I suggest you visit @EthicalSkeptic twitter feed. He has done the best work on modeling and forecasting on Covid by far. According to him, the vaccinated is 2.6x more likely to be infected than the unvaccinated. My personal experience also bears it out.
Firstly the incidence rates look really really low for the time period. Lauterbach would have committed murder for such low incidence rates.
Most importantly, I think they have also pulled the Bavaria/Hamburg trick. From the DSHS graphic towards the bottom:
Fully vaccinated population is defined as the number of cases who are determined to be fully vaccinated...
Boosted population is defined as the number of cases who are determined to be boosted in Texas...
Unvaccinated = everyone else.
There will be a lot of vaccinated and boosted people in that "unvaccinated" cohort numerator simply because their vaccination status was not recorded at the time of testing.
This is an old-fashioned missing information trick that has been pulled so many times that only those with a predetermined fish to fry could still fall for it.
Sure, there are many ways to cook the books like Bavaria and Hamburg showed ;) In this particular story, I think:
1. Texas Health has miscalculated the Relative Ratios - the interesting question is why?
Simple mistake or vaccine agenda?
AND
2. I think everyone has overlooked that the "boosted" group incidence shows they are more likely to have a positive test than "fully vaccinated". Again, the interesting question is why?
- Waning efficacy? Doesn't make sense to me, because the "boosted" are more recently dosed than "fully vaccinated".
- More vulnerable/incomparable groups? MAYBE but this also undermines vaccine efficacy and the validity of their own comparison ratios.
- Immune suppression? Well, that is the big question...
when looking to solve for variable x(unvaccinated incidence rate) - shouldn't y(vaccinated) and z(boosted) be fully included in the scheme? I have seen this trick many times - split the vaccinated into separate buckets so if you compare one bucket to variable x - x will almost always look incredibly larger, but if you put ALL evidences of vaccinated (1 jab, 2 jab, 3 jab, 4 etc) into one cohort, then all the numbers for vaccinated fall apart completely. I personally love how these snake oil salesmen will pull out of the vaccinated equations any incidences that occur in the 14 days or 30 days after vaccination. sad comedy.
Okay. I don't mean to offend you, but to challenge you... My question is, how could ANY of this be "credible" when there is no proof, ever, anywhere, produced by anyone, that viruses actually exist? Never been isolated! Oh yes, there are people whose livelihoods depend on the existence of viruses, but... Where's the PROOF? There isn't any. Never shown to be anything, anywhere, at all. And these TESTS! What the hell good is a test for something that doesn't exist? Just wondering, after all your work sniffing out the bs, how you can ignore this glaring issue. No offense, I know it's been 200 years of BS, but... The truth is pretty well uncovered now... All anyone has offered is in silico "simulations" and a SOUP of horse serum, monkey kidney, milk, antibiotics, etc etc... How is this SOUP considered "isolation"? Okay, thanks.
No offence taken. I admit that I am operating on the basis that viruses are real. Just about all the scientists that I am reading and following on the pandemic recognise viruses are real - but, that doesn't make it true. So, sure, I accept this is one of those areas were, no, I don't really know that viruses exist. Seems like an instance of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I'll take a look at some of your stack.
Forget my stack, read/listen to Tom Cowan, Sam & Mark Bailey (married, both doc's), Andrew Kaufman, and if you want a great stat page on SS for some of this kind of info, try Christine Massey... she rocks. https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/
When you say "Just about all the scientists that I am reading and following on the pandemic recognize viruses are real" -- you're right, it doesn't make it true. It's because of censorship and suppression, mostly. Why? Because there is SERIOUS money in viruses and vaccines.
Thank you for having the talent and the patience to go through claims like this. Your post would be excellent educational material in itself.
Thank you for reading!
I suggest you visit @EthicalSkeptic twitter feed. He has done the best work on modeling and forecasting on Covid by far. According to him, the vaccinated is 2.6x more likely to be infected than the unvaccinated. My personal experience also bears it out.
Yes, I have been following @EthicalSkeptic and I agree, my impression since over a year has been that the vaccinated are the predonminant spreaders.
Firstly the incidence rates look really really low for the time period. Lauterbach would have committed murder for such low incidence rates.
Most importantly, I think they have also pulled the Bavaria/Hamburg trick. From the DSHS graphic towards the bottom:
Fully vaccinated population is defined as the number of cases who are determined to be fully vaccinated...
Boosted population is defined as the number of cases who are determined to be boosted in Texas...
Unvaccinated = everyone else.
There will be a lot of vaccinated and boosted people in that "unvaccinated" cohort numerator simply because their vaccination status was not recorded at the time of testing.
This is an old-fashioned missing information trick that has been pulled so many times that only those with a predetermined fish to fry could still fall for it.
Sure, there are many ways to cook the books like Bavaria and Hamburg showed ;) In this particular story, I think:
1. Texas Health has miscalculated the Relative Ratios - the interesting question is why?
Simple mistake or vaccine agenda?
AND
2. I think everyone has overlooked that the "boosted" group incidence shows they are more likely to have a positive test than "fully vaccinated". Again, the interesting question is why?
- Waning efficacy? Doesn't make sense to me, because the "boosted" are more recently dosed than "fully vaccinated".
- More vulnerable/incomparable groups? MAYBE but this also undermines vaccine efficacy and the validity of their own comparison ratios.
- Immune suppression? Well, that is the big question...
To me, the litmus tests of doctors or PH "experts are their public and private actions, posts, etc re all covid-related matters.
This quack is one of "them". What useful info he provides id also being provided by many others.
In fact, we need only about 40 SM accounts covering all the angles of covid scams to be sufficiently informed.
when looking to solve for variable x(unvaccinated incidence rate) - shouldn't y(vaccinated) and z(boosted) be fully included in the scheme? I have seen this trick many times - split the vaccinated into separate buckets so if you compare one bucket to variable x - x will almost always look incredibly larger, but if you put ALL evidences of vaccinated (1 jab, 2 jab, 3 jab, 4 etc) into one cohort, then all the numbers for vaccinated fall apart completely. I personally love how these snake oil salesmen will pull out of the vaccinated equations any incidences that occur in the 14 days or 30 days after vaccination. sad comedy.
Okay. I don't mean to offend you, but to challenge you... My question is, how could ANY of this be "credible" when there is no proof, ever, anywhere, produced by anyone, that viruses actually exist? Never been isolated! Oh yes, there are people whose livelihoods depend on the existence of viruses, but... Where's the PROOF? There isn't any. Never shown to be anything, anywhere, at all. And these TESTS! What the hell good is a test for something that doesn't exist? Just wondering, after all your work sniffing out the bs, how you can ignore this glaring issue. No offense, I know it's been 200 years of BS, but... The truth is pretty well uncovered now... All anyone has offered is in silico "simulations" and a SOUP of horse serum, monkey kidney, milk, antibiotics, etc etc... How is this SOUP considered "isolation"? Okay, thanks.
Hi Word Herder,
No offence taken. I admit that I am operating on the basis that viruses are real. Just about all the scientists that I am reading and following on the pandemic recognise viruses are real - but, that doesn't make it true. So, sure, I accept this is one of those areas were, no, I don't really know that viruses exist. Seems like an instance of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I'll take a look at some of your stack.
Forget my stack, read/listen to Tom Cowan, Sam & Mark Bailey (married, both doc's), Andrew Kaufman, and if you want a great stat page on SS for some of this kind of info, try Christine Massey... she rocks. https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/
When you say "Just about all the scientists that I am reading and following on the pandemic recognize viruses are real" -- you're right, it doesn't make it true. It's because of censorship and suppression, mostly. Why? Because there is SERIOUS money in viruses and vaccines.
Here's a sort of introductory video on this...
https://truthcomestolight.com/dr-joseph-yi-streetmd-with-drs-tom-cowan-andrew-kaufman-mark-bailey-a-response-to-claims-by-drs-robert-malone-peter-mccullough-ryan-cole-that-sars-cov-2-has-been-isolated-is-a-disease-ca/