Seeing through another pro-vax study... when injected = UNvaxxed ... and other red flags...
A follow up to Door Opener #2 (Aug 22) plus Real Time Science responding rapidly (Aug 22)
A recently published newspaper article pointing to a recently published study leaves readers with the impression that continued COVID-19 injections are SAFE, EFFECTIVE, and in certain cases even NECESSARY.
Yet after applying the criteria outlined in the posting from August 11, 2022: Possible Door Opener #2 - What it means to "Follow the Science"? Whose science? Are we just playing favorites? we can clearly see how the conclusion drawn from that study does not reflect CURRENT realities.
I am sharing an abridged version of a letter to the study’s author… after sending him an email in which I asked for answers to some of my questions. Receiving no response, I am sharing this letter as an educational tool.
People who have been “following the science” as presented by the media + public health might find it insightful to hear the considerations made by those who “follow the science” professionally - those whose day jobs involve keeping up with the evidence re: the very clear LACK of safety, efficacy and necessity of the COVID-19 spike-protein generating vaccine products. At the very least since the advent of Omicron at the start of 2022 any risk/benefit analysis based on facts from the field re: these gene-based COVID-19 vaccine products show that for all age groups at this point in time, the RISKS FAR OUTWEIGH ANY (short-lived) BENEFITS.
RE: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12630-022-02299-w
Dear…
I noted with interest both the study linked above and the newspaper article copied and commented on below.
As someone who has been following information flow around COVID-19 for nearly two years, I keep noticing similar patterns and appreciate your help as I believe I see the same patterns apply here too. I have made note of various questions that the newspaper article did not address.
I hope your answers will help us all to better understand how some scientists can continue advocating for the COVID-19 “vaccine” while others clearly show evidence that the many harms of the “injection of mRNA based gene therapy” outweigh the benefits. We non-scientists wonder, for example where the research gaps might be, or how timing of data samples collected, or study design might lead to different outcomes. To what can the disconnect between “safe and effective” on the one side of the divide and “definitely not safe and not effective” on the other side be traced back? Could a tiny administrative/recordkeeping choice made outside of Albertan and applied here mushroom into a mistruth of gruesome and epic proportions? I and many others involved in the “collective sense-making” around this declared pandemic would welcome your responses to the questions outlined below.
Thank you,
….Concerned Citizen
Unvaccinated COVID-19 patients put a $61.3-million “avoidable” burden on the Alberta health-care system during the fourth COVID wave, according to a study out of the University of Alberta.
“In my view, a critical takeaway from this study is that vaccination against COVID-19, with free and available Health Canada-approved vaccines, can serve to not only protect individuals from becoming very sick with COVID-19,
a) By "protection' are you referring simply to increase rates of antibodies against the spike protein - which are now known to wane within months after taking an injection, or are you referring to other ways to measure "protection"?
b) Was this statement derived from statements referring to the Delta wave? Or did you make it with current AB data in mind, since even before Omicron, but especially since January 2022, the ICU and hospitalization statistics show a marked trend - many more double and triple vaccinated (even when calculated proportionately) are in ICU and dying than the unvaccinated.
c) Additionally, there is a difference between how many vaxxed and unvaxxed people were in hospital in a given week and how many were cumulatively counted going back to the start of the year. (i..e. since your study period started in September, can we be sure that all of the figures you pulled from AHS really referred only to that September - Jan time frame (we had read of AHS reporting that kept recounting as UNvaxxinated everyone in the system going back to before vaccination was even an option for many demographics, using figures from January 2021 in the count, instead of limiting them to current weeks at hand.
but also provides greater societal protection by reducing avoidable strain and excess costs on our already heavily burdened health-care system,”
d) How old was that email to the Gazette? If it was written before July 2021, its sentiments would be understandable, but now now, 12+ months later. See point b). There seems to be nothing in the article posted in the Gazette that recognizes the game-changing nature of the Omicron variant, leaving readers to assume the same disease context still exists today as a year ago.
said study author, Dr. Sean Bagshaw, in an email to The Gazette.
On July 26, the study — Avoidable intensive care unit resource use and costs of unvaccinated patients with COVID-19: a historical population-based cohort study on the costs and resources used to care for unvaccinated patients in the ICU in Alberta — was published in the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia.
The retrospective, population-based cohort study looked at people aged 12 and up who had been admitted to ICU in Alberta between Sept. 6, 2021, and Jan. 4, 2022, when Alberta was experiencing the delta or fourth wave of the COVID virus. The data used for the study is publicly available.
The study found in a period of four months, unvaccinated people, mostly in the age range of 50 to 79 years, “accounted for more than 1,000 potentially avoidable ICU bed-days and $61 million in excess health-care costs.”
d) You are surely aware that AHS, PHAC and other jurisdictions are NOT considering someone who was injected with the vaccine product as "vaccinated" for 14 days post injection while that the very same time most adverse events from the injection occur in the first 4 days post-injection. What measures have you taken to ensure that the so-called "unvaccinated" truly were injection-free? If you simply used AHS standards, you have introduced a significant error in the results. Without publicly stating the limitations of the data and the potential for misinterpretation, you are not providing a complete understanding for the readers. Can you see how that ONE decision has ripple effects which skew the entire results of the study?
