The Covid Vax Should Not Have Happened By Brian Simpson

That the Covid vax should not have happened is a conclusion reached by most of the Covid vax critics. What is particularly relevant is the trial results on a wide range of subjects, including pregnant women, covered in previous blog posts, should have led to the vaccines being abandoned, or at least, studied further with extensive animal trials before even being injected into a human shoulder. But, as Zerohedge.com notes, matters have got worse over time as former Blackrock portfolio manager Ed Dowd has observed.

Dowd, along with partners Carlos Alegria and Yuri Nunes, launched Phinance Technologies, to study among other things, the adverse effects and excess mortality official data. While somewhat technical, even in the summary offered by Zerohedge.com, the relevant point for our purposes is that their statistical analysis shows a positive correlation between the Covid vaccine rollout and the rise in adverse effects, disabilities and excess mortality. While correlation alone does not prove causation, statistical analysis is not the end of the matter, and scientific inference to the best explanation requires assessing all relevant factors, and eliminating variables one by one. Covid critics maintain that the hypothesis which best accounts for the available data, is that the Covid vaxxes are the cause. Obviously, such a conclusion would be bad news for the Australian health authorities pushing now for a fifth jab.

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/trials-should-have-been-stopped-rate-serious-adverse-events-closely-tracks-spike-post-vax

“Over the past 18 months, skeptics of mRNA Covid-19 vaccines and those pointing out high rates of adverse reactions have been subject to ostracism, deplatforming, and flawed 'fact checks' to shut down opinions and analysis which conflicted with official narratives.

Now, the data has begun to speak for itself, thanks to people like former Blackrock portfolio manager Ed Dowd, who has devoted the last several years to deep-dive research and analysis of pandemic-related data (in fact, he's written an excellent book on the topic). Dowd, along with partners Carlos Alegria and Yuri Nunes, launched Phinance Technologies - where, aside from traditional macroeconomic analysis, they have produced comprehensive reports on pandemic-related disabilities and excess deaths using official data.

Their latest analysis reveals that the rate of Serious Adverse Events in the mRNA Covid-19 vaccine clinical trials closely tracks a spike in disabilities reported after the vaccine rollout.

Via Phinance Technologies (emphasis ours),

In part 3 of our US disabilities analysis we observed that the rise in disability rates post 2/2021 correlates closely with the rollout of the vaccination schedule. When looking at changes in disabilities on a wider time frame (since 2008) we observe that the disability rates rose or fell from month to month but tended to be relatively stable over time. However, as shown in part 1, the change in behaviour since early 2021 is clearly an abnormal occurrence with high level of statistical significance. It happens to be highly correlated to the cumulative Covid-19 vaccine rollout, but we cannot state that the correlation is statistically meaningful as it is based on a cumulative plot with obvious autocorrelation.

In this section we provide further evidence that the most likely cause of the rise in disabilities is the Covid-19 vaccines. For that purpose, we model the expected rise in disabilities due to the vaccination rollout in the general population. We do so by using the rates of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) obtained by the safety analysis of the mRNA vaccine (Pfizer and Moderna) clinical trials, performed in the Vaccine journal paper we reviewed here, and our analysis in part five.

We can observe that the rate of rise in disabilities is higher than the computed rate of rise in SAEs of special interest, which could be explained in several different ways, or by a combination of factors.

• By the definition of an SAEs of special interest being more extreme than the rate of disabilities reported by the individuals surveyed by the BLS i.e. some disabilities reported by the individuals surveyed by the BLS may be caused by adverse events that are not deemed SAEs of special interest, due to the criteria used to define an SAE being overly restrictive.
• The population of the Civilian Labor Force as a whole may be less healthy (and somehow more vulnerable to vaccine-related disabilities) than the vaccine trial populations, either due to the selection criteria for participation in the trial, or ‘self-selection’ bias.
• Under-reporting of SAEs of special interest in the trial populations.
• Other factors causing excess disabilities in the Civilian Labor Force in a concurrent timeframe to the vaccine rollout.

As Dowd further notes via Twitter;

The rate of estimated SAEs appears to be under-reported relative the recorded rise in disabilities (according to the BLS survey) by about 2.6 times. These results were expected as we had already shown in part 3 of our study the high correlation between the rise in the disability rate since 2/21 with the vaccine rollout. We realise that performing the correlation of cumulative time series is misleading & the R2 should not be taken as an indication of establishing a statistically significant relationship as both time series have autocorrelation."

Bottom line: There were enough safety signals to show that what we are seeing in the BLS data was known during the clinical trials even given their narrow definition of a SAE. The trials should have been halted.