Breaking: COVID-19 vaccines kill two people for every three they save

[haidut]

This is perhaps the most damning evidence in regards to the COVID-19 vaccines so far. Of course, the peer-reviewed paper survived in the public domain for less than 2 weeks before public health "experts" raised hell and forced the journal to retract it due to the paper presenting "distorted" analysis. Note that nobody said the paper lied or had data flaws. It was simply too "controversial" for the powers that be to accept. In any event, if anybody needed evidence to make a solid argument against COVID-19 vaccination to friends/family/employers/etc I think it does not get much better than this. If these vaccines become mandatory for some (all?) segments of the population, it will be a form of state-sanctioned genocide, usually targeting the most vulnerable people. I am attaching the paper in PDF to the thread in case the journal decides to completely remove it, which I suspect will happen considering the firestorm this study is causing online.

https://archive.is/3FbAx

"...Result: The NNTV is between 200–700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000 (95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination."

@tankasnowgod @Drareg @Regina @boris @Giraffe @LeeLemonoil @yerrag

 

[LeeLemonoil]

Thanks @haidut

 

[encerent]

thank you. very short and straight forward article.

Unfortunately no one (friends, family, employers) will listen as this is a retracted article now

 

[Missenger]

Vaccines Editorial Office
????????? ?
???????
Citation: Vaccines Editorial Office.
Retraction: Walach et al. The Safety of
COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should
Rethink the Policy. Vaccines 2021, 9,
693. Vaccines 2021, 9, 729. https://
doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9070729
Received: 1 July 2021
Accepted: 1 July 2021
Published: 2 July 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the author.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
MDPI, St. Alban-Anlage 66, 4052 Basel, Switzerland; [email protected]
The journal retracts the article, The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should
Rethink the Policy [1], cited above.
Serious concerns were brought to the attention of the publisher regarding misinterpre-
tation of data, leading to incorrect and distorted conclusions.
The article was evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief with the support of several Editorial
Board Members. They found that the article contained several errors that fundamentally
affect the interpretation of the findings.
These include, but are not limited to:
The data from the Lareb report (https://www.lareb.nl/coronameldingen) in
The Netherlands were used to calculate the number of severe and fatal side effects per
100,000 vaccinations. Unfortunately, in the manuscript by Harald Walach et al. these
data were incorrectly interpreted which led to erroneous conclusions. The data was pre-
sented as being causally related to adverse events by the authors. This is inaccurate. In
The Netherlands, healthcare professionals and patients are invited to reports suspicions of
adverse events that may be associated with vaccination. For this type of reporting a causal
relation between the event and the vaccine is not needed, therefore a reported event that
occurred after vaccination is not necessarily attributable to vaccination. Thus, reporting of
a death following vaccination does not imply that this is a vaccine-related event. There are
several other inaccuracies in the paper by Harald Walach et al. one of which is that fatal
cases were certified by medical specialists. It should be known that even this false claim
does not imply causation, which the authors imply. Further, the authors have called the
events ‘effects’ and ‘reactions’ when this is not established, and until causality is established
they are ‘events’ that may or may not be caused by exposure to a vaccine. It does not matter
what statistics one may apply, this is incorrect and misleading.
The authors were asked to respond to the claims, but were not able to do so satisfacto-
rily. The authors were notified of the retraction and did not agree.

"correlation is not causation"
"People die when they are killed."

 

[haidut]

"correlation is not causation"
"People die when they are killed."

Yep, they will twist and turn this any way they want.
However, much to their chagrin....in this case causality is strongly implied because the death rate in the vaccinated group was higher than in the non-vaccinated general population. Conveniently for the public health authorities, causal link between vaccines and deaths is only accepted as proven if a large double-blind, placebo controlled trial is conducted...., which cannot happen as it considered now unethical to have a true placebo group as the vaccine is, you know, "life-saving" and the caring, empathetic doctors can't be depriving a vulnerable group of vaccine access. So, the "placebo" groups are just given other vaccines and if those other vaccines have a similar lethal profile then the COVID-19 vaccines will never be shown to kill people.

Mum just had the Pfizer vaccine - what's the case to make to stop the rest of my family taking it

My mother volunteered for the covid Pfizer vaccine - she deliberately didn't tell me because of my big pharma mistrust and you know, Ray Peat. Now she's bailed out of coming for Christmas because she doesn't want to affect the vaccination process as she awaits the booster shot. She seems pretty...

raypeatforum.com

"...Moderna trial: 3 people in the vaccine group developed Bell‘s Palsy. 1 in the placebo group. ...Only that there is no placebo group in the moderna trial, the „placebo“ is a meningitis vaccine."

Covid vaccine trial continues after volunteer dies - BBC News

The Brazilian volunteer did not receive the vaccine being tested by AstraZeneca and Oxford University.

www.bbc.com

Thus, the study authors were very much justified in claiming a causal link, and if the journal really wanted to do right by everybody it would have let the paper stay but added a warning that the causal link is implied and not fully proven until the said trial mentioned above is conducted (which would never happen, so the causal link is the only thing that remains).

 

[haidut]

thank you. very short and straight forward article.

Unfortunately no one (friends, family, employers) will listen as this is a retracted article now

What about the studies on effectiveness of masks, lockdowns, etc? None of those have been retracted, so would they consider those? If the answer is no, I am afraid the issue is not the retraction but that some people simply won't leave their comfort zone even if the world is collapsing due to their inaction.

