Back in spring 2021 the U.K.’s health agencies were in full swing, trying to get everyone in turn to take their free Covid vaccine. Back then, many people still believed that Covid was a serious threat to all of us, and as a result initial take-up was rapid and even younger age groups eagerly awaited their turn to take the elixir that would offer salvation. Back in those simple days there wasn’t much need to explain the details of how exactly the vaccines would offer salvation – Covid was a serious disease and as such you really didn’t want to catch it at all, and vaccines clearly would offer the necessary protection because of ‘antibodies’.
As time went on, however, it appeared that some ‘foolish’ people weren’t in mortal fear of Covid, despite the best efforts of the nudge units to make it appear that Covid was killing a large proportion of healthy individuals. So the agencies changed tactics. If people weren’t going to clamour for the vaccines, they’d use emotional blackmail and appeal for people to take their dose to ‘protect granny’ and to help our country reach ‘herd immunity’ so that we could eliminate Covid from our shores.
This encouragement to get vaccinated for the good of us all remained for a few months, until, around summer 2021, the message started to shift towards taking the vaccine to protect oneself from hospitalisation or death. And, once it was realised that people still didn’t care that much, to once again use peer pressure to embarrass people into getting vaccinated ‘to reduce pressure on the NHS’. It might have been a different country, but President Biden’s statement in mid-December 2021 is an excellent example of that propaganda at work:
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death – if you’re unvaccinated – for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm.
But there’s good news: if you’re vaccinated and you had your booster shot, you’re protected from severe illness and death – period.
Of course, authorities worldwide had to change their message from protection from infection to protection from serious disease and death. By autumn 2021 it was clear that Covid was spreading widely in the vaccinated and that the vaccines weren’t offering anything like the protection from infection that had been promised only a few months prior. Note that our authorities never apologised to those who got vaccinated ‘to protect granny’ and neither did they ever state how lucky they’d been that the vaccines appeared to offer some benefit (protection against hospitalisation) despite their initial hopes of herd-immunity being dashed in such a short period of time. Instead they pretended that they’d always intended for the vaccines to protect against hospitalisation and death and that ‘protect granny’ never existed (I’m sure that politicians worldwide hate the way the internet permanently stores their various proclamations).
And so we get to our position today, where our authorities are surely breathing sighs of relief that the vaccines at least offer some protection from serious disease, if not infection and transmission.
Which is just one reason why a recent paper from Oxford, Edinburgh and Swansea universities in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the risk of serious Covid or death by vaccination status is so very important.
The paper analyses hospitalisations and deaths related to Covid in the populations of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, comparing the impact of one or two doses of vaccine with the remaining unvaccinated population. It is quite a nice paper, and unlike most other epidemiological studies to date uses the ‘Target Trial’ study design. This data analysis method attempts to calculate what results would have been found had there been a full randomised trial undertaken at the initial vaccine rollout. Because the study was based on population-wide data there are many hundreds of thousands individuals’ data in the analysis, even after attempts to match the characteristics of the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Given that there were no large-scale studies into the safety and effectiveness of the Covid vaccines when they were first given in large numbers during 2021, this type of ‘emulation’ of such a study is possibly as good an approach as we’re going to get.
The results of the analysis are, quite frankly, astounding.
The study found that the effectiveness of the vaccines at preventing hospitalisation and death maintain a level of protection for some weeks following their administration, and then go negative at around 60-80 days post-vaccination. That means within two to three months, the vaccinated experienced a higher rate of Covid hospitalisation and death than the unvaccinated.
Here are their pooled results (all ages, all four countries) for the first dose of AstraZeneca vaccine:
This is the relative risk of hospitalisation and death in the vaccinated compared with the unvaccinated. If the relative risk is less than 1 then this implies that there’s a lower risk of hospitalisation and death in the vaccinated. Values greater than 1 suggest that the risk of hospitalisation and death is increased after vaccination. The analysis clearly shows an initial protective effect, which reverses at around 60-70 days post vaccination.
Here are similar data for the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine:
Note that we see a similar outcome as for the AstraZeneca vaccine: a first dose of vaccine initially offers protection against hospitalisation and death but this situation reverses after around 70-80 days post-vaccination.
This appears to be a type of vaccine waning, but the authors point out that during this time there was a shift in the predominant variants (to Delta), and thus it could also reflect an interaction between the immune response to the vaccines and the ability of non-matching variants to cause serious disease.
The data in the paper for the second dose of vaccine are a little more complex to interpret. Instead of estimating the risk of infection versus the unvaccinated, the study calculated the risk relative to those that had only received their first dose of vaccine. For these data the AstraZeneca vaccine also results in increased risk after around 70-80 days:
The Pfizer vaccine, on the other hand, offered some additional protection compared with those who had only received their first dose of vaccine for the duration of the study period, staying below 1 – though appearing to be trending upwards towards the end of the period:
It is important to note that the study results suggest that the second dose of AstraZeneca made the risk of hospitalisation and death even worse than the first (as the comparison of the double-dosed is with the single-dosed), and that the second dose of Pfizer vaccine possibly offered enough protection to cancel out the additional risk of hospitalisation and death seen after the first dose.
To put some numbers to these estimates, at the 98 day point, the data in the study suggested that for the AstraZeneca vaccine the vaccine effectiveness (VE) in protecting against hospitalisation and death was approximately minus-89% after the first dose and that the second dose made this worse by minus-59%. For the Pfizer vaccine the respective VE estimates at the 100 day point were approximately minus-85% and plus-46%.
I should point out that these are pooled VE estimates, but similar VE were seen across different age groups. The exception to this is that the study didn’t include any data on care home residents nor those aged under 18 years of age – perhaps those individuals fared better after vaccination, or perhaps not.
The paper itself suggests two possible reasons for their worrying results:
- That individuals once vaccinated became carefree and started to exhibit behaviours that increased their risk of getting ill with Covid. I find this unlikely – it presumes that the unvaccinated chose to maintain a fear of Covid at the point where the vaccines became available. However all the evidence available to me suggests that instead in most cases they simply didn’t consider themselves to have been at high risk from Covid even before vaccination started.
- That the unvaccinated were more likely to have had a natural infection with Covid by spring 2021 and thus already had protection against severe disease. This is perhaps a reasonable suggestion – this also suggests that prior infection offers additional protection against hospitalisation and death compared with vaccination. It’s unclear why this effect was not quantified and controlled for in the study as the data on prior infection status is presumably available.
Of course, it is entirely plausible that the increase in risk of hospitalisation and death after vaccination is directly linked to the vaccines themselves. It is a little odd that the authors didn’t explore this possibility in their paper.
There’s an important point about the results of this study. These results are for the impact of the vaccines on hospitalisation and death related to Covid infection and the paper offers no information on the impact of side-effects of taking the vaccines. It has been suggested by multiple authors that the vaccine side-effects are tolerable given the benefits offered by the vaccines. This clearly isn’t going to be the case if the vaccines don’t offer protection from infection (or make infection more likely) and if they don’t offer protection from hospitalisation and death (or make this more likely).
This is only one study, and it would be remiss to suggest that the evidence is overwhelming that the vaccines definitely increase the risk of hospitalisation and death relating to a Covid infection. However, there are other papers suggesting little if any benefits of the vaccines in terms of protection from hospitalisation and death. There really needs to be a halt in any vaccination of non-vulnerable groups, and it would appear to be unwise and unethical to encourage vaccination through the use of such measures as vaccine passports or requirement of vaccination for employment, etc. Our authorities really need to undertake some significant and robust studies into the potential harms caused by these vaccines. I fear that the lack of robust pharmacovigilance following the rollout of the vaccines might already have caused significant harm.
I still remain amazed that there was no rigorous assessment of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines as they were given to the population back in 2021 – the rulebook appears to have been thrown out of the window.
One last final point. I started this post with a suggestion that the increased risk of hospitalisation and death related to Covid in the vaccination would be harmful to the reputations of our nation’s authorities given the fervour with which they promoted the vaccines over the last two years. Of course, there’s also the small matter of the thousands of additional hospitalisations and deaths that have occurred if the results of the study discussed in this post turn out to be generally applicable to the population. It remains an open question whether our authorities will consider the threat to their reputations to be the most important factor and ignore these emerging data, or if they’ll choose transparency and immediately open an investigation into the potential for the vaccines to cause harm.
Amanuensis is an ex-academic and senior Government scientist. He blogs at Bartram’s Folly.
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.
Good morning. The old saying, “the cure is worse than the disease” seems appropriate here. What is has revealed is the methods used to promote it’s use, to say the least.
Again, thanks for the analysis. In reply to a couple of points, namely:
“I still remain amazed that there was no rigorous assessment of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines”
“It remains an open question whether our authorities will consider the threat to their reputations to be the most important factor and ignore these emerging data, or if they’ll choose transparency and immediately open an investigation into the potential for the vaccines to cause harm.”
I believe that the entire episode had/has nothing to do with public health. Absolutely nothing. It was an experiment in control – a compliance test if you will. If you understand that then everything else fits perfectly into place.
Indeed. I’m still fairly open-minded about the point at which the authorities started openly lying to us – was it from the start or were they genuine (albeit mad) for a short period of time. But dear amanuensis, who is doing fantastic work, is either being naive or polite with these expressions of amazement. None of this is at all amazing. I suppose the whole of covid folly and evil taken in sum is amazing, but the fact that politicians and other powerful people are liars and cheats and greedy megalomaniacs and psychopaths is hardly amazing.
I strongly doubt that any person or organisation up to their neck in this will ever willingly admit any error or wrongdoing willingly.
“I’m still fairly open-minded about the point at which the authorities started openly lying to us”
The answer to that tof is very brief:
From the bloody start!
I’d love to know for sure. There may have been some brief moments of sincerity, albeit they were quite insanely hysterical. I struggle to believe that intelligent scientists like Whitty and Vallance went that mad – as Yeadon points out they studied the same things he studied, and knew the same things – but it’s possible some of the politicians did.
The Why? always was and still remains a far bigger mystery than the Cui bono?
Malone’s piece yesterday about the CIA driving it is one of the best answers, if one still wanted to credit them with initially good intentions.
The why? Given all of the evidence to date, I believe the most likely explanation is a complex one. The ‘pandemic’ and the irrational (for those few of us still able to deal in calm logic) response did not serve just a single purpose. They laid out a chess board and opened with the Queen’s Gambit – the pandemic and the possibility of salvation, the ‘vaccine’. Almost everybody fell for their well laid trap and succumbed to the security and safety that the state offered. This immediately met many objectives (and this is just an off the cuff brain dump) 1) knowledge of public compliance 2) introduction of mRNA technology and public acceptance for that technology 3) creation of state dependance 4) knowledge of difficulty of public manipulation (not difficult) 5) introduction and acceptance of digital ID 6) acceptance of limited travel 7) acceptance of limited human interaction etc etc. In short, they trialled control whilst also laying the foundations for drastic economic, social, political and heath care change. This was their opening move and is what all latter moves are built on top of. Of this I am absolutely certain. My only doubts are around prior knowledge of vaccine harm. My gut tells me that they simply didn’t care i.e. it was of zero importance whether the stuff had a negative net death impact, but if it had then that was fine as it would contribute to depopulation.
War and climate change have been their next moves. A digitised biosecurity state, with CBDC and a social credit system, is their checkmate. We lose a piece on the board every day.
“My only doubts are around prior knowledge of vaccine harm”
Terrific post FL and it absolutely summarises my position with the exception of the above.
A large number of people of power and influence in ALL governments must be aware of the Depopulation agenda because that is what Lockstep and Agenda 2030 are all about. They are well aware that the injections will lead to death, severe and lifelong illnesses and very significantly sterilisation of the population. The proof for that is the recent unanimous decision (15 – 0) by the CDC to authorise the injections for ALL children from age 0 in the full knowledge that children are at ZERO risk from the C1984. To attribute any explanation to this decision other than malicious intent would mark the scribe as a lunatic.
Clearly some governments have had conscience twinges at the thought of the wilful murder of their children and have appreciated that while they might be able to fudge excuses for injecting adults they remain wholly exposed where children are concerned and so they have bottled it. Let’s not pretend they have had a change of heart or a ‘better understanding of the $cience.’
The bottom line is that many thousands of people are complicit in the depopulation agenda and they are definitely NOT ignorant of it or ‘just following orders.’
“The proof for that is the recent unanimous decision (15 – 0) by the CDC to authorise the injections for ALL children from age 0 in the full knowledge that children are at ZERO risk from the C1984.”
I am not sure that the intention behind this decision is to enable young children to be injected so as to harm their health or reproductive capability. More likely, in my opinion, is that this authorisation removes any liability for pharma companies in relation to adverse reactions.
They will deny everything, until they have secured a carpet big enough to sweep it all under, and then it will have never happened.
“The paper offers no information on the impact of side effects of taking the vaccines”
The best is yet to come…
Heart problems are just the start.
I suppose that if it’s a cockup, our politicians and authorities should and will soon do as you suggest.
If it’s more sinister, expect no such thing.
The fact that only 4 MPs bothered to listen to Dr. Malhotra giving evidence and only a few more bothering to attend the safety debate, with the government spokesperson doubling down most heinously on their monstrosities, already tells me enough.
Btw, the earliest definitive indication that this was not a cockup came in June 2020 already, when the many main flaws of the PCR test, like varying CTs and total lack of standardization, became general public knowledge and weren’t addressed by them at all- they still aren’t!
…Indeed, early on many things set my spidy-senses tingling…the PCR being one.
It really struck me when I was watching the news (this was early days, before I stopped watching MSM!!)
It was a doctor who was being interviewed in Spain, but on UK TV..the reporter was trying her best to get him to admit that Spain was suffering an unparalleled pandemic..but he just kept his cool, and, among other things, told her that if they tested for common stomach bugs they would find them in the vast majority of people….but it didn’t make it a deathly pandemic….
Then came the ‘died within 28 days of a test‘ malarkey….utterly ridiculous…and again as a nurse friend pointed out at the time, and in a similar vein, up to 80% of the country carry the HSV-1 (cold sores/herpes) virus. So if everyone who died was tested for it within 28 days of death, then people in the UK would be dying with/of cold sores in enormous numbers….??
Add to that the deliberate conflation of the virus SARS-Cov2 with the disease Covid-19
Spot on.
Also the total media silence suggests it’s not a cockup. The media love to cover cockups. Look at the drubbing that LIz Truss received.
I totally agree but remain mystified as to why the MSM has been so aligned behind the narrative. Is it purely financial on their part, or is something else behind this?
Amanuensis is one of my favourite authors on DS, always writing with such careful scrutiny and scepticism. However, I would pay money to know what Amanuensis thinks the past 3 years has actually been about, given that it demonstrably wasn’t about protecting anyone’s health.
I’m sitting in a departure lounge in Kuala Lumpur; about 4/5 of the passengers around me are wearing medical-looking face masks, and advisory notices on various screens gently remind travellers of the need for ‘social distancing’. The scale of this crime against reason and humanity is something I will never get over. As much as I admire this kind of careful and measured analysis, I can’t help thinking it’s time to start talking about what the ‘pandemic’ was instead of what it clearly wasn’t.
The plandemic was just the Trojan horse and those 9 months between the “pandemic” being announced, restrictions starting to be imposed, the withholding of known therapeutics until the panacea silver bullet that is the gene-therapies were unleashed and the censorship of conflicting data, along with the cancelling of all dissident voices, was the integral phase 1 of the PsyOp to instill fear in a highly malleable population so as to gain max control so that there’d be a high degree of uptake of the clot shots. That part had to happen in order to have the majority of the unwitting, docile public onboard.
This 12min video from 2014 features a journalist referring to exerts from the Rockefeller document from 2010, the Lockstep section. Everything he reads and says is what is happening now. It’s been planned for many years.
https://rumble.com/v1pxflz-lockstep-we-were-warned-in-2014-must-see-interview-from-oct-2014.html
The guy in the video is reading from this document, page 18. It’s all here if anyone cares to keep it for reference. From 2010.
https://www.nommeraadio.ee/meedia/pdf/RRS/Rockefeller%20Foundation.pdf
Mogs – Nail. Head.
An excellent summary of it all.
I was very fortunate to find the Rockefeller 2010 Lockstep document at the start of the Scamdemic, ironically by some pseudo fact-checking site which tried to convince why it was all so absurd
. This reading led me down in to this rabbit hole and fortunately I have never found my way out.
“It’s been planned for many years.”
Without a shadow of any doubt.
Cheers hux.
Some kind words for a change in this place…
Actually, once you accept that intentional harm is being done right in plain sight ( and to argue differently would be naive and ignorant in the extreme given the evidence. But the mere fact that the authorities are overlooking the record number of injuries and deaths these toxic shots are responsible for and, like you say, the no-brainer that they are irrationally approving them for babies, toddlers and obv pushing them on pregnant women, which is unprecedented, is a bit of a give away as to their malicious intent ) it’s easier to concede the obvious, that the agenda is depopulation. It cannot be anything else at this stage. The jury is in and sufficient data have been collected. The UK government won’t even open an investigation into the safety of the jabs? Why don’t they just state loud and proud, “We want to kill you, harm you and ensure you breed no more!” To give them the benefit of the doubt, that they are somehow just mere clueless and hapless bureaucrats who move in different circles to the rest of us, when in fact they are privy to more information and knowledge than any of us, is deluded with knobs on. I thought it sounded extreme but now the writing’s on the wall. It’s as plain as day that deaths > and < birth rate is going to have an inverse relationship for the foreseeable. The only way out of that is to stop getting jabbed, but I think the damage has already been done for years to come.
The question for me is whether the endgame is increased control of the masses OR depopulation OR both. I think increased control of the masses is clearly a huge part of the endgame, but that it is still possible that the deliberate intention to inflict health harms on the people (with a view to depopulation) was unintentional, at least at this stage.
The intent with the injections may simply have been to get people onto a programme of regular mRNA vaccines, which would subsequently be available for malign ends (such as the insertion of electronic chips into people or depopulation strategies at a later stage). The authorisation of the injections for children may simply be about avoiding liability for harms done. Surely if the aim was to get as many people as possible “hooked” onto these injections, a better strategy would have been the total avoidance of adverse side effects, since those have damaged take-up. The roll-out of vaccine passports as a prelude to digital IDs etc would surely have been more effective without the adverse side effects.
Very good point and one I’ve made a lot during this episode. Why weren’t they just placebos if it was all about digital ID etc? Digital ID/currency could have been introduced gradually with minimal resistance. No, it feels more sensible to see Covid is a binary bioweapon – the virus and the vax. Something that can forever be in circulation and which gives authorities (all of them) endless and arbitrary justification for whatever kind of control they might need during a war.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/top-marks-an-interview-not-to-be-missed/
“MARK STEYN: Mark Sharman has had an incredible half century at the heart of the British media. He started as a cub reporter on the Derby Evening Telegraph and then rocketed up to Head of News and Sport at ITV and Director of Broadcasting at Sky. He’s as mainstream as you can get, impeccably mainstream, until he made the mistake of noticing that for almost three years now British telly, British radio, British newspapers haven’t really been doing their job with respect to the biggest story of the day. So he made a documentary about it called Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion. Alas, in 21st century media, second opinions on all kinds of things – climate change, transgender sports, immigration, Islam, the list gets longer and longer – second opinions are increasingly forbidden. And so Mr Sharman’s documentary has just been taken down at YouTube for the following reasons. Big exclamation – ‘Medical Misinformation. YouTube doesn’t allow claims about Covid-19 vaccinations that contradict expert consensus from local health authorities or the World Health Organisation.’ Ooh! No contradicting the World Health Organisation. Mark Sharman joins me now. Mark, as I said, you’ve been in British broadcasting for a very long time. Have you ever just had a piece of work, such as your documentary, just – boom! – vaporise in the way that YouTube just did it to you?
MARK SHARMAN: No, not at all. Mark, I’m not surprised that it’s been cut, but as an old-school journalist who believes in reporting both sides of a story, I’m dismayed about what’s happening. You know, we are being controlled. The narrative on many, many things is being controlled, and the evidence is growing. I mean, the governments, the Big Pharma companies, Big Tech media companies, they’ve all decided what the line is and they’re sticking to that line come what may. And as you showed earlier in the programme, there are more and more pieces of research from around the world which proves there is something seriously wrong with these vaccines, they’re clearly not totally safe and effective. They’re clearly not safe, and that don’t appear to be effective. And all we’re asking for, Mark, is some proper open scientific debate. You know, if there’s something wrong, it should be looked at and stopped before more people are hurt….You know, the vaccine injured and the public in general don’t seem to be as important as the authorities. They’d rather protect their own line and their own story than look at what’s going on. You know, it just isn’t right….”
Yes, we are definitely at war…..
It can still be watched at Oracle Films…if anyone hasn’t already, then then do so…..
https://www.oraclefilms.com/safeandeffective
Thank you so much for this link. I didn’t think I could be any more sceptical about the scamdemic, but was I wrong!
