Oh, guess I should have put in a "Conclusions" section.
How about this: DATA rules!
or
and
I can't wait to not read some scientific paper published in some journal based upon all sorts of modelling proving that these data do indeed prove that the Vax's are safe and effective.
And then, of course, if I were really writing a "scientific paper" for a journal I'd need to add an "Acknowledgments" section.
I Acknowledge first and foremost all the people who have challenged me in my endeavors -- for without your challenges, I wouldn't have wasted my time on this, and instead, wasted it on something else.
Thank you.
Oh, and I thank Substack (I'm their product, because it doesn't charge me any money) because I'm sure my days of ever publishing in refereed journals is over:
There is a pretty obvious feature in the data displayed in Fig. 1 -- an initial few-month bump in the ratio at the beginning. And this bump is staggered, first appearing for the most elderly age group, and later for the younger age groups. One might conjecture that this is because the younger age groups were vaccinated later.
The ratio of Vax'd to Un-Vaxed could be determined from this same spreadsheet, and compared to these bumbs.
I don't think the different ASMR's for vaccine status should be added -- that would in most cases be double-counting, for example, anyone having had the second dose will of course have had the first dose for more than 21 days; similarly, the third dose.
I hate to say this, but, I'm going have to say it: you need to hire an artist to help you with your colors! Too many of your colors are the same and can't be told apart!
There is a column in the ODS data (on my spreadsheet it is column I) where they denote with a u that they believe the data to be unreliable (too few people). Using Auto-Filter you can make all those entries disappear.
I guess the question is ... what to do with these data ?
While plotted DATA is a picture that tells a story, and as my thesis advisor told me (Robert Pollack, deceased, former Director at the Indiana University Cyclotron), "Just show the DATA -- let the reader decide". He said this when I had written the words, something like, "the data obviously show".
On the Other-Other hand, most people will have no fucking idea what these plots show. So, you at least need to explain to people:
-- where you got your data;
-- and explain what the lines are.
How to do this, so that anyone can understand it, with the fewest number of words, is the biggest challenge!
I did sent an E-M to the Chairman of the Physics department at I.U. -- (He's had me on "ignore" since I gave an anti-Narrative seminar about the Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth a couple of years ago -- so I called him and told him he ought to read read my E-M and look at my posting,
I did try a palette of colors but it does look like a dog's dinner
The blues were a deliberate choice because every stage of vaccinated could be considered a different shade of the same colour while unvaccinated needs to stand out, in red
I removed the unreliable (code: u) data for this graph (but stuck to my blues, sorry), here:
Comparing "First Dose, at least 21 days ago" to "Uncaccinated" in the .XLS file referencetable06072022accessible downloaded from the ONS Website -- see footnote 1.
This is my first visit to your Substack, thanks for letting me read. I have looked at the raw ONS data which you linked to, and then also at the methodology cited in Note 1 of the 'Notes' tab in the spreadsheet. I'm not sure your assertion that the 'First dose, at least 21 days ago' category 'holds' all vaccinated people is correct, if I read you right and that is what you are saying. Looking at the 'person-years' column of Table 2, the relative magnitude of the person-years column swells (as more people pass 21 days post first vaccination, and then shrinks, presumably as more people get their second dose. Therefore it looks to me as if that category is only indicative of people that have received a single dose and no more. Happy to be corrected.
Thanks -- I'm going to have to look at that ... i.e., you may be saying that if someone gets a second dose, then maybe they are no longer included in the > 21 days after first dose group?
I'd say thanks, but on the other-other hand, what you really said was, "Tim, you need to do more WORK!". Thanks!
That being said, there is a statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality for 'First dose, at least 21 days ago', for at least some age groups, at least for part of the period, i.e. confidence intervals do not overlap. For example, this is the case for age group 50-59 from July 2021 onward.
Fascinating graph. Does the ratio reflect the difference between two derived rates, such as deaths per 100,000.? (Which I think is possible from english data, but hardly elsewhere?). Several months ago I posted a question on Trial Site News. I asked if anyone knew of controlled data establishing any group at all has benefited from being jabbed. To date, received only replies suggesting negative.
