[mabbo]

But the thing is we ran a massive experiment on this called "The covid-19 pandemic".

What we saw was no serious increase in mortality for the immunized, and a significant increase in mortality for the non-immunized.

Seems like the data from that experiment should be taken into consideration when deciding if the tradeoff is worthwhile, right?

[treeman79]

Isn’t “unknown cause of death” skyrocketing?

https://youtu.be/F74iqEJnb14

https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/58...

[candiddevmike]

What are you trying to insinuate, that the COVID vaccine is causing this?

[User23]

Dishonesty can never satisfy intellectual curiosity. It’s not an insinuation, it’s a scientific possibility that warrants further investigation, especially when boosters are being rushed to market with similarly abbreviated clinical trials. There are some reasons for suspicion. One is the rapid fading of the vaccine’s effectiveness. Why is it so much faster than expected? What’s the mechanism? Another is that every other coronavirus vaccine tested has resulted in decreased immune function due to Antibody dependent engancement. Do we know the current vaccines cause ADE? Not so far as I’m aware. Is it something that should be researched? I’d say so.

[strongpigeon]

Not being aware of any research about ADE doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened… There has been a ton of it and it tends to be something that shows up pretty evidently in clinical trials.

Not a research paper, but a good article talking about ADE: https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/9164...

[yojo]

Excess deaths are widely considered to be “from Covid” right now. It is possible there’s something else going on, but as the parent said, the numbers you should care about when making a vaccine decision are the mortality rate of the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated.

Unvaccinated people are dying at a much higher rate. If your biggest concern is not dying, you should be vaccinated.

[base698]

Most of the excess deaths are not covid but attributed from effects of lockdown (drug use, untreated cancers).

[vibrio]

I've not heard this, it is interesting. Do you have information on source/methods/study groups etc?

[treeman79]

I was going through serious medical issues when I lost access to my doctors from Covid.

I got lucky in that the 20th medication they tried just before lockdown ended up working. Would most likely probably be dead if things had shut down a month earlier.

Tons of people in support forums were in a panic over lost access. Needed testing / procedure.

Not fun when brain is swelling and doctors say they can’t see you.

[vibrio]

I have loved ones that suffered similarly. I do not doubt there were excess morbidity/mortality from restrictions. I'm not doubting, but there is a ton of nuance in epidemiological data like this and I'm wondering about things like demographic cuts and magnitudes of numbers which are necessary to understand the statement.

[soco]

Then we cannot attribute them to the vaccine, which was the original point.

[omniglottal]

And, likewise, you cannot NOT attribute them to the vaccine. Inconclusive data is not to be either used as a calibrated measure nor to be simply ignored.

[costigan]

The excess deaths are quite possibly attributable to both the virus and the vaccines if, as one plausible but very unproven example, they're due to inflammation and/or micro-clotting caused by the spike protein. But in an environment where everyone will be exposed to the actual virus eventually, with uncontrolled initial exposures, it comes down to whether the benefit of getting vaccinated is worth the risk. The data I've seen says that it is.

[skyde]

Exactly I assumed everybody knew this. A lot of important surgery .. got postponed by hospitals because of lock-down.

[TigeriusKirk]

But it's a valid concern to know if the vaccinated are dying at a higher rate than pre-2020, and if so, is that attributable to the vaccine.

There's no brushing off this concern, it's vitally important to get this information.

[soco]

There are the CDC stats attached to a sibling comment.

[code51]

There are large crowds that took 2 doses in pandemic period (getting vaccinated properly back at the time) but not receiving boosters.

It would be easy to track:

- 2 dose, no other booster

- all boosters

- no vaccine

and readjust results considering age and other bias etc.

If all booster people have excess deaths, than "not from Covid" ? If 2 dose people excess deaths < all boosted people, than something about vaccine? No vaccine could be control.

[omniglottal]

The unvaccinated have been receiving lower quality of care. The symptomatic have Been diagnosed without PCR accuracy. The data being collected is bad. Let's not treat it as good data, and see assumptions such as this for what they are, which falls in the "not good data" category.

[dapf]

> Excess deaths are widely considered to be “from Covid”

Considered by whom? The funny thing is that there was no non-covid excess mortality in 2020, that stated on 2021, which is the same time the v{censored} started.

> Unvaccinated people are dying at a much higher rate.

Again, where did you see that?

[jat850]

Insurance companies have already begun publishing reports indicating that excess mortality rates are inversely related to vaccine adoption (i.e. higher excess mortality in states with lower vaccination rates).

[ibeckermayer]

Source?

[jat850]

Apologies, as it's a PDF. I don't have another version of it available.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22275411-group-life-...

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> Again, where did you see that?

https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/421-010-Cases...

[yojo]

There are definitely excess deaths reported starting in 2020. Started in March. See the chart at the bottom of this page: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

And here’s the total death rate by vaccination status: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-co...

I assume you’ll switch to some CDC conspiracy nonsense at this point, in which case we are done here.

[mizzack]

You're conflating total excess deaths for _all_ vax statuses (in your first link) against COVID death rates by vax status (with your second link).

Neither is what the GP is talking about.

[User23]

Do you mean “Weekly number of deaths (from all causes)?” If so that is such a junk chart I don’t see how it supports either claim. The X axis label is absolute garbage. It’s completely unclear where the new year begins. A naive reading (counting back from 2022) has the excess deaths starting in 2019!

[origin_path]

Two problems:

1. That wasn't a controlled experiment. Observational data < RCTs.

2. You are mixing up mortality and mortality attributed to COVID. It's a common error. For overall mortality the picture is far less clear. For example in the Pfizer trials there were more deaths overall in the vaccinated arm than the unvaccinated arm i.e. RCT evidence = no mortality benefit.

Also, we now have excess deaths above the expected baseline for long periods in 2022, which is unprecedented. Governments are highly reluctant to split these deaths out by vaccine status, but the increase seems mostly attributed to heart and blood clotting related deaths. So the data from the "experiment" is not obviously positive.

[zionic]

>You are mixing up mortality and mortality attributed to COVID.

There's also the problem of governments playing funny games around deaths and "vaccinated". Someone who died from an adverse reaction immediately following their shot would not count as a vaccinated death, because the _definition_ of "vaccinated" meant you completed the vaccine schedule which was multiple shots over time.

[Izkata]

Not just after the last shot, you're not counted as fully vaccinated until two weeks after the last shot: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html

(look under "Am I still considered fully vaccinated if I don't get a booster?")

[peter422]

Please show any evidence of this claim.

In trials the vaccines were tested in tens of thousands of people where adverse reactions were meticulously recorded and there just isn’t any evidence that the vaccines caused immediate death in anybody.

Then beyond that there isn’t any evidence that there also is a government conspiracy following the first dubious claim.

[Sohcahtoa82]

> For example in the Pfizer trials there were more deaths overall in the vaccinated arm than the unvaccinated arm i.e. RCT evidence = no mortality benefit.

> Governments are highly reluctant to split these deaths out by vaccine status, but the increase seems mostly attributed to heart and blood clotting related deaths.

[citation needed]

[stoneglyph]

There were approximately 40k people in the vaccinated and the placebo groups. One group had 17 deaths, and the other one had 21. If you are not aware of this information, how can you consider yourself informed on the topic?

[importantbrian]

There is a pretty good reason that the Pfizer RCT doesn't show excess mortality benefit. It wasn't designed to study that. The recruited population is mostly healthy as individuals with multiple risk factors were excluded. For example the proportion of the study group over 65 and the proportion with at least 1 comorbidity is much smaller than the population as a whole. The studied group was very unlikely to experience mortality in the first place so a much larger study would be needed to show any evidence of an effect on mortality. The difference between 17 and 21 is not statistically significant.

In the absence of a large enough RCT we're left with observational studies and there are a ton of these now. The observational data shows a large mortality benefit in the vaccinated population and I'm not aware of a single observational study that shows the opposite, but I suppose there could be one out there that I have missed.

The preponderance of the evidence is pretty strongly in favor of the vaccinated population experiencing lower mortality than the unvaccinated population.

[stoneglyph]

Can you lead us to this preponderance of evidence that is out there?

[importantbrian]

Sure. I'm not going to do a full lit review for you. You can search PubMed and do that on your own if you like. But here are a few good ones.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8556631/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8553028/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8513403/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8162901/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35901091/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35891173/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35891151/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35855494/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35821984/

https://www.covid-datascience.com/ also has some helpful discussions of this stuff if you don't want to have to dig through a bunch of studies.

[Sohcahtoa82]

17 vs 21 in a study of 40K is not statistically significant.

[stoneglyph]

And yet, this is the "science" that was used to push the vaccines on the entire population. It just so happens that the group with the larger number of deaths was the vaccinated group, but we aren't allowed to talk about that. A question: why was this not discussed?

[Sohcahtoa82]

> And yet, this is the "science" that was used to push the vaccines on the entire population.

Yes. It's sound science. What problem do you have?

> It just so happens that the group with the larger number of deaths was the vaccinated group, but we aren't allowed to talk about that. A question: why was this not discussed?

It wasn't discussed because 17 vs 21 in a sample size of 40K is not a statistically significant difference. I don't know how to make that more clear without going into a lesson in high school-level statistics.

[origin_path]

OK. Deaths in the RCTs:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4072489

[edit: fixed typo in link]

"To examine the possible non-specific effects (NSEs) of the novel COVID-19 vaccines, we reviewed the randomised control trials (RCTs) of mRNA and adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines ... For overall mortality, with 74,193 participants and 61 deaths (mRNA:31; placebo:30), the relative risk (RR) for the two mRNA vaccines compared with placebo was 1.03 (95% CI=0.63-1.71)"

Excess deaths in the UK. Useful because (a) it's all in English and (b) the UK authorities do split out deaths by vaccine status unlike most places:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/18/silent-crisis-so...

"For 14 of the past 15 weeks, England and Wales have averaged around 1,000 extra deaths each week, none of which are due to Covid. If the current trajectory continues, the number of non-Covid excess deaths will soon outstrip deaths from the virus this year – and be even more deadly than the omicron wave. The Government has admitted that the majority of the excess deaths appear to be from circulatory issues and diabetes – long-term, chronic conditions that can be fatal without adequate care."

Increases by cause of death:

https://dailysceptic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/image-5....

Dashboard that lets you explore the data directly from the source:

https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiYmUwNmFhMjYtNGZhYS00N...

UK data at first appears to show that the unvaccinated die at a higher rate. However, this is only because they're using incorrect population figures. Although it may seem absurd the government population figures in the UK are officially labelled "experimental" because they are universally acknowledged to be far too low. In some age groups the official population is lower than the number of people who came forward for immunization, so these figures cannot be used and indeed the UK HSA didn't use the official population stats when computing their own effectiveness rates, but rather estimates from NIMS (National Immunization Service). If the same methodology is used then you can calculate chart 4 on this page from officially released data:

https://bartram.substack.com/p/deaths-by-vaccination-status-...

"The ONS data is interesting because it also includes data on non-Covid deaths by vaccination status ... Using this alternative estimate of the population of England [from NIMS] now suggests that the vaccines substantially increase the risk of death for reasons other than Covid."

Unfortunately and worryingly, even the NIMS estimates are likely to be seriously off. According to NIMS about 9% of the British population refused vaccination but a few months ago the BBC commissioned a professional survey from a polling firm, to ask people questions about their vaccine status and if they didn't take it, why not. They were surprised to discover that 25% of people said they were unvaccinated.

> To examine the possible non-specific effects (NSEs) of the novel COVID-19 vaccines, we reviewed the randomised control trials (RCTs) of mRNA and adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines

[importantbrian]

Did you bother to click on that first link? It's broken because the authors retracted the paper. This kind of stuff is the reason it's hard to take vaccine skeptics seriously.

[origin_path]

Yes, that's how I quoted from it. The link had a number deleted from the end, a mistake whilst editing the post. I fixed it. The authors haven't retracted the paper.

[Sohcahtoa82]

> For overall mortality, with 74,193 participants and 61 deaths (mRNA:31; placebo:30)

31 deaths with mRNA and 30 deaths with placebo with over 74K people in the trial to me means that mRNA carries zero risk. In a sample size that large, 1 additional death means essentially zero correlation.

> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/18/silent-crisis-so...

Article is subscribe-walled. Not subbing.

> Dailysceptic

I'm not going to accept "Daily Sceptic" as a source.

> PowerBI

I don't find the data in this dashboard to be very incriminating. Excess deaths are still highly attributed to COVID.

> https://bartram.substack.com/p/deaths-by-vaccination-status-...

This article is very painfully committing the Base Rate Fallacy.

See https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/154723580144821043... for a good explanation on that.

[origin_path]

"This article is very painfully committing the Base Rate Fallacy."

You didn't read past the first sentence, did you? Embarrassing, because the article starts by explaining the base rate fallacy and pointing out that the social media meme it starts by highlighting is wrong. Then it goes on to do correct analysis, which shows the conclusions I gave. You'd have known this if you read my post properly too, because I have a whole paragraph about the stats involved in correctly calculating base rates. If you think there are mistakes in the rest of the article please explain them, but you do need to actually read it first.

"I'm not going to accept "Daily Sceptic" as a source."

Again you didn't even click the link and look, did you? The image is a table of data from official government statistics, they simply happen to host the screenshot. But I knew I'd get a response like that from someone. Lack of intellectual curiosity around this topic is extreme - for obvious and understandable reasons of course. But still.

Re: PowerBI

Where do you see that? There are virtually no COVID deaths (a.k.a. "had a positive test a month before death") since the end of the winter in the UK. Look at the data for the various kinds of heart failure, for example. You see clear excess where COVID isn't implicated starting around the end of April.

"1 additional death means essentially zero correlation."

After incorrectly snarking about not understanding statistics, you're now demonstrating a mis-understanding yourself (albeit a very common one).

You can't simply look at a small difference and say "not statistically significant therefore there is no risk". That's not how statistics works. Firstly, the overall sample size was very large, it was an RCT. So we can say with great certainty that the vaccines have no effect on mortality, yet, that was the entire purpose of developing them. I see up thread some people are now trying to deny this, claiming that the vaccine trials were never meant to even study death rates! Truly Orwellian stuff. Death is the endpoint that motivated everything.

What we can't say with great certainty is if the vaccines are truly more deadly than the placebo. But statistical significance is not the same thing as significance. This is a really common logic error you see even amongst scientists themselves (when badly motivated). This result means the vaccines might be more deadly than the placebo or might not, and therefore the correct response is to gather more data. The incorrect answer is to say "eh, yolo, let's assume the optimistic result", especially if you're about to force people to take it on a massive scale.

But of course they didn't gather this data. The people who created and run the COVID vaccine programmes think that any expression of doubt about vaccine safety is immoral anti-science anti-vaxx insanity, which in turn means they can't neutrally measure or act on data. Their conclusions are chosen before they even do a single experiment, so they just went ahead and did it.

At any rate, the placebo in these trials was incorrect. They gave the placebo arm vaccines too, just different ones, so this is actually not comparing against reality (=no vaccine) and therefore overly generous to the vaccine under test.

[canoebuilder]

What we saw was no serious increase in mortality for the immunized

https://nitter.ca/AlexBerenson/status/1569648795373166593#m

We are seeing high levels of excess mortality that we shouldn’t be seeing, if the “safe and effective” propaganda was remotely true.

If by “immunized” you mean those who had one or many mRNA injections, then we are seeing high correlation between excess deaths and that population.

And there are many papers detailing likely causal mechanisms between those deaths and those injections.

Sorry people, we were lied to. Was it malice, incompetence, both? Don’t know…

But I see no reason to go on Stockholm syndroming ourselves.

[belltaco]

That's a lot of unfounded speculation. There's as much evidence that invisible space aliens are causing excess deaths as there is for mRNA vaccines.

[canoebuilder]

Really, you think that? There are excess deaths and dropping fertility. What is the cause? People have tried every explanation they can think of and nothing adds up except for one thing few people want to talk or think about, why is that?

We’re not talking about speculation, we’re talking about clear thinking and rigorous deduction of potential causal pathways. The drop in fertility is, horribly so, blindingly obvious. In country after country, 9 months after mRNA injections rollout for young people we are seeing a striking drop in births. We know there is an effect on women’s reproductive system and men’s. Men’s sperm counts drop a study from Israel has shown. Many, many reports from women of their periods having been effected.

Unfortunately, there is nothing speculative about this. Nobody wants this to be the case. That this was pushed the way it was on young people is criminal and insane.

In terms of death or injury there are definitely cases where it is entirely clear cut just hours or days after an injection somebody is dead or severely debilitated in a way clearly linked to the shot.

Those are deaths or injuries that had no business occurring and yet they did, why?

In the aggregate/macro overview we’re seeing it in data where it can’t be hidden and in the day to day. Just do a search for something like “unexpectedly died”

Again, who wants this thing so many went fanatical about a year ago to have caused this?

Something did cause it though, and at this point the most likely and parsimonious explanation is the shots. And not for lack of trying alternative explanations. Why stick your head in the sand if that leads to more death and destruction. We’ve found ourselves in a hole in terms of societal health, let’s stop digging.

This is the first I’ve heard of the invisible space alien theory. What is the evidence for it?

[manwe150]

> The drop in fertility is, horribly so, blindingly obvious. In country after country, 9 months after mRNA injections rollout for young people we are seeing a striking drop in births.

The US birth rate continues to climb after the introduction of vaccines, for the first time in decades.

I have yet to see a chart that shows a decline that wasn’t painfully manipulate to hide the fact it declined much less after vaccinations than it had in the decade leading up to it. Though I have only seen articles for a handful of countries.

[canoebuilder]

https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/dramatic-decrease-in-birth...

https://igorchudov.substack.com/archive?sort=search&search=f...

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/swedish-birth-rate-data-w...

https://alexberenson.substack.com/?sort=search&search=fertil...

[manwe150]

Nice to see the top link later realized his fears were unfounded and wrote about it: https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/good-fertility-news-for-va...

[dapf]

> What we saw was no serious increase in mortality for the immunized, and a significant increase in mortality for the non-immunized

Where did you see that?

[robbiemitchell]

Here's just a few seconds of searching re: increased mortality for non-vaccinated:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-compare-co...

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm

https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/421-010-Cases...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/02/08/omicron-dea...