For over two years (since the start of the covid vaccine roll-out) we have been reporting on the fact that all the observational studies claiming to show vaccine effectiveness suffered from systematic flaws.
After Toby Rogers here on substack recommended it, I read Official Stories by Liam Scheff. He discussed Pasteur and his anthrax vaccines. It turns out that the 15 days window goes all the way back to some of the first vaccines! Scheff cites “These Cults” by Annie Riley Hale:
“The National Anti-Vivisection Society of England collected from the official returns of Paster Institutes a list of 1,220 deaths after treatment between 1885 and 1901. Concerning these figures, Dr. George Wilson says: ‘Pasteur carefully screened his statistics, after some untoward deaths occurred during and immediately after treatment, by ruling that all deaths which occurred either during treatment or within 15 days of the last injection - should be excluded from the statistical returns. Because of this extraordinary ruling, the death rates in all Pasteur Institutes were kept at a low figure.’”
The most effective vaccine then was one in which it immediately induced the disease and killed the animal during the exclusionary window!! So the trick goes way back. I think it is fair to question whether any vaccine is justified given that their history is rife with fraud and misrepresentations like changing the definition of polio paralysis to be far, far more strict as the vaccines get mass distributed or taking credit for declines in disease mortality at the same time as diseases with no vaccine saw similar declines in mortality.
Perhaps the whole theory of vaccines is deeply flawed.
Isn't this precisely what the gatekeeping function of the "peer review" system is made for - to control the narrative? Its been a while since I was directly involved in peer review, but I think it is unlikely that a reviewer could even insist that an author had to quote or consider non-peer reviewed or submitted articles. So yes, a paper doesn't exist unless it has passed the gatekeeping.
However, I see a larger problem, Which is that nothing sticks. Things are coming out so fast and the media spotlight, including the alternative media attention, changes and moves on so fast that nothing makes any impact. The telegraphs few days on the Hancock files came and went in the flash of the pan, and the spotlight has moved on. No-one is talking about it a week later. No consequences for Hancock. Even for this Doshi paper, we will talk about it a couple of days, and then we will be onto the next thing. I don't think you have to worry that they are stealing your thunder, because these things are like flashes of lightning. We need another stratergy, where some how we keep the sum total of what has unfolded in the spotlight.
Even worse, Dr. Fenton, you mention missing the elephant in the room about being infected in the first two weeks after vaccination. Maybe that’s the point of the bias study, which is to purposely ignore that. A typical political strategy is to set up a strawman argument, with some basic truths and minor concerns. It makes everybody feel better that these things are really being looked at. It diffuses attention without addressing the primary concerns.
Hilarious they actually think the unvaccinated are more likely to be tested? This makes zero logical sense. All unvaccinated I know.... never tested. My fee vaccinated family members tested all the time.
The largest observational trials were in Israel at a time when the green pass was in operation. This allowed the vaxxed to go most places whereas the unvaxxed had to get a negative test before being allowed anywhere. The link in the article gives the actual data - unaxxed tested as 6 times the rate of the vaxxed.
It depends on the situation. The data suggests that the discrimination against the unvaccinated in many circumstances compelled them to be tested when their vaccinated peers were not obliged. It wasn't a voluntary act.
Yes, but remember that the mandatory tests (often imposed on unvaccinated ONLY) are much more likely to be recorded in official data than the at-home tests that people voluntarily buy at the drug store or online (most of whom are vaccinated, as you say). And of course this works out perfectly to boost the narrative.
That’s also my observation. Unvaccinated workers were forced to test regularly, at least weekly in California. Vaccinated were not. Early on, when the CDC messaging was that the vaccines stopped transmission, the vaccinated didn’t get tested for events like weddings and concerts while unvaxxed did either by requirement or courtesy. My guess is that unvaxxed were far more likely to be tested than vaxxed.
I think there are two major factors, one being local laws. The other being culture/perspective. Those vaccinated out of fear probably got tested more often. Those unvaxxed out of complete lack of fear also wouldn’t care to get tested. I guess another would be people with healthy fear of Covid and also healthy fear of new and unproven vax technology. The majority are probably in the middle, some fear, some vaxxing, some testing.
Indeed. I'm unvaccinated, and I've never been tested either.
What was the incentive to test? It didn't provide any sort of actionable information. They weren't offering any sort of treatment with a positive test. All they were doing was telling people to go home and come back if it gets worse. Really? I can figure that out on my own without your test. So how about I skip a step and treat this like any other respiratory infection I've contracted?
