Following on from our expose of the most recent flawed Lancet paper claiming vaccine efficacy a reader contacted us saying: "Recently I wrote to my State Chief Medical Officer (CMO) asking for an explanation of the approximate 10-15% excess deaths both in my home State and Australia wide. Regarding my specific question about the possibility of COVID vaccination contributing to excess deaths, the CMO fobbed me off saying that the published literature on COVID-19 and vaccination was vast but suggested I read the Lancet “paper by Bette Liu et al with Australian evidence on COVID-19 vaccination and COVID-19 and all-cause mortality among older Australians:
Page 1 of the published study: “This study was funded by the Health Economics Research Division in the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care.”
Page 12: “Declaration of interests”: BL declares funding from 3 sources, HG declares funding from 2 sources, RK declares funding from 1 source, SP declares funding from 1 source, NP declares funding from 2 sources, CV declares funding from 14 sources, JW declares funding from 1 source, KM declares funding from over 7 sources.
As the authors wrote: “All other authors have no declarations of interest.”
8 authors declared enormous interests (including GAVI, WHO and Welcome Trust), while “all other” 4 authors did not declare any interests.
You have to admit, taking money from 14 different sources for the same job is impressive.
There is actual disease enhancement occurring in individuals who become infected within ~5days of dose 1. This manifested as a population-level effect on case rates due to enhanced transmission dynamics, particularly in the second half of 2021.
Since vaccines are administered "in waves" as well, even those who did not fall ill within days had a lower chance to become infected after day 8 when vaccinated "in a vax/case wave" and even IF they become infected, chances are the dosage they are exposed to will be lower. Truly mind-bending.
It's so frustrating that nobody acknowledges this, except for Mary Beth Pfeiffer, Pierre Kory and a few statisticians who aren't writing about it, but even convincing them took me many months.
yeah, we are never supposed to believe our own lying eyes when our previously healthy jabbed relatives, neighbours, colleagues and friends die suddenly, get diagnosed with turbo cancer, get weird auto-immune neurological syndromes or repeated bouts of shingles or blood clots in their eyes or blocked renal vessels or pericarditis or strokes or stillbirths - and still keep getting Covid over and over again.
Thank you for beating the drum. I do believe it is having an impact. Unfortunately the leadership will not repent but is doubling down. This is not your fault, and is going to have devastating consequences.
Lancet: 'Hi, you might remember us from such work as: 'discredited Proximal Origins' and 'that letter Peter Daszak signed himself secretly', and in today's episode of 'Is It Really Fraud?' we'll be showing you how to definitely not do fraud, by using ourselves as an example!'
Beyond excess deaths why is there absolutely no comment from The Lancet or anyone else as to the WHO Database (vigiaccess.org) on Covid-19 vaccine adverse reactions or reported "potential" side effects (it was changed from the former). The numbers have continued to rise weekly since Covid-19 vaccine and are currently 5,286,222.
Important to note is this is not the total number of people who have been affected as duplications are removed by algorythm.
While the arbitrary cutoff date may seem nonsensical, let’s not overlook the endpoints. By delving into Pfizer's, Moderna's, and J&J's data, and considering Serious Adverse Events (SAE) graded as 3&4, along with fatalities, I calculated the true efficacy of each jab.
The results are startling. Pfizer's actual efficacy plummets to -52.38%, translating to one person harmed for every 241 vaccines administered. Moderna's situation is even more concerning, with a staggering -336.47% efficacy, resulting in one in five individuals experiencing harm from the vaccine. J&J, too, faces a grim reality, with an efficacy of -80.32%, equating to one person harmed for every 74 vaccines administered. These figures are derived from data obtained from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).
Following up on the post titled 'Lancet paper on "dangers of undervaccination" shows how desperate they are getting,' I must express my utter disbelief that Lancet would publish this garbage. After reading the paper and delving into the appendix containing the actual data, it appears that the authors may be either incredibly ignorant and/or sloppy, or perhaps just plain not to smart.
Upon closer inspection, and a few calculations the data revealed an intriguing pattern. In every country examined (UK, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales), the rate of severe COVID and/or death was consistently higher across the board in the fully vaccinated groups. To illustrate, in England, the fully vaccinated group showed a rate of 0.07% compared to 0.05% in the undervaccinated group. Similar trends were observed in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.
This raises serious questions about the integrity of the study. How could Lancet publish what seems to be flawed data? The authors seem to have mistakenly judged that no one would look into their data and findings. So this is what passes for medical research?
Conflating "efficacy" with "safety" is a problem. They inflate the efficacy. And then this means it's okay that the drug is ALSO maiming and killing MANY, which is the side of the scale they fraudulently deflate as well.
