Am I reading this data correct? 18.4% of unvaxed represent 19.3% of hospitalizations? So statistically speaking, the vaccine did nothing to prevent hospitalizations?

submitted by HiddenFox from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]zyxzevn 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

It is probably worse.

1) The test-requirements for unjabbed are different. They use higher PCR recycle counts. Like 28 versus 40 in the US. In certain Pfizer trials they assumed that you can't get covid when you are jabbed (giving the 95% efficacy), and this belief is also still going on.

2) People that just got the jab, are often still counted as "unvexed". So this will add to the count. In the UK this difference was contributing to most of the cases. If you added a week or two in the data, there were almost no "unvaxed" in the hospital.

3) In certain states or countries unvaxed have strict testing requirement. While the jabbed can often skip testing. Some countries allowed travel for unvaxed, after a positive test and waiting a few weeks. So people started infecting each other to get a positive test.

4) In some cases we do not even know if Covid exists, because the flu or other diseases can give positive PCR tests or other positive results.

This all differs in time, as the governments change everything to push a high or low number of cases, depending on what policies they want to install.

[–]StillLessons 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

This all differs in time, as the governments change everything to push a high or low number of cases, depending on what policies they want to install.

Great point. The actual case numbers are beyond suspicious because of all of the elements you're talking about here. I work with the numbers as given, because they're the only numbers we have, but the effects you are talking about here are profound, meaning that all these datasets are essentially garbage before they are ever published. The effects of the lies about covid absolutely swamp the actual signal of the disease itself. Because of this, in the end, none of us actually knows what we're looking at. This is as true within the medical community as it is outside it.

[–]zyxzevn 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

More info:

The jabs are even showing negative effectiveness, up to -100%.

That is also logical, because it attacks your immune system in an effort to trigger antibodies. Antibodies that are only specialized against the spike proteins of a variant that does no longer exists. And these antibodies do not work against airway diseases (you need a different kind).

These spike proteins also attack your immune system cells, and the mRNA uses artificial codes to disable the immune system. The DNA and mRNA in the cells also trigger auto-immune reactions and stay more than 60 days. In autopsies we see that the immune system cells can often not find the these cells, and cause an inflammation.

Sources:

This negative efficacy was also clear in the trials. They just tested the groups differently, because they were not blinded for the researchers.
The British medical journal was the first to officially write about the problems with the trials in 2020. Now we know it is all based on fraud.

Autopsies with Arne Burkardt

Pathology Conference - Pathology of v deaths and v injuries Video - translated to english

About the wrong antibodies
IgM, IgG, IgA

Data about the negative -106% was found in the UK data.
link

Note: the agencies are very unhappy with the results. So they fraud the data. Here is proof of some of that fraud:
Proof of statistical sieves in v data
According to the jab makes you up 60% less likely to get a car accident.

Overview with many other links:
How the experiments cause damage by design

(I posted this on reddit and this fits here too)

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Oof someone doesn't know the difference between correlation and causation. Vaccinated people dying less from car accidents could have totally reasonable explanations. For example, maybe people who get vaccines are smarter than people who don't. Therefore they would be more likely to drive smarter too. Therefore they would be less likely to die.

A correlation between between COVID vaccines and car deaths is not evidence of data manipulation. It also isn't evidence that the vaccine causes anything related to driving. It's just a correlation. There are many other possible causal explanations.

[–]zyxzevn 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

You did not check the links again.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I did.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Oof someone doesn't know the difference between correlation and causation.

It's okay, you can still learn.