“It’s easy to fool a man, but it’s nearly impossible to convince him he’s been fooled.” - Mark Twain
Axiom: A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim. – Some dictionary
Axioms
Axioms interest me, because axioms matter.
They change how people think, which means they change how people feel, which means they change how people act.
If their acts are immoral, then it was the axioms that played a part in getting them to that immorality.
Axioms can make you immoral. Axioms can make you take what is not yours to take. To steal.
Axioms can make you do terrible things, while feeling good about what you are doing.
Frankly, if you can manufacture axioms, you can control the world.
That is what propaganda is, it’s the business of manufacturing axioms.
With that said, here is a recent axiom.
The Economist
How many lives have been saved by covid-19 vaccines? | The Economist
A paper published in the Lancet this week estimated that covid-19 vaccines prevented around 20m deaths in the first year of their roll-out. But more could have been done. The researchers’ mathematical model suggests that roughly one in five deaths due to covid in low-income countries might have been avoided if the World Health Organisation’s vaccination targets had been met. Our Daily Chart presents the findings.
I think we all know by now that The Economist is another lost publication. A propaganda piece for the machine. Here they are doing their bit to amplify and give reach to the Lancet study.
The Lancet Study
Interpretation
COVID-19 vaccination has substantially altered the course of the pandemic, saving tens of millions of lives globally (19.8m to be exact). However, inadequate access to vaccines in low-income countries has limited the impact in these settings, reinforcing the need for global vaccine equity and coverage.
In English: we saved 20m lives, but we could have saved more, if we had vaccinated more.
Let’s look at who funded the study.
“This work was supported by a Schmidt Science Fellowship in partnership with the Rhodes Trust (OJW), Centre funding from the UK Medical Research Council (all authors), grant funding from WHO (OJW, ABH, PW, and ACG), Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (JT and ACG), support from the Imperial College Research Fellowship (PW and ABH), and support from the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Modelling Methodology and Community Jameel (all authors). We thank Sondre Ulvund Solstad from The Economist for developing excess mortality statistics and their help in interpreting these estimates.”
So, briefly, the vaccine industry including its marketing and distribution arms, funded and produced a report that was favorable to their product. Can you blame them?
It’s not the first time that the Lancet is engaged in scientific fraud and propaganda.
How to Model Fallacy, According to the Lancet (theepochtimes.com)
In 2020 the Lancet published an apparently fraudulent study discrediting the use of hydroxychloroquine in the management of COVID-19.
That fraudulent Lancet report was an important nail in the HCQ coffin which allowed governments to withhold early treatment from their populations that would have helped them avoided severe covid, hospitalization and death (at the hands of the hospital). The Lancet is culpable.
It’s the usual suspects, the same crowd, the same “they”. They are the despicable they.
Sausages
What goes into the sausage matters. Axioms are the ingredients. “They” know that.
How the Sausage Gets Made - by Michael P Senger (substack.com)
In his 1905 classic The Jungle, Upton Sinclair documents the process by which sausage is made at a meatpacking plant in turn-of-the-century Chicago.
There would be meat stored in great piles in rooms; and the water from leaky roofs would drip over it, and thousands of rats would race about on it. It was too dark in these storage places to see well, but a man could run his hand over these piles of meat and sweep off handfuls of the dried dung of rats. These rats were nuisances, and the packers would put poisoned bread out for them; they would die, and then rats, bread, and meat would go into the hoppers together.
Fast forward to 2022, and instead of rusty nails, poisoned bread and rat dung, we have the work of Imperial College, the Lancet and Eric Feigl-Ding.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
I’ve been meaning to write about the “20m lives saved” memetic corruption for a while, but the shill Neil deGrasse Tyson finally tipped me over the edge to do it.
Here he is at 16.40 talking about tens of millions of lives saved.
"They Were WRONG!" - Neil deGrasse Tyson In Heated Vaccine Debate With Patrick Bet-David
The Lancet study forms an important part of the “moral” foundation of these people and their world view.
But the bit that grated the most was when he said, “In a case where you can contaminate someone else, it’s not about you”, and he goes on to talk about “the social contract” and “collective health”.
Those simple words “it’s not about you”, negate Nuremberg, personal freedom, bodily sovereignty, and everything that, non-communist, Western civilization is built on. The sovereign “you” is the building block of a free society. Neil is saying that “if you can contaminate someone else, then it’s not about you”.
Using that logic, any type of infectious disease should strip me of my sovereign rights and the collective health should dictate my freedoms and choices.
Neil has always likely been a closet socialist (collectivist) and has likely simply decided that it is now safe to come out.
Neil, without realising it, is arguing for the health and wellbeing of the American Volk to take priority over induvial health.
Here, Del Bigtree does a good section on Neil, and I like the fact that from about 9.00 he specifically goes after the “social contract” issue.
WHY DEL WANTS TO HAVE A BEER WITH NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON - The HighWire
Inalienable
Listening to Neil made me think about what I wrote back in August 2021, my views on the subject of Inalienable Rights has not changed.
Teddy, LDP, EPL, HCQ, Health Tax and so much more... (substack.com)
The principle is that we have inalienable rights, and that a civil society is built around the freedoms and sovereignty of the individual and her inalienable rights.
Even if: it was Ebola, and lockdowns worked perfectly, and vaccines were safe and affective…
The State should not: terrify the population, bankrupt a business, push a teenager to suicide, house arrest the entire population and put face nappies on them under threat of fine and prison and force you to take an experimental injection…
So, I don’t care if the IFR is 0.15% or 15%, it is the State’s responsibility and OBLIGATION to find solutions to problems that go AROUND my inalienable rights and not THROUGH them.
Because if the determining factor of whether it’s AROUND or THROUGH my inalienable rights is a number, then my rights were never INALIENABLE, they were PROVIOSIONAL pending a number.
My father’s cleaner said to him the other day: “I will keep coming around while case numbers are less than 500 per day”. She has been persuaded to put a number on her freedom and her livelihood and general well-being. The State didn’t even need to do it, they got her to do it to herself. Anyway, she’s not coming around at the moment.
Externality
But just before I move on from Neil, I want to further highlight what he means with “it’s not about you.”
He is referring to Externality.
This from Sept 2022.
Bob Moran - Lies are Unbekoming (substack.com)
But the higher level “it” that this passage sits under is what the technocrats and The Science call “externalities”. We are going to hear a lot about externalities over the coming years.
Dictionary.com defines it as:
“A side effect of some process or activity, especially a negative effect of an economic activity that is not accounted for in the price of what is produced.”
In other words, something that I do, that is NOT “accounted” for that impacts others.
Said another way, something the individual does that impacts the collective.
Said another way, something that I do that negatively impacts the greater good.
The system that is being built around us is one that will use the concept of externality to control, influence and ultimately coerce and mandate behaviour.
For example: I was booking a Qantas flight a few weeks ago, and before the booking process was complete the website went out of its way to tell me how many kilograms of carbon my trip was going to put into the climate and if I wanted to spend some points to “offset” the effect.
The kilos of carbon are the externality, instantly and efficiently calculated and presented to me in a manner that would play on any sense of guilt I had, and/or my desire to be a good community member and global citizen.
The next step is for it to be involuntary, and every kilo of carbon is calculated and charged, explicitly, to each flyer.
The next step is to give me a “kilo allowance” for the year, and once I or my family has used it, I am not able to fly until a new year and new kilo-allowance rolls over.
But as Bob just said: “to address it, to try and eradicate it would be to destroy the things that matter and basically create an insane society.”
Externality and Spontaneity are related and connected and in some ways are two sides of the same coin. To be human, is to be spontaneous and in so doing you will impact others and the whole.
The “social contract” that Neil is arguing for wants to consequence your externality, with the full weight of corporate and government force.
Neil is an authoritarian, one of many, that have made themselves visible.
Roger Hodgkinson
Just before we dig into the Lancet study, here is Roger Hodgkinson, in Oct 2022, talking about a different 20m, this time 20m deaths (not saves) and 2.2b injuries from the vaccines.
Telegram: Contact @RealWorldNewsChannel
If you don’t know who Roger is, watch the following clip for a few minutes so you can decide if he is an honest broker or not. This was part of a webinar I did in mid-2021, and at minute 1.26.00 you can listen to Roger talking to a Canadian committee in November 2000. He knows what he is talking about and was one of the very early honest, medical dissidents and freedom fighters.
