The big table only lists about 60 of the 190+ two-way effects, most notably missing AcuteRespiratory by Vaccinated and ChronicRespiratory by Vaccinated. Is there any reason for this, or is this table just a random illustration?
Those are the terms that made it through the forward (conditional) selection procedure. The remaining terms are sitting in much bigger list of statistically insignificant terms that I didn't show. I'm happy to supply the raw outputs for those interested but you need to install a reader to handle the SPSS *.spv file format.
Happy to say never did a single one of these dodgy pcr tests and never understood the mentality of medical staff ramming the cotton buds so far up noses and down past their tonsils, bloody ludicrous.
Hubby had to have a pcr test to travel home from working in Italy, he said she shoved it that far up his nose he thought his eyes would pop out.
The whole thing has been absolute madness that’s caused a lot of misery and made some people very rich from the testing con.
I suspect some of these medical unprofessionals have caused damage, infections and problems for some folk being so rough handed.
These are quite involved pieces of work, each being a small piece of a big picture, but I'll see if I can boil up a very short plainly worded summary that also possesses meaning!
Thanks for adding the summary at the top. A couple thoughts: some (not all) of the early Covid vaccine published trials used symptomatic Covid as a key biomarker/endpoint, rather than just positive tests, recognizing at least implicitly that a positive test by itself was not enough.
Historical "case definitions" have almost always required both a positive test PLUS symptoms. Covid was bizarrely anomalous in that the US and then WHO in that order adopted case definitions that required only a positive test, first only PCR tests but then modified to allow even a positive antigen test to qualify as a "case" of Covid.
Anyway, here's the published trial for the Moderna vaccine, Baden et al. 2021, which did require both a positive test and Covid symptoms ("symptomatic Covid"). This is better than not requiring symptoms, but as you surely know, with the symptom list for Covid so incredibly long and non-specific to Covid, even requiring symptoms alongside a positive Covid test probably did little to weed out large numbers of false positives. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389
That growing list of COVID symptoms got me all suspicious from the start, along with trusted medics I know. You either have a well-defined disease or you have an unacknowledged diagnostic problem leading to a pile of nonsense regardless of peer review. Even worse - you also have a shitty peer review problem!
I would appreciate your thoughts in a future essay on the various data points for and against Covid being a "plandemic" or a "pandemic." I have remained mostly agnostic on this issue for three years now, seeing data as equally supportive of either an opportunistic "all-in" pandemic approach by the various powerful actors who benefited from a global pandemic OR a plandemic in terms of certain actors actually pre-planning the pandemic and its response. I still remain somewhat agnostic but recently have been leaning more toward plandemic, with Exhibit A for that argument being a detailed anonymous stock tip about WHO planning to try out lockdowns in Italy if Covid broke out there, and the wisdom of investing in vaccine stocks. And this tip was in early Feb. 2020, long before lockdowns were a thing or the vaccine discussion had heated up. Here's a great piece from Michael Senger on this particular thread and the likelihood that it was Balaji Srinivasan who posted that anonymous stock tip: https://brownstone.org/articles/balaji-srinivasan-covid-new-normal/
And here's the tip itself:
There are very high profile investors who’ve been silently pulling out ahead of time… the WHO is already talking about how “problematic” modeling the Chinese response in Western countries is going to be, and the first country they want to try it out in is Italy. If it begins a large outbreak in a major Italian city they want to work through the Italian authorities and world health organizations to begin locking down Italian cities in a vain attempt to slow down the spread at least until they can develop and distribute vaccines, which btw is where you need to start investing… I just think it’s a really shitty thing to not be sharing this information with the public because they arrogantly think we’re all irrational and shouldn’t be informed as they are.
The big table only lists about 60 of the 190+ two-way effects, most notably missing AcuteRespiratory by Vaccinated and ChronicRespiratory by Vaccinated. Is there any reason for this, or is this table just a random illustration?
Those are the terms that made it through the forward (conditional) selection procedure. The remaining terms are sitting in much bigger list of statistically insignificant terms that I didn't show. I'm happy to supply the raw outputs for those interested but you need to install a reader to handle the SPSS *.spv file format.
Happy to say never did a single one of these dodgy pcr tests and never understood the mentality of medical staff ramming the cotton buds so far up noses and down past their tonsils, bloody ludicrous.
Hubby had to have a pcr test to travel home from working in Italy, he said she shoved it that far up his nose he thought his eyes would pop out.
The whole thing has been absolute madness that’s caused a lot of misery and made some people very rich from the testing con.
I suspect some of these medical unprofessionals have caused damage, infections and problems for some folk being so rough handed.
I couldn't follow the analysis or conclusions of this essay. Can you provide a short summary/conclusion at the beginning of each piece?
These are quite involved pieces of work, each being a small piece of a big picture, but I'll see if I can boil up a very short plainly worded summary that also possesses meaning!
Pithy summary now added!
Thanks!
Thanks for adding the summary at the top. A couple thoughts: some (not all) of the early Covid vaccine published trials used symptomatic Covid as a key biomarker/endpoint, rather than just positive tests, recognizing at least implicitly that a positive test by itself was not enough.
Historical "case definitions" have almost always required both a positive test PLUS symptoms. Covid was bizarrely anomalous in that the US and then WHO in that order adopted case definitions that required only a positive test, first only PCR tests but then modified to allow even a positive antigen test to qualify as a "case" of Covid.
Anyway, here's the published trial for the Moderna vaccine, Baden et al. 2021, which did require both a positive test and Covid symptoms ("symptomatic Covid"). This is better than not requiring symptoms, but as you surely know, with the symptom list for Covid so incredibly long and non-specific to Covid, even requiring symptoms alongside a positive Covid test probably did little to weed out large numbers of false positives. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389
And here's the US CDC "case definition" for Covid: https://ndc.services.cdc.gov/case-definitions/coronavirus-disease-2019-2021/
That growing list of COVID symptoms got me all suspicious from the start, along with trusted medics I know. You either have a well-defined disease or you have an unacknowledged diagnostic problem leading to a pile of nonsense regardless of peer review. Even worse - you also have a shitty peer review problem!
I would appreciate your thoughts in a future essay on the various data points for and against Covid being a "plandemic" or a "pandemic." I have remained mostly agnostic on this issue for three years now, seeing data as equally supportive of either an opportunistic "all-in" pandemic approach by the various powerful actors who benefited from a global pandemic OR a plandemic in terms of certain actors actually pre-planning the pandemic and its response. I still remain somewhat agnostic but recently have been leaning more toward plandemic, with Exhibit A for that argument being a detailed anonymous stock tip about WHO planning to try out lockdowns in Italy if Covid broke out there, and the wisdom of investing in vaccine stocks. And this tip was in early Feb. 2020, long before lockdowns were a thing or the vaccine discussion had heated up. Here's a great piece from Michael Senger on this particular thread and the likelihood that it was Balaji Srinivasan who posted that anonymous stock tip: https://brownstone.org/articles/balaji-srinivasan-covid-new-normal/
And here's the tip itself:
There are very high profile investors who’ve been silently pulling out ahead of time… the WHO is already talking about how “problematic” modeling the Chinese response in Western countries is going to be, and the first country they want to try it out in is Italy. If it begins a large outbreak in a major Italian city they want to work through the Italian authorities and world health organizations to begin locking down Italian cities in a vain attempt to slow down the spread at least until they can develop and distribute vaccines, which btw is where you need to start investing… I just think it’s a really shitty thing to not be sharing this information with the public because they arrogantly think we’re all irrational and shouldn’t be informed as they are.