No chance they'll ever conduct a pure "safety" study (standing alone) using the methods relied upon in TOXICOLOGY, which absolutely must have a "control group" to whom NOTHING is done, not even a (fake) placebo injection. Nope. Everyone gets injected with SOMETHING, as if someone's mere "beliefs" (about NOT being injected) are likely to cause a LACK of heart failures and blood clots.
This "placebo" idea got turned on it's head in vaccine studies. It originated from the idea a person's beliefs (about a sugar pill) could HEAL them. But then, even this was never really proven accurate, due to the FACT the human body CAN heal without ANY pharma, real or fake.
It was never intended to be used in TOXICOLOGY to rule out a person's beliefs as a possible cause of INJURIES. There is ZERO risk that people will suddenly have a heart attack because of their beliefs about NOT having been injected. So there's ZERO risk of this type of "confounding" from having a REAL control group, to whom NOTHING is done.
Pharma uses "placebo" controls SO THAT they can inject the "controls" with SOMETHING. And this allows them to inject other injurious chemicals, call it "saline", and never mention that the FDA allows the "saline" to be packed with nasty things like aluminum, benzene, etc., WITHOUT listing these things as ingredients! Now pharma gets to say the (fake) "controls" had just as many adverse reactions as the "treated" group, so therefore the new vaccine is "safe."
A lot of us here have looked closely at this Lancet paper by Liu et al. Other things to notice is that COVID-19 vaccination appears to be an elixir of youth. All cause mortality decreases for those who have more shots! Despite the fact that we are still running high excess mortality in Australia. They even show that death from cancer is less likely with more shots.
My interpretation is that all they are showing is that the longer one lives the more chance there is to have more shots. Of course we don't have access to the data.
For those interested the Australian Medical Professional Society (AMPS) has written an open letter to the authors pointing out issues with the paper. You can download it from this page on the AMPS website:
Apologies, Ignore my ramblings. I missed your previous post on the paper I have highlighted below
We see a very similar scenario in this other recently published paper in the Lancet
The data initially favours fewer or no vaccinations at all, throw in as many "estimated " adjustments as possible, et voila reversal of the output and victory dance for the vaccines.
Page 1 of the published study: “This study was funded by the Health Economics Research Division in the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care.”
Page 12: “Declaration of interests”: BL declares funding from 3 sources, HG declares funding from 2 sources, RK declares funding from 1 source, SP declares funding from 1 source, NP declares funding from 2 sources, CV declares funding from 14 sources, JW declares funding from 1 source, KM declares funding from over 7 sources.
As the authors wrote: “All other authors have no declarations of interest.”
8 authors declared enormous interests (including GAVI, WHO and Welcome Trust), while “all other” 4 authors did not declare any interests.
You have to admit, taking money from 14 different sources for the same job is impressive.
It's not merely a "cheap trick".
There is actual disease enhancement occurring in individuals who become infected within ~5days of dose 1. This manifested as a population-level effect on case rates due to enhanced transmission dynamics, particularly in the second half of 2021.
Since vaccines are administered "in waves" as well, even those who did not fall ill within days had a lower chance to become infected after day 8 when vaccinated "in a vax/case wave" and even IF they become infected, chances are the dosage they are exposed to will be lower. Truly mind-bending.
It's so frustrating that nobody acknowledges this, except for Mary Beth Pfeiffer, Pierre Kory and a few statisticians who aren't writing about it, but even convincing them took me many months.
Is Lancet’s credibility dead & buried these days ??
yeah, we are never supposed to believe our own lying eyes when our previously healthy jabbed relatives, neighbours, colleagues and friends die suddenly, get diagnosed with turbo cancer, get weird auto-immune neurological syndromes or repeated bouts of shingles or blood clots in their eyes or blocked renal vessels or pericarditis or strokes or stillbirths - and still keep getting Covid over and over again.
Thank you for beating the drum. I do believe it is having an impact. Unfortunately the leadership will not repent but is doubling down. This is not your fault, and is going to have devastating consequences.
Lancet: 'Hi, you might remember us from such work as: 'discredited Proximal Origins' and 'that letter Peter Daszak signed himself secretly', and in today's episode of 'Is It Really Fraud?' we'll be showing you how to definitely not do fraud, by using ourselves as an example!'
Beyond excess deaths why is there absolutely no comment from The Lancet or anyone else as to the WHO Database (vigiaccess.org) on Covid-19 vaccine adverse reactions or reported "potential" side effects (it was changed from the former). The numbers have continued to rise weekly since Covid-19 vaccine and are currently 5,286,222.
