Norman Fenton wrote this including a quote from Steve Kirsch:
"Since looking at the data there have been claims that the dataset may not be random since it contains a disproportionate number vacinees who died during the 2-year period. This would mean the data is biased, in which case most of the conclusions made about it would not be gene…
Norman Fenton wrote this including a quote from Steve Kirsch:
"Since looking at the data there have been claims that the dataset may not be random since it contains a disproportionate number vacinees who died during the 2-year period. This would mean the data is biased, in which case most of the conclusions made about it would not be generalisable. Igor Chudov has also expressed concerns about the provenance of the data. However, having spoken with Steve Kirsch today, he says that there are widespread misunderstandings about the data and it is not biased. For a start he says that the datatset is the complete set of ‘pay-per-dose’ vaccination records and therefore there is no biased sampling at all. He says:
'The people within the group is representative of the total population. There are 2.2 million people in the group, and there are 4 million records. Each of those records is a Vaccination Record.
There were 1.348 billion person days in the "vaccinated state" in the sample. There were 37,283 deaths. This is an average mortality rate of 1009 for the vaccinated people. An average population is 800 deaths per 100K person years. But this population is more elderly skewed let's call it 900 deaths per 100K/p-y. Well, vaccinated people will die, on average, about 10% higher than normal. So that's 990 deaths per 100K p-y. Well our numbers are 1,009 deaths per person year which is 1.9% higher. That is hardly biased.'"
thanks Wayne. If these numbers remain accurate globally, what is the projected total death count? Last I heard of six months ago, it was an estimate of 17 million. If I remember correctly, I think per Steve K's citing a projection of 1 fatality out of 1000 jabs(?)
Norman Fenton wrote this including a quote from Steve Kirsch:
"Since looking at the data there have been claims that the dataset may not be random since it contains a disproportionate number vacinees who died during the 2-year period. This would mean the data is biased, in which case most of the conclusions made about it would not be generalisable. Igor Chudov has also expressed concerns about the provenance of the data. However, having spoken with Steve Kirsch today, he says that there are widespread misunderstandings about the data and it is not biased. For a start he says that the datatset is the complete set of ‘pay-per-dose’ vaccination records and therefore there is no biased sampling at all. He says:
'The people within the group is representative of the total population. There are 2.2 million people in the group, and there are 4 million records. Each of those records is a Vaccination Record.
There were 1.348 billion person days in the "vaccinated state" in the sample. There were 37,283 deaths. This is an average mortality rate of 1009 for the vaccinated people. An average population is 800 deaths per 100K person years. But this population is more elderly skewed let's call it 900 deaths per 100K/p-y. Well, vaccinated people will die, on average, about 10% higher than normal. So that's 990 deaths per 100K p-y. Well our numbers are 1,009 deaths per person year which is 1.9% higher. That is hardly biased.'"
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-new-zealand-vaccine-data-what?utm_source=share&r=yylj
thanks Wayne. If these numbers remain accurate globally, what is the projected total death count? Last I heard of six months ago, it was an estimate of 17 million. If I remember correctly, I think per Steve K's citing a projection of 1 fatality out of 1000 jabs(?)
I believe that's in the presentation, but Igor has an update after talking to Steve Kirsch: https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/update-nz-whistleblower
Also Covid and Coffee: https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/lost-in-new-zealand-sunday-december