CDC Analysis: For age 18-44 yrs, once vaccinated, your all-cause mortality drops 72% and death from ALL diseases drops to ZERO, chance of dying in an accident decreases

gab.com ^ | 10/24/2021 | Steve Kirsch

[ransomnote]

[H/T Fractal Trader]

Steve Kirsch@stkirsch

1d··Edited

OK, this is big. The CDC just released an analysis that after you get vaccinated, your all-cause mortality drops by 72% if you are age 18-44. Since 33% of deaths in that age group are from accidents, that means that it drives death from ALL diseases to ZERO and it ALSO reduces chance of dying in an accident. NOBODY in mainstream academia has criticized the study as nonsensical. This proves that the CDC can put absurd [redacted for FR] out, and the medical community and the press just eats it up without question. Truly stunning. See Table 2.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7043e2-H.pdf

[edwinland]

In the meantime, any article that says The CDC just released an analysis that after you get vaccinated, your all-cause mortality drops by 72% if you are age 18-44 is just simply false.

No, they are just commenting on what the data published by the CDC means. Look at the table.

I'm not seeing your point here. I'll repeat my comment with quote marks so you can see that yes, what I claim the article says is indeed the article says ... verbatim:

In the meantime, any article that says "The CDC just released an analysis that after you get vaccinated, your all-cause mortality drops by 72% if you are age 18-44" is just simply false.

[freeandfreezing]

In the original article the author highlights the second row in the CDC's table, where the mortality rate for 18 to 44 year old people vaccinated with either the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have mortality rates of .02 per 100 person years. The unvaccinated comparison group has a mortality rate of 0.07. I presume you can see that too, and that exact table appears in the CDC publication.

The ratio of the mortality rate for the vaccinated group to the unvaccinated comparison group is 0.02/0.07. That is 0.285, which the author rounded down to 28 percent.

That ratio, which is the actual finding of the CDC report, means that the rate at which people in the vaccinated group are dying from things other than COVID-19 is only 28% of the rate at which people are dying from things other than COVID-19 in the unvaccinated comparison group. The author notes that the "all-cause mortality drops 72% if you are age 18-44" which is exactly the mathematical drop in mortality since 100 - 28 = 72.

Perhaps you don't look at the numbers in tables in scientific papers, but only read the text. The tables in the CDC paper are just as much a part of the paper as the rest of the text. And the table says exactly what the original article noted. You can check the math yourself with a calculator if you want to.

The reason that the article's comments are interesting is that the entire design of the study would be incorrect if the overall "healthiness" of the vaccinated group was such that their all causes (w/o COVID-19) mortality was 72% less than the comparison group. If that was true it would mean that the groups were not really comparable in the first place.

The expected result for a safety analysis like this would be that the mortality rate for areas other than the disease being vaccinated against would be roughly equivalent between the groups. The goal of this kind of study is to detect vaccine safety issues. Seeing higher mortality in the vaccinated group might indicate that the vaccine caused some problems. Seeing dramatically lower mortality in the vaccinated group is very unexpected, and probably indicates something went wrong in the study.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Too bad the jab is not a vaccine, check out Singapore, Israel..

I'm extremely disappointed by the public health ministries of both countries. They have top-notch physicians and I expected an honest, Sweden-like approach to COVID-19 by them. Instead, they mouth Fauci-isms with a bullheaded insistence.

[edwinland]

The reason that the article's comments are interesting is that the entire design of the study would be incorrect if the overall "healthiness" of the vaccinated group was such that their all causes (w/o COVID-19) mortality was 72% less than the comparison group. If that was true it would mean that the groups were not really comparable in the first place.

The expected result for a safety analysis like this would be that the mortality rate for areas other than the disease being vaccinated against would be roughly equivalent between the groups. The goal of this kind of study is to detect vaccine safety issues. Seeing higher mortality in the vaccinated group might indicate that the vaccine caused some problems. Seeing dramatically lower mortality in the vaccinated group is very unexpected, and probably indicates something went wrong in the study.

Thanks for actually digging in on the subject. Most of the other replies I got were ad hominem.

Your comments would be correct (especially this one: "The goal of this kind of study is to detect vaccine safety issues.") if the thing we were talking about were a study, but it's actually just a report. If they set up a study to test the safety of the so-called vaccines, they would need the study and the control group to be comparable. But this is not a study. It's a report on observed data.

The expected result for a safety analysis like this would be that the mortality rate for areas other than the disease being vaccinated against would be roughly equivalent between the groups.

Actually, that's not the expected result. It is often the case that people who choose to be vaccinated are already healthier than people who chose not to. That's called the "healthy vaccinee effect", there's a lot of literature on it (can be easily googled) and the CDC says in their discussion of the data in this report that the healthy vaccinee effect probably explains the disparate mortality data.

Here's a paper which talks about the same effect in the context of an actual vaccine:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)30017-5/fulltext

So to summarize, when you see a report showing that people who are vaccinated against X also have a lower rate of Y, that's likely the result of the healthy vaccinee effect (just like the CDC says) and it definitely does not mean (and the CDC never said it does mean) that your mortality from Y "drops" when you get vaccinated against X, which would be an absurd claim. The author has set up a straw man to make the CDC look foolish and it just makes him look foolish, and it also makes people who have legitimate issues with the so-called vaccines look foolish. There's lots of foolish things the CDC claims. This straw man is not one of them.

[edwinland]

An example of what I was referring to in my last two sentences of prior reply:

https://sharylattkisson.com/2021/10/cdc-hiding-the-number-of-naturally-immune-to-covid-19/

[freeandfreezing]

So to summarize, when you see a report showing that people who are vaccinated against X also have a lower rate of Y, that's likely the result of the healthy vaccinee effect (just like the CDC says) and it definitely does not mean (and the CDC never said it does mean) that your mortality from Y "drops" when you get vaccinated against X, which would be an absurd claim.

Nice try, but your cited "paper" is actually just correspondence to the journal, and doesn't give an example of a healthy vaccinee group with anywhere near the effect supposedly shown the data in the CDC report.

And your argument that the CDC publication is a report and statement that "But this is not a study" is simply inconsistent with what the CDC publication says:

"In this cohort study of VSD members aged ≥12 years, vaccination status through May 31, 2021 was determined."

The CDC calls it a "cohort study" but somehow you think it isn't a study. I'm starting to understand why you get a lot of what you characterize as "ad hominem" replies.

The data published by the CDC speaks for itself. Either the study planning or the data analysis has some flaws in it, or we have discovered a miracle drug which can dramatically reduce mortality from all causes.

Your statement that the result the data shows can't possibly be related to the effect of the vaccine because that is "absurd" is exactly the point the critics are making. If you run a study and the data resulting from the study shows an impossible or "absurd" result you probably made an error somewhere in the study design or the data analysis.

If your theory of a healthy vaccinee selection effect was true, and the people in the vaccinated groups were so different from the unvaccinated population that their mortality rate was more than 3 times lower than the comparison group independent of vaccination, then the study does nothing to show that the vaccines are safe.

Your theory also implies that the entire premise of such a study is pointless. You say that "when you see a report showing that people who are vaccinated against X also have a lower rate of Y, that's likely the result of the healthy vaccinee effect (just like the CDC says) and it definitely does not mean (and the CDC never said it does mean) that your mortality from Y "drops" when you get vaccinated against X."

But wouldn't you agree that the only way you know if a vaccine or other treatment works at all is to do the same kind of study? In your own sentence just replace Y and X with "COVID-19". You agree that a study which cuts the mortality rate after vaccination is how you prove a vaccine works, right?

You are now arguing that the very principle used to establish that a drug or vaccine works "definitely does not mean" what it has to mean if the study is worth running. If the relative mortality rates didn't mean something why run the study at all? If the vaccinated mortality rate from non-covid causes was twice the rate for the unvaccinated comparison group would that also "not mean" anything? How would you ever know when the ratio between the mortality rates meant something?

I hope you can think more about how this type of research is conducted, and not just have blind faith in the people listed at the top of the CDC publication.