That phrase seems to crop up a lot where vaccine studies are concerned.
Something for the Swiss doctor to ponder. If it is true that vaccine effectiveness turns negative against COVID death, it doesn’t matter whether the thousands of excess deaths currently being experienced by many countries are classified as COVID or non-COVID, the vaccines will be partly to blame either way. Time to look again at the life expectancy versus vaccine coverage graphs. What might have been true up to October 2021, probably isn’t now.
And then there’s this, from June this year, Prof Cahill saying that everyone who’s had a Covid injection will die within 3 – 5 years.
Quite the doomsday forecast and I don’t know what she’s basing that on but she does seem very exact and confident in her statement. Surely she wouldn’t come out and assert something as alarmist as that based on nothing otherwise she’s basically putting herself on a par with the likes of that prat Ferguson. I dunno, maybe she was just having a bad day!
Having said that, in June it wasn’t known that there were more gain of function shenanigans such as this recent new SARS chimera being made in Boston, so taking a rather pessimistic scenario, all it would take is another virus to be accidentally on purpose leaked from a GoF lab which has a much higher IFR than Omicron but that is just as transmissible and all of those jabbed who presumably/evidently are walking around with now compromised immune systems are in for quite the challenge if/when something stronger than a benign common cold comes along. And, if the great reset/depopulation agenda is anything to go by, it’s surely just a matter of time. We, the unjabbed, will have no worries, but if hospitals are going to fill this winter with jabbed patients catching just regular circulating pathogens then if anything more lethal is unleashed then they’re royally screwed aren’t they? I think this Boston one is what Gates was hinting at. So in this regard perhaps Cahill is on to something.
https://www.nationaltimesaustralia.com/covid-19-deaths-and-injuries/prof-dolores-cahill-everyone-who-has-had-an-mrna-injection-will-die-within-3-5-years/
Mogs, I believe your interpretation is sound. Unfortunately.
I hope she is several orders of Fergusons out on this. That would mean losing everyone I know apart from a couple of relatives in Australia.
This is worrying: –
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-63440849
Particularly, as the headline states ‘cardiac arrest’ rather than people crushed or something similar.
I know. My husband had 2 Moderna shots, which is the equivalent of 6 Pfizer shots due to the higher dosage of mRNA. So even though he’s not having more that’s still a hell of a lot. And how many trillions of LNPs/mRNA will that yield? They really should do blood tests on people, at least as part of a research project, maybe every 6 months, just to see if they are still expressing spike. I don’t know if it differs greatly between individuals, but if nobody’s testing for it then nobody knows if there’s a max cut-off point. Mostly everyone I know is jabbed, bar a couple of exceptions. If I only knew a microscopist, haematologist, pathologist etc it’d be very interesting to take a sample of his blood and mine and compare the two, but so far so good anyways. No ill effects detected. Possibly he got some degraded batch, who knows?
Re Prof Cahill, I haven’t looked for the full interview, as that was just a clip, so maybe she went on to elaborate. Also, as that was June, maybe she’s done a more recent interview and changed her view. She’s rather an elusive one and I don’t tend to see many interviews with her but she comes across as very knowledgeable and her field is immunology. But it sounds like she’s on the same page as Dr Yeadon, as regrettably am I now. There really is no benign or innocent alternative, and as I keep saying here, coming up to 2 years since the start of the roll-out, one certainly cannot use ignorance as an excuse or get out clause against complicity. And you are complicit in harming people if you don’t stick your head above the parapet and speak out.
The problem is that it’s far from clear how many people covid actually killed over and above those who would have died anyway. The waters have been deliberately muddied in myriad ways. We’re told there was a deadly plague that required unprecedented measures, and since “vaccines” against this plague have been rolled out to the masses, more people are dying. It’s hard to sell that as “safe and effective” and even harder to see it as “cost effective” given that for the money spent on covid rubbish you could have guaranteed to prolong quality life for a lot people using known treatments for known medical problems.
The corona vaccines were never meant to stop infection or transmission, or keep people out of hospital or prevent them from dying.
They were only ever intended to suppress symptoms and help people die peacefully and more quickly, thus freeing up hospital beds.
pfisser/murderna press release no. 3050, 10/29/2022
I’m waiting to see them come up with that spin – sadly enough, it is probably the most accurate description of what the poison does. The original trials were only based on suppression of symptoms. Looking at the charts above and at things like pfaxlovid, it does seem that all any of the stuff does is temporarily suppress symptoms and delay progression of the disease. Eventually a person’s immune system conquers it or it does not.
As for effectiveness – any review of so-called effectiveness of this gunk should also count the 2-week period after dose 1 and the 1-week period after each subsequent dose in which the recipient is deemed to have not yet had the dose in question. We know that during those periods the recipient is in fact more susceptible to catching the virus and supposedly has no/limited protection. That is a direct consequence of having had the poke, so even if the poke were to provide any protection for a few weeks to months after that, the initial period must also be counted in terms of VE. If the poke makes you more susceptible/less protected for a short period of time, that must be subtracted from the VE number they magic up. Doing so would presumably result in a VE of negative to infinity.
One thing I found surprising in terms of coercing/pressuring everyone and their dog into getting this garbage, was after reading a report of then PHE of around March 2021, where they were predicting that they expected some 80% of people going into hospital/ICU to be people who were 2x vaxxed (the good old days, when 2 jabs was all it would take). This was because the most vulnerable would have the highest vaxx uptake, but still be the group most likely to end up in hospital and very ill, jab or no jab. So they knew even then that the jab would at best provide some protection for the most at risk, but by no means 100%. So even then it made no sense to stab everyone – and their predictions came true within a few months.
I also remember the same report advising against over-use of mAb products, as they thought that would put evolutionary pressure on the virus, which would eventually make the mAb products useless. Seeing as the pokes were going to provide a similar type of protection, why did they not issue the same warning for the pokes? The point of driving evolutionary pressure appears to have occurred.
“It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them”
– Deuteronomy 32:35
Until unvaccinated with and without natural immunity can reliably be accounted for these studies are pretty meaningless.
We are now looking at the possibility that, after a matter of months, the vaccines do not prevent infection or serious disease and yet you still add the proviso that this means they should only be given ‘to vulnerable groups’. I don’t follow the logic – why would we give ineffective vaccines with potentially lethal side effects to the old and vulnerable? Just for the few weeks of protection and then keep boosting every three months?
By the way, I love your writing style. ‘Lucid’ is the word.
All very interesting and it’s good to have this information even if it’s 18 months too late for many people who were conned into having one or more of these jabs. But this is precisely the kind of data that should have been available BEFORE any of these gene therapies were authorised, even under “emergency” circumstances.
Basically, the roll-out of the jabs WAS the experiment and the Global Health Authorities have used a large proportion of the global population as their human guinea pigs.
Dr Malone explained why they have done it, here, which is well worth an hour of your time to watch: https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/mrna-vaccines-the-cia-and-national
The people who did this are no different to Dr Mengele and are just as evil.
Thank you for laying out the study findings in “layman’s” words”. In addition to the vaxxed ending up in hospital with covid, there is a huge outbreak of RSV in children in the USA. The first thing that comes to my mind is were their mothers covid vaxxed in pregnancy, or before becoming pregnant, were the children covid vaxxed. Are the immune systems of these children weakened due to covid vaxx injections via mother or child? Surely, the CDC is investigating?
As far as the UK goes, my recollection is that in the winter of 2019/20 the state (not just the Johnson government) was ill prepared for this or any other epidemic. When it became clear that a nasty new disease was spreading and the top bananas at uk.gov started pulling together a plan, Johnson himself did not get a grip of the process of policy making and executive action in the way he should have done. I’m prepared to credit the officials with doing their best in the circumstances but I wish I could say the same for so many other ‘actors in the system’.
Grandstanding by academic researchers is far too common in this as in other fields. The hunger of news media for anything they can call a ‘fact’ and treat in the most emotionally charged way made it impossible for calmer voices to get a hearing. Add to this the ignorant and malicious nonsense posted by groups and individuals on Twitter and it should not be surprising that people – including officials or politicians – should not have known what to do for best.
And finally, with regard to Amanuensis’ article, I’d like to see an analysis of the criteria used in hospitals to decide who should be admitted. We know a lot of people with life-threatening conditions were excluded. We know about the (deliberately?) obscure use of the 28 day mortality figure. But deaths after admission were a minority. Did all the rest really need to be admitted?