Bagshaw, a clinician scientist, chair, and associate professor of critical care medicine in the department of critical care medicine at the University of Alberta, said he was shocked by the data collected around cost estimates.
“The estimates for costs attributed to potentially avoidable ICU utilization (admissions plus days spent in the ICU) in only four months, driven by individuals not vaccinated against COVID-19, represented nearly two-thirds of the total annual ICU costs,” he said.
e) I totally agree that costs need to be reduced. Yet my background learning about acute intermittent porphyria in which an overabundance of porphyrins is triggered for various reasons, has shown me the need for equilibrium. Too many "loose" porphyrins without the corresponding molecules to attach themselves to (within the heme pathway) leads to them running amuck and causing the kinds of psychiatric, cardiac and digestive symptoms my family members suffered (and some died) from. So it goes beyond my comprehension why NOW, in 2022, a medical expert like yourself who is surely dealing with increases in a range of critical care patients (myocarditis, neuropathies, etc. etc.) would still be advocating for increased use of a substance that causes the body to produce millions of foreign SPIKE PROTEIN with no where to go and nothing to neutralize them—ESPECIALLY since this is the MAIN HARM CAUSING COMPONENT OF THE COVID-19 VIRUS!!!
Even before the age of Omicron, giving a person instructions to generate toxic spike protein has proven to
- NOT reduce transmission (the viral load of the vaxxed and unvaxxed was the same)
- NOT reduce hospitalization
- NOT reduce deaths, but rather increase the risk of sudden, unexplained death.
It has been clearly identified that spike protein can lead to all of these adverse events: https://www.caers.info/adverse-events-reference-guide.
It was known already since January 2021 (9 months before the start of your study) that treatment at the early stage of the illness allows for over 85% of cases to NEVER MAKE IT TO THE HOSPITAL, to be treated in their homes, alongside of their family members who then also receive preventative treatments with a proven track record of safety and efficacy. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32771461/
An estimated 20.6 per cent of the total annual provincial budget for ICU services was used for unvaccinated patients over the course of the study period.
The study found that 1,053 unvaccinated patients, (Please inform me how many of them were admitted to hospital within 14 days of their injection) 42 partially vaccinated (ditto how many were 1-13 days within their second dose?) , and 173 fully vaccinated patients were admitted to ICU with COVID-19.
f) If we were to accept the rightness of calling an injected person UNvaccinated for 14 days, at least verify this: What are the processes when a patient passes the 14 day mark, for updating their status in the charts - i.e., a patient arrives on day 12 after an injection and is assigned the label Unvaccinated. Two days later, this patient should be re-assigned, now as belonging to the vaccinated group. I am curious as to whether such cases occurred within the date range of your study. If not, then here too you have left a certain margin of error possible. Please confirm that your study team actually confirmed that each of the 1,053 had NOT received an injection. It would be good to know how, for the sake of data tracking, these two issues have been dealt with. Every report of people who have looked into this has come to the same conclusion. Instead of using the flawed classification regime that recommended by the compromised regulators, find ways to ensure that you are truly measuring UNinjected patients. AHS data collection makes it impossible to separate that out. (I have been asking AHS already in mid 2021 and am by no means the only one to do so. Please see Document #14 on this file sharing website and let me know whether your study made allowances for the issues that were raised. https://followingthecovidscience.8b.io/page3.html#content2-30) Fellow researchers at the Canadian Covid Care Alliance could tell you in which countries this data on “vaccination status” was more accurately recorded. When the criteria “uninjected” is used no one is mixing apples with oranges so to speak and any conclusions drawn are more solidly grounded in reality.
ICU admission and bed-days for unvaccinated Albertans represented 61.8 per cent of the total non-pandemic baseline-funded ICU bed capacity in Alberta, the study read.
Unvaccinated people represented about 1,028 ICU admissions and 13,015 ICU bed days compared to the 35 ICU admissions and 437 ICU bed-days among partially vaccinated people.
“It may be understandable that some individuals may be hesitant about receiving vaccines against COVID-19,
however, the science on vaccine effectiveness to reduce infection, reduce serious COVID-19 disease, and prevent deaths, and safety are clear and certain,” said Bagshaw.
g) So it does not appear that the references you list in your study reflect current realities. Given the paradigm shifting nature of the Omicron variant at the start of 2022, one needs to ensure that data cited and referenced matches the current reality. Looking at the 2022 publication dates, anyone can notice for example that:
- in general, sources with a 2022 publication date are referring to data from 2021. In a way this is understandable, but you would have needed to an an additional comment referring to the game changing nature of Omicron and how your older data does not account for a changed risk benefit analysis. Because your recent email to the Gazette does not refer to the changed realities on the ground today, I suspect that readers of other Great West Media's affiliates will also be left with the misleading impression that undertaking COVID-19 vaccination in the fall of 2022 is still a good thing.
