BREAKING! COVID-19 vaccine counting window issues confirmed in government reports, and they won't/can't share the data
'Co-breaking' with Jason Olbourne of World Series News Underground TV
Long story short
This is pretty big. Estimates of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness derived from NSW government COVID-19 reports are unreliable up to early 2022, with people who received the jab being lumped in together with the unvaccinated. Different definitions were later used, with no great recognition of the potential harm done regarding the former, so we sent off an FOI request to see if there really was a difference. The NSW government has decided not to fully answer our request, either because they don’t have the data ‘anymore’ or they have the data but don’t want to share.
Long story long
Aware of my medical journal articles, published alongside the likes of BMJ editor Peter Doshi, indicating that counting window issues (revolving around delays [someone is only considered vaccinated after some arbitrary time], biases [vaccinated and unvaccinated groups are treated differently], and misclassifications [people who took the vaccine are called unvaccinated]) in both the clinical trials and observational studies meant that the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines have likely been highly exaggerated (even to the extent that they may be negatively effective), Jason Olbourne of World Series News Underground TV reached out with an intriguing proposition. We ought to team up and find out if the government of New South Wales, Australia’s most populous state (and one of the most tyrannical during the pandemic), was also manipulating the data in this way. For example, were some of the ‘unvaccinated’ who died from COVID-19 actually people that took the jab? And, why were there COVID-19 deaths in the unjabbed in late 2022, but no hospitalisations?
We found that in NSW Health’s reporting on COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths by vaccination status, up to February of 2022, terms such as “two effective doses” and “no effective dose” are used, and had curious definitions (see pics below): “Cases reported as having received two effective doses have received their second vaccine dose at least 14 days prior to known exposure to COVID-19, and have not yet received an effective third dose. … Cases reported as no effective dose received their first dose of a two-dose vaccination course less than 21 days prior to known exposure to COVID-19, or have not received any vaccine dose.” Source. Bingo! Doshi was right. And Fung. And Jones. And Lataster (read all 4 JECP medical journal articles here). Anyone estimating vaccine effectiveness based on these reports are inadvertently (intentionally?) undercounting cases in the vaccinated, and overcounting cases in the unvaccinated (and hugely, given the relatively small size of the latter group). I smell a lawsuit or 50. Note: Even then, we unjabbed were doing quite well, especially when factoring for other exaggerations around COVID-19 hospitalisations/deaths, as well as the underreporting of COVID-19 vaccine adverse effects and deaths.
So what about after February 2022, until December 2022, when the reporting by vaccination status mysteriously stopped, possibly because the unjabbed seemed to be doing better over time (exactly what we’d expect to see with a dodgy product and even dodgier methods of measuring effectiveness), with 0% of the COVID hospitalisations by the end of it? Source & source. We did what any responsible citizen would do. Taking advantage of my being a researcher affiliated with the University of Sydney, we sent off an FOI request to NSW Health (it’s called GIPA here), the same people that fired me from my administrative role at a large children’s hospital for not submitting to their draconian and illogical COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which destroyed my life. Yay… Don’t worry, I’ve been suing them, and winning too. And I got to meet cool people like Dr Robert Malone, MEP Rob Roos, and Senator Ron Johnson along the way. After much delay, we got our answer.
Dated 17 September 2024, file ref GIPA24/161, doc ref G24/4092, NSW Health finally sought to address our simple and easy-to-answer question: “For your NSW COVID-19 WEEKLY DATA OVERVIEW report, Epidemiological weeks 51 and 52, ending 31 December 2022 (https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221231.pdf), you noted that for those who “have died with COVID-19… 6 had received no doses of a COVID-19 vaccine”. In earlier reports you used the term “no effective dose”, which includes both those who “have not received any vaccine dose” and those who “received their first dose of a two-dose vaccination course less than 21 days prior to known exposure to COVID-19 or arrival in Australia… How many of these 6 ’no dose’ COVID-19 deaths in the above report (https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221231.pdf) had taken a dose of a COVID-19 vaccine but were considered as having had ‘no dose’ or ‘no effective dose’, perhaps because their dose was received a certain number of days before known exposure to COVID-19 or arrival in Australia?”
First, they acknowledged our description of their curious definitions of ‘vaccinated’ and ‘unvaccinated’, which does indeed apply up to February 2022. Data manipulation confirmed. Then they stated that from March 2022 onwards, the new definitions meant that ‘no dose’ really means ‘no dose’ and ‘two doses’ really means ‘two doses’, regardless of date of vaccination - to no great fanfare; it would have been nice for some public acknowledgement that their previous approach might have led to huge exaggerations of vaccine effectiveness (and safety). Finally, they indicated that we’ll just have to trust them on this because they are not going to give us the data. That is not a typo. Despite the ethics around freedom of information and transparency, particularly regarding an experimental product that many were effectively forced to take, and despite already providing somewhat of a substantial answer, they bizarrely decided to not allow us to be fully satisfied with their ‘kinda answer’:
Health Protection NSW cannot recreate the reports / information as it was generated from live data collections that were updated on daily basis, including the below reasons:
There are no documents that currently exist containing this information.
There would be bespoke analysis required to meet the requirements of the request to create a record / provide a tailored data set.
To create a document with a tailored data set to answer the questions raised in the request would be a diversion of extremely limited, and already overstretched resources available to Health Protection NSW.
You can interpret it how you wish. We take it that they either have the data and simply refuse to share it with us, or arguably worse, they can’t as they don’t even have the data anymore - if they ever had it. Brings to mind the 75 years we were supposed to wait for the Pfizer data. Not to mention the leaked NIH/CDC/FDA emails indicating they were purposely avoiding answering questions, the ‘missing’ jab side effect data in Israel, and my (invited) submission being rejected by the Australian senate’s inquiry into excess mortality (around the same time a correlation was found between the jabs and excess mortality in Europe). It’s almost as if they don’t want us to know something, can’t quite figure out what…
At least they were kind enough to waive the totally not made-up $420 fee (are they high?) in good faith for all the ‘work’ they had to do or not do for this ‘answer’, so that’s something - though there was also an application fee that they didn’t refund. Asking related questions could easily see costs spiral into the thousands. ‘Freedom’ of information, huh? More like the freedom to pay a lot of money to receive no conclusive answers. This will be my last Australian FOI request for a while, until my case is finalised and/or someone with deep pockets actually decides to fund important stuff like this.
This is a great example of our tax dollars hard at work. Not to mention the trust we have to place in people that got so much wrong, and even outright lied to us - just recently the Australian state-funded national news outlet reportedly doctored video footage to make a former soldier look like a war criminal. Not to be outdone, the US government, who really don’t like ‘conspiracy theorists’ and ‘anti-vaxxers’, went on some highly deceptive anti-vax (yes, that includes COVID-19 jabs) campaigns in Asia during the pandemic, with nary an apology to be found.
Okay then.
Extra: Gentle reminder that it’s not hard to figure out why Big Pharma, the mainstream media, and governments around the world work so tightly together in their endless campaigns of misinformation and outright disinformation. Financial data, which they freely provide for us, reveals that the same few wealthy elites pretty much own everything, even each other. And the Australian government is spot on. Source. As is Secretary Hillary Clinton. Let’s prosecute all these people guilty of spreading such dangerous misinformation and disinformation, starting with them and their buddies.
Update: Click here for Jason Olbourne’s thoughts on this, on X, and Rumble.
That PLoS One study claiming "lives saved" was based on this dodgy NSW Health data - and after we raised the issue and they investigated, PLoS One decided they had no problem with it - which says a lot about PLoS One standards.
Thank you for such an excellent and thorough story on this issue!
Norman Fenton has shown how easy it is to create the appearance of efficacy by counting recently vaccinated as unvaccinated, even with a placebo it is inevitable. You may have done the same - I’m just more familiar with his work.
This arithmetical con was actually first used by Pasteur at a time when a vaccine was as likely to kill you as not. The sainted Louis was obviously both aware of the problem and smart enough to know what to do about it.