Plus I knew who Kary Mullis was long before 2020 and knew of the problems inherent with PCR.
Of particular note is the fact that I haven't been sick in 3+ years, as opposed to all the "vaccinees" I know who purportedly have had multiple bouts of 'The Rona'.
As a nurse of 20 plus years... with testing with the flu and use of PCR tests... we always told people a “positive doesn’t change the treatment.” And those tests have always been 40-60% inaccurate. So we saw zero need to test. No treatment and asymptomatic is not a real concern and never has been before 2020
I interpreted your anecdote as challenging my observation, offered in response to OPs intimation, via rhetorical question, that there was no incentive for unvaxxed to get tested ... if you see what I mean!
I'm in the same boat, but had a bout of illness a few months ago that may have been COVID-19. I completely lost my sense of smell then and it's only gradually returning, with some gaps. It would be nice to know if it was COVID-19, to benefit from future understanding of this strange but common symptom.
I also refused testing, and it still denies me access in certain realms. But BIL worked in a plant that had no vax mandate but he said he would “test out” (required of no vax) on his way to retirement. So he tested a bunch of times.
Lots of places required regular workplace testing, but only for the unvaxxed. Then the unvaxxed were blamed for COVID-19 outbreaks, because some tested positive.
My old PhD supervisor told me that science is incestuous . She would always pay for meals out for visiting profs and order the most expensive bottles of wine on the menu. She is very successful in her field
First off, everyone bringing up personal aecdotes about voluntary home testing, you are missing the point that OP is making and seriously muddying the waters of this discussion. The point is that of involuntary, recorded test statts, the unvaxxed were the vast majority.
More importantly, the reason why nothing sticks and scandal/ criminal history is blinked out every 2 days is because we are not keeping score.
That is the reason. The covid totals that used to be on every news channel were their way of keeping score.
We need an easy way to reference the hits and misses of the various public health and medical freedom figures and organizations in order to make anything stick.
It also needs to list out what the topics were and how they were shown to be correct or incorrect.
It has to be like baseball stats. A publicly available pandemic report card. I'm starting to work on this, but it will take a lot more effort and expertise than i can possibly pull off.
Yup, i found him. Thank you so much for the info. It's an incredible piece of work,. I'm blown away by just the one Chronology and he has done way more than that, but I think it fits more into the category of full rabbit cavern of info. It's too much to break out during a debate or conversation.
That's more full detail total situational awareness and I'm thinking along the lines of Flash cards breeding with trading cards. I'm starting to realize that this will eventually have to be a full relational database at some place like Digital Ocean to keep the information at fingertip retrieval but I still think the presentation has to be along the lines of a card presented at an easy to remember domain.
To start I just picked up pandemicreportcard.com and will start putting the pieces together there. Wanna help?
Would love to help Andi but can't commit to anything at the moment. Too much on my plate and also I doubt I'd be much use. I think like-minded substackers could help get project moving.
You've already been of immense help with those suggestions. Thank you! If you wanna throw any tips like those my way occasionally, you know, just when ever one pops in your mind or you see anything new that you find interesting, I'd greatly appreciate it.
At this point, this is at the conception phase and will most likely be aggregating and sorting info for a while and any suggestions, criticisms, or really good jokes are totally welcome. And the jokes don't even have to be that good. Thanks again!
You two have been a lifeline. Just think how many people you have thrown a life raft to, who thought they were isolated in an insane world. Thank you from the bottom of my heart
This is a start, but why doesn't ANYONE talk about the overall mortality results from the two mRNA vaccine randomized clinical trials (the only truly unbiased studies)? 4 more non-COVID deaths for every 3 less COVID deaths, or in blunt terms, 4 killed for every 3 saved, was the overall mortality impact in the 2 RCTs. The separate Pfizer and Moderna RCTs BOTH had a 15-17% increase in non-COVID deaths, and specifically a 40-50% increase in cardiovascular-related deaths, with vaccine versus placebo.