Important to note is this is not the total number of people who have been affected as duplications are removed by algorythm.
May I point to my own comments on that paper?
https://cm27874.substack.com/p/australia-0-0-austria
While the arbitrary cutoff date may seem nonsensical, let’s not overlook the endpoints. By delving into Pfizer's, Moderna's, and J&J's data, and considering Serious Adverse Events (SAE) graded as 3&4, along with fatalities, I calculated the true efficacy of each jab.
The results are startling. Pfizer's actual efficacy plummets to -52.38%, translating to one person harmed for every 241 vaccines administered. Moderna's situation is even more concerning, with a staggering -336.47% efficacy, resulting in one in five individuals experiencing harm from the vaccine. J&J, too, faces a grim reality, with an efficacy of -80.32%, equating to one person harmed for every 74 vaccines administered. These figures are derived from data obtained from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).
The Lancet is irrelevant now and is the medical equivalent of the comic “The Beano”
As far as I’m concerned it trashed it’s own reputation some time ago.
Following up on the post titled 'Lancet paper on "dangers of undervaccination" shows how desperate they are getting,' I must express my utter disbelief that Lancet would publish this garbage. After reading the paper and delving into the appendix containing the actual data, it appears that the authors may be either incredibly ignorant and/or sloppy, or perhaps just plain not to smart.
Upon closer inspection, and a few calculations the data revealed an intriguing pattern. In every country examined (UK, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales), the rate of severe COVID and/or death was consistently higher across the board in the fully vaccinated groups. To illustrate, in England, the fully vaccinated group showed a rate of 0.07% compared to 0.05% in the undervaccinated group. Similar trends were observed in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.
This raises serious questions about the integrity of the study. How could Lancet publish what seems to be flawed data? The authors seem to have mistakenly judged that no one would look into their data and findings. So this is what passes for medical research?
Conflating "efficacy" with "safety" is a problem. They inflate the efficacy. And then this means it's okay that the drug is ALSO maiming and killing MANY, which is the side of the scale they fraudulently deflate as well.
No chance they'll ever conduct a pure "safety" study (standing alone) using the methods relied upon in TOXICOLOGY, which absolutely must have a "control group" to whom NOTHING is done, not even a (fake) placebo injection. Nope. Everyone gets injected with SOMETHING, as if someone's mere "beliefs" (about NOT being injected) are likely to cause a LACK of heart failures and blood clots.
This "placebo" idea got turned on it's head in vaccine studies. It originated from the idea a person's beliefs (about a sugar pill) could HEAL them. But then, even this was never really proven accurate, due to the FACT the human body CAN heal without ANY pharma, real or fake.
It was never intended to be used in TOXICOLOGY to rule out a person's beliefs as a possible cause of INJURIES. There is ZERO risk that people will suddenly have a heart attack because of their beliefs about NOT having been injected. So there's ZERO risk of this type of "confounding" from having a REAL control group, to whom NOTHING is done.
Pharma uses "placebo" controls SO THAT they can inject the "controls" with SOMETHING. And this allows them to inject other injurious chemicals, call it "saline", and never mention that the FDA allows the "saline" to be packed with nasty things like aluminum, benzene, etc., WITHOUT listing these things as ingredients! Now pharma gets to say the (fake) "controls" had just as many adverse reactions as the "treated" group, so therefore the new vaccine is "safe."
It's ALL pure FRAUD.
You might like my analysis of this Lancet paper from October 2023.
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/5-or-more-shots-and-you-are-out-say
A lot of us here have looked closely at this Lancet paper by Liu et al. Other things to notice is that COVID-19 vaccination appears to be an elixir of youth. All cause mortality decreases for those who have more shots! Despite the fact that we are still running high excess mortality in Australia. They even show that death from cancer is less likely with more shots.
My interpretation is that all they are showing is that the longer one lives the more chance there is to have more shots. Of course we don't have access to the data.
For those interested the Australian Medical Professional Society (AMPS) has written an open letter to the authors pointing out issues with the paper. You can download it from this page on the AMPS website:
https://amps.redunion.com.au/news/open-letter-to-authors-of-lancet-article
Apologies, Ignore my ramblings. I missed your previous post on the paper I have highlighted below
We see a very similar scenario in this other recently published paper in the Lancet
The data initially favours fewer or no vaccinations at all, throw in as many "estimated " adjustments as possible, et voila reversal of the output and victory dance for the vaccines.
Also funded from a . Gov source
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)02467-4/fulltext
The medical complex is captured, corrupt, and complicit in the deaths and injuries of millions. Looking for someone to trust? Be in the Word.