34 Comments
author

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.

Expand full comment
author

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!?

Expand full comment
author

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.

Expand full comment
author

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-

Expand full comment
author

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.

Expand full comment
Aug 24, 2022·edited Sep 6, 2022Liked by Tim Ellison

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?

Expand full comment
author

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

Expand full comment

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!

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment
Sep 2, 2022·edited Sep 2, 2022

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.

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment