EU e-Privacy Directive

This website uses cookies to manage authentication, navigation, and other functions. By using our website, you agree that we can place these types of cookies on your device.

You have declined cookies. This decision can be reversed.


Following on from their article on excess deaths currently occurring in Scotland, the Daily Sceptic turns its attention to the statistics for the UK. 

Vaccine effectiveness is estimated by comparing rates of disease in vaccinated individuals to rates in unvaccinated individuals

these raw data should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness

Well, tell a child not to do something ...

"The CDC distinguishes 'vaccine efficacy', estimated from controlled studies, from 'vaccine effectiveness', which is used 'when a study is carried out under typical field (that is, less than perfectly controlled) conditions'. It is therefore not appropriate for the UKHSA, a Government agency, to insist that its data “should not be used” to estimate vaccine effectiveness"

Splitting of hairs comes to mind.

"Why, almost a year into the vaccination campaign, are researchers still so often waving their hands when talking about the differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups? Where is the published data?"

For that matter, why have the MHRA, whose task is to monitor vaccine outcomes, failed to publish any serious analysis on the outcomes, nearly a year after start of the vaccination programmes?

"We’ve had studies from California, Sweden and Israel using data from over the summer, all showing sharp decline in vaccine effectiveness. Where is the U.K.’s contribution to this emerging understanding of the vaccines?"

I note that a vaccine "effectiveness" of zero would mean that the vaccine confers no change in infection rate - ie: you might as well not have had the vaccine (in terms of positive test results, not in terms of sickness). So it is disturbing that "effectiveness" is moving further into negative territory over time (ie: more likely than the unvaccinated to show a positive test result).

It would mean that by insisting on a vaccination certificate, the powers that be are insisting on only the "more infectious" being permitted a normal life!

Nevertheless it is still the case that the test is not rigorously defined and results from different laboratories can be different (different standards of procedure, differing rates of cross-infection, different test assays, different number of amplification cycles - even depending on whether the person tested had been vaccinated or not!!).

The test itself has been peer reviewed and rejected as unscientific but has not been withdrawn.

In my view until the testing is sorted (or abandoned as dysfunctional, in which case the "pandemic" would be over), all of these arguments have very limited value.

The one thing that a negative effectiveness might indicate is that the vaccinations may over time be reducing the body's natural immune system effectiveness - that would be extremely concerning, if true.

Read the Daily Sceptic article here.