Wood House 76

5 responses to “Illinois DPH “Vaccine Breakthrough” Data (18 October 2021 Twitter Thread)”

1. Another reminder that Illinois officials lied about COVID shot efficacy and necessity and have not been held accountable or apologized for anything – Wood House 76

   12 January 2026

   […] Illinois DPH “Vaccine Breakthrough” Data (18 October 2021 Twitter Thread) […]

   Loading…

   Reply
2. 

   sjacks5

   13 January 2026

   There can be no question that your assessment was and is correct: our elected and appointed officials consistently and persistently lied about Covid shot efficacy and necessity and have not been held accountable or apologized. Sadly, you are quite likely also correct that such abominations are unlikely to change or be corrected.
   It seems to me your early assessment also indirectly raised the question of the worth of any analysis based on data purported to show “breakthrough” deaths – or really anything else – based upon supposed differentiation between Covid and non-Covid groups. The complete unreliability of Covid testing renders it impossible to identify Covid and non-Covid groups; it is simply not possible for those tests to determine whether or not someone had something called “COVID”, much less whether they died from it or even with it. If it cannot reliably be determined whether or not someone “had Covid”, how can anything useful at all be said about the differing impacts of vaccine shots or anything else on supposed Covid vs non-Covid groups? There are no Covid vs non-Covid groups. One may as well claim they are examining the disparate impact of vaccines or deaths on those identified as witches based upon whether or not they float.

   The useful and truly reliable segmentation between the vaccinated and unvaccinated is whether or not people died, their ages, whether or not those who died had co-morbidities or some other accurately identifiable endpoint. Even the vaccinated vs unvaccinated groups are suspect because of the way they are defined. Simply because Pharma or those perpetrating the deception decide to define vaccinated groups in a way that suits them – by the number shots they received or when they received them – does not mean that is proper and useful definition. A better definition would be to have differentiated between those who had any vaccination shot at any time vs those who had no shots whatsoever, then examine reliably determined outcomes – such as death – based upon that definition.

   It is clear that even at that early stage of the dangerous charade you were beginning to catch onto the truly important issue: whether or not vaccines themselves were harmful, not whether or not they prevented or mitigated or prevented transmission of some claimed disease which did not even exist. One wonders – even if only a little – whether presentation of this sort of analysis, which doesn’t really show what it purports to show, was just due to sloppiness and ignorance, or whether it was an attempt to distract from the true issue: Were investigators led to and intended to find the “gotcha” discovery that vaccines were ineffective at preventing or protecting against the horrible Covid disease and stop there, without questioning further whether there even was a Covid disease, whether the vaccines were created for some other purpose, and whether it was the vaccine shots themselves that were causing unusual harm?

   Loading…

   Reply
   1. 

      Jessica Hockett, PhD

      14 January 2026

      The tests were/are not only unreliable (i.e., inconsistent as measures), they are invalid (they aren’t measuring a real thing or construct).

      The vaccinated/unvaccinated definitions are distorted and, as far as I can tell, not specifically a “COVID thing.” Same idea was (and is) applied to flu and other shots.

      I can understand, to a point, not wanting (for example) a person with health issues who is advanced in age and on the edge of life not being “counted” as a vaccinated until a certain amount of time passes, because they might be “scheduled” to die anyway. You don’t want their death blamed on the vaccine. But why are we vaccinating those people anyway? Because the government prefers their cause of death to NOT be pneumonia and to be Alzheimer’s instead? Sounds like an incentives racket.

      Re: “Were investigators led to and intended to find the “gotcha” discovery that vaccines were ineffective at preventing or protecting against the horrible Covid disease and stop there, without questioning further whether there even was a Covid disease, whether the vaccines were created for some other purpose, and whether it was the vaccine shots themselves that were causing unusual harm?”

      Yes. And isn’t that what we continue to see?

      The 2026 me sees the COVID shot harms focus as a kind of performance art, in the sense that I don’t think government and pharmaceutical companies care about the attention on it.

      I think it was intended to be a decoy — a kind of intentional symbol/whipping boy for all vaccine harms.

      I’m not sure “they” much care about it because I don’t it harms the overall story about a spreading virus and new disease.

      Looking at the psy-op side and how certain ‘dissident’ perspectives get elevated, my experience on X and Substack was that (within parameters) if you were very focused on COVID shot harms, then you were more elevated. I had to ask myself why that was and the only answer I could come up with is because the COVID shot doesn’t present the biggest threat to the fraud.

      I could be wrong.

      Loading…

      Reply
3. 

   sjacks5

   15 January 2026

   There are times I wish you were more often wrong.

   Loading…

   Reply
   1. 

      Jessica Hockett, PhD

      15 January 2026

      Same 🙁

      Loading…

      Reply