But, yeah, you made we wonder if there was a problem in how the numbers numbers were calculated, so I'm going to spot check a few numbers ... hang on checking ...
the rates come out about the same -- not exact for some reason, but very close. No factor of two there!
Yep -- I think at this point the problem in not a lack of DATA --
The problem is instead that it is being ignored --
Certainly ignored by the pusher's of the Narrative --
Also ignored by all Believer's of the Narrative: they immediately dismiss it as "conspiracy theory".
I'm beginning to believe it is hopeless to challenge any Narrative, even with Science and DATA.
The problem is Group Think (human nature -- we are herd animals) and scientific weapon's grade Propaganda.
For example, at NPR (is that Narrative-Promotion Radio, or National Propaganda Radio) everyone must be muzzled, and they a have snitch line to report anyone not toeing the line. How likely is it that some reporter, wanting to keep their job or even get a promotion, let alone a raise, would put a proposed report on their manager's desk showing that there is no science behind muzzling?
Tim, hi, thanks for quick reply. Look, I suspect you have (unknowlngly?) hit appropriate nail? That is, the English data may be already controlled for unequal group sizing, if indexed per 100,000. This needs clarifying. I can try to get some time now to find those English reports, thanks. So are we looking at unequal group sizing, or do the trend lines reflect genuine probabilities? I am 74 so wonder if data suggest my jabbed peers died at up to 5 times greater than normal, one month, on account of accepting our Australian government's sage advice. Cheers, Greg.
Yes, indeed, the group sizes of Vax'd and non-Vax'd are different; so, yes, what is plotted are the "normalized" data, or deaths divided by the population of the group (which is a small number) and then so multiplied by 100,000. So, yes, the my plots show the RATIO of probabilities. I think your government was acting under the advice, or duress, or others; or was caught up in the Fear Propaganda.
Thanks for this info. Can you parse what it means to you in every-day language? It seems to me if I am understanding this correctly that vaccinated people 40 to 49 died at a ratio of almost 3 to 1 compared to unvaccinated as of 5-22-22. What is the ratio of vaccinated to unvaccinated in the 40 to 49 demo? I would guess that the ratio of vaccinated compared to unvaccinated in the UK might be, say, 75 percent vaccinated to 25 percent unvaccinated. This would be about a 3 to 1 ratio .... so the ratio of deaths among this group is roughly the same as the ratio of deaths in these two groups? Is this the right interpretation?
This is nonsense firstly, there is no rationale to ratio the data. This is done to be deceptive. The data on the ONS site have confidence intervals and those intervals have not been taken into account here. The confidence intervals overlap suggesting no difference in the data for unvaccinated vs first dose up to 21 days. The data should be presented as the absolute ASMR with the confidence intervals to allow interpretation. Ratioing the data and not taking the confidence intervals into account is not mathematically or scientifically valid. There is also a mismatch in the amount of data for vaxed vs first dose up to 21 days making the comparison meaningless/unreliable. Furthermore why have you selected to just present the first dose Upto 21 days data when there are data for 2 times point for first dose, three time points for second dose and 2 time points for third dose. All these data point plus the ever vaxed data is conveniently ignored as it does not fit the biased narrative being pushed. The more reliable comparison would be to present the raw data plus confidence intervals for non vaxed vs ever vaxed. There is a more comparable amount of data. Comparing these data suggest numerically higher mortality in those patients NOT vaxed vs any vaxed (however many doses), however the confidence interval Overlap suggesting no statistically significant difference between the 2 populations . Obviously this did not fit with the narrative being pushed here. Go check table 1 in the ONS data. No difference between non vaxed and ever vaxed people. This is observational data and not a prospective study so strong conclusions cannot be drawn from these data. But it certainly does not show increased mortality n patient receiving 1, 2 or 3 COVID shots.
So what does vaxxed mean?, ever vaxxed, fully 3 doses vaxxed? or did you sum up all deaths and divide by sum of person years for all vaxxed categories?
Refreshing and troubling post. As someone banned permanently from Facebook and Twitter for similar exposés I greatly appreciate your contributions. -Mark Gerald Weissinger AB MDiv BSc BSMed MD
I put the following as a comment to Steve in his article:
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/if-the-uk-government-believes-its/comments
I'd like to be able to say, "DATA Rules" or "DATA Rocks",
but I think the reality is that "Group Think Rules".
Most people just won't even look at your DATA and just write you off as a Conspiracy Theorist.
Perhaps, since you like doing Surveys, do a Survey of all your subscribers, and ask the questions like:
Am I just Preaching to the Choir?
How many of you are here because my writings changed your mind?
How many of you were at one time a Believer, but started questioning ? (i.e., became a Heretic or Apostate)?
i.e., questions that will prove that it is hopeless to fight a Narrative.
Or, maybe ask a useful question:
If you were once a Believer, but are not now, WHAT caused you to begin questioning ? Please be specific.
Maybe there is something there, something in common with many people -- that would be useful to know.
You'll have to maybe hire an army to analyze such diverse responses!
If I've learned anything from challenging Narratives,
it seems hopeless in the face of Group Think (human nature) and scientific weapons-grade Propaganda.
Any finding about how to successfully attack Group Think would be very useful.
Perhaps there are some psychologists employed by the CIA with insight into this!
Gosh, maybe an mRNA Vax against Propaganda ?
A little sarcasm thrown in there.
Not just Propaganda, but censorship, e.g.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/twitters-tricky-timing-problem-lawsuit-reveals-back-channel-cdc-coordinate-censorship
I really like the Conclusions that Steve put in his latest:
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/if-the-uk-government-believes-its
Steve points out all the Nonsense, and leaves it as a question ...
and then cynically answers his own question.
Of course, who can't be at least a bit cynical about all this nonsense!?
You'd think there would be Headlines in all the MSM:
Big Pharma making Billions off of the death of Millions.
But, then again, they must figure, isn't that just Business as Usual?
No need for to report that! It's not News.
Oh, guess I should have put in a "Conclusions" section.
How about this: DATA rules!
or
and
I can't wait to not read some scientific paper published in some journal based upon all sorts of modelling proving that these data do indeed prove that the Vax's are safe and effective.
And then, of course, if I were really writing a "scientific paper" for a journal I'd need to add an "Acknowledgments" section.
I Acknowledge first and foremost all the people who have challenged me in my endeavors -- for without your challenges, I wouldn't have wasted my time on this, and instead, wasted it on something else.
Thank you.
Oh, and I thank Substack (I'm their product, because it doesn't charge me any money) because I'm sure my days of ever publishing in refereed journals is over:
https://timellison.substack.com/p/why-do-i-post-on-substack-2
https://timellison.substack.com/p/why-am-i-using-substack-
Well, I'd really like to say "DATA Rules!" or "DATA Rocks!",
but the fact is "Group-Think Rules!".
There is a pretty obvious feature in the data displayed in Fig. 1 -- an initial few-month bump in the ratio at the beginning. And this bump is staggered, first appearing for the most elderly age group, and later for the younger age groups. One might conjecture that this is because the younger age groups were vaccinated later.
The ratio of Vax'd to Un-Vaxed could be determined from this same spreadsheet, and compared to these bumbs.
Hi Dr Tim, thanks for your blog post
I've plotted the 'raw ONS' data (i.e. without combining the ASMR for each vaccine status at:
http://rpubs.com/DavidHawkins/937821 (new location)
Would it be correct to add each of the ASMRs for vaccine status so as to arrive at a combined vaccinated ASMR number?
Wow -- cool, have your plots up on my screen!
I don't think the different ASMR's for vaccine status should be added -- that would in most cases be double-counting, for example, anyone having had the second dose will of course have had the first dose for more than 21 days; similarly, the third dose.
I hate to say this, but, I'm going have to say it: you need to hire an artist to help you with your colors! Too many of your colors are the same and can't be told apart!
There is a column in the ODS data (on my spreadsheet it is column I) where they denote with a u that they believe the data to be unreliable (too few people). Using Auto-Filter you can make all those entries disappear.
I guess the question is ... what to do with these data ?
While plotted DATA is a picture that tells a story, and as my thesis advisor told me (Robert Pollack, deceased, former Director at the Indiana University Cyclotron), "Just show the DATA -- let the reader decide". He said this when I had written the words, something like, "the data obviously show".
On the Other-Other hand, most people will have no fucking idea what these plots show. So, you at least need to explain to people:
-- where you got your data;
-- and explain what the lines are.
How to do this, so that anyone can understand it, with the fewest number of words, is the biggest challenge!
I did sent an E-M to the Chairman of the Physics department at I.U. -- (He's had me on "ignore" since I gave an anti-Narrative seminar about the Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth a couple of years ago -- so I called him and told him he ought to read read my E-M and look at my posting,
https://timellison.substack.com/p/follow-up-2-on-i-hope-there-is-nothing
Hi Tim
Thanks for your feedback
Colors:
I did try a palette of colors but it does look like a dog's dinner
The blues were a deliberate choice because every stage of vaccinated could be considered a different shade of the same colour while unvaccinated needs to stand out, in red
I removed the unreliable (code: u) data for this graph (but stuck to my blues, sorry), here:
http://rpubs.com/DavidHawkins/937821 (updated graph on 6-Sep after deleting the old copy in error)
Going to leave comment on the comments section of http://rpubs.com/DavidHawkins/934783
👍
Just saw this article (from the Epoch Times but re-printed on ZeroHedge.com):
Adults Aged 35–44 Died At Twice The Expected Rate Last Summer, Life Insurance Data Suggests
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/adults-aged-35-44-died-twice-expected-rate-last-summer-life-insurance-data-suggests
What numbers are you using for the ratio? the unvaxxed rate vs. first dose >21 days ago or something else??? You didn't specify that!
You know Steve, this comment, while being probably the most excellent, just didn't have any humor in it. Did I miss it ?
Now I get it!
Thanks --
Specified in earlier versions --
Comparing "First Dose, at least 21 days ago" to "Uncaccinated" in the .XLS file referencetable06072022accessible downloaded from the ONS Website -- see footnote 1.
you need to mention that HERE.
Huh? Mention what here ?
Oh, now I see --
Never edited one of my posts before -- now would be a good time to learn how to do that!
Thanks.
Hi Tim,
This is my first visit to your Substack, thanks for letting me read. I have looked at the raw ONS data which you linked to, and then also at the methodology cited in Note 1 of the 'Notes' tab in the spreadsheet. I'm not sure your assertion that the 'First dose, at least 21 days ago' category 'holds' all vaccinated people is correct, if I read you right and that is what you are saying. Looking at the 'person-years' column of Table 2, the relative magnitude of the person-years column swells (as more people pass 21 days post first vaccination, and then shrinks, presumably as more people get their second dose. Therefore it looks to me as if that category is only indicative of people that have received a single dose and no more. Happy to be corrected.
Thanks -- I'm going to have to look at that ... i.e., you may be saying that if someone gets a second dose, then maybe they are no longer included in the > 21 days after first dose group?
I'd say thanks, but on the other-other hand, what you really said was, "Tim, you need to do more WORK!". Thanks!
That being said, there is a statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality for 'First dose, at least 21 days ago', for at least some age groups, at least for part of the period, i.e. confidence intervals do not overlap. For example, this is the case for age group 50-59 from July 2021 onward.
Fascinating graph. Does the ratio reflect the difference between two derived rates, such as deaths per 100,000.? (Which I think is possible from english data, but hardly elsewhere?). Several months ago I posted a question on Trial Site News. I asked if anyone knew of controlled data establishing any group at all has benefited from being jabbed. To date, received only replies suggesting negative.
Unfortunately NOT -- the numbers are in the same column of the Spreadsheet, the top of the column is labeled:
"Age-standardised mortality rate / 100,000 person-years"
But, yeah, you made we wonder if there was a problem in how the numbers numbers were calculated, so I'm going to spot check a few numbers ... hang on checking ...
the rates come out about the same -- not exact for some reason, but very close. No factor of two there!
