Top doctor who once promoted COVID vaccines on TV now says they should be halted based on his peer reviewed analysis

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,341
26,056
1
2020evidence.org
Props to him for having the integrity to come out publicly and do a 180 after diving into the data more.

A highly respected cardiologist and expert in evidence-based medicine was prompted to take a critical look at the vaccine data after the unexpected death of his father 6 months after vaccination. He spent 6 months carefully studying the data and consulting with other top scientists. He’s now calling for a halt to the vaccines based on the data.

https://insulinresistance.org/index.php/jir/article/view/71/224 (Curing the pandemic of misinformation on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines through real evidence-based medicine - Part 1)

https://insulinresistance.org/index.php/jir/article/view/72/228 (Curing the pandemic of misinformation on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines through real evidence-based medicine - Part 2)

"Results:
In the non-elderly population the “number needed to treat” to prevent a single death
runs into the thousands. Re-analysis of randomised controlled trials using the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology suggests a greater risk of serious adverse events from the vaccines than being hospitalised from COVID-19. Pharmacovigilance systems and real-world
safety data, coupled with plausible mechanisms of harm, are deeply concerning, especially in
relation to cardiovascular safety. Mirroring a potential signal from the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, a
significant rise in cardiac arrest calls to ambulances in England was seen in 2021, with similar
data emerging from Israel in the 16–39-year-old age group.

Conclusion:
It cannot be said that the consent to receive these agents was fully informed, as is
required ethically and legally. A pause and reappraisal of global vaccination policies for
COVID-19 is long overdue."

Note that his conclusions are corroborated by these other studies:

(US COVID-19 Vaccines Proven to Cause More Harm than Good Based on Pivotal Clinical Trial Data Analyzed Using the Proper Scientific Endpoint, “All Cause Severe Morbidity/Mortality”)

This study also found the shots provide negative protection after a few months:
(Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Omicron or Delta variants following a two-dose or booster BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination series: after 3 months the shots provide negative protection, VAIDS)

(Covid-19 vaccine boosters for young adults: A risk-benefit assessment and five ethical arguments against mandates at universities))
 
Last edited:

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,341
26,056
1
2020evidence.org

The press conference announcing the story

Only GB News attended. It was ignored by all the world’s mainstream press. Read this excellent writeup by Dr. Tess Lawrie who was very disappointed that there was no coverage of this important paper by a former vaccine advocate:



The backstory

Here are a few things you might find interesting:

  1. I asked how many journals refused to publish his papers. The surprising answer is zero. He simply submitted the papers to one of the very few medical journals with no ties to big pharma and no advertising and would take a paper of 10,000 words.
  2. It was split into two articles because the journal has a size limit for a single article.
  3. He started working on the paper 9 months ago.
  4. After a 3 month double blind peer-review, the papers were accepted.

The reaction

  1. “Leading scientists say the new paper is important.” (from the Epoch Times article).
  2. His peers mostly reacted with support, some privately. He wrote to me, “No overt criticism.”
  3. After the new paper was published, critics noted that Malhotra is a board member of the Journal of Insulin Resistance. This makes sense. If you can’t argue the fact, attack the person. He is a member of the board, but there are strict rules about how such papers are handled by journals.
  4. Dr. Campbell Murdoch, who advises the Royal College of General Practitioners, said that the study “describes multiple systemic failures in the provision of safe and effective evidence-based medicine,” and that the situation has made it “impossible for patients and the public to make an informed choice about what is best for their health and life.”
  5. Some others criticized the paper, including Dr. Victoria Male, an immunologist at Imperial College London. Male wrote on Twitter that Table 2 in part 1 which outlines the number of people in each age group estimated to need a vaccination to prevent a COVID-19 death “is quite in favour of vaccination.” But the problem is that estimate is based on the UK government data which miscategorized deaths. The actual Pfizer Phase 3 trial, where the vaccine was a closer match to the variant circulating, was that the drug may have saved 1 life per 22,000 people vaccinated. And the paper itself warns that the estimates in Table 2 are likely to be inaccurate.
  6. The British Society of Immunology said in response to the paper: "The safety and effectiveness assessments of all medicines and vaccines should be based on robust analysis of the evidence. This is the gold standard of healthcare research and is the high-quality analysis the public deserves to allow them to make evidence-based decisions about their health. Unfortunately, this paper does not thoroughly analyse all the available evidence and contains many narrative reflections. While individual case studies can be emotive, to understand the full picture, we must undertake robust evaluation examining the response from large numbers of people to be accurately able to assess the benefits and risks of any medical intervention. The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have been available for almost two years and many millions of doses have been given to people in the UK and around the world. Both in the initial clinical trials and throughout this rollout period, many researchers and health agencies have been carefully analysing the ongoing effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines." Oh really? Let’s take the Israeli government for example. They didn’t monitor for safety for a year and after they did, they hid the safety results. See the Israeli safety data coverup which the British Society of Immunology conveniently ignores despite calling for looking at all the available evidence. How do they explain those results? Or take our own CDC who can’t get their story straight as to whether they were analyzing the VAERS data or not. They’ve switched their stories so many times I can’t keep track of it. Pfizer’s own Phase 3 trial showed more people died in the vaccine group than the placebo group. Should we ignore that? Where are the post market studies comparing all-cause mortality and morbidity? Wayne Root did his own personal study of this since nobody else did and what he found was inexplicable if the vaccines are safe. Shouldn’t we include that anecdotal evidence? How can anyone explain that? I did my own with statistics from 600 people and they matched what Wayne found: the vaccines are unsafe. Or how about the polls I did? Or the huge diversity of evidence summarized in this article? Should we ignore all of that evidence which is all counter-narrative? Should we ignore the fact that nobody in the medical community was curious enough to want to see the Israeli safety data? Dr. Paul Offit didn’t want to see it. CDC outside committee chair Grace Lee didn’t want to see it. But Professor Martin Kulldorff wanted to see it and he’s not even on the CDC and FDA committees anymore. The British Society needs to explain why scientists do not want to see any data that goes against their belief system. Is that how science works nowadays? Are they proud of that?

The press interviews: only on GB News

Nobody else will cover this except GB News.

Mark Steyn interview (16 minutes; August 16, 2022). Aseem relates that the authorities were shocked to learn what he had found (which they should have known).

Dan Wootton interview (9 minutes; Sept 26, 2022). The best part was at the end where Pfizer refused to comment, and the MHRA said in response the narrative that “vaccines are the best way to protect people from COVID-19.” They refused to address anything in the papers.

The autopsy report on Aseem’s father’s death



Summary

Dr. Aseem Malhotra is a hero. When he learned he was wrong, he did the right thing: publicly admitted his mistake and called for the halt to the vaccines.

He was publicly advocating for the vaccines and he himself is double jabbed with the COVID vaccines. When a personal event made him question what he had been told, he spent 6 months looking at the data and publicly admitted he was wrong. He did this at considerable risk to his reputation.

He’s the type of doctor that the authorities and the medical community should be listening to. Instead they are trying to silence and discredit him and his work. They should be ashamed of their actions. History will not be kind to them.

The truth will eventually come out. Those who stonewall the inevitable will suffer the consequences.
 

WPTLION

Well-Known Member
Jan 7, 2002
3,418
3,801
1
Rushing the vaccine to market to save a few elderly people was a nice thought. All of the information the Doctor discovered would have been available in a normal trial. I've said it for 18 months most people and almost all people under 50 never needed the shot. Hell the WHO just said 50% of all people with covid never knew it. And now there is a commercial on the radio that says more than 9 in 10 deaths were over 50 with multiple issues. Another interesting development in things they are saying----if you smoke you could have serious consequences from Covid.

I told ya so!
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,341
26,056
1
2020evidence.org
Rushing the vaccine to market to save a few elderly people was a nice thought. All of the information the Doctor discovered would have been available in a normal trial. I've said it for 18 months most people and almost all people under 50 never needed the shot. Hell the WHO just said 50% of all people with covid never knew it. And now there is a commercial on the radio that says more than 9 in 10 deaths were over 50 with multiple issues. Another interesting development in things they are saying----if you smoke you could have serious consequences from Covid.

I told ya so!
True but even in the short trials where they tracked vaccine and placebo group for 2 months there were glaring safety signals the OP doc and others have found.

For example there was a statistically significant increase in serious all cause issues in the vaccinated group than the unvaccinated. This alone should have been enough for the fda (if they weren’t captured by big pharma) to shut the program down.
 

Gnat91

Well-Known Member
Dec 28, 2016
4,143
5,522
1
Jacksonville FL.
Ok, first off it’s the Fvucking government. When has the government done anything right by the citizens of this nation without the preface being to line their pockets. Second see my first point and never ever trust anything the government says or does. It’s not about you, it’s about them. And lastly, they wanted you to get a shot which they called a “vaccine” that didn’t do what vaccines do since the beginning of recorded vaccines…and on top of that they tested for about a week before they shut that shit down because….again….. the shit wasn’t working the way it should. They then basically rolled out a shot with a shit ton of unsuspecting Guinea pigs, all the while making BILLIONS. Now?…..now they have their data and are starting to figure out exactly what these shots do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,341
26,056
1
2020evidence.org

YeOldeCup

Well-Known Member
Jan 27, 2005
2,797
2,057
1
Watching Ian coverage on The Weather Channel, which is running commercials advising everyone to get their vaccine "update," as if it's a software patch.

Lunacy.
 

LionDeNittany

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
47,092
22,782
1
DFW, TX

The press conference announcing the story​

Only GB News attended. It was ignored by all the world’s mainstream press. Read this excellent writeup by Dr. Tess Lawrie who was very disappointed that there was no coverage of this important paper by a former vaccine advocate:


The backstory​

Here are a few things you might find interesting:

  1. I asked how many journals refused to publish his papers. The surprising answer is zero. He simply submitted the papers to one of the very few medical journals with no ties to big pharma and no advertising and would take a paper of 10,000 words.
  2. It was split into two articles because the journal has a size limit for a single article.
  3. He started working on the paper 9 months ago.
  4. After a 3 month double blind peer-review, the papers were accepted.

The reaction​

  1. “Leading scientists say the new paper is important.” (from the Epoch Times article).
  2. His peers mostly reacted with support, some privately. He wrote to me, “No overt criticism.”
  3. After the new paper was published, critics noted that Malhotra is a board member of the Journal of Insulin Resistance. This makes sense. If you can’t argue the fact, attack the person. He is a member of the board, but there are strict rules about how such papers are handled by journals.
  4. Dr. Campbell Murdoch, who advises the Royal College of General Practitioners, said that the study “describes multiple systemic failures in the provision of safe and effective evidence-based medicine,” and that the situation has made it “impossible for patients and the public to make an informed choice about what is best for their health and life.”
  5. Some others criticized the paper, including Dr. Victoria Male, an immunologist at Imperial College London. Male wrote on Twitter that Table 2 in part 1 which outlines the number of people in each age group estimated to need a vaccination to prevent a COVID-19 death “is quite in favour of vaccination.” But the problem is that estimate is based on the UK government data which miscategorized deaths. The actual Pfizer Phase 3 trial, where the vaccine was a closer match to the variant circulating, was that the drug may have saved 1 life per 22,000 people vaccinated. And the paper itself warns that the estimates in Table 2 are likely to be inaccurate.
  6. The British Society of Immunology said in response to the paper: "The safety and effectiveness assessments of all medicines and vaccines should be based on robust analysis of the evidence. This is the gold standard of healthcare research and is the high-quality analysis the public deserves to allow them to make evidence-based decisions about their health. Unfortunately, this paper does not thoroughly analyse all the available evidence and contains many narrative reflections. While individual case studies can be emotive, to understand the full picture, we must undertake robust evaluation examining the response from large numbers of people to be accurately able to assess the benefits and risks of any medical intervention. The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have been available for almost two years and many millions of doses have been given to people in the UK and around the world. Both in the initial clinical trials and throughout this rollout period, many researchers and health agencies have been carefully analysing the ongoing effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines." Oh really? Let’s take the Israeli government for example. They didn’t monitor for safety for a year and after they did, they hid the safety results. See the Israeli safety data coverup which the British Society of Immunology conveniently ignores despite calling for looking at all the available evidence. How do they explain those results? Or take our own CDC who can’t get their story straight as to whether they were analyzing the VAERS data or not. They’ve switched their stories so many times I can’t keep track of it. Pfizer’s own Phase 3 trial showed more people died in the vaccine group than the placebo group. Should we ignore that? Where are the post market studies comparing all-cause mortality and morbidity? Wayne Root did his own personal study of this since nobody else did and what he found was inexplicable if the vaccines are safe. Shouldn’t we include that anecdotal evidence? How can anyone explain that? I did my own with statistics from 600 people and they matched what Wayne found: the vaccines are unsafe. Or how about the polls I did? Or the huge diversity of evidence summarized in this article? Should we ignore all of that evidence which is all counter-narrative? Should we ignore the fact that nobody in the medical community was curious enough to want to see the Israeli safety data? Dr. Paul Offit didn’t want to see it. CDC outside committee chair Grace Lee didn’t want to see it. But Professor Martin Kulldorff wanted to see it and he’s not even on the CDC and FDA committees anymore. The British Society needs to explain why scientists do not want to see any data that goes against their belief system. Is that how science works nowadays? Are they proud of that?

The press interviews: only on GB News​

Nobody else will cover this except GB News.

Mark Steyn interview (16 minutes; August 16, 2022). Aseem relates that the authorities were shocked to learn what he had found (which they should have known).

Dan Wootton interview (9 minutes; Sept 26, 2022). The best part was at the end where Pfizer refused to comment, and the MHRA said in response the narrative that “vaccines are the best way to protect people from COVID-19.” They refused to address anything in the papers.

The autopsy report on Aseem’s father’s death​


Summary​

Dr. Aseem Malhotra is a hero. When he learned he was wrong, he did the right thing: publicly admitted his mistake and called for the halt to the vaccines.

He was publicly advocating for the vaccines and he himself is double jabbed with the COVID vaccines. When a personal event made him question what he had been told, he spent 6 months looking at the data and publicly admitted he was wrong. He did this at considerable risk to his reputation.

He’s the type of doctor that the authorities and the medical community should be listening to. Instead they are trying to silence and discredit him and his work. They should be ashamed of their actions. History will not be kind to them.

The truth will eventually come out. Those who stonewall the inevitable will suffer the consequences.

Expert in 'Evidence-Based Medicine'

LOL.

Just LOL.
 

Rip_E_2_Joe_PA

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2002
22,164
8,614
1
Witch Doctor?
I lost both my sons to Covid because they bought your bullshit.
Go Phuck Your Crack Cocaine induced anti vaxer delusions.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,341
26,056
1
2020evidence.org
Witch Doctor?
I lost both my sons to Covid because they bought your bullshit.
Go Phuck Your Crack Cocaine induced anti vaxer delusions.
Dr. Malhotra. It’s not MY bullshit, all of my posts cite medical experts or journal studies, etc.. I’m sorry for your loss but were your kids deficient in vitamin D, or did they treat it early as outpatients, were they given poisonous remdesivir?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: indynittany

Rip_E_2_Joe_PA

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2002
22,164
8,614
1
Dr. Malhotra. I’m sorry for your loss but were your kids deficient in vitamin D or did they treat it early as outpatients, were they given remdesivir?
They were given all thevbullshit hocus anti pocus anti vaxer shit. You tin foil Trump\Putin condoms need tondrown
Dr. Malhotra. I’m sorry for your loss but were your kids deficient in vitamin D or did they treat it early as outpatients, were they given remdesivir?
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,341
26,056
1
2020evidence.org
They were given all thevbullshit hocus anti pocus anti vaxer shit. You tin foil Trump\Putin condoms need tondrown
You’re unhinged. Go get another jab. Just keep getting them if they are so amazing. Medical experts and studies published in journals aren’t hocus pocus.


The the novel shots with no long term safety data that only last a few months if anything are hocus pocus.

Vitamin D alone could prevent most deaths let alone adding sequential multi drug outpatient treatment and avoiding remdesivir and your sons would have been fine.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: indynittany

Rip_E_2_Joe_PA

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2002
22,164
8,614
1
You’re unhinged. Go get another jab. Just keep getting them if they are so amazing. Medical experts and studies published in journals aren’t hocus pocus. The the novel shots with no long term safety data that only last a few months if anything are hocus pocus.
Go get you crack ...you l
You’re unhinged. Go get another jab. Just keep getting them if they are so amazing. Medical experts and studies published in journals aren’t hocus pocus. The the novel shots with no long term safety data that only last a few months if anything are hocus pocus.

Vitamin D alone could prevent most deaths let alone adding sequential multi drug outpatient treatment and avoiding remdesivir and your sons would have been fine.
You mindless idiot.
Keep smoking that crack. There is a special place in hell for you loud irresponsible fools.... my wife and I have immune system issues... we have had our shots..
The rise in miocarditis came long before covid. You are a one sick MFer!
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,341
26,056
1
2020evidence.org
Go get you crack ...you l

You mindless idiot.
Keep smoking that crack. There is a special place in hell for you loud irresponsible fools.... my wife and I have immune system issues... we have had our shots..
The rise in miocarditis came long before covid. You are a one sick MFer!
There’s a special place in hell for people who give novel gene therapy shots to younger people when all they need is vitamin D3, zinc, etc. treat it early and don’t get poisoned with remdesivir and they’ll be fine.

These shots interfere with your innate and adaptive immune systems. Good luck!

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X (Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs)

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.03.21256520v1 (The BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 reprograms both adaptive and innate immune responses)

There was no rise in myocarditis before covid. Prove it.
 

WPTLION

Well-Known Member
Jan 7, 2002
3,418
3,801
1
Witch Doctor?
I lost both my sons to Covid because they bought your bullshit.
Go Phuck Your Crack Cocaine induced anti vaxer delusions.
I suggest going to look for them!

Maybe Biden has them in his basement.


BTW the VAX doesn't do much of anything. And weakened immune system really isn't as big of a problem with covid as you might think. There are about 10 other conditions that pose a greater threat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

ao5884

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2019
7,875
8,103
1
The odds of this statement being true are amazingly low.

I mean, ridiculously low.

I mean.....you're lying.
Was thinking the same thing. But come on you know our board leftwingers rarely understand the math let alone take the time to use it.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,341
26,056
1
2020evidence.org
Not very meaningful without the context that, in the age groups that are vulnerable, 95+% of the population has been vaccinated.
That’s true which is why you need to look at all cause mortality rates between the vaccinated vs unvaccinated.


“…
Also, the Substack article, All-Cause Mortality by Vaccination Status, is excellent and provides a wide range of charts that are particularly illuminating showing visually that the the vaccines are not as safe as people claim. Just look at the black link here which is the unvaccinated.

The graph below is data from the UK ONS on all-cause mortality.

Lines above the 1x line are cohorts where the vaccine is nonsensical. In short, over time, it becomes more and more obvious that the vaccines are a disaster. How can anyone explain the huge increase in all-cause mortality?


Figure 6. Only at the start of the data collection period did the numbers look favorable for the vaccine. They all turn negative over time for Doses 1 and 2 over time meaning the vaccines are nonsensical. No cherry picking required. You can see it visually. Source: All-Cause Mortality by Vaccination Status
The article concludes:

This data is all very alarming. A poorly functioning vaccine should still have at least a small positive effect. A non-functioning vaccine should have no effect. Yet we see a negative effect in all age groups for both 1 or 2 doses taken ‘at least 21 days ago’, and it is most cases the negative effect is quite large. The fact that the pattern is consistent and predictable, meaning it moves smoothly from month to month and age bracket to age bracket, gives even more credibility to the pattern.
It’s a great read.

Methodology​

I compared the all-cause mortality (ACM) for people who got 2 shots at least 6 months ago with the unvaccinated since this was the row that would be the most difficult to show an anti-vaxx signal.

Our goal in this analysis was not to get definitive numbers. We describe later the proper way to do a risk-benefit analysis. Our goal was to show that the vaccines are dangerous even if you look at a row that is least likely to make your point.

Summary of the data

This summary below (which I put on the Summary tab which is to the right of the Table 6 tab) shows the rates of all-cause mortality per 100,000 person-years for each age range and also shows the risk benefit ratio.

Figure 2. A summary of the calculations from the UK data. This is shown in the Summary tab of my spreadsheet.

Here’s the legend for each column:

  1. A: age range for the row
  2. B: ACM rate for unvaxxed
  3. C: ACM rate for vaxxed
  4. D: Risk benefit calculation which is # non-COVID lives lost due to the vaccine / # of COVID lives saved from the vaccine. This is the single best metric for justifying the use of an intervention. The larger this number is, the less sense the intervention makes. A value >1 means the intervention should never be used. The cells with * means that the vaccine actually caused more COVID cases to happen than the unvaccinated. Note: you need to view the full spreadsheet to see the data used to calculate this number. You cannot do it from the summary data on this screen.
  5. E: ACM of vaxxed/ACM unvaxed, i.e., Column C/ Column
    B. A value >1 means the intervention should never be used since it is costing lives. This is a crude measure of the effectiveness of an intervention as we explain below.
  6. F: % of ