Thursday, May 19, 2022
Statistical analysis shows that NOBODY under 60 should take the COVID vaccine
This is a PRELIMINARY result based on over 1,500 death reports we've received so far. You are welcome to download our data yourself and analyze it and see if you agree. You may find some new things.
This is big. Really big. This may prove to be one of the most important articles I will write this year.
Figure 1 below is an analysis of survey data I collected. The analysis shows that the vaccines are harmful to those under 60. The red dots higher than the error bar means more vaccinated people observed dead than expected based on the population of vaccinated to all people. In other words, if we vaccinated 60% of people (middle of the grey bar) and 70% (red dot) of the deaths are vaccinated, we have a serious problem.
The precautionary principle of medicine suggests if you are under 60 and thinking of taking a vaccine, you shouldn’t. These preliminary results are both statistically significant.
Figure 1. Red dot below error bar = vax works. Red dot above error bar = vax likely causes harm. Red dot inside the error bar = Insufficient evidence to justify taking a new, unproven vaccine. Conclusion: Vaccine shouldn’t be considered unless there is a clear benefit. 60 and older seems to justify use based on the data we have so far. Limitations: we are waiting for others to confirm / challenge the analysis. See text for more info. Joel Smalley did the analysis..
However, there could be errors in the analysis and/or survey bias errors that will change the result, so this is preliminary. I hope to make these not preliminary in a few days.
I created a mortality survey which asked people to report the date, age, and vaccine status of the people who died who they had the tightest relationship with. You could report as many deaths as you wanted for people you PERSONALLY knew, but if you didn’t report them all, start with the person closest to you. All deaths should be reported no matter what the cause of the death. If they died after December 1, 2020, report it.
The first 1,700+ results are in and Joel Smalley had time to do the analysis. It is stunning. The conclusion is very clear: nobody under 60 years old should get the vaccine because there is no evidence of a benefit. In fact, if you are between 40-60, it’s clear that vaccination makes it more likely you’ll die, not less likely. It’s statistically significant. The result that the younger you are, the less sense it makes, is consistent with what pretty much everyone has been saying.
The only thing that surprised me in the analysis is that data showed that if you are 60 and older, getting vaccinated reduces your chance of dying.
I’m astonished by the data showing a benefit for >60 because it is inconsistent with the VAERS data (which is off the charts showing nearly 500,000 deaths), embalmer data, and this article about 6 elderly deaths in Palo Alto out of 9 people vaccinated, and medicare data, and UK ONS data. I’m confident of the embalmer data and Palo Alto deaths: there is absolutely no way if the vaccine was protective that those events could occur. This means there must be an error in the analysis or confounding of...
However, there could be errors in the analysis and/or survey bias errors that will change the result, so this is preliminary. I hope to make these not preliminary in a few days.
I created a mortality survey which asked people to report the date, age, and vaccine status of the people who died who they had the tightest relationship with. You could report as many deaths as you wanted for people you PERSONALLY knew, but if you didn’t report them all, start with the person closest to you. All deaths should be reported no matter what the cause of the death. If they died after December 1, 2020, report it.
The first 1,700+ results are in and Joel Smalley had time to do the analysis. It is stunning. The conclusion is very clear: nobody under 60 years old should get the vaccine because there is no evidence of a benefit. In fact, if you are between 40-60, it’s clear that vaccination makes it more likely you’ll die, not less likely. It’s statistically significant. The result that the younger you are, the less sense it makes, is consistent with what pretty much everyone has been saying.
The only thing that surprised me in the analysis is that data showed that if you are 60 and older, getting vaccinated reduces your chance of dying.
I’m astonished by the data showing a benefit for >60 because it is inconsistent with the VAERS data (which is off the charts showing nearly 500,000 deaths), embalmer data, and this article about 6 elderly deaths in Palo Alto out of 9 people vaccinated, and medicare data, and UK ONS data. I’m confident of the embalmer data and Palo Alto deaths: there is absolutely no way if the vaccine was protective that those events could occur. This means there must be an error in the analysis or confounding of...
Feud Between Biden, Bezos Escalates Sharply
The exchange marked an escalation in a simmering feud between Biden and Bezos as the president has frequently used Amazon as a foil in an attempt to pass legislation for higher taxes on the richest Americans and big companies to help pay for his economic agenda, according to The Hill.
After Bezos charged over the weekend that Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan that he signed into law last year contributed to a sharp rise in prices and that inflation is most harmful to the poor, deputy White House press secretary Andrew Bates responded.
Bates said in a statement that “it doesn’t require a huge leap to figure out why one of the wealthiest individuals on Earth opposes an economic agenda for the middle class that cuts some of the biggest costs families face, fights inflation for the long haul, and adds to the historic deficit reduction the president is achieving by asking the richest taxpayers and corporations to pay their fair share.”
He added that “it’s also unsurprising that this tweet comes after the president met with labor organizers, including Amazon employees.”
In reaction, Bezos on Monday accused the White House of trying to change the subject and again criticized its economic policy, tweeting that “remember the administration tried their best to add another $3.5 TRILLION to federal spending. They failed, but if they had succeeded, inflation would be even higher than it is today, and inflation today is at a...
The 90 Miles Mystery Video: Nyctophilia Edition #1023
Before You Click On The "Read More" Link,
Please Only Do So If You Are Over 21 Years Old.
If You are Easily Upset, Triggered Or Offended, This Is Not The Place For You.
Please Leave Silently Into The Night......
The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #1723
You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside?
It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific,
from the beautiful to the repugnant,
from the mysterious to the familiar.
If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed,
you could be inspired, you could be appalled.
This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended.
You have been warned.
Wednesday, May 18, 2022
Woke CEOs Begin to Panic as they Discover That Over 80% of Americans Side with FL Gov Ron DeSantis
Over the past several years, many of the country’s largest corporations have decided to promote left-wing political values.
Gillette condemned “toxic masculinity.” Nike supported Colin Kaepernick’s anti-police rhetoric, and Disney condemned Florida’s “Parental Rights in Education” bill — to name a few examples.
Some conservatives — most notably Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — have decided to fight back, however, which has led the CEOs of many such companies to rethink whether or not they should be focusing on politics.
Well, a devastating new poll seemingly confirmed what many such CEOs may have feared: Americans are sick and tired of being lectured to.
According to the unreleased poll, which was conducted by The Trafalgar Group and shared with The Western Journal, 87.1 percent of American voters are “likely” to “stop using a product or service of a company that openly advocates for a political agenda they disagree with.”
This position is incredibly bipartisan.
The results indicate, 82.6 percent of independent voters, 84.5 percent of Democratic voters and 93.4 percent of Republic voters all report as likely to abandon such products or services.
Sponsored by Convention of States Action, the poll surveyed 1080 likely voters in the 2022 midterm elections from April 24 to April 27. It had a confidence level of 95 percent and a +/- of 2.99 percent.
This confirms many fears that have been circulating amongst American CEOs, according to a recent report from the Wall Street Journal.
A number of CEOs, sources and other insiders at various American companies told the Journal that many companies are now afraid of becoming “the next Disney.”
In recent years, Disney has become...
Tales From the Swamp: How a Republican Senator’s Son Partnered With a Liberal Dark Money Group To Sink Voter ID Expansion
 |
| Andy Blunt / WikimediaCollin Anderson • May 18, 2022 5:00 am |
Over the past year, liberal dark money group Sixteen Thirty Fund has spent $2.5 million opposing a Republican-led petition drive to expand Michigan's voter ID requirements. Nearly $400,000 of that money has gone to Groundgame Political Solutions, a shadowy consulting firm that a trio of Republican operatives—including Sen. Roy Blunt's (R., Mo.) son, Andy Blunt—privately launched in May 2021, corporate filings show.
The firm, which Blunt first registered in Delaware before expanding it to 10 other states, functions as a stealthy subsidiary to Blunt's public-facing canvassing company, HBS+. The setup has allowed Blunt and his partners, fellow Republican operatives Gregg Hartley and Meghan Cox, to rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars from deep-pocketed liberals without alienating their conservative clients.
The revelation shows just how far liberal operatives are willing to go to tank the ongoing voter ID expansion effort in the Great Lakes State. In at least one case, for example, the Sixteen Thirty Fund used its Republican allies at Groundgame to pay canvassers tens of thousands of dollars not to work on the issue.
That ploy saw Groundgame reach a November agreement with a Michigan petition gatherer that paid him $50,000 not to work on any "election reform" issue. Cox personally signed the contract, which the petition gatherer called a "scheme to pay off circulators not to engage" in the voter ID initiative. Just one day before Cox sealed the deal, Groundgame received a $56,000 payment from an equally shadowy political action committee, Protect MI Vote, that the Sixteen Thirty Fund bankrolls to fight voter ID in Michigan. According to campaign finance disclosures, that payment went to Groundgame through a Jefferson City, Mo., address registered to Blunt's consulting firm, Husch Blackwell Strategies.
Blunt, Hartley, and Cox did not return multiple requests for comment. All three have professional ties to Blunt's father. Blunt managed his father's Senate campaigns in both 2010 and 2016, while Hartley from 1997 to 2003 served as then-congressman Blunt's chief of staff. Cox, meanwhile, has directed field efforts for the Republican senator, her online bio states.
The three operatives teamed up to launch...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)