So, https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/378/bmj-2022-071249.full.pdf just came out and it seems pretty sturdy. Too bad the data ends exactly as infection efficacy flat-lines, implying equal positivity rates for the whole duration - would be great if the boosters never rolled out and we could see how the trends either continued or flattened or what.
I have never really felt that the US confounding should be extrapolated to the UKHSA/ONS or Israel data, as the former has different cultural factors for getting the shots (all aboard except the already terminally ill) and the latter different cultural factors for not getting the shots (religious holdouts).
My not-even-back-of-envelope is that it's a good sign for them to be similar as the (waning to 0) infection efficacy is discounting severe rates up until the moment it hits 0. If severe was waning faster than that would mean there was a true severe waning that added to the infection waning.
So you want to know "was there still apparent severe efficacy at 0 infection efficacy"? And then of course you want to know what happened afterward, but the stupid boosters ruined that as I said.
I am making a cross-country comparison of vaccinations vs covid deaths as a part of a University course. Unless I'm making a mistake somewhere, I'm getting something like p=0.7 after adjusting for confounders like age. So no relationship between vaccines and covid deaths at all.
I dont think the question now is about efficacy any longer. Really should be how many deaths are happening above all causes. I am inclined to think that some of the healthy compliant are more materialistic in their thinking and have too much to lose if they or their offspring die so the compliance to an experiment of this proportion is more likely. To make the link to all cause might be difficult in view of the fact that many of the deaths might be about excitement of long held latent disease however the data sets say it is higher eg in Australia if the real data is compared to deaths prior to 2019 the the all cause mortality is around 36%! Their jab rate was high because of government enforcement.
Brilliant. We now have actual data that the MRNA therapy does not prevent infection, transmission, or serious illness AND there appears to be growing research for negative MRNA efficacy AND given your analysis below we would expect unvaccinated people to be sicker and more prone to die because of their other risk factors! This does not even include the serious injuries being reported from the MRNA that we all suspect are under-reported.
Case closed. Stop this poison now and arrest the pushers.
A coalition of state's Attorney's Generals should form a consortium to protect their citizens by issuing state by state indictments of Pharma execs, clinical trial managers, public health officials, and politicians who continued to push this therapy despite the evidence of ineffectiveness and harm.
Excellent analysis. Thank you. Worse than ineffective, though, is the vax makes it worse. The reports from Germany of high vax injuries are underestimated. Well never know exactly how bad it is since the data has been highly manipulated. As we find the depths of the real disaster, prosecutions will become a crucial part of recovery.
An addition to the opening statement -- the vax EUA premise was efficacy and safety, and also on not having effective therapies. We did have effective therapies, so the EUA was illegal. Forcing the vax on the population required suppressing the value of several cheap, effective time therapies. Most vax victims would not have submitted to the vax if they had been given honest risk factors of the vax (high) and the virus (low). Global fraud that resulted in millions of deaths demands justice. The most important consideration will be how far down the extensive chain of corruption the prosecutions will need to go.
Everyone seems to toss out statements like "Since it should be clear that cases are not being prevented," How about you do an article to back that statement up.
No its not clear. I have to look at my local school and say, hey every parent in the class that was vaccinated just got covid.
So here how I take that on with my neighbour that is a injection cultist.
Me: The injection was supposed to stop transmission, infection and lead to herd immunity. What happened? Fake Science? Did they lie to us?
NPC Cultist: But but but it prevents death!
Me: Said the same scientists that told you it will stop transmission, infection and give you herd immunity? Thats crazy talk.
I believe it is buried. The covidiots have about 60 seconds to determine what you are saying is true. Like a cheat sheet. After two years did anyone just say the vaccine does not stop transmission and it never did? Nor was it tested to do that in the first place?
My problem with the entire it prevents death is inherently flawed idea.
The overall scam is simple. They tested peoples immunity system for 14 days with an injection that weakened the immune system and if they did not get sick they called them vaccinated. Those that got sick were called unvaccinated. That is silly.
Example:
Lets say for a moment that I have 100 people in a nursing home. I gave everyone a placebo shot and said if they can run 1/4 mile they would be called healthy. Those that were not able to run a 1/4 mile were called sick. What good was the placebo shot?
How do we know this is true you ask? Because the vaccinated had numbers sky rocket when the booster cohort was added to the mix. So previously vaccinated getting booster and getting sick were not counted as boosted. Unvaccinated cases dropped below single vaccinated.
Love it! Thanks! The healthy vaccinee confounder also exaggerates flu shot efficacy.
So, https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/378/bmj-2022-071249.full.pdf just came out and it seems pretty sturdy. Too bad the data ends exactly as infection efficacy flat-lines, implying equal positivity rates for the whole duration - would be great if the boosters never rolled out and we could see how the trends either continued or flattened or what.
I have never really felt that the US confounding should be extrapolated to the UKHSA/ONS or Israel data, as the former has different cultural factors for getting the shots (all aboard except the already terminally ill) and the latter different cultural factors for not getting the shots (religious holdouts).
Just skimming right now, but am I wrong to consider this a major punchline?
The review concluded that the decline
in vaccine effectiveness against severe covid-19 was
less than for SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic
disease. However, by quantifying waning in terms of
ratios of hazard ratios, we found that rates of waning
were similar for these two outcomes (supplementary
table S8).
My not-even-back-of-envelope is that it's a good sign for them to be similar as the (waning to 0) infection efficacy is discounting severe rates up until the moment it hits 0. If severe was waning faster than that would mean there was a true severe waning that added to the infection waning.
So you want to know "was there still apparent severe efficacy at 0 infection efficacy"? And then of course you want to know what happened afterward, but the stupid boosters ruined that as I said.
I am making a cross-country comparison of vaccinations vs covid deaths as a part of a University course. Unless I'm making a mistake somewhere, I'm getting something like p=0.7 after adjusting for confounders like age. So no relationship between vaccines and covid deaths at all.
I think we DO know enough to say that we are killing many more than we are saving overall.
Excellent assessment. 👍🏽🙏
Excellent data. Thank you!
I dont think the question now is about efficacy any longer. Really should be how many deaths are happening above all causes. I am inclined to think that some of the healthy compliant are more materialistic in their thinking and have too much to lose if they or their offspring die so the compliance to an experiment of this proportion is more likely. To make the link to all cause might be difficult in view of the fact that many of the deaths might be about excitement of long held latent disease however the data sets say it is higher eg in Australia if the real data is compared to deaths prior to 2019 the the all cause mortality is around 36%! Their jab rate was high because of government enforcement.
Pfizer is now soliciting participants for a clinical trial of a MRNA based flu vaccine.
Sounds like the makings of a future post.
For example, what organization is responsible for approving clinical trials?
Could there be a ground swell of public support to force Pfizer to release the raw data generated by their clinical trial?
https://www.fluvaccinestudy.com/mrnaphase3
would like to see all cause mortality in those highly vaccinated counties
Brilliant. We now have actual data that the MRNA therapy does not prevent infection, transmission, or serious illness AND there appears to be growing research for negative MRNA efficacy AND given your analysis below we would expect unvaccinated people to be sicker and more prone to die because of their other risk factors! This does not even include the serious injuries being reported from the MRNA that we all suspect are under-reported.
Case closed. Stop this poison now and arrest the pushers.
A coalition of state's Attorney's Generals should form a consortium to protect their citizens by issuing state by state indictments of Pharma execs, clinical trial managers, public health officials, and politicians who continued to push this therapy despite the evidence of ineffectiveness and harm.
I need to be reading you first !!! love that you're trying to be data driven vs 'jab bad' v 'jab good'
Barenson just wrote something about an EU country, that showed that the jab booster was temporarily better, then negative.
I'd like to see more data like that before I conclude anything. Like how that northern european country is likely far healthier than fattie americans
Excellent analysis. Thank you. Worse than ineffective, though, is the vax makes it worse. The reports from Germany of high vax injuries are underestimated. Well never know exactly how bad it is since the data has been highly manipulated. As we find the depths of the real disaster, prosecutions will become a crucial part of recovery.
An addition to the opening statement -- the vax EUA premise was efficacy and safety, and also on not having effective therapies. We did have effective therapies, so the EUA was illegal. Forcing the vax on the population required suppressing the value of several cheap, effective time therapies. Most vax victims would not have submitted to the vax if they had been given honest risk factors of the vax (high) and the virus (low). Global fraud that resulted in millions of deaths demands justice. The most important consideration will be how far down the extensive chain of corruption the prosecutions will need to go.
Everyone seems to toss out statements like "Since it should be clear that cases are not being prevented," How about you do an article to back that statement up.
No its not clear. I have to look at my local school and say, hey every parent in the class that was vaccinated just got covid.
So here how I take that on with my neighbour that is a injection cultist.
Me: The injection was supposed to stop transmission, infection and lead to herd immunity. What happened? Fake Science? Did they lie to us?
NPC Cultist: But but but it prevents death!
Me: Said the same scientists that told you it will stop transmission, infection and give you herd immunity? Thats crazy talk.
I did back that statement up, with a post I linked to in this post. I'm very confused?
i was confused too ... the statement was clearly backed up, not just an assertion
Alex just posted what I was looking for
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/no-mrna-covid-vaccines-do-not-offer
This ?
https://inumero.substack.com/p/vaccines-and-cases-a-look-at-us-states?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
I believe it is buried. The covidiots have about 60 seconds to determine what you are saying is true. Like a cheat sheet. After two years did anyone just say the vaccine does not stop transmission and it never did? Nor was it tested to do that in the first place?
My problem with the entire it prevents death is inherently flawed idea.
The overall scam is simple. They tested peoples immunity system for 14 days with an injection that weakened the immune system and if they did not get sick they called them vaccinated. Those that got sick were called unvaccinated. That is silly.
Example:
Lets say for a moment that I have 100 people in a nursing home. I gave everyone a placebo shot and said if they can run 1/4 mile they would be called healthy. Those that were not able to run a 1/4 mile were called sick. What good was the placebo shot?
How do we know this is true you ask? Because the vaccinated had numbers sky rocket when the booster cohort was added to the mix. So previously vaccinated getting booster and getting sick were not counted as boosted. Unvaccinated cases dropped below single vaccinated.