Yep -- I think at this point the problem in not a lack of DATA --
The problem is instead that it is being ignored --
Certainly ignored by the pusher's of the Narrative --
Also ignored by all Believer's of the Narrative: they immediately dismiss it as "conspiracy theory".
I'm beginning to believe it is hopeless to challenge any Narrative, even with Science and DATA.
The problem is Group Think (human nature -- we are herd animals) and scientific weapon's grade Propaganda.
For example, at NPR (is that Narrative-Promotion Radio, or National Propaganda Radio) everyone must be muzzled, and they a have snitch line to report anyone not toeing the line. How likely is it that some reporter, wanting to keep their job or even get a promotion, let alone a raise, would put a proposed report on their manager's desk showing that there is no science behind muzzling?
Tim, hi, thanks for quick reply. Look, I suspect you have (unknowlngly?) hit appropriate nail? That is, the English data may be already controlled for unequal group sizing, if indexed per 100,000. This needs clarifying. I can try to get some time now to find those English reports, thanks. So are we looking at unequal group sizing, or do the trend lines reflect genuine probabilities? I am 74 so wonder if data suggest my jabbed peers died at up to 5 times greater than normal, one month, on account of accepting our Australian government's sage advice. Cheers, Greg.
Yes, indeed, the group sizes of Vax'd and non-Vax'd are different; so, yes, what is plotted are the "normalized" data, or deaths divided by the population of the group (which is a small number) and then so multiplied by 100,000. So, yes, the my plots show the RATIO of probabilities. I think your government was acting under the advice, or duress, or others; or was caught up in the Fear Propaganda.
Thanks for this info. Can you parse what it means to you in every-day language? It seems to me if I am understanding this correctly that vaccinated people 40 to 49 died at a ratio of almost 3 to 1 compared to unvaccinated as of 5-22-22. What is the ratio of vaccinated to unvaccinated in the 40 to 49 demo? I would guess that the ratio of vaccinated compared to unvaccinated in the UK might be, say, 75 percent vaccinated to 25 percent unvaccinated. This would be about a 3 to 1 ratio .... so the ratio of deaths among this group is roughly the same as the ratio of deaths in these two groups? Is this the right interpretation?
I think the DATA speak for itself.
For some plain English see:
https://timellison.substack.com/p/i-hope-there-is-nothing-to-see-here
This is nonsense firstly, there is no rationale to ratio the data. This is done to be deceptive. The data on the ONS site have confidence intervals and those intervals have not been taken into account here. The confidence intervals overlap suggesting no difference in the data for unvaccinated vs first dose up to 21 days. The data should be presented as the absolute ASMR with the confidence intervals to allow interpretation. Ratioing the data and not taking the confidence intervals into account is not mathematically or scientifically valid. There is also a mismatch in the amount of data for vaxed vs first dose up to 21 days making the comparison meaningless/unreliable. Furthermore why have you selected to just present the first dose Upto 21 days data when there are data for 2 times point for first dose, three time points for second dose and 2 time points for third dose. All these data point plus the ever vaxed data is conveniently ignored as it does not fit the biased narrative being pushed. The more reliable comparison would be to present the raw data plus confidence intervals for non vaxed vs ever vaxed. There is a more comparable amount of data. Comparing these data suggest numerically higher mortality in those patients NOT vaxed vs any vaxed (however many doses), however the confidence interval Overlap suggesting no statistically significant difference between the 2 populations . Obviously this did not fit with the narrative being pushed here. Go check table 1 in the ONS data. No difference between non vaxed and ever vaxed people. This is observational data and not a prospective study so strong conclusions cannot be drawn from these data. But it certainly does not show increased mortality n patient receiving 1, 2 or 3 COVID shots.
boost up Jimmy
So what does vaxxed mean?, ever vaxxed, fully 3 doses vaxxed? or did you sum up all deaths and divide by sum of person years for all vaxxed categories?
Refreshing and troubling post. As someone banned permanently from Facebook and Twitter for similar exposés I greatly appreciate your contributions. -Mark Gerald Weissinger AB MDiv BSc BSMed MD