The trials although damning, are irrelevant, due to who was in control of global operation. US Dept of Defence. From decades ago they altered laws bit by bit then incorporated health into defence, even UK now names our health with word security. So, now when a pandemic is declared, the military is in control and they have special purchasing authority. The people of the world are the threat, enemy, so to speak. What they ordered was "prototypes" or countermeasures and good manufacturing practise, good clinical practise, i.e. proper trials were not included in the scope! So, just pretend ones done to fool public. All regulatory bodies, FDA, EMA, MHRA, did not do their jobs, in fact were enablers. If you don't yet know, check out 2 stacks, Due Diligence and Art by an ex pharma person and also Bailiwick News, by a legal researcher. As Peter Breggin's recent book title aptly named - "We are the Prey." All governments signed up to depopulation at Rio Summit, I think it was.
I don't disagree with your sentiments, but as long as we are discussing vaccine effectiveness or safety, the randomized trials absolutely ARE relevant. It is universally accepted that randomized trials are the gold standard in medical research, and otherwise all you have is terribly flawed observational studies that are heavily biased in favor of the vaccine. In fact, these exact same randomized trials were used to approve the vaccines based on "95% effectiveness" against mild-moderate infection, even though the mortality effect was in the direction of "worse than useless".
No regulatory authority had/has any say and swept over/under any concerns. The interviews Sasha has done explain very clearly that these countermeasure products are NOT pharmaceuticals and it didn't matter what the faux trials showed because they did not do anything wrong, legally. It took a FOI and a judge to get what data they got and it was the FDA wanting to withhold for 75 years. As long as they believed these countermeasures "may" help, they didn't need any data to prove it. I reiterate, go watch videos. These are bioweapons and we are in WW3!
The very dangerous implication of your statement is that as long as the vaccines don't STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE mortality, everything is fine and they can be labeled safe and effective. That's obviously not how it works. Quibbling over statistical significance is reasonable when evaluating a benefit- but forget a statistically significant mortality benefit here, in this case the clinical trial results show that the vaccine is more or at least equally likely to increase rather than decrease mortality (not even taking into account issues such as waning effectiveness, inherently milder variants, plus likely "sponsorship bias"), and the results also essentially rule out the possibility of a meaningful "lifesaving" benefit. If the increase in non-COVID deaths is "not significant" then the decrease in COVID deaths is certainly "not significant" because it's even smaller in absolute magnitude, which means there is no justification for using the vaccine. Worse still, in order to reach a traditionally "statistically significant" mortality increase, the vaccine would have to cause something like a doubling (i.e. 100+ percent increase) in mortality, which is extremely unlikely and biologically implausible and sets up a straw man for finding any realistic mortality increase. A 25% all-cause mortality increase would be acceptable because it's "far from statistically significant"?
Actually, most medicines that have failed to get approval due to safety concerns (or that are eschewed by most doctors even if approved) DID NOT reach a statistically significant mortality increase in their clinical trials. Normally, all-cause mortality results as bad as these mRNA vaccine trial results are more than enough to prevent approval. But the mRNA vaccines are treated very differently from everything else. Of course I agree with you that medicine and politics are broken.
This article argues convincingly that mRNA vaccines are actually well-tested in comparison to others. Most vaccine trials involve far fewer patients, and follow-up is minimal. The author is a professional vaccine skeptic but his point seems plausible that the science is horrible.
I actually agree that the mRNA trials were decent although still too short, but the RESULTS ARE HORRIBLE for mortality (so they work hard to cover up those results- for instance Alex Berenson's Twitter account was permanently suspended for posting the Pfizer trial mortality results in Summer 2021 and he had to sue to get it back). For comparison of safety/effectiveness, look at the J&J COVID vaccine mortality results:
Equally frustrated by how oblivious epidemiologists are to confounding. Shouldn't epidemiologists actually do epidemiology? My running lists of covid confounders is like 45 items long. It's my hope someday to put together a working group and we can get a behemoth review on confounding in covid research published. Regarding another commenters concerns about research sticking, I think that's the way to make things stick. Publish once in giant fashion, several years after the fact.
But they're only PRETENDING to be oblivious to the presence of confounding: just bring up ivermectin to a mainstream epidemiologist and they'll immediately say something like "there's no RCT evidence, RCTs are the only valid studies because the observational studies are compromised by lots of biases and confounding factors." (Never mind that ivermectin actually DID show an overall lifesaving effect in RCTs https://c19ivm.org/meta.html#fig_fprd, unlike the worse than useless mRNA vaccines, which showed 4 killed for every 3 saved in the Pfizer and Moderna RCTs overall). But the point is, they absolutely DO understand confounding, they just cleverly pretend it doesn't exist when discussing the vaccines. Don't fall for their tricks.
The issue with recognising the bias in COVID jab studies is that vaccine studies have been incredibly corrupt and biased for decades! It probably started in the 1950s with reporting on the polio vaccine and by the 1970s and 1980s, pHarma had complete control of messaging on their own products. So by the time COVID was pushed on us, they had it down pat. This didn't happen in a vacuum. Our complacency and apathy brought us here. Only our activism and finally waking up will get us out of it! Thank you for your excellent analysis.
Thank you guys for being a voice of sanity throughout this fiasco!
I have a comment regarding this:
"Even more dangerous is the prospect that if it doesn’t appear in the mainstream academic journals, it doesn’t actually exist as valid evidence, hence creating a closed-loop feedback system."
It reminds me of the high hopes that came with the push for "Evidence-Based Medicine." Like a very fine net that is cast to capture even small pearls, it was always only effective in sifting only that specific material which had went into it.
Alternative therapies, such as chromium picolinate for Type II diabetes, or glucosamine sulfate for osteoarthritis, could be said to not be evidence-based -- but not because the evidence for them was ever directly compared to the evidence for the orthodox treatments.
The only reason they remain obscure to this day is because the lens was never pointed toward them (they never got "their day in court" by practioners of EBM). My comment reveals a problem decades old, rather than something which arose within the last 3 years.
I think you're right. "Evidence based medicine" actually meant "politicians and federal bureaucrats are the only ones who define and control the body of evidence that's allowed in medicine."
Here is some very rare data about all cause mortality during the pandemic in long term care homes (the most vulnerable people) and in people over 65 (the next most vulnerable group). Interestingly no risk could be spotted in these groups in British Columbia Canada in 2020.
Below is the official death rate from all-causes in long term care homes as percent of the roughly 40,000 people in the LTC homes in each of the following years:
2019: 17.37% (pre-pandemic, normal year)
2020: 17.01% (pandemic year before vaccines)
2021: 18.67% (1st year with vaccines) This is a 7% increase in the death rate after 95%+ of the long term care residents were vaccinated.
The numbers in 2020 support BC's Chief Senior's Advocate comments in Vancouver Sun in late 2020 that the death rate was no different in 2020 vs any other year.
Reference: BC Seniors Advocate Website
Monitoring Seniors Services 2022 Report Supplementary DATA TABLES
Data from pages 43 and 51 (i.e. total population, expected and unexpected deaths)
Now for the data for people over age 65 in BC (about 980,000 people)
These numbers are expressed at deaths per 10,000 population base and account for the increases in population:
Average of three pre-pandemics years (2017, 2018, 2019): 334/10,000
Death rate during main pandemic year 2020: 330/10,000
Death rate during 2021 after vaccination: 340/10,000
Note that the death rate during a bad flu year like 2017 is: 346/10,000
There you have, at no point during the worst pandemic in history in BC did the all cause mortality rate exceed a bad flu year.
The placebo effect also seems huge, where the vaccinated were told they would be fine if they caught COVID-19, while the unvaxxed were told to expect severe illness or death. How much differential hospitalization is that worth?
After Toby Rogers here on substack recommended it, I read Official Stories by Liam Scheff. He discussed Pasteur and his anthrax vaccines. It turns out that the 15 days window goes all the way back to some of the first vaccines! Scheff cites “These Cults” by Annie Riley Hale:
“The National Anti-Vivisection Society of England collected from the official returns of Paster Institutes a list of 1,220 deaths after treatment between 1885 and 1901. Concerning these figures, Dr. George Wilson says: ‘Pasteur carefully screened his statistics, after some untoward deaths occurred during and immediately after treatment, by ruling that all deaths which occurred either during treatment or within 15 days of the last injection - should be excluded from the statistical returns. Because of this extraordinary ruling, the death rates in all Pasteur Institutes were kept at a low figure.’”
The most effective vaccine then was one in which it immediately induced the disease and killed the animal during the exclusionary window!! So the trick goes way back. I think it is fair to question whether any vaccine is justified given that their history is rife with fraud and misrepresentations like changing the definition of polio paralysis to be far, far more strict as the vaccines get mass distributed or taking credit for declines in disease mortality at the same time as diseases with no vaccine saw similar declines in mortality.
Perhaps the whole theory of vaccines is deeply flawed.
No "perhaps" about it.
I find it very unfortunate that as I respond to this post that there are only 26 likes. There should be hundreds.
I agree! Norman and Martin, along with Robert Malone, I trust most.
You guys will be vindicated, eventually. History's rudder is big and heavy and slow turning.
Isn't this precisely what the gatekeeping function of the "peer review" system is made for - to control the narrative? Its been a while since I was directly involved in peer review, but I think it is unlikely that a reviewer could even insist that an author had to quote or consider non-peer reviewed or submitted articles. So yes, a paper doesn't exist unless it has passed the gatekeeping.
However, I see a larger problem, Which is that nothing sticks. Things are coming out so fast and the media spotlight, including the alternative media attention, changes and moves on so fast that nothing makes any impact. The telegraphs few days on the Hancock files came and went in the flash of the pan, and the spotlight has moved on. No-one is talking about it a week later. No consequences for Hancock. Even for this Doshi paper, we will talk about it a couple of days, and then we will be onto the next thing. I don't think you have to worry that they are stealing your thunder, because these things are like flashes of lightning. We need another stratergy, where some how we keep the sum total of what has unfolded in the spotlight.
Your examples perfectly characterise the information age !
Even worse, Dr. Fenton, you mention missing the elephant in the room about being infected in the first two weeks after vaccination. Maybe that’s the point of the bias study, which is to purposely ignore that. A typical political strategy is to set up a strawman argument, with some basic truths and minor concerns. It makes everybody feel better that these things are really being looked at. It diffuses attention without addressing the primary concerns.
Keep talking about the big things!
Hilarious they actually think the unvaccinated are more likely to be tested? This makes zero logical sense. All unvaccinated I know.... never tested. My fee vaccinated family members tested all the time.
The largest observational trials were in Israel at a time when the green pass was in operation. This allowed the vaxxed to go most places whereas the unvaxxed had to get a negative test before being allowed anywhere. The link in the article gives the actual data - unaxxed tested as 6 times the rate of the vaxxed.
Ok. Only because they were mandated to
What's your point
R
It depends on the situation. The data suggests that the discrimination against the unvaccinated in many circumstances compelled them to be tested when their vaccinated peers were not obliged. It wasn't a voluntary act.
Only mandated ones
Yes, but remember that the mandatory tests (often imposed on unvaccinated ONLY) are much more likely to be recorded in official data than the at-home tests that people voluntarily buy at the drug store or online (most of whom are vaccinated, as you say). And of course this works out perfectly to boost the narrative.
That’s also my observation. Unvaccinated workers were forced to test regularly, at least weekly in California. Vaccinated were not. Early on, when the CDC messaging was that the vaccines stopped transmission, the vaccinated didn’t get tested for events like weddings and concerts while unvaxxed did either by requirement or courtesy. My guess is that unvaxxed were far more likely to be tested than vaxxed.
Only those mandated. The unvaccinated I know didn’t care about the whole thing. As a family of five... we’ve never tested
I think there are two major factors, one being local laws. The other being culture/perspective. Those vaccinated out of fear probably got tested more often. Those unvaxxed out of complete lack of fear also wouldn’t care to get tested. I guess another would be people with healthy fear of Covid and also healthy fear of new and unproven vax technology. The majority are probably in the middle, some fear, some vaxxing, some testing.
Indeed. I'm unvaccinated, and I've never been tested either.
What was the incentive to test? It didn't provide any sort of actionable information. They weren't offering any sort of treatment with a positive test. All they were doing was telling people to go home and come back if it gets worse. Really? I can figure that out on my own without your test. So how about I skip a step and treat this like any other respiratory infection I've contracted?
Plus I knew who Kary Mullis was long before 2020 and knew of the problems inherent with PCR.
Of particular note is the fact that I haven't been sick in 3+ years, as opposed to all the "vaccinees" I know who purportedly have had multiple bouts of 'The Rona'.
As a nurse of 20 plus years... with testing with the flu and use of PCR tests... we always told people a “positive doesn’t change the treatment.” And those tests have always been 40-60% inaccurate. So we saw zero need to test. No treatment and asymptomatic is not a real concern and never has been before 2020
"What was the incentive to test?" For many, no doubt to get time off work on full pay.
My daughter works in health care and the incentive was that she was not fired. She had to test on her own time.
So? I said for many, not all.
“You asked what was the incentive to test?” I answered with an actual anecdote.
Maybe it was just a rhetorical question?
I interpreted your anecdote as challenging my observation, offered in response to OPs intimation, via rhetorical question, that there was no incentive for unvaxxed to get tested ... if you see what I mean!
I'm in the same boat, but had a bout of illness a few months ago that may have been COVID-19. I completely lost my sense of smell then and it's only gradually returning, with some gaps. It would be nice to know if it was COVID-19, to benefit from future understanding of this strange but common symptom.
it's called anosmia and happens when you get common cold
I knew the name, but never experienced it so strongly before despite many colds.
That's been my observation, as well.
I also refused testing, and it still denies me access in certain realms. But BIL worked in a plant that had no vax mandate but he said he would “test out” (required of no vax) on his way to retirement. So he tested a bunch of times.
Lots of places required regular workplace testing, but only for the unvaxxed. Then the unvaxxed were blamed for COVID-19 outbreaks, because some tested positive.
I'm guessing you have to be an editor at the BMJ, like Peter Doshi, before your work will be accepted.
Remember that 'in science it's not what you know, it's who you know'.
My old PhD supervisor told me that science is incestuous . She would always pay for meals out for visiting profs and order the most expensive bottles of wine on the menu. She is very successful in her field
First off, everyone bringing up personal aecdotes about voluntary home testing, you are missing the point that OP is making and seriously muddying the waters of this discussion. The point is that of involuntary, recorded test statts, the unvaxxed were the vast majority.
More importantly, the reason why nothing sticks and scandal/ criminal history is blinked out every 2 days is because we are not keeping score.
That is the reason. The covid totals that used to be on every news channel were their way of keeping score.
We need an easy way to reference the hits and misses of the various public health and medical freedom figures and organizations in order to make anything stick.
It also needs to list out what the topics were and how they were shown to be correct or incorrect.
It has to be like baseball stats. A publicly available pandemic report card. I'm starting to work on this, but it will take a lot more effort and expertise than i can possibly pull off.
Here's the pitch-
https://blastedreality.substack.com/p/proposition-produce-a-pandemic-report
I believe Eric Coppolino has been putting together a detailed almost daily "pandemic report card" from the word go.
Sweet! I had not come across him yet. I'll go find him. thank you!
In case you haven't found him/his chronology yet: https://audio.pwfm.tech/documents/230321-timeline-2021-beta.pdf Don't get put off by his "astrology side". He's a very serious investigative journalist. John Lukash has also done a detailed timeline I think - https://www.amazon.com/Curious-Start-Conversation-J-Lukach/dp/B09HG2RWPX
Yup, i found him. Thank you so much for the info. It's an incredible piece of work,. I'm blown away by just the one Chronology and he has done way more than that, but I think it fits more into the category of full rabbit cavern of info. It's too much to break out during a debate or conversation.
That's more full detail total situational awareness and I'm thinking along the lines of Flash cards breeding with trading cards. I'm starting to realize that this will eventually have to be a full relational database at some place like Digital Ocean to keep the information at fingertip retrieval but I still think the presentation has to be along the lines of a card presented at an easy to remember domain.
To start I just picked up pandemicreportcard.com and will start putting the pieces together there. Wanna help?
Would love to help Andi but can't commit to anything at the moment. Too much on my plate and also I doubt I'd be much use. I think like-minded substackers could help get project moving.
You've already been of immense help with those suggestions. Thank you! If you wanna throw any tips like those my way occasionally, you know, just when ever one pops in your mind or you see anything new that you find interesting, I'd greatly appreciate it.
At this point, this is at the conception phase and will most likely be aggregating and sorting info for a while and any suggestions, criticisms, or really good jokes are totally welcome. And the jokes don't even have to be that good. Thanks again!
You two have been a lifeline. Just think how many people you have thrown a life raft to, who thought they were isolated in an insane world. Thank you from the bottom of my heart
This is a start, but why doesn't ANYONE talk about the overall mortality results from the two mRNA vaccine randomized clinical trials (the only truly unbiased studies)? 4 more non-COVID deaths for every 3 less COVID deaths, or in blunt terms, 4 killed for every 3 saved, was the overall mortality impact in the 2 RCTs. The separate Pfizer and Moderna RCTs BOTH had a 15-17% increase in non-COVID deaths, and specifically a 40-50% increase in cardiovascular-related deaths, with vaccine versus placebo.
Pfizer: https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345/suppl_file/nejmoa2110345_appendix.pdf – Table S4
Moderna: https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2113017/suppl_file/nejmoa2113017_appendix.pdf – Table S26
The trials although damning, are irrelevant, due to who was in control of global operation. US Dept of Defence. From decades ago they altered laws bit by bit then incorporated health into defence, even UK now names our health with word security. So, now when a pandemic is declared, the military is in control and they have special purchasing authority. The people of the world are the threat, enemy, so to speak. What they ordered was "prototypes" or countermeasures and good manufacturing practise, good clinical practise, i.e. proper trials were not included in the scope! So, just pretend ones done to fool public. All regulatory bodies, FDA, EMA, MHRA, did not do their jobs, in fact were enablers. If you don't yet know, check out 2 stacks, Due Diligence and Art by an ex pharma person and also Bailiwick News, by a legal researcher. As Peter Breggin's recent book title aptly named - "We are the Prey." All governments signed up to depopulation at Rio Summit, I think it was.
I don't disagree with your sentiments, but as long as we are discussing vaccine effectiveness or safety, the randomized trials absolutely ARE relevant. It is universally accepted that randomized trials are the gold standard in medical research, and otherwise all you have is terribly flawed observational studies that are heavily biased in favor of the vaccine. In fact, these exact same randomized trials were used to approve the vaccines based on "95% effectiveness" against mild-moderate infection, even though the mortality effect was in the direction of "worse than useless".
No regulatory authority had/has any say and swept over/under any concerns. The interviews Sasha has done explain very clearly that these countermeasure products are NOT pharmaceuticals and it didn't matter what the faux trials showed because they did not do anything wrong, legally. It took a FOI and a judge to get what data they got and it was the FDA wanting to withhold for 75 years. As long as they believed these countermeasures "may" help, they didn't need any data to prove it. I reiterate, go watch videos. These are bioweapons and we are in WW3!
You have to understand that arguments without bomb-proof statistical strength are allowed only if they support the vaccines.
The very dangerous implication of your statement is that as long as the vaccines don't STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE mortality, everything is fine and they can be labeled safe and effective. That's obviously not how it works. Quibbling over statistical significance is reasonable when evaluating a benefit- but forget a statistically significant mortality benefit here, in this case the clinical trial results show that the vaccine is more or at least equally likely to increase rather than decrease mortality (not even taking into account issues such as waning effectiveness, inherently milder variants, plus likely "sponsorship bias"), and the results also essentially rule out the possibility of a meaningful "lifesaving" benefit. If the increase in non-COVID deaths is "not significant" then the decrease in COVID deaths is certainly "not significant" because it's even smaller in absolute magnitude, which means there is no justification for using the vaccine. Worse still, in order to reach a traditionally "statistically significant" mortality increase, the vaccine would have to cause something like a doubling (i.e. 100+ percent increase) in mortality, which is extremely unlikely and biologically implausible and sets up a straw man for finding any realistic mortality increase. A 25% all-cause mortality increase would be acceptable because it's "far from statistically significant"?
Sadly, that is how it works. Medicine and politics are broken.
Actually, most medicines that have failed to get approval due to safety concerns (or that are eschewed by most doctors even if approved) DID NOT reach a statistically significant mortality increase in their clinical trials. Normally, all-cause mortality results as bad as these mRNA vaccine trial results are more than enough to prevent approval. But the mRNA vaccines are treated very differently from everything else. Of course I agree with you that medicine and politics are broken.
https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/mrna-vaccines-are-vaccines
This article argues convincingly that mRNA vaccines are actually well-tested in comparison to others. Most vaccine trials involve far fewer patients, and follow-up is minimal. The author is a professional vaccine skeptic but his point seems plausible that the science is horrible.
I actually agree that the mRNA trials were decent although still too short, but the RESULTS ARE HORRIBLE for mortality (so they work hard to cover up those results- for instance Alex Berenson's Twitter account was permanently suspended for posting the Pfizer trial mortality results in Summer 2021 and he had to sue to get it back). For comparison of safety/effectiveness, look at the J&J COVID vaccine mortality results:
COVID deaths: 5 vaccine vs 22 placebo
non-COVID deaths: 23 vaccine vs 33 placebo
https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2117608/suppl_file/nejmoa2117608_appendix.pdf - page 86
Or the Covaxin vaccine mortality results:
COVID deaths: 1 vaccine vs 5 placebo
non-COVID deaths: 4 vaccine vs 5 placebo
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2821%2902000-6- page 8
Agree that the mRNA vaccine mortality results are truly horrible?
Equally frustrated by how oblivious epidemiologists are to confounding. Shouldn't epidemiologists actually do epidemiology? My running lists of covid confounders is like 45 items long. It's my hope someday to put together a working group and we can get a behemoth review on confounding in covid research published. Regarding another commenters concerns about research sticking, I think that's the way to make things stick. Publish once in giant fashion, several years after the fact.
But they're only PRETENDING to be oblivious to the presence of confounding: just bring up ivermectin to a mainstream epidemiologist and they'll immediately say something like "there's no RCT evidence, RCTs are the only valid studies because the observational studies are compromised by lots of biases and confounding factors." (Never mind that ivermectin actually DID show an overall lifesaving effect in RCTs https://c19ivm.org/meta.html#fig_fprd, unlike the worse than useless mRNA vaccines, which showed 4 killed for every 3 saved in the Pfizer and Moderna RCTs overall). But the point is, they absolutely DO understand confounding, they just cleverly pretend it doesn't exist when discussing the vaccines. Don't fall for their tricks.
The issue with recognising the bias in COVID jab studies is that vaccine studies have been incredibly corrupt and biased for decades! It probably started in the 1950s with reporting on the polio vaccine and by the 1970s and 1980s, pHarma had complete control of messaging on their own products. So by the time COVID was pushed on us, they had it down pat. This didn't happen in a vacuum. Our complacency and apathy brought us here. Only our activism and finally waking up will get us out of it! Thank you for your excellent analysis.
I'd be very PO'ed that The Lancet has been so wantonly negligent. Such circumstances should be dealt with by litigation.
Thank you guys for being a voice of sanity throughout this fiasco!
I have a comment regarding this:
"Even more dangerous is the prospect that if it doesn’t appear in the mainstream academic journals, it doesn’t actually exist as valid evidence, hence creating a closed-loop feedback system."
It reminds me of the high hopes that came with the push for "Evidence-Based Medicine." Like a very fine net that is cast to capture even small pearls, it was always only effective in sifting only that specific material which had went into it.
Alternative therapies, such as chromium picolinate for Type II diabetes, or glucosamine sulfate for osteoarthritis, could be said to not be evidence-based -- but not because the evidence for them was ever directly compared to the evidence for the orthodox treatments.
The only reason they remain obscure to this day is because the lens was never pointed toward them (they never got "their day in court" by practioners of EBM). My comment reveals a problem decades old, rather than something which arose within the last 3 years.
I think you're right. "Evidence based medicine" actually meant "politicians and federal bureaucrats are the only ones who define and control the body of evidence that's allowed in medicine."
Treasure trove of valuable data of epidemiologists about long term care home deaths.
https://www.seniorsadvocatebc.ca/app/uploads/sites/4/2022/12/MSS_Data_Tables_2022.pdf
Here is some very rare data about all cause mortality during the pandemic in long term care homes (the most vulnerable people) and in people over 65 (the next most vulnerable group). Interestingly no risk could be spotted in these groups in British Columbia Canada in 2020.
Below is the official death rate from all-causes in long term care homes as percent of the roughly 40,000 people in the LTC homes in each of the following years:
2019: 17.37% (pre-pandemic, normal year)
2020: 17.01% (pandemic year before vaccines)
2021: 18.67% (1st year with vaccines) This is a 7% increase in the death rate after 95%+ of the long term care residents were vaccinated.
The numbers in 2020 support BC's Chief Senior's Advocate comments in Vancouver Sun in late 2020 that the death rate was no different in 2020 vs any other year.
Reference: BC Seniors Advocate Website
Monitoring Seniors Services 2022 Report Supplementary DATA TABLES
Data from pages 43 and 51 (i.e. total population, expected and unexpected deaths)
Now for the data for people over age 65 in BC (about 980,000 people)
These numbers are expressed at deaths per 10,000 population base and account for the increases in population:
Average of three pre-pandemics years (2017, 2018, 2019): 334/10,000
Death rate during main pandemic year 2020: 330/10,000
Death rate during 2021 after vaccination: 340/10,000
Note that the death rate during a bad flu year like 2017 is: 346/10,000
There you have, at no point during the worst pandemic in history in BC did the all cause mortality rate exceed a bad flu year.
The placebo effect also seems huge, where the vaccinated were told they would be fine if they caught COVID-19, while the unvaxxed were told to expect severe illness or death. How much differential hospitalization is that worth?