Video: 10 Vital numbers to better understand the COVID fiasco (substack.com)
If 5b have taken it, then 20m is 1 in 250 deaths. That maps over both my anecdotal experience and plenty of the analytics that take into account an honest URF-under reporting factor. The overwhelming majority of those deaths are the very old and frail, while at the same time obviously far, far too many young people are dying.
If you would like a breakdown of the maths that gets you to 20m deaths, it’s in here.
20 million saved or 20 million killed - by Peter Halligan (substack.com)
And also, Kirsch and his team’s analysis of the vaccine’s death and destruction. On this analysis you get 1 in 500 deaths, but I think you get the point.
Nigel Fenton
The video in the masthead is from Nigel Fenton talking about the 20m number. Here it is on YouTube also.
Fenton makes a good point in the clip. Countries with almost no vaccines had almost no covid deaths. Quite inconvenient. Which is one of the reasons you will hear the WHO and WEF people talk about “vaccine equity” which means everyone, everywhere needs to get vaccinated, because that way you don’t have these annoying unvaccinated control groups that spoil your neat narrative.
Fenton is right, we should not let these “memes” stand. These corrupt axioms are created for a reason, they are the building blocks of further lies, and they are weaponized against dissidents and “non-believers.”
For, one way to use the 20m lie to use the “morality by the kilo” method. If vaccines saved 20m lives, but killed less than 20m, then vaccines are good and moral. Do you have the visual in your head, the morality scales with 20m saved bodies on one side and 19m dead bodies on the other. That is what Iskra Reic is referring to at the end of Fenton’s video.
Here is a good comment to Fenton’s video:
Dave Nockels
You are totally correct that such things MUST be called out. I am a retired risk analyst and physical phenomenon modeller. Like you I have seen these egregious tricks used to hoodwink people. It is the most basic of essentials to understand that a black box computer model can be used to produce any result you wish, simply by changing the assumptions used in the model: classically “Rubbish in rubbish out”. In the same way there are a series of tricks that can be used to totally mislead readers as to what the results of a risk analysis show and mean. The difference between absolute and relative risk is the most obvious and common one: used almost universally by Pharma funded research to overstate the benefits and understate the harms of a drug therapy. It is quite evident that, in this context, not only are members of the public unaware of these tricks, but so are the majority of doctors. Sadly, critical thinking is a rare commodity
Thoughts on the Lancet Study
Did Covid Vaccines Save Tens of Millions of Lives? ⋆ Brownstone Institute
There are several good sections and critiques in this piece.
Even with more established diseases such as cancer, predicting mortality can be a tricky thing. That is why estimates are given for survival based upon stage of diagnosis and treatments, but they are only estimates. Under no circumstance does any medical professional state that by using radiation treatment we save X number of lives each year from cancer.
I could also write a program that predicts mortality based upon what style of shoe a person wears or what kind of car they drive. For example, younger people may be more inclined to wear a particular style of sneaker and since younger people are least likely to die from Covid, I could calculate that wearing that type of sneaker saves lives.
Saving lives is almost always a fallacious argument.
My version of the sneaker “correlation is not causation” story is “ice cream and drowning.”
People buy ice cream at the beach. People drown at the people. Ice cream causes drowning. I’ll come back to this later.
The Lancet study is fatality flawed in several ways as it ignores the following factors.
Natural Immunity
By the time vaccines were introduced in December 2020, a significant portion of the population had already been infected and developed immunity. You have to assume that natural immunity doesn’t work for the Lancet study to hold. This false assumption, and each of the ones to follow, are individually fatal to the study, let alone collectively.
Disease Culling
The most susceptible individuals for serious disease and death had already succumbed to the disease by the time vaccines were introduced. The elderly people who did survive infection in 2020 now have natural immunity. This pattern of high mortality followed by lesser severity is consistent with the normal ebb and flow of flu seasons. A bad flu season that takes our more than usual old and frail people is typically followed by a “good” flu season, with less death, because there are less old and frail. It’s been called the dry tinder effect. The study ignores that.
Population Susceptibility
The mathematical models used to predict the course of the pandemic assume the same level of mortality susceptibility across all populations. It assumes the young and healthy die at the same rate as the old and frail. To describe this and junk science is frankly an insult to junk science.
Reduction in Disease Severity with Variants
By the time vaccines were introduced, new variants of the virus were emerging. The natural evolutionary course of viruses is towards less lethality. We saw this with the downward trend of the IFR-infection fatality rate. This reduced IFR was not factored in, nor was the fact that the vaccines were always generating antibodies against old strains that were no longer dominant in their circulation at the time of vaccination. Again, not factored into study.
Improvements in Treatments
By the time vaccines were introduced, physicians around the world had developed more effective treatments for COVID-19. This has led to better outcomes for those who experience severe disease, and the use of dangerous treatments such as ventilation was avoided. The study looks to give all of this improved treatment credit to the vaccines.
British lives
Here is an interesting critique of the Lancet study by The Daily Sceptic.
Did Vaccines Really Save 500,000 Lives in the UK? – The Daily Sceptic
So where did the researchers go wrong? As Bhaskaran Raman notes, they made numerous assumptions that exaggerate the effectiveness of the vaccines. Perhaps their most questionable assumption was that the mRNA vaccines are 90% effective against death – when real world evidence suggests their effectiveness is much lower.
The vaccines did save lives in Britain. But I’m not convinced the number is anywhere close to 500,000.
It ends with, “the vaccine did save lives in Britain.”
What does that mean?
If during the Pfizer trial, more died in the vaccine group vs the placebo group, how could they “save lives in Britain?”. They either improve all-cause mortality, or they don’t.
Do the Brits have some special genetic make-up I am not aware of that makes the vaccines work for them compared to people in phase 3 Pfizer trials?
Also, how can this whole discussion be viewed through a mortality lens only? What about the morbidity lens? If we have injured 2.2b people, where does that factor into the “lives saved” discussion. How many people are they permitted to disable to save a life?
Also, how can you assume the vaccine “saved lives in Britain” without factoring in the categorization lies such as:
the died with/from Covid issue
withholding of early treatment
Remdesivir and ventilation deaths categorized as Covid
To name just a few of the suite of lies, distortions and corruptions.
“The vaccine did save lives in Britain”, is a false statement.
“Potential”
This 20m lives saved trick, is but a continuation of a tried and tested method of using statistical manipulation to create models that support your policy interventions. Here is Imperial College convincing Europeans that lockdowns saved 3.1m lives.
Professor Lockdown Now Claims to Have Saved 3.1 Million Lives | AIER
The study purports to demonstrate “that major non-pharmaceutical interventions and lockdown in particular have had a large effect on reducing transmission” of the COVID-19 virus. The paper and an accompanying press release from the university put numbers to this claim, asserting that the lockdowns saved an estimated 3.1 million lives in Europe.
Or as el gato malo puts it.
when reality fails to align with your model, change reality (substack.com)
“use a made up model that has exhibited no predictive value whatsoever to set a baseline against which to compare reality then claim that whatever your intervention was worked because reality did not conform to model.”
In the first year of the vaccination programme, 19.8 million out of a potential 31.4 million COVID-19 deaths were prevented worldwide according to estimates based on excess deaths from 185 countries and territories.
The keyword is “potential” 31.4m covid-19 deaths.
It’s this setup that builds the foundation for basically any correlation that you like. I will use ice cream and drowning here.
People buy ice cream at the beach. People drown at the beach. Ice cream causes drowning.
20 of my friends are all going to the beach, were some will “potentially” drown.
I have told them not to buy ice cream.
By the end of the day, nobody drowned.
Because nobody had ice cream.
The Science™
Thank you for reading this Substack.
Please consider a small paid subscription (donation). The money goes to a good cause.
I am always looking for good, personal GMC (pandemic and jab) or childhood vaccination stories. Shared stories are remembered and help others.
In the comments, please let me know what’s on your mind.
You can write to me privately: unbekoming@outlook.com
If you are Covid-jab injured, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment
If you want to understand and “see” what baseline human health looks like, watch this 21 minutes.
Here are three eBooks I have produced so far:
FREE eBook: A letter to my two adult kids - Vaccines and the free spike protein
Share this post