Most of the Twitter replies in the thread are pretty ignorant. The data is population rates not straight numbers so it accounts for the number of people vaxxed vs not.
That said there are confounding factors such as age (when presenting aggregate stats) and prior immunity in the different cohorts and possible differences in co morbidities etc etc. Still the numbers look bad for the vax. If the authorities want to counter this they can release better data to allow us to account for confounding variables.
One thing in the Scotland data is it is age standardized and that can hide a lot of shenanigans. More data would be better but for some odd reason they don't release it....
Showing some good data on how risk of infection goes up by a factor of 10 in the 2 weeks after injection, but those cases are conveniently labeled "unvaxed"
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/ . sometimes a little quick on the trigger but he's working really hard to organize resistance in 20 different ways and he has $ to throw at the problem (he commercialized the optical mouse) see also his website https://www.skirsch.io/
Here is a good analysis of this data showing the same conclusion and with more of an explanation
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/new-data-on-vaccine-efficacy-from
Plus a bonus showing similar results in the UK
https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/unboostered-brits-infected-and-dying
Most of the Twitter replies in the thread are pretty ignorant. The data is population rates not straight numbers so it accounts for the number of people vaxxed vs not.
That said there are confounding factors such as age (when presenting aggregate stats) and prior immunity in the different cohorts and possible differences in co morbidities etc etc. Still the numbers look bad for the vax. If the authorities want to counter this they can release better data to allow us to account for confounding variables.
One thing in the Scotland data is it is age standardized and that can hide a lot of shenanigans. More data would be better but for some odd reason they don't release it....
Thank you sir! Much appreciated!
Here's another interesting article:
Showing some good data on how risk of infection goes up by a factor of 10 in the 2 weeks after injection, but those cases are conveniently labeled "unvaxed"
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/alberta-gets-caught-palming-cards
Thank you Bidensbrain2020! 😂 That name makes me laugh
substack is a goldmine of high quality analysis. there's a bunch of legit scientists there, undercover for obvious reasons
Know where I can find a list of reputable authors?
here is my list
https://eugyppius.substack.com/ -- generally very solid scientifically, i think he is an academic in germany (possibly in virology) but it's unclear
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/ . - robert malone
https://boriquagato.substack.com/ . - good biostatistics person, very solid work
https://aaronsiri.substack.com/ - legal aspects of covid bullshit
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/ . - largely political and legal aspects but great optimistic viewpoint, it's a pleasant daily read
https://unglossed.substack.com/ - amateur biostats (not his area of expertise) but actually quite good
https://ianmsc.substack.com/ - focus on mask bullshit
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/ . sometimes a little quick on the trigger but he's working really hard to organize resistance in 20 different ways and he has $ to throw at the problem (he commercialized the optical mouse) see also his website https://www.skirsch.io/
https://jessicar.substack.com/ - biostatistics and vaers analysis, published author
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/ - a little on the conspiracy side but generally quite solid with statistics
https://popularrationalism.substack.com/ - publishes on biostats and molecular biology
https://doyourownresearch.substack.com/ - debunked a debunk of ivermectin (rebooonked?)