker will greatly reduce your risk of being shot.
but the field you must cross is wide open to enemy fire.
if you’re going to make the choice to run for the bunker, on what would you base it?
would you say:
- A) “wow, the bunker is 10X safer than the foxhole, let’s run!” and leave it at that?
or
- B) might you want to know how risky crossing that field is and add that into the calculus as well?
because i think pretty much any sane person is going with B and anyone trying to sell you A is either dishonest or dangerously negligent.
Our public health elites are blatantly dishonest. Not only did they play down the riskiness of the two week-period post jab, but then they equated cases, hospitalizations and deaths in this group who had been jabbed once as people who were unvaxxed. This was deliberate data manipulation to hide the riskiness of the jabs.
Let’s look at some real-world examples from Alberta, Canada. I am indebted to Joel Smalley for the graphs which were based on data from Alberta that is no longer visible. It was removed when someone pointed out just how bad the data was. Does anyone see Justin Trudeau’s hand in this?
Almost half of all COVID hospitalizations of the newly jabbed occurred within 14 days. This means they were treated as unvaccinated in the stats.
Fortunately, they inadvertently let us in on the magnitude of this duplicity by also publishing the time from dose to infection for each of the events, thereby allowing us to recalculate just how many events in the first 14 days were shifted from the vaccinated to the unvaccinated cohort.
Smalley produced a graph for deaths as well.
It is now clear why 14 days was selected as the point where people would be counted as vaxxed. This was not some random point in the process. The change is dramatic. Fourteen days was chosen to shift the perception about vaccine efficacy. This is definitional legerdemain.
What this also is is fraud. All-cause mortality has risen sharply in all countries that are considered highly vaccinated. This is true even after COVID deaths have declined. El Gato Malo noted:
what we really need are all cause deaths data, cohorted by age, comorbidity, and vaccination status starting right from the day of your first jab.
it’s 100% out there. lots of the single payor system countries will have it.
and if it were good, i suspect we’d have seen it by now.
the fact that we have not speaks volumes.
and so will using these same bogus definitions of “dose 2 +14 days” if and when they do release such ACD data.
that’s not how you analyze an outcome and they know it. this is week one of trial design 101 stuff.
this was not an accident. this was a choice.
the drug companies that ran these trials know more about how study design and definitions affect reported outcomes than anyone on earth, bar none.
they did not screw this up.
they did not pull it out of a hat.
they stacked the deck.
It is time for grand juries and indictments.