Breaking News

Australian Covid Data Biases and Manipulation – If This “Vaccine” Is So Great, Why Do You Need To “Fix” The Data?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

New South Wales (“NSW”) is the most populated state in Australia comprising some 8 million inhabitants, about a third of the population. It is now world-famous for its vaccine mandates that were imposed by Brad Hazzard, their health minister who does not have a medical degree yet prescribed (arguably illegally via mandate) a provisionally approved (restricted use) genomic therapy on the population. So, how did that go?


Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…


Follow The Exposé’s Official Channel on Telegram here
Join the conversation in our Telegram Discussion Group here


By Dr Ah Kahn Syed

Well, roll on a few months and pretty much the whole adult population of NSW is “vaccinated.” The official stats are that as of today, according to their own data, 95% of NSW people aged over 15 have received 2 doses of a “covid vaccine” – mostly mRNA therapies.

So, one would like to think that, because NSW health persists in making the claim that “Covid-19 vaccines are very effective in preventing people from the severe impacts of infections with the virus” (which was updated from the original: “The Covid-19 vaccines available in Australia are very effective with evidence showing that people who are fully vaccinated are 70–95% less likely to get sick with Covid-19 compared with those who are not vaccinated.”)

Here’s their data from the 4th of September 2021 showing how effective the vaccine was because there were so few people hospitalised….

There was just one problem. The hospitalisation data are confounded by a diagnostic bias. The same bias was seen in the UKHSA data which preceded NSW health’s data by a few months because Australia was relatively late to the vaccine party. The bias means that when somebody arrives in hospital (with any condition) who is unvaccinated they are more likely to be tested for Covid-19 than if they were vaccinated. This arose out of a false belief (later ditched) that the vaccine prevented infection, so obviously the higher quality “clean” patients didn’t need testing (for the reference to clean vs unclean please see my friend Filipe Rafaeli’s excellent article on the Warsaw Ghetto).

There was another bias in that data which also related to the fraudulent miscategorisation of recently vaccinated people as “partially vaccinated” or “unvaccinated” for weeks after their vaccine and so the hospitalisation figures for this category took a while to catch up – but catch up they did. In fact, it got so bad that by November the vaccine surveillance reports had to push the figures by vaccination status all the way to the end of the report (just like the UKHSA did), and despite it being a relatively quiet time for Covid-19 infections, the proportion of cases who had received any vaccination had jumped to 63% of the total cases (of those whose status was known).

This was an embarrassment for the NSW government which had just been taken to the NSW Supreme Court on the basis of their vaccine mandates (because obviously, you have to mandate things that are so good there can be no question of their effectiveness and safety). And worse, Christmas was coming and despite the mandates and Brad Hazzard’s regular rants on TV, not everybody was getting all their vaccines, presumably because they could see that they were not exactly doing what the government promised they would do.

So now comes the biggest bait and switch in Covid-19 reporting data ever. Check these tables from the 18th December 2021 to the 4th January 2022 reports. Bear in mind that this is the time that cases really started ramping up in NSW, just as the “booster” rollout was gaining steam. Yes, another coincidence.

If you look carefully, you will see that in the report up to 25th December (the middle graphic) pretty much all the “Under investigation” cases were shifted to the “No effective dose” group and this occurred after our friendly mice army on Twitter had pointed out that by 18th December the unvaccinated were now accounting for only 6.7% (612/9144) of the total of known status cases. At the same time, the case rate in the fully vaccinated had exploded jumping from 1428 to 8452 to 25114 week on week and the government’s bait and switch turned to “protecting you from going to ICU”. The more eagle-eyed of you will note that the 7th January report (with the 25th December figures) was then quietly corrected by shifting the “unknown” cases back where they belonged, in the 13th January report (final graphic) by which time the switch away from “stopping infection” to “reducing the chance of severe Covid” was complete. Good play, NSW health.

But they didn’t stop there. Now we come to the best bit. You see they had been caught out and therefore needed to change the format of the reports, which has happened a few times – presumably to stop those pesky murine twitterers from pointing out that the vaccine wasn’t doing what they said it would. In fact, by the 12th February, it became obvious that most of the cases (83% of known), ICU admissions (86%) and deaths (77%) were in the vaccinated and the biases and data manipulations weren’t appeasing the masses.

So, a quick switch to a new format was required and another version of an old trick – combining the “unknown” and “no dose” was put in place. Oh, and of course now we also need the UKHSA trick of qualifying the data with a long monologue of why it isn’t quite as bad as it looks (because obviously, you prole reader, you don’t know nuffin and we need to edoocate you).

I know, it’s embarrassing. But it gets better. Eventually, someone realised that combining the no dose and unknown groups was a fix and demanded – by FOI (please let me know if you have the link to this) – that NSW health provide the data by the actual number of doses received. And this is where the cover-up could be covered-up no more. This is what happened….

So, the hospitalisations and ICU admissions in the unvaccinated dropped to zero (and stayed there all through June, effectively). But wait, there are still a bunch of deaths in the unvaccinated group – how can this be?

We can answer this question by looking at the categorised data over time. So, I pulled out every week’s data from these reports manually from the 5th March 2022 to the 25th June 20221. The separation of “no dose/not known” into “no dose” and “not known” took place on the 28th May. All of a sudden, nearly all the deaths that had been categorised in the joint category appeared in the “no dose” group. You can see it happening here2.

So, we are expected to believe that even though the death rate of every single vaccination category (as a proportion of those hospitalised, irrespective of dose number or unknown status) was below 0.25% – all of a sudden after 28th May the “no dose” category had a death to hospitalisation ratio of 1 (note it was actually more than 1 because there were no hospitalisations in this category for most of June – see note3). Here is another way to look at this amazingly coincidental data:

You don’t need error bars or a degree in medical statistics to see that the “no dose after 28th May” is impossible. So, what happened? The logical (and only) explanation is that the death data was manipulated. Either the deaths in the “no dose” category are totally fabricated, the last remaining unvaccinated old people are being killed off in nursing homes and not entering hospital, or more likely that the “no dose” and “unknown” numbers have been swapped. There is no other explanation for this incredible result.

Either way, it’s a misrepresentation of the real data. So, I have a question for NSW health’s surveillance data curators (which include the infamous NCIRS) … If this vaccine is so great, why do you need to “fix” the data?

Don’t worry. I don’t expect an answer. The eight million people living in NSW might, though. Given that their taxes and sacrifices have paid your wages, I think they deserve one.

Oh, and while you’re at it, perhaps you could answer this really important question posed to Chief Medical Officer Kerry Chant (click on the image to watch the video on Telegram):

References

  • 1 https://files.catbox.moe/no1puz.csv
  • 2 The mean and control limits depicted are calculated using arithmetic values, which is an approximation required due to the presence of zeros in the ratios.
  • 3 In order to represent this data without a divide-by-zero mathematical error the simplest and most consistent method was to represent the ratio as:
    [deaths] / [(deaths)+(non-ICU hospitalisations)+(ICU hospitalisations)]

About the Author

Dr. Ah Kahn Syed is a medical doctor and a PhD who uses the pseudonym Arkmedic. The above is an article he wrote titled ‘NSW Health manipulated their vaccine data, and we caught them’.

Dr. Syed’s profile has been suspended on Twitter but he has a profile on Telegram HERE and you can follow his work by subscribing to his Substack HERE.

Share this page to Telegram
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

17 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve
Steve
1 month ago

This winter will decide how safe and effective these jabs really are. The proof of the pudding as they say.

Nick
Nick
Reply to  Steve
1 month ago

They are not safe, excess deaths ARE 40% higher based on insurance claims….plus there is plenty of data proving already they neither effective or safe…how long have you been to this site?

This has been shown for over a year by now. And wait until the killer variant evolves thanks to the evolutionary pressure of forced injections…..it will decimate their damaged immune systems……this will happen within 3 years.

A Person
A Person
1 month ago

Yes, some amazing work on that data.

However, I’m starting to wonder if it really looks as good for the unpoisoned as it seems. For example, recent data for NSW from the table given above:

Hospitalisations in NSW for 19-25 June, 2022:
4 or more doses…..96
3 doses………………207
2 doses………………93
1 dose………………..5
0 doses………………0
Unknown…………….128

Hospitalisations for unpoisoned were 0. However, for ‘unknown’ it was 128.

Since it says, “Name and date of birth need to be an exact match to that recorded in AIR (i.e. Australian Immunisation Register). People with unknown vaccination status were unable to be found in AIR, though may have vaccination details recorded in AIR under a shortened name or different spelling”, I am wondering if every person in the ‘unknown’ category is unpoisoned anyway. After all, if these 128 jokers can’t be found in the AIR, might that be because they never got a poison injection and have therefore never been placed on the register (the register started in 1996)? I mean, if they did, surely they’d know how many doses they’d gotten coz that stuff gets recorded when they get each jab, I imagine.

So I’m starting to wonder if all (or virtually all) of the ‘unknown’ are ‘unpoisoned’.

But who knows?…

Glenn
Glenn
Reply to  A Person
1 month ago

You have to throw out the unknown regardless of what you may assume. No statistician in their right mind would include unknown in one category that was definite. (except the government LOL) They assumed unknown meant unvaccinated too. Unvaccinated included 1) no jab, one jab within the 14 days, people exempt, etc. Placing unknown (as they did see pic attached) swayed views that unvaccinated bore a greatly proportion than could be to the stats. Yes the unknown could be 100% unvaxxed OR 100% vaxxed. What they do now is ‘more honest’ than what they did. Now at least they say unknown in its own category but it took a long suspicious time to do it.

Screenshot 2022-07-10 103201.jpg
A Person
A Person
Reply to  Glenn
1 month ago

Well, yeh, it was kind of strange how the ‘no dose’ and ‘unknown’ categories were lumped together for months in a row before they split them, for whatever reason 😉 .

Paul Watson
Paul Watson
Reply to  A Person
1 month ago

Do you whistle in the dark?

Nick
Nick
1 month ago

I live in NSW and have not taken the poison…AND NEVER WILL!

There 96.6% figure is total bullsh@t….and you should NOT repeat their lies

It is probably no higher than 80%

NFree
NFree
Reply to  Nick
1 month ago

That would make the results much worse than advertised… I still pray for the vaxxed

A fait worse than death awaits

trackback
1 month ago

[…] Read more: Australian Covid Data Biases and Manipulation – If This “Vaccine” Is So Great, Why Do You Need… […]

trackback
1 month ago

[…] Read more: Australian Covid Data Biases and Manipulation – If This “Vaccine” Is So Great, Why Do You Need… […]

trackback
1 month ago

[…] Australian Covid Data Biases and Manipulation – If This “Vaccine” Is So Great, Why Do You Need… New South Wales (“NSW”) is the most populated state in Australia comprising some 8 million inhabitants, about a third of the population. It is now world-famous for its vaccine mandates that were imposed by Brad Hazzard, their health minister who does not have a medical degree yet prescribed (arguably illegally via mandate) a provisionally approved (restricted use) genomic therapy on the population. So, how did that go? […]

Paul Watson
Paul Watson
1 month ago

All these tyrants must be prosecuted for treason and face the death penalty for their crimes against humanity..

Huge Berger
Huge Berger
1 month ago

ALL vaccines are 100% poison if you simply examine the “ingredients” . Virology makes ZERO sense and is more based on “faith” and “indoctrination”. Satanists are the higher ups who love vaccines because of these reasons.