Summary of the article
A blatant example of how official bodies risk their professionalism and integrity to support the dominant narrative. British CBS works with the figure of 8% unvaccinated. While the UK health service has a percentage of 21% unvaccinated and a national survey shows 26%, the UK CBS continues to work with that 8%. This also has a major influence on the calculation of the effectiveness of the vaccine.
Read full article: Data juggling in the interest of the new religion
Reading time: 5 minutes
Having virtually overcome the complications of my gallbladder removal, I am well enough to write a new article for our site. I can go home on Friday and just like with my operation I am full of praise for all those involved in the care here at the Flevoziekenhuis.
I have followed and read a lot of news from the past week (luckily my condition was not so bad that I couldn’t do this), and today I want to talk about a number of patterns, which have become even more visible than they already are. goods.
There is only one conclusion possible
The common denominator is that it is pretended that science can only lead to one conclusion and that:
- every effort is made to achieve the desired outcome through data analyses
- studies showing anything other than the desired outcome are ignored or disqualified
- eminent scientists, who draw conclusions other than the dominant narrative, are ignored or dismissed as a nut-case.
Those who follow that dominant narrative do not hesitate and see everything as confirmation of that dominant narrative.
I’ve compared that to the patterns we see in orthodox religions before. Like the earlier phase of Catholicism, where there was no room for deviant sound and there were major consequences if you let it be heard.
Many scientists have the opposite opinion, who – from their field of expertise – show where you can seriously question the dominant narrative or indicate where that dominant narrative is incorrect. Think of those who said as early as 2021 that people who were vaccinated could also become infected and infect others again. But according to the high priests of the new religion, that was not the case. Until the summer of 2021, this was the mindset that was leading almost everywhere “you don’t get infected if you are vaccinated”, and in the summer that was changed to: “You can get infected, but it protects against serious illness and death” . Those in the hospitals would be almost exclusively unvaccinated.
In the fall of 2021, we got the 3G scheme here, which was also based on the assumption that you couldn’t have and pass on an infection if you had been vaccinated in the past nine months. Even then it was evident that this was belied by the data. But that too was long ignored by the new cardinals’ meeting, called OMT.
The dominant story was adapted when it became unmanageable, but in a shameless way. Because then it was pretended that they had always told that new story that way.
A startling example: the proportion of unvaccinated people
In many places in the world I have come across data specialists who know little about the virus, but a lot about data and data analysis, and who just couldn’t believe their eyes what they were seeing. Prof. dr. Norman Fenton from England is one of them and it is disconcerting to see how such a man is put away by virologists and epidemiologists, who should not even be in his shadow when it comes to data analysis.
Last week I came across a typical example, which actually combines everything that went wrong in the past 2.5 years. A simple but adequate analysis by Prof. Fenton, who has been flagged as malicious content by Twitter… Here you can see his piece and a short video in which he explains what he found. I will briefly describe it below.
In England there are two main data sources.
- ONS (Office for National Statistics), something like the CBS
- NHS (National Health Service)
ONS figures are used in many analyses.
There is now a big difference between these two agencies in the proportion of unvaccinated people over the age of 18. At ONS that figure is 8% and at NHS 21%. (vaccinated at least once).
That big difference also has very big consequences if you want to calculate the effect of the vaccine as protection against infection, serious illness or death. The outcome of that calculation becomes increasingly favorable for the vaccine if you work with a lower number of unvaccinated people in your calculation. Suppose 21% of the seriously ill are unvaccinated, then the vaccine will not provide protection if 21% of the population is unvaccinated, but a strong protection if 8% of the population is unvaccinated (not taking ages into account).
And because many calculations in the United Kingdom work with the figures from ONS (their CBS), the impact of those 8% unvaccinated on many calculations is large. Prof Fenton has been drawing attention to this for a long time, but his comments are ignored and he is dismissed as half a sole.
BBC-documentary
But something interesting has happened. The BBC made a documentary in July about why those 8% were not vaccinated. And for that, they also had a renowned research agency ICM draw a national sample of 2500 people they interviewed about this subject. This is their report.
It is now common practice in these types of surveys to calibrate the key demographic characteristics from the survey, such as gender, age and region, against those of the national figures. That’s called “weighing”. And that’s what the research reports. And the sample was very similar to the national figures for these characteristics and little adjustment had to be made through weighting.
However, there was one factor with a colossal difference: of those surveyed, 26% said they were not vaccinated!
Yes, you read that right: 26% of the sample indicated that they were unvaccinated. A very different percentage than the 8% of the US!
And what does this research do for the BBC broadcast? One weighs this outcome of 26% back to the 8% of US. So simply put “every unvaccinated only counts for 8/26th in the study”. In this way you get as the end result of the study that 8% is unvaccinated. And that was also the figure used in the BBC documentary.
Every right-minded market researcher and data analyst pulls their hair out with this method. If your research reflects well on various characteristics and differs so much on this one point, then you first start by looking at what could be the cause. An error in the investigation? Wrong sampling? But if you also know that NHS itself comes with a percentage of 21% unvaccinated, then the last thing you can do is weigh the whole study back to that 8% unvaccinated. And then also use that number as a crucial number in that BBC documentary.
Anyone who knows anything about sampling and data analysis can see that what happened here should absolutely not be allowed. But people like Fenton also face closed doors to the traditional media and the BBC comes with a broadcast based on those embarrassing analyses.
It also emphasizes another point that has struck me in the past 2.5 years: the vast majority of doctors, virologists and epidemiologists know little or nothing about data analysis. They only repeat the figures they get from official bodies or investigations, often conducted by interested parties.
No corrections
It is also characteristic that the ONS / the English CBS has so far not applied any corrections to its percentage of vaccinated and that this national sample is apparently no reason for them to return – with some shame – to the incorrect figures they use. So that from now on they will work with 21% unvaccinated or higher.
It would then be interesting if all the studies that have come out in England that have assumed 8% instead of 21% are recalculated in terms of vaccine protection.
This mind-boggling example of England, brought to light by that sample survey commissioned by a television channel, is just the tip of an iceberg. In the Netherlands, too, we see that CBS mainly functions as a helper to bring out the desired results of research that fit in with that dominant narrative. Critical scientists are ignored and the traditional media has lost all critical power. They bark and bite at those who say that the Emperor has no clothes on.
With the sad side effect that they claim that this is real science and they are real scientists and all those others are just simple scribbles.
With the understandable consequence that many people have thrown themselves unreservedly on that new religion and in the process make the correct murmurs, which this religion apparently prescribes, such as “I got Covid-19. The fact that I only had mild symptoms is due to the fact that I was vaccinated twice and boosted twice.” But I’ll write about that next time.
Support our site with an occasional (small) donation. Click here.