A preprint study (not yet peer-reviewed) in the Lancet has analysed the mortality data from the vaccine trials and made the shocking finding that mRNA vaccines had “no effect on overall mortality”. Worse, it found the risk of non-Covid, non-accident mortality actually increased by 17% (relative risk 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-2.05). Furthermore, a full 50% of the non-Covid deaths (27 out of 54) were cardiovascular and the relative risk of such death was 45% higher in the vaccine arm (relative risk 1.45, CI 0.67-3.13), breaking down to 50% higher for Pfizer and 40% higher for Moderna (with wide confidence intervals).
These are clearly alarming findings. But they go oddly unremarked upon in the paper. This is presumably due to the authors being wary of criticising the vaccines in order to be published. If so, it is disappointing that this is thought (probably correctly) to be necessary and indicates how absurdly political vaccine research has become. While the results are not, in this study, statistically significant, in that the confidence intervals are wide and include 1.0, the effect size is large and, in the context of wider concerns about adverse effects of mRNA vaccines on the cardiovascular system, warrant some comment, if only to flag them up and say larger studies are needed to see if statistical significance obtains.
The focus of the paper is instead on the surprising finding that the adenovirus-vector vaccines (e.g. AstraZeneca and J&J) appear significantly to reduce overall mortality. Most strikingly, there are zero cardiovascular deaths in the vaccine arm versus five in the placebo arm. The relative risk of non-accident, non-Covid death is 62% lower in the vaccine arm than the placebo arm (relative risk 0.38 CI 0.17-0.88). Overall mortality is 63% down.
The authors note it appears the adenovirus-vector vaccines “provide significant protection” against cardiovascular disease, speculating that the adenovirus-vector, though not able to replicate, “may prime the immune system in a way similar to a ‘live’ vaccine”. How this might protect against cardiovascular disease is not explained.
It’s not clear to me how seriously the authors take the finding that adenovirus-vector vaccines cut overall mortality by nearly two thirds, or whether making the case for it is an elaborate way of sneaking the devastating data on mRNA vaccines past the censors. I’m certainly suspicious of any trial data for a Covid vaccine that imply it is unexpectedly a miracle cure for cardiovascular disease, and I would expect they discreetly are too.
The main conclusion of the paper is that, given the remarkable general healing properties of one type of vaccine but not the other, the overall impact of vaccines on mortality should be studied much more closely.
While mass-vaccination programs with COVID-19 vaccines are rolled out, data on their effects on non-COVID-19 mortality should be collected… Future trials of new COVID-19 vaccines should be compelled to report mortality data by cause and sex. Post-licensure monitoring and evaluation should also focus on overall, non-accidental mortality.
What isn’t spelt out, but is perhaps implied, is that the negative impact of mRNA vaccines on mortality – cardiovascular deaths in particular – warrants particular attention in this monitoring and evaluation.
While the conclusions are disappointingly muted, the introduction is more robust on the potential problems with the vaccines. It states:
There is now ample evidence that vaccines can have broad heterologous effects on the immune system. These effects can lead to additional protection or increasing susceptibility to unrelated infections or even other non-infectious immune mediated diseases. Therefore, as it has now been established in numerous studies, vaccines may have completely unexpected effects on overall mortality, different from what could be anticipated based on the protection against the vaccine-targeted disease. The current system for testing vaccines does not incorporate this possibility.
Let’s hope this paper makes it through peer-review and into the journal without being neutered further, and its recommendations for proper vaccine studies and monitoring of deaths from all causes are duly heeded.
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.
This time, at least, I was on the right side of history.
It seems remarkable that it takes 18 months for this pretty basic data from the trials to be dug up.
It was all buried in a deep, dark hole where they thought no one would find it.
The pfizer data at least has been around for yonks. im sure trial results had to be released soon after.
Allan Schapira supplied the funding for this research. Here are some details about him
• Received consultancy fees from GHTech, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, World
Bank, and the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute. This interest was assessed as being
personal, non-specific, and financially significant*.
• Holds significant shares in the following companies: Novartis, Roche, Bayer, BASF, Merck,
and Pfizer. This interest was assessed as being personal, specific, and financially significant*.
Definately no conflict of interest there. Safe and effective. Please move along
The vaccines kill people……. Who knew?
So these wonder ‘vaccines’ neither keep you safe from infection, in fact they make matters worse; plus they also give you a high risk of contracting a serious heart disease. Didn’t seriously credentialled and honest medical professionals say this would happen… But they were shut down weren’t they, and by the usual suspects.
The time for a thorough criminal investigation is now overdue.
We know that the Pfizer trials were based on fraud from the revelations published in the BMJ.
We know that the US regulator ignored a whistleblower that revealed the fraud to them so on that basis I would say the whole thing is just a big old scam and that none of the supposed data showing benefit is worth chuff all.
indeed.
Eg, When you look at data from pharma sponsored clinical trials always include the excluded individuals in the analysis somewhere — they tend to be different from non-pharma sponsored trials….
I read these revelations when they first appeared in November 2021. This is it, I thought! This is the story that finally hits the msm. Nothing.
Amongst those who need to be held to account are news editors across the world.
Would this fall within the remit of SFO?
Interesting appointment of new head in 2018 who is dual US/GB citizen and career includes a spell at Goldman Sachs…
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/04/ex-fbi-lawyer-lisa-osofsky-named-as-head-of-serious-office
Hmm – would she want the job of prosecutor?
It’s not as if the pharma companies have ever done anything like this before
Exactly. What a shocker
Imagine showing this fact based data to your friends and family. Perhaps broken down to be easy to absorb with the conclusions bold and clear.
Most of my circle are absolutely indifferent to any facts, revelations or scientific conclusions that challenge a narrative they have long since accepted.
That was an easy Q. I’ve been pointing out the lack of ACM benefit since the study results came out. Nobody seems to give a shit.
”yeah well, i need to travel”
Don’t imagine showing, share it now using all the buttons on the bottom of the article, facebook twitter whatever you have then email to all – you already have lost them as friends so what have you got to lose? I did using this preamble|: “Truth is coming out: A preprint study in the Lancet has analysed the mortality data from the vaccine trials and made the shocking finding that mRNA vaccines had “no effect on overall mortality”. Worse, it found the risk of non-Covid, non-accident mortality actually increased. The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is among the world’s oldest and best-known general medical journals.“
“Truth is coming out: A preprint study in the Lancet has analysed the mortality data from the vaccine trials and made the shocking finding that mRNA vaccines had “no effect on overall mortality”
Maybe the people you know are cleverer than the people I know – a lot of the people I know wouldn’t begin to be able to interpret that statement.
I did the very best I could today to have the most honest, but sensitive, conversation that I could have with an elderly relative about what the jabs have already done to their health and what they might do.
I pointed out that however the government might couch it, as some kind of wellness campaign by calling it a ‘spring booster’ (disgusting marketing ploy to elderly people in particular in my view) that it is not designed to keep people healthy.
Whether it is taken on board or not only time will tell – I personally doubt it – but at least if/when the worst does happen I can say with a clear conscience that I tried my hardest and did my best to make them aware of the harms.
The problem is, however hard I try, the government’s 24/7 doom marketing via the MSM will beat my efforts all the time. My family is terrified of covid – and will therefore roll up their sleeves.
Does anyone remember Aberfan?
Over 100 children killed by the National Coal Board, who escaped any punishment, and even took money from the relief fund to maintain their infrastructure.
How about Bhopal?
Does anyone think that anyone in authority will pay for the disaster that they caused?
Sometimes, in some places, some do pay. So we have to persist.
Escaping retribution not only ensures that lessons are not in fact learned. It means that victims are dishonoured, as beings of no account.
We owe a reckoning to the children who have already lost their lives to these “vaccines”. They were entirely innocent.
And those that are going to lose their lives.
Yes. They may well have maximised their possibilities amongst those over the age of five. They are now seeking those aged five and under.
When I first read this news, coming as it did when reports of “vaccine” injuries were rampant, I thought that it couldn’t be true.
But it’s not only that some people will do anything for money. The sad fact is that people can rationalise anything.
I see a lot of people doing a lot of rationalising – as some kind of coping mechanism.
The nudging and the government brainwashing has put them in this position.
To everyone who might already have and will lose their lives. Everyone.
Safer to Wait
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ewc3tOTHuNE
Before you vaccinate your child: STOP! Think it over.
Stand for freedom with our Yellow Boards By The Road next events
Saturday 9th April 2pm to 3pm TODAY SATURDAY
Yellow Boards
Loddon Bridge, A329 Reading Rd,
Winnersh (Outside Showcase)
Wokingham RG41 5HG
Tuesday 12th April 5.30pm to 6.30pm
Yellow Boards By the Road
Junction Broad Lane/
A3095 Bagshot Lane
Bracknell RG12 9NW
Stand in the Park Sundays from 10am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham Howard Palmer Gardens
(Cockpit Path car park free on Sunday)
Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Received a nice letter from the Saintly NHS today kindly advising that my child (aged 5 to 11) is eligible to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Apparently two doses should give long-lasting protection. At the appointment there will be an opportunity to ask questions prior to taking consent, they state “consent is an important part of vaccination” . The JCVI have advised that getting one’s child vaccinated is not urgent. Accompanying the letter is a glossy leaflet listing the common and less common side effects. This juxtaposed with my reading of dozens of vaccine “safety updates” and reports like the one above create within me a feeling of utter revulsion and contempt for our political class particularly the quack quack mumbo jumbo clown and his craven acolytes.
We received two on Thursday, one for our daughter, one for our son.
I wrote the date on both (they didn’t have any date) and then, across the top:
“Obviously, we ignored it.”
My wife suggested writing something rather more colourful.
We hope our children, twenty years from now in their unremarkable fortress on the hill, will look back at these historical documents, in their fetching blue envelopes (slightly faded), and remark to each other,
“By gum, our parents were cool cats, weren’t they?!”
God for you MAK – like a kind of covid time capsule!
Not to mention the supposed “Health” Service, cravenly doing their bidding. Hard not to think of Mengele who used to ruffle the children’s hair in the camps before experimenting on them in his ‘hospital’ wing.
There is no Bagshot Lane in Bracknell.
Bagshot Road
I’m guessing the authors know they need to wrap up the study in sparkly packaging in order to get it peer reviewed. They will also know once accepted as a peer reviewed paper that the findings have to be taken seriously. All the findings.
The findings are that the AZ and J&J vaccines reduce overall mortality as will as mortality in specific categories. It tells us nothing, in scientific terms, about the mRNA vaccines because the results are not significant. Larger studies would be needed to show if the effects on cardiovascular disease are real.
On the other hand it is a nail in the coffin of the “mRNA vaccines reduce your risk of dying from COVID” as there is no evience for this statement at all.
The data for the J&J (adenovirus) trial look suspicious.
Can you please explain.
amanuensis has the subject for his/her next article.
It always has to be remembered that the undoubted positive effect of the vaccines on covid mortality wanes with time. So how long was the vaccine arm vaccinate for in the study? After six months the raw UKHSA data suggest that the vaccines become negatively effective.
Correction: mortality effectiveness does not become negative but it does at least become less positive with time. And then add on the vaccine deaths and injuries.
More importantly, add on the as yet unknown risks of cumulative doses of mRNA, possible integration into DNA, the unknowns regarding how long cells keep producing spike protein, whether cells might start producing spike proteins again once they have stopped, immune exhaustion, etc.
‘… undoubted positive effect…’?
You need to read more widely.
It’s not undoubted: I am doubting based on the trial data. In the Pfizer study, which we know was fraudulent, there was 1 covid death in the vaccine arm vs 2 in the placebo arm. That is not statistically significant and given the lack of proper blinding, likely untrue.
Real life data looks more promising, as per the UKHSA and others….until you realise the numbers are gamed, as per Norman Fenton’s excellent deconstruction of the data. I think the most we can say is that for a period from 2 to 20 weeks post vaccination, covid deaths MAY be somewhat reduced (or maybe not), but they are increased rather for the first 2 weeks and quite possibly after 20 weeks, thereby wiping out any possible benefit and potentially also increasing it overall. And up to doubling your risk of heart & clotting related issues as well. Sounds like a bum deal to me.
I’d have expected sufficient rigour from the Daily Sceptic to point out what confidence intervals crossing the null in a forest plot actually means for any nonspecialists reading.
The focus of the paper is instead on the surprising finding that the adenovirus-vector vaccines (e.g. AstraZeneca and J&J) appear significantly to reduce overall mortality.
Hardly surprising as the AZ figures seem to be the only ones that are statistically significant. All the results relating to the mRNA vaccines have confidence intervals that include no effect.
Quite. If this had been the trial data as originally presented, the MRNA vaccines would never have received approval. The data presented here suggest they do basically nothing. But its disingenuous for DS to try and spin this as evidence of harm, because it’s no such thing.
I wonder if the paper will pass peer review. In the case of mRNA vaccines all it has done is combine two RCTs which had insignificant levels of mortality to get a combined result which is also insignificant. The adenovirus vaccines are a bit better – six RCTs – but using four different vaccines (not just AZ) so it seems a bit dubious to combine them.
Unusual, I find myself agreeing with you. The CIs are such to make this report and indeed the trial results meaningless.
Perhaps its all been an exercise in seeing if you can convince the world to get injected with saline to overcome a computer generated virus. The result of that test is most definitely positive with hardly any CI.
Conclusion, the vast ,majority of the human race does not use logic, and can be relatively easily influenced by ‘magical myths’.
Everyone will no doubt have their own interpretation of where that conclusion may lead us.
Peer review?
Or Pal review….
We know the peer review system is shot. The scientific community knows the peer review system is shot.
That’s why they are united around the replication crisis. At least the responsible ones are.
So a trial using ivermectin that showed 3 deaths in the drug arm and 9 in the placebo, was deemed statistically insignificant. But 2v1 and 3v1 in the vaccine trials is fine.
Looking at the blue table and the confidence levels ascribed to the numbers, am I right to observe that the vaccines were approved even though the confidence levels, purely in terms of their protection from Covid, straddle the 1.0 value?
I’m no statistician nor clinician, but it appears to me that the Covid protection benefit is unproven by the data.
I would also expect that finding such low single figure numbers in a cohort of nearly 40,000 would merit an even bigger confidence band range.
Please correct me if I’m wrong in my understanding.
It has been commented earlier below but confidence interval incl 1 therefore you cannot make these conclusions from cardiovacular deaths or all overall mortality for the mRNA vaccines.There is no significance.
It is nicely illustrated in Fig 1 that the confidence intervals do not include 1 ie significant just for the things they are discussing the startling less mortality in the adenovector vaccine studies.But the authors say that much bigger studies are needed to say these things, still this is from a small data compared to the enormous numbers in studies needed now to see the total mortality data after vaccines and compare to non vaccinated.
So we cannot use this data to say that there are more deaths/cardiovascular mRNA vaccine deaths but the trial data was still lousy no significant effect on mortality at all of the mRNA compared to placebo arm.
Morning: COVID Jab Is Far More Dangerous Than Advertised
https://www.theepochtimes.com/covid-jab-is-far-more-dangerous-than-advertised_4381781.html
COVID Jab Is Far More Dangerous Than Advertised
And that’s for those over the age of 65.
BY JOSEPH MERCOLA
Stand for freedom with our Yellow Boards By The Road next events
Tuesday 12th April 5.30pm to 6.30pm
Yellow Boards By the Road
Junction Broad Lane/
A3095 Bagshot Lane
Bracknell RG12 9NW
Stand in the Park Sundays from 10am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham Howard Palmer Gardens
(Cockpit Path car park free on Sunday)
Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Christine Stabell Benn (first named author) was interviewed by Sebastian Rushworth recently. Search out the interview & watch it! She comes across as moderate, principled, decent, & dedicated. (Plus she does argue that some vaccines have as yet unexplained positive effects on overall mortality rates.) I can’t imagine the cardiovascular issue will have escaped her notice.
The cardiovascular issue is not significant(see below).I also found the interview interesting and found her very trust worthy what she was syaing there.
CHEMTRAILS, 5G, COVID & THE NEW WORLD ORDER
https://www.bitchute.com/video/dteE5WgeUGiH/
Mark Steele explains the reasons behind Chemtrails, the connection between 5G electromagnetic radiation and the symptoms of so-called COVID 19: all planned by the World Economic Forum (New World Order) to depopulate the World
MrHellvis69
Stand for freedom with our Yellow Boards other events
Tuesday 12th April 5.30pm to 6.30pm
Yellow Boards By the Road
Junction Broad Lane/
A3095 Bagshot Lane
Bracknell RG12 9NW
Stand in the Park Sundays from 10am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham Howard Palmer Gardens
(Cockpit Path car park free on Sunday)
Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Chemtrails, ffs.
Look I get it. You’ve been howling in the wilderness for years. Suddenly there’s an influx of people to the conspiracy movement. It must feel like a revolution. You’re not alone anymore, right?
Here’s the thing: you could increase the size of your movement by a factor of 100x and it would still be fringe. What’s more, rants about bizarre conspiracies simply are not persuasive to the majority of people. By spouting them, you’re actually hurting the movement for principled opposition to government overreach.
If you really want to help, be quiet or at least dial down the crazy. Or is your need to try and recruit more disciples and gain validation so great that you don’t care who gets hurt?
During 2021 in NZ there were about 2300 more deaths than 2020, That is about 6% above the baseline for excess deaths set in 2020, so it is a big effect, and it was almost entirely confined to April-October 2021 spanning the vaccination program amongst older and more vulnerable people where excess deaths were about 12% above baseline. Due to successful covid eradication policies neither year had covid or flu or other respiratory viruses circulating (other than RSV that generally kills about 50-200 a year). Temporally vaccination appears to be the obvious cause – and if correct the vaccines appear to have resulted in the deaths of about 0.1-0.2% of over 60’s through some non-obvious mechanism (most likely increased risk of death from cardio-vascular issues). Note that numbers in the pfizer trials (a few thousand) were too small to clearly reveal such a low probability effect, though there were more cardiovascular deaths amongst people who got the vaccine than the control group), such low percentages will only show up clearly at population level. https://www.bitchute.com/video/dASUoQ92PTbD/
Australian excess death data during vaccination programs is very similar with similar underlying dostly disease free conditions.
Such a vaccine death rate was probably net worth it if Delta was to sweep through the population – it would likely have saved lives overall, though it never happened in NZ. But it is clearly a very bad bet in the days of Omicron, doubly so as published papers clearly show that successive doses of vaccine have increasing risk of heart damage.
I’ll consider this ‘scientific’ study along with every other scientific study in the Lancet, described by the editor as up to 50% BS (paraphrasing).
One is as well tossing a coin as believing most medical studies judging by his assessment.
And being that medical science is without doubt the most rigorous of sciences, climate science falls very well short of it.
Anyone seen what is happening in Shanghai right now. Coming soon to the UK as Boris announces lockdowns May be necessary again. Stop the vaccines now. Please watch stop the mandates an 8 hour rally in Los Angeles today with nearly 100 speakers. Doctors, scientists, data analysts, researchers, religious leaders, politicians all saying the same thing. Stop the vaccines, stop the mandates. I urge anyone who can, to watch what is going on in Shanghai right now. It is horrific.
I don’t know how they can refer to a “placebo arm”. All the vaccine studies vaccinated their placebo groups by Summer 2021 when vaccination became a political rather than a health issue. They then boosted their placebo groups in Deember 2021 due to the panic about omicron. There has effectively been no placebo group in the vaccine studies. I know because I was part of a study.
Take NZ population in 2020 as the placebo arm of an 8 million person trial, and the NZ population in 2021 as the vaccine arm. That reveal real dangers in fine detail.
Where can I find this document?
The people behind the study, such as Christine Stabell Benn, make it pretty clear that they want the data to speak for itself. Also, she has made it clear on Twitter and Linkedin that this is is significant.