A new week and a new update from the UKHSA on the performance of the vaccines. Table 12, the rates data for vaccinated and unvaccinated, once again shows data for those triple-jabbed rather than two-or-more doses as was given for the data for 2021 since September up to Week 2’s report, however, we can estimate the rates for those with only two jabs using data in tables 9-11 and vaccination data available from the NHS.
Using these data we can estimate infection rates by vaccination status (above); from these data we can then estimate the unadjusted vaccine effectiveness for infection for those having two or three doses (below).
The vaccine effectiveness data for those receiving two doses are particularly concerning. Because we do not have full data available to us there is a risk of some biases creeping into the data and making things look worse than they are in reality. However, the very very negative estimates of vaccine effectiveness for the double-jabbed shown in the graph above (lower than minus 300% in those aged 40-59, meaning four times as many infections than in the unvaccinated) are likely to be much greater than what could easily be accounted for. What’s more, the data show significantly negative vaccine effectiveness for those aged between 18 and 50, a group which has not received the booster in particularly high rates, reducing the impact of some potential biases that occur with small numbers in each cohort, meaning we can be more confident the figures are closer to reality.
The new estimates of vaccine effectiveness by dose for this week allow us to continue the graphs of the change in vaccine effectiveness with time.
Note that data for 2022 is separated out into those with two doses only and those with three doses only. Note also the scale on the y-axis: almost all the points are highly negative; those for two doses are hundreds of percent below zero, equating to infection rates many times higher than in the unvaccinated.
It is interesting to see in the graph that for those aged over 60 the trend in the data from last year most closely tracks into those having had a booster dose for the 2022 data, while for those aged under 50 the data most closely follows those only having had two doses for the 2022 data. This reflects the earlier boosting and much higher booster rates in those aged over 60 producing the ‘hump’ in the estimate of vaccine effectiveness going into the last month or two of last year.
The negative estimate of vaccine effectiveness shown in the graph above will be affected to some extent by the biases inherent in the raw, uncorrected data that we have available to us. However, it reflects the negative effectiveness seen elsewhere. Of course, the UKHSA would be keen to point out that its own data still shows at worst zero vaccine effectiveness, but their estimates are influenced by biases of their own, mainly associated with their choice of method (test-negative case-control (TNCC) methods are significantly affected by testing biases in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations – a bias warned against in scientific papers that describe how the TNCC method should be used). It is likely that the true vaccine effectiveness lies somewhere between the raw analysis shown above and the ‘zero or slightly negative’ estimate given by the TNCC method. I note that the cohort studies published last year suggested that two doses of vaccines had a negative effectiveness of between approximately minus-20% and minus-150% (for example, see S12 in a study of infections in Qatar, a study of infections in Israel National Airport, or cohort study undertaken by Imperial College, data given in Table 2) – given that Omicron has further escaped the protection offered by the vaccines it is likely that the true vaccine effectiveness is now significantly negative and that the estimates shown in the graph above aren’t too far out.
It is likely that the small uptick in apparent vaccine effectiveness in this week’s data indicated in the graph above is an artefact related to the biases that remain in using raw data – if only the UKHSA would gather and release better data…
Of course, the approach we’re taking to estimate vaccine effectiveness should be used with caution; the question is how much bias it introduces. While there will be some bias introduced by using raw data, the impact should not be too great and certainly the trend in the data shows a very worrying situation. The authorities could assist by releasing more useful data or by undertaking vaccine effectiveness studies that are more robust (what’s needed are large scale matched cohort longitudinal studies). However, they’re extraordinarily keen not to do this and merely rely on the highly biased TNCC method (presumably because it significantly overestimates vaccine effectiveness). Of course, more robust estimates would cost a little more money to undertake – but it isn’t as though governments worldwide aren’t throwing huge amounts of cash at other aspects associated with the Covid pandemic (for example, the nearly useless Test and Trace programme). As it stands, the data that are available to us paint a very worrying picture that really should be rigorously investigated by our health ‘security’ authority.
It is important to note that the impact of negative vaccine effectiveness on case numbers would be greater than suggested simply by looking at the proportional risk of infection indicated by the estimates of vaccine effectiveness – this is because infectious diseases have an exponential growth pattern. The impact of highly negative vaccine effectiveness on case numbers would be for there to be a very rapid increase in cases to a much higher eventual peak, than would have been the case with only unvaccinated – note the speed and scale of this winter’s Omicron wave…
We can also analyse the new data to get hospitalisation and death rates by vaccination status.
Hospitalisation data suggest that only having two doses of the vaccines now have negative protection against hospitalisation for all age groups aged 18 or over. The data suggest that three doses are still offering some protection, although even this protection appears to be waning.
The trend lines in the data suggest that there has been a significant drop in vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation with the Omicron variant. However, there was probably a more gradual drop over the last few months of 2021, hidden in the data above by the insistence of UKHSA in not releasing data by vaccine dose for two and three doses separately. Perhaps the very poor performance of the vaccines at protecting against hospitalisation is the reason why they didn’t want to release these data?
If anything, the data suggest that the protection against death (below) offered by two doses of vaccine is even worse – however, it is possible that the particularly negative data for those aged over 70, and to a lesser extent those aged 60-70, reflects a ‘healthy vaccinee’ effect. This would occur if those most close to death were spared from the booster vaccine, resulting in relatively higher death rates in the small two-dose-only group. However, the booster take-up in those aged under 50 is much lower, and would mean that a healthy vaccinee effect would not significantly affect the data – thus it is very likely that the loss in protection against death offered by two doses of vaccine has fallen to zero, as indicated by the data, and might well have fallen below zero for those aged over 60 (i.e., those whose vaccine protection has waned the most).
If we are seeing a ‘healthy vaccinee’ effect then we should expect to see the very negative effectiveness figures for those aged over 60 rebound a little further and then flatten out over the next few months.
Finally, in all of the data above it is clear that the booster doses are now having little positive protection against infection (and probably make infection more likely), but still have some worthwhile protective value against hospitalisation and death. However, it is likely that even the booster will repeat the spectacular drop in the effectiveness of two doses of vaccine seen in recent months. While our authorities will be keen to promise that the booster can just be repeated at regular intervals, immunology is not that simple. The boosters appear to work by increasing antibody levels even further, rather than boosting antibody levels back to ‘where they should be’. It is likely that further boosters will have a small positive impact and for a shorter duration of effect. Omicron specific boosters might well improve on this,. However, it is likely that these will merely introduce new evolutionary pressures in the virus to evolve escape to those vaccines, and might introduce new viral behaviours that won’t be as benign as those apparently seen with Omicron.
In summary, the latest data suggest that:
- Infection rates are soaring in the vaccinated, with even those boosted seeing increased case rates than the unvaccinated. The apparent lack of any ability of the vaccines to protect against infection (and onwards infection) suggests that the current mania in governments worldwide to vaccinate everyone to keep Covid under control is counterproductive. The UKHSA really should comment on the purpose of vaccinating the non-vulnerable in the population.
- There now appears to be an increased risk of hospitalisation for those with only two vaccine doses. This risk appears to be rather high for those aged over 70, but it must be considered that this might be an artefact due to a healthy vaccinee effect. The data for younger individuals should be more robust. Urgent work should be undertaken by our authorities to fully understand what is going on with hospitalisation rates. It may be necessary to inform the vaccinated that they need to keep getting booster doses to keep their risk of hospitalisation below that of the unvaccinated.
- The increased risk of death in the double-vaccinated compared with the unvaccinated is troubling. I hope that this is an artefact due to a healthy vaccinee effect and that the real situation is only that vaccine protection against death falls to zero, as suggested by the under 50 data. I also hope that things don’t get any worse.
Hope is not a strategy.
Amanuensis is an ex-academic and senior Government scientist. Find him on his Substack page, Bartram’s Folly.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
So can we assume that the UNjabbed, once they’ve had ”it”, having uncompromised immune systems, won’t get reinfected? And this is why the jabbed are being reinfected at such a rate?
Why do I get the impression that it doesn’t matter in the slightest that this ´medical treatment’ a) DOESN’T work and b) might be detrimental. It’s the same with masks – it seems to be just something that people seem willing to accept either because they don’t have the guts/time/energy to object. When did the ease of going on holiday become more important than how we loved our lives the other 50 weeks of the year? When did it become too much effort to stand up for something you really believe in – in this case bodily autonomy and freedom.
After 2 years of this nonsense I am afraid I have lost respect for most people. The creeping fascism in Europe could not have happened if ordinary people had objected from the very beginning. Thank God for the Canadians!
Now in Australia, and in many other countries. The MSM is ignoring, but it’s easily found on Youtube.
I am one of those who, about 3 weeks after taking the first AZ vaccine, got the Delta variant and now, about 3 weeks after taking the booster (having been emotionally blackmailed into it by family), got Omicron. It was little more than a mild cold for about 2 days. I have now set down the law, that I am taking no more of these.
The very negative vaccine effectiveness of double vaccination relative to triple vaccination is almost certainly an artefact of removing the infected from the triple injected treatment cohort and returning them to the double injected cohort during the 28 day period after treatment. I discuss it here: https://richardlyon.substack.com/p/the-vaccine-effectiveness-trick
Looks increasingly like Dr. Mike Yeadon is correct: the main reason for scaring people in to joining the “vaccination” experiment is population control. Mother trucking bastiges!
Just stop it stop it please!
Sadly, I suspect this will be used to terrorise two-dosers into getting a third.
Then when the numbers for that plummet as well, a fourth.
And on and on and on, faster and faster and faster, chasing the dragon of immunity without end until either the coofs or the coof-shots get you.
https://odysee.com/@spearhead4truth:e/Nanotech-discovery-280122:9
Intelligent discussion on recent findings on the vaxxes.
Nanotech found in Pfizer jab by New Zealand lab. Sue Grey Co-leader of Outdoors and Freedom Party and Dr Matt Shelton report findings to Parliament’s Health Select Committee.
http://www.orwell.city has been publishing similar work from Spain, since last year, as have German pathologists
Shouldn’t you consider that most of the unvaccinated have been previously infected? It’s much more likely that this data results from the increasing difference in natural immunity between vaccinated and unvaccinated and that vaccination does retain some efficacy in the never infected. Let’s not be like the lockdown fanatics and jump to whatever is the most convenient conclusion for our pre-existing beliefs.
The data show there’s no reason for restrictions based on vaccine status or for that matter any restrictions at all. Any elderly or severely immune compromised person that hasn’t either been infected already or vaccinated should be advised to get vaccinated, but only if they freely consent after being informed of the risks of side effects in their age group. Anyone that has symptoms of a respiratory virus should try to avoid prolonged contact with elderly relatives and as a courtesy to others might want to wear a mask when in shops or on public transport (fully acknowledging that there is no high quality data that this works).
“as a courtesy to others might want to wear a mask when in shops or on public transport (fully acknowledging that there is no high quality data that this works).”
I might not want to wear a mask actually, because I am a horrible selfish person who doesn’t prioritise other people’s wellbeing over his own. Alternatively, not wearing a mask is an act of altruism because I’m not pandering to people self-destructive delusions that there is a deadly pandemic on the go and a mask will save them. The idea that we should be concerned with keeping strangers safe from viruses over which we have no control is pernicious.
Hear hear!!!
My triple jabbed neighbours in their 90s currently have covid, they have been self isolating for the 2 years now and barely leave the house and their career is jabbed. They are ill but but at home, the man is 96 and not in great health anyway and won’t make it beyond this year. At the end of the day whether the jab has made any difference or not he has wasted close to 100% of his last days shut at home afraid of seeing anyone. What is the point of living like that?
You get to a certain age and you die, so its nonsense going on about lives saved when the average age of death with covid is over 80, you might kick the can down the road for a few months for some people, but it ruins the quality of life for everyone else in the world. I always thought Doctors were meant to be realistic about quality of life and death. Now ‘experts’ talk like by saving someone from covid they are going to be immortal.
Here is my summary of vax adverse reactions for UK, Europe and USA, the latest Europe figures being released today.
Europe: nearly 13,000 dead and over 3.5m adverse reactions, of which half are serious.
USA: 22,607 deaths and over 1m adverse reactions.
UK: 1,970 deaths and 1.4m adverse reactions.
Pie charts are added to show the vax take up. Over half the UK appears to be boosted whereas about one quarter of the USA is boosted.
Personally, I am suspicious of the number of boosts in the UK. MHRA quote adverse reactions at a much lower rate for the booster. I suspect the booster total is that delivered to jab stations rather than those actually administered.
I have gathered a lot more data, but this will do for the moment.
According to the UK Column referencing EudraVigilance, there were over 32,000 deaths recorded by early as December, 21 in Europe:
https://www.ukcolumn.org/community/forums/topic/yellow-card-vs-eudravigilance-vs-vaers-2/
As you see in the table, the total deaths totted up from adverse reactions is 38,993. Most people quote that number. But there are several adverse reactions to each death – currently averaging about 3 as quoted in the table and explained underneath. See what EMA say here.
The monthly Vaccine Safety Updates for each ‘vaccine’ give a total number of adverse reactions and total number of deaths. That provides a factor that I use to approximate the real number of deaths. It is different for each vaccine – markedly so. The last reports dated 20 Jan show Pfizer 1.99, AstraZeneca 2.95, Moderna 9.83, Janssen 7.21. The value of 3.00 that I quote is averaged, just as an indicator (although each vaccine’s results are factored by their individual value).
I have actually informed UKcolumn about this – particularly after Wednesday’s programme when they referred to Yellow Cards possibly having the same issue. I have not had a reply.
Thank you for the explanation – please keep up the good work!
A bit more data here, from which my summary was taken.
What is the expected mortality of each of these populations, in a 1 week period?
That would give you a background mortality to compare your claimed vaccine related deaths.
Until you do that your collection of numbers is entirely meaningless.
Even an anti-vaxxer should admit that people are not immortal. 1% die each year!
S0 take USA. 330e6 population x 1% / 52 = 31,730 is the expected mortality per week.
Lets say 50% got vaccinated twice in a year. so expected number of deaths within 1 week of a vaccination is….. 31,730. That’s a bigger number than you claim.
Oh…. it looks like you don’t have a case….
Fewer people died in Norway in 2020 than the average of the previous 5 years.
So there’s no health emergency.
In the UK total deaths – adjusted for population size and age – were lower than the average of the first decade of this century.
So there’s no health emergency
330e6 population x 1% / 52 = 31,730
Oh dear…looks like you’ll struggle to get that GCSE in a few years.
I am sorry that you are unable (or unwilling) to see a meaning.
The rate of people run over by a bus each year is far less that the mortality rate, but that does not mean that we turn a blind eye to them. For if they reach even a fraction of that, an investigation would be held.
Adverse reports are submited after drugs and jabs when there is a suspicion that they have caused them. Normally, jabs are usually pulled for investigation if a small two-digit total is reached. These jabs have reports of 10s of 1,000s of deaths – yet, instead of being pulled, they are pushed.
Indeed – unintelligent people (or trolls!) assume that the vaccine adverse reactions sites are supposed to record all cases! In fact, they are set up as an early warning system – as such, they have actually worked very well. It’s just that the authorities around the world have decided to ignore the clear warnings!
The question that needs to be asked is: why?
Interesting that the proportion of deaths per population seems similar for UK and EU.But the difference per population between UK and US is different, twice as many deaths in the US as in the UK.
Yes. All three databases (or two databases and some Acrobat files) have significant flaws and are most likely under-reported. But there has been enough data to stop the jab programme for the last 10 months. And there is enough rope to hang the culprits several times over (without giving the blighters a PCR test).
From Mike Yeadon
With Dr Wodarg, I wrote to warn the European Medicines Agency & the public Dec 1 2020 of this specific risk to female fertility.
Every normal news outlet censored us. The BBC turned its venom on me.
https://dryburgh.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Wodarg_Yeadon_EMA_Petition_Pfizer_Trial_FINAL_01DEC2020_signed_with_Exhibits_geschwarzt.pdf
In 2021, I filed expert opinions in various legal cases. I don’t know where these got to.
If I can find it I will post it here. I think it proves intent. There are two major problems with the “vaccines”, one that applies to all of them (see petition) and a second, more shocking one applying only to the mRNA vaccines. These accumulate in ovaries. And they KNEW THEY WOULD. A 2012 paper confirms it. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168365912000892
Here, the authors aimed to prove I was wrong, but accidentally achieve the exact opposite
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.23.21257686v1
https://trmlx.com/vaccine-injuries-in-the-dod-and-the-attempted-cover-up/
Attorney Tom Renz recently summarised the information from the US military equivalent of the civilian VAERS database.
Obviously, it confirmed what we know from VAERS.
Please share. The information doesn’t get any better than this.
https://t.me/s/robinmg
I don’t believe flu jabs are effective at all.
It used to make me sad to watch people who obviously couldn’t remember the last time they’d formed their own opinion about anything rush like prodded sheep, but more full of worry, to get “their” flu jabs every year. Morons. But trusting, not wicked or anything.
If only they had a clue what the rulers really think about the population.
The richest three or four people most of them have ever met one-to-one are almost certainly medics – and they don’t even know what medics (worth a couple of million quid, max) think of them.
There’s never been such a sh*t-brained epoch as this one.
Police at Charing Cross police station stated to Piers Corbyn 27Jan (when he & his team came to serve info of CRIMES in 4 more vax centres) that the Met Police now have a new procedure to accept vax centre crime complaints. THEY ISSUED A CRIME INFO CARD BEARING THE CRIME NO 6029679/21 & the description “COVID 19 CRIME” (See pic). They took his details & said the (Hammersmith) CID in charge will contact directly those who report these crimes.
Piers said “This is a significant step forward. They are not now covering-up or being evasive about the Crime investigation & are streamlining collection of information through which we will report details of what we’ve found. If they don’t contact us reasonably fast we contact them (They provided details of the Hammersmith CID officer in charge).
Activists in other police regions across the UK now need to insist those regions also facilitate in a similar way the collection of covid 19 crime information to go into investigation 6029679/21″
https://t.me/s/Pierscorbyn
There did seem to be a change once the Hyland action was brought and the Rose action.
I suppose it was possible that our rulers believed their own propaganda and were not expecting the population to challenge their narrative.
Here is another link to the Hyland letter – very well written.
https://app.box.com/s/parw202pa5ykpn0rve9e1ir5brmqlkei
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/us-developing-vaccine-passport-system/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=bcf8f93a-db44-4f1f-8e44-c3343bb314fc
U.S. Developing Vaccine Passport System Using Complex Web of Big Tech Partnerships
Just because the federal government isn’t directly developing a national vaccine database or vaccine passport system doesn’t mean such systems aren’t in the works — they are, and some of the Big Tech players involved have deep ties to multiple government agencies.
I just noticed “rational” did not write a single response to my comments. Apparently it’s hard to argue when the official data defeat the case. And that is what we should be focusing on, utilizing the very official numbers concerning absolute risk to drive the pointlessness of the “measures” instead of inventing doubtful stories about killer/non-working vaccines. The key issue is not whether or not vaccines are working, the key issues is that they are simply not needed (for most).
Ah but that is not the subject that the original article attests to.
It wrongly states the efficacy is bad. Obviously you know this is wrong.
Efficacy is a relative risk issue.
Absolute risk is a different issue altogether. A distraction from the original subject?
I agree, the article is crap. But the absolute risk is what really matters.
Absolute risk is a factor for the rationale in the case of a particular age group being vaccinated. I agree.
But the authors on this site don’t focus on detailed aspects like this. They seek to give sweeping negative messages, based on garbage analysis of data. The readers here swallow it hook line and sinker and it becomes their belief. They have no knowledge that they have been fooled and worship those that fool them.
Laughable.
The fools are those who believed the propaganda about a 21st century Black Death and have allowed themselves to be injected several times with experimental gunk which hasn’t been properly tested in order to protect themselves against a disease that poses a trivial threat to most of them.
There simply is no benign explanation for the desire of governments to inject healthy people under 60 and their refusal to allow doctors to treat infected people with combinations of existing drugs.
Apart from wanting to save lives, which they have certainly done.
We have no idea of the long term consequences of the gunk injections, so you simply can’t honestly make that claim about the net effect. Unless you genuinely think that giving multiply-ill geriatrics a few more months of existence is by far the most important objective of health policy.
And as for the short term, jabbing children will very clearly result in more deaths than not jabbing them.
Oh dear, deluded as well.
Try 116 123 – I’ve heard it’s 24/7 nowadays, not surprising after the last two years
To be fair, those morons introducing all the restrictions based on vaccination status do not care about age groups either. So it’s basically a tit-for-tat, isn’t it?
https://rumble.com/vtge32-tawny-buettner-rn-observed-a-10x-increase-in-the-rate-of-myocarditis-after-.html
She worked in the Cardiothoracic Intensive Care Unit (CTICU) of a major children’s hospital in San Diego, California for more than 12 years. Here’s her story about what she observed about myocarditis rates post vaccine. Yeah, it’s way worse than the rates caused by the virus.
Fulham v Blackpool interrupted.
Another fan collapses in the stands.
What size was that crowd?
How many games were ongoing at the time?
What was the total crowd size?
What is the probability of a fan collapsing during that time frame in normal circumstances?
You can easily find out the first three questions yourself, although you appear to have asked the same question twice which is indicative of your mental capacity.
The fourth is more tricky, but I reckon the probability of an off- or on-field collapse before the vaccines was about the same as you posting a message worth reading (ie. almost zero).
Ah so you don’t understand probability, then.
You really should if you are going to attach significance to a particular event.
Don’t trouble yourself with what I do or don’t understand, focus on yourself.
Why not start with tying shoelaces?
So far 3 people seem to be please that someone collapsed.
Shocking…..Their thumbs say so!!!!!!!!!!
You’re now claiming to be able to interpret what people mean from an uptick.
Does your mama know you’re on the computer again?
Well they approve of your message and that’s the only information it conveys.
What else could they mean?
Well maybe it was useful information to them.
But you wouldn’t know anything about that, would you?
It seems to me to be having the same effect that was recorded with animal MRNA vaccines years earlier by vets, and that illustrates why they were abandoned.
In the short run the animals appeared to have immunity. In the longer run they became more ill.
People knew that, and the attempts to put too much space between pets and humans was unhelpful, to say the least.
Have we got a new boohoo free speech censor ?
In the old days you could cope with complaints by a disclaimer such as
Warning:
This forum may contain strong language. Please do not use it if you are easily offended.
The UK may now be so authoritarian that legally this no longer works.
In the first graph, why does ‘efficacy’ fall off a cliff in the three age groups including all those aged 60 and over, at the exact same time despite being on an upward trend?
This data looks very manipulated to me.
A distorting piece, based on unadjusted rates.
You could read the vaccine surveillance report in full to get the real conclusions.
So tell us. For let’s say a 40 year old. What is the probability of contracting covid and dying if the person is vaccinated and the probability of the person is not vaccinated.
Tell us.
Since (s)he won’t answer, I will.
Based on German statistics (for age group 35-59, so the number is likely still too high): the risk of dying from COVID-19 over a year within that age group has been ~0.02%. Of course this includes all pre-omicron deaths, so based on official estimates (likely also exaggerated), the actual risk of dying going forward is at most ~0.01%
For the 60-79 group the risk was 0.21%
For the 80+ group the risk was 1.37%
Of course death is not the only concern, surviving ICU does not exactly translate into great quality of life thereafter. So I’d say you can double these risks to account for that scenario.
And as for the mystical “long covid” the official estimates of affliction have gone down from 10% to 1% of all infected people.
Ok, according to your figures the risk is 0.01%. Is that jabbed or
And what is the risk for the other group?
0.01% without accounting for vaccination status. The difference in death risk between jabbed and unjabbed for a 40 year old will be maybe 2x.
Maybe?
How about you give me a properly sourced figure. Because you make very assertive comments on here, I’m assuming you have reliable figures that matter, not just vague words
What is the risk of a 40 year old dying of covid and the risk if he is not vaccinated. A properly sourced figure, not some vague estimate of yours.
For a healthy 40 year old, it’s zero.
For an unhealthy 40 year old, a fraction above zero.
But the intellectually challenged still believe they should be jabbed anyway, multiple times.
Your question does not address the fact that vaccine efficacy is well established as good and supported by real-life data.
You might as well ask my shoe size.
If you think you have evidence that proves otherwise, state it.
What is your shoe size?
I’d find that more interesting than anything else you’ve said.
Hat size might be more informative – very small, I’d guess!
Don’t just make the assertion. Give me the figures. Risk of dying of covid for a vaxed person and risk for an unvaxed.
Let’s see the figures.
Anyone who attempts to answer this question without mentioning the change in efficacy over time is giving a wrong number.
Most posts can pretty much be discarded, as they can only tell the story for some undeclared instant in time after some probably undeclared hotchpotch of varying doses of potentially different vaccines.
Well the tag team of rayc and rational seem to think they have a definite answer and berate anyone who suggests otherwise.
I’m asking them repeatedly to give me the key stats and I’m still waiting.
Dr John Campbell has an excellent video today quoting a BMJ article asking why the vaccine trail data has not been released for peer review. Even he, a relative main-streamer, invites us to be suspicious.
I take this analysis as providing further support to the propositions that (a) the “vaccines”, at best, provide only short-lived protection and (b) immunity acquired through infection is superior to that acquired through vaccination. The worry now is that evidence is also mounting that the vaccines may produce long-term detrimental effects on the immune system. This latter proposition requires objective and impartial investigation, and urgently. No doubt, though, there will be those who will be very keen to cover up what could prove to be the biggest scientific scandal in decades.
Pfizer et al won’t care. They’ve already banked the profits and are fully indemnified against any and all outrage caused by their products.
A good ‘business’ to be in…
If you look at the Pfizer share price since 1971, it’s almost constantly …
Up … up … up … and up again.
Most businesses could only dream of a situation where they need no insurance, they’re paid in advance for three years’ orders and the net margin is 50% or 100%.
You forgot to mention the added bonus that instead of having to pay people to join in their trial for a new drug, people are paying the drug company to participate in the trial…
And the other added bonus that as they were allowed to get away with shoving this sludge into hundreds of millions of people after only a 2-month trial and being allowed to unblind the control group, they have now been allowed to do the same with ‘tweaked’ boosters and their wonderful new pfizermectin.
But the analysis is a dishonest treatment of unadjusted data to reach a wrong conclusion.
How can you be fooled.
Making people believe that vaccinated people are safer to others is spreading misinformation. It is condemnable to force mRNA vaccinations and not to acknowledge natural immunity acquired from infection. mRNA vaccinations do not prevent infection or transmission of the virus. They only induce antibodies towards the spike protein that wane after three months and the cells which express the spike protein will be destroyed by the immune system causing myocarditis and damage to other organs that express the protein. mRNA injections can also cause menstrual disorders, thrombosis, and their long-term side effects are unknown. People who have acquired natural immunity from infection are much more protected than vaccinated people as naturally acquired immunity is targeted towards the whole virus and lasts for longer. Omicron doesn’t cause severe illness and thanks to its high transmissibility most people have already acquired long-lasting natural immunity from exposure which is going to lead to the end of the pandemic. Omicron is the best vaccine to obtain herd immunity and those who continue to enforce the unnecessary dangerous mRNA injections should be taken to court. If naturally acquired immunity is not acknowledged, none of the data released by the government can be trusted.
How much longer can all the Covid and ‘vaccine’ lies hold up – even with the support of the WEF ‘ army within’, the entire UK Government and censored Mainstream Media?
A table posted online today shows how the PCR test, on which the whole ‘scamdemic’ has been built, factors in 52 other virus pathogens that can cause a PCR test to show positive. Your positive test could therefore be for one of at least 53 viral traces.
This is apart from the fact that no PCR test of any kind can tell you whether you have a live infection or not.
Do PCR fanatics on here get that and what it tells us about the last two years of nightmare?
Time for a little ‘re-programming’ perhaps?
Given that I’ve so far avoided the sniffles and have yet to produce a positive test, I am proud to note that it’s not just one virus that I’m avoiding, but a whole raft of them!
I’m proud to say I haven’t had ‘the sniffles’ since 2018 when I got to grips with vitamin D intake and had my blood levels tested.
I had a very nasty respiratory illness in, er, 1977. The internet enabled me to diagnose it as ‘Russian flu’, which was going around then and killed about 700,000 worldwide.
No … I’d never heard of it before. Amazing contrast with today’s hypochondria.
Mad people with links to the US government are now engineering bird flu to be more dangerous
https://dilyana.bg/potential-pandemic-bird-flu-modified-to-be-more-dangerous-in-new-risky-nih-research/
So we all need to keep our immune systems in good nick, just in case.
SO you uses the internet in 1977, did you.
GO and find out when the internet became available….
I suspect he may have used the internet to refer back to 1977.
Surely it must be close to your bedtime?
“A table posted online today shows how the PCR test, on which the whole ‘scamdemic’ has been built, factors in 52 other virus pathogens that can cause a PCR test to show positive.”
Please post it on here because it doesn’t sound correct.
Lies Lies lies all the time
Rocketing Energy Prices Were Part Of The Plan All The Time
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/01/29/rocketing-energy-prices-were-part-of-the-plan-all-the-time/
by Paul Homewood
Saturday 29th January 2pm
Wake up Wokingham Day
Meet outside Town Hall,
between Rose Inn & Costa
Wokingham RG40 1AP
Stand in the Park Sundays 10am make friends, ignore the madness & keep sane
Wokingham Howard Palmer Gardens Cockpit Path car park Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Henley Mills Meadows (at the bandstand) Henley-on-Thames RG9 1DS
Telegram Group
http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Leaving aside the detail as presented here, the fundamental issue arises from the astoundingly unethical approach that the whole ‘vaccine’ controversy has presented.
That a medicine is safe and necessary until proved to be not so is an absurd reversal of normal procedure and logic. Such evidence as presented here (and presented previously) simply shows (being generous) that the necessary assurance is far, far out of reach. The conclusions are obvious.
The jabs “still have some worthwhile protective value against hospitalisation and death.”
Sorry but I disagree.
Do vaccines reduce hospitalisations and death?
“The vaccines do not reduce all-cause mortality, but rather produce genuine spikes in all-cause
mortality shortly after vaccination.”
Dr. Martin Neil is Professor in Computer Science and Statistics at Queen Mary, University of London. Dr. Clare Craig is a Diagnostic Pathologist. Dr. Norman Fenton is Professor of Risk Information Management at Queen Mary University of London. The paper is also authored by Jonathan Engler, Joshua Guetzkow, Scott Mclachlan, Jessica Rose, Dan Russell and Joel Smalley.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357778435_Official_mortality_data_for_England_suggest_systematic_miscategorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination
Summarised here ……
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/01/21/do-covid-vaccines-reduce-all-cause-mortality-ons-data-give-us-no-reason-to-think-so/
The view that vaccines have a 90% effectiveness of reducing hospitalisation and death is flawed due to a number of reasons including the ‘healthy vaccinee’ effect.
A study published last year by the U.S. CDC found that vaccinated people were less likely to die of non-Covid causes, suggesting that they’re inherently healthier and/or more risk averse than unvaccinated people.
Those who are unvaccinated that end up in hospital and die could quite easily be due to the “unhealthy unvaccinated” effect.
Someone who is too ill or frail to have the jab is more likely to end up… Read more »
Try reading the weekly vaccine surveillance report…The evidence is in there.
The “evidence” is flawed.