 

[Missenger]

So, the "placebo" groups are just given other vaccines and if those other vaccines have a similar lethal profile then the COVID-19 vaccines will never be shown to kill people.

It's a banker fun house of sorts isn't it? Until someone smashes the mirrors, whether it's the bankers or someone else.

 

[tankasnowgod]

thank you. very short and straight forward article.

Unfortunately no one (friends, family, employers) will listen as this is a retracted article now

I doubt it would be an issue of "retraction." How many of those same friends, family or employers regularly read the BMJ or Lancet, or have even done a cursory search on Pubmed?

It's probably more that they didn't see it on CNN, or it goes against their religious belief in vaccination.

 

[Missenger]

I doubt it would be an issue of "retraction." How many of those same friends, family or employers regularly read the BMJ or Lancet, or have even done a cursory search on Pubmed?

It's probably more that they didn't see it on CNN, or it goes against their religious belief in vaccination.

Here's a popular one with the ladies that want a coof shot - "I don't want to think about it".

 

[boris]

Very simple and easy to understand math, should make anyone question if all this makes any sense.

Here's a popular one with the ladies that want a coof shot - "I don't want to think about it".

I got this reaction from someone last year "I just want to enjoy life and not think about these things."

 

[Missenger]

People think ahead so they, their kids, or hell forbid a nation(s) future do not end up having to pay with blood, it's lemming behavior.

 

[sun-maid]

This is perhaps the most damning evidence in regards to the COVID-19 vaccines so far. Of course, the peer-reviewed paper survived in the public domain for less than 2 weeks before public health "experts" raised hell and forced the journal to retract it due to the paper presenting "distorted" analysis. Note that nobody said the paper lied or had data flaws. It was simply too "controversial" for the powers that be to accept. In any event, if anybody needed evidence to make a solid argument against COVID-19 vaccination to friends/family/employers/etc I think it does not get much better than this. If these vaccines become mandatory for some (all?) segments of the population, it will be a form of state-sanctioned genocide, usually targeting the most vulnerable people. I am attaching the paper in PDF to the thread in case the journal decides to completely remove it, which I suspect will happen considering the firestorm this study is causing online.

https://archive.is/3FbAx

"...Result: The NNTV is between 200–700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000 (95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination."

@tankasnowgod @Drareg @Regina @boris @Giraffe @LeeLemonoil @yerrag

I'm not sure I understand the maths. How do they come up with 3 death prevented for 2 inflicted by vaccination ?

4.11/100 000 is 0.004% chance of dying from the vaccine.

They say 50 000 vaccination is to prevent one death, that mean 2 people died from the vaccine (worst case scenario with the NNTV of 50 000) to save 1 person, so 2:1 (death:saved). Best case scenario (with the NNTV of 9000), you have 0.36 death to save 1 person, so 1:3 (death:saved). Why do they say 2:3 (death saved) ?

What am I missing ?

 

[boris]

I'm not sure I understand the maths. How do they come up with 3 death prevented for 2 inflicted by vaccination ?

4.11/100 000 is 0.004% chance of dying from the vaccine.

They say 50 000 vaccination is to prevent one death, that mean 2 people died from the vaccine (worst case scenario with the NNTV of 50 000) to save 1 person, so 2:1 (death:saved). Best case scenario (with the NNTV of 9000), you have 0.36 death to save 1 person, so 1:3 (death:saved)

What am I missing ?

For 9,000-50,000 they took 16,000 as a point estimate. So 100,000 jabs save approximately 6 lives, and 4 die.

I have yet to see evidence that is "saves" any lives, but you have to work with what you got.

 

[sun-maid]

For 9000-50,000 they took 16,000 as a point estimate. So 100,000 jabs save approximately 6 lives, and 4 die.

I have yet to see evidence that is "saves" any lives, but you have to work with what you got.

ah, I missed the point estimate. Thank you.

Yeah well these number don't lie. Even if it really saves any lives, it's a terrible ratio.

 

[Drareg]

Eugenics is alive and well........

 

[Missenger]

They certainly see nations as lab rats.

 

[Regina]

I doubt it would be an issue of "retraction." How many of those same friends, family or employers regularly read the BMJ or Lancet, or have even done a cursory search on Pubmed?

It's probably more that they didn't see it on CNN, or it goes against their religious belief in vaccination.

True that.
But you can be sure that the coming internet restrictions will require some authentication that you are doctor in order to view anything on BMJ, Lancet, PubMed.

 

[Missenger]

True that.
But you can be sure that the coming internet restrictions will require some authentication that you are doctor in order to view anything on BMJ, Lancet, PubMed.

What makes you think they'll just stop at that when they're playing a semantics game with people they consider animals? You can't be sure they wouldn't want to rape wives and kids under the guise of carbon emission taxes. I'm not exactly kidding. Ray already mentioned inflated house taxes, I was already thinking that like like other people probably.

 

[gaze]

she's unironically saying we should give millions of kids an experimental shot to save literally 1-2 lives... if she cares so much about saving 1 life I wonder if she also cares about the rising suicide rates in kids due to the lockdown, or the doubling of type two diabetes, or the rising crime rates. my guess is no.
View: https://twitter.com/CDCDirector/status/1408116464683569157?s=20

 

[Lollipop2]

They certainly see nations as lab rats.

Programmable animals.