- source 18 is a 2020 modelling study that has no bearing at all today. Constructed as a projection from December 2020, the model does not account for the Delta or future variants, nor does it account for improvements in COVID-19 treatment.
- your source 13 dated 2022 is of huge interest - Sadly, it demonstrates that the Canadian Institute for Health Information is only focusing on Allergic reactions to the vaccines. Would critical care specialists like yourself consider informing the Institute of the many other vaccine adverse events that are NOT covered yet. I recommend getting together with computational biologist Dr. Jessica Rose and looking at her interpretation of VAERS data alongside the Bradford Hill criteria.
Someone of your stature should, it seems to me, in unison with colleagues in similar positions be able to set out the case why the codes need to be expanded. Maybe you already have, and if so, congrats. It seems very odd that a recent CTV report cited the AB government has having had only ONE vaccine related death when the lived experience of so many Canadians indicates otherwise. This includes the families and colleagues of the 14 Canadian physicians who recently passed away - all having had at least 2 or 3, if not four doses—and if they had COVID that would be an additional dose, each weakening their immune system further. Please see
in addition to her many other articles on VAERS (including discussions on the Bradford Hill criteria.)
(NOTE: Since this letter was written, the number of practicing Canadian doctors who have died in their sleep, or due to sudden and unexplained cardiac issues or from unusually rapidly progressing cancers in temporal proximity to the 2nd, 3rd or 4th Covid-19 mRNA injection has now risen to 32. Please see https://gettr.com/user/makismd and
https://brightlightnews.com/interview-32-canadian-doctors-died-dr-william-makis/)
The study did have some limitations, as researchers were only able to use “aggregate data on vaccination status and lengths of stay that were age adjusted only.”
OK that pretty much answers earlier questions. You were only working with "aggregated data" - pretty impossible to UNDO the aggregation to find out the proportion of the truly UNinjected. This limitation needs to be added to your list of limitations.
Bagshaw said they could not take into account whether or not ICU-admitted, unvaccinated individuals were unvaccinated by choice or by medical reason as they did not have that data.
The study was also unable to confirm whether a patient had been admitted to the ICU multiple times in the 120-day period. However, the study notes it is believed this to be unlikely as the person would have had to develop a new COVID-19 infection and be re-hospitalized.
Was the assumption that each hospitalization was for a COVID-19 infection, or were you open to the possibility that they were in ICU related to Covid-like post vaccine spike protein related adverse events... that pretty much look like COVID? Or one of the 8 categories of pCoIS? https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/resources/a-practical-approach-to-keeping-healthy-after-your-covid-19-jab/
The data only covered ICU admissions and did not capture total hospitalizations in the province. “Nevertheless, the data used to derive estimates were real-world, population level, and included vaccination status and health services use,” the study read.
When asked if there was anything he would say to anyone still skeptical about COVID-19 vaccinations, Bagshaw was firm.
“Vaccines are the backbone of navigating out of this pandemic
Please drop everything and listen to this 20 minute clip of US Pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole in communication with an independent journalist at BrightLightNews out of Ontario. I trust that you will have heard of Dr. Cole’s name, but the content of this talk may be very new to you. A Lipid Nanoparticle + Modified Gene Is a Nuclear Bomb -Dr Ryan Cole
IN ADDITION TO THE CARDIAC COMPLICATIONS (1 in 3 for teens in Thailand were recently reported) THERE ARE THE MANY NEURLOGICAL PROBLEMS WHEN BRAIN CELLS BECOME MAKERS OF A PRODUCT WITH TOXIC EFFECTS….
Then, may I invite you to follow Dr. Peter McCullough and the World Health Alliance, as well as the BC vaccine injured channel on Telegram for daily doses of why increased vaccination will NOT move us out of this declared pandemic. Consider attending some of the publicly delivered General Assemblies hosted by the World Council of Health which would introduce you to colleagues with international scope. https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/newsroom/
You would understand for example why Denmark decided to drop the injections for the 18s and under (NOTE: now under 50), and why other countries — where antiviral treatments for malaria have been circulating widely in the population — have NOT needed continued vaccination to end the pandemic. COVID is already over in so many other places. We Western nations who look only to ourselves have missed this development. In this article on blood Dr. Rose contemplates what exactly HCQ is doing in the body that stops the disease process.
and at times, will need to be complemented with other public health interventions.”
What "OTHER public health interventions are you hinting at? If you truly believe in early treatment interventions, good for you. We just needed to get past all the pro-vax statements to reach this point.
Please connect with the 700+ physicians, scientists and other professionals to find out what research they have been following. For example: https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/22AU11_CCCA_Gertler-UofT-Open-Letter.pdf .
By searching up “pandemic management” on https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/ you will become aware of the colleagues who share your concern that current COVID-19 treatment/management policies now underway are creating a large socio-economic and social burden on Canadians of all stripes including health care workers and those lined up to receive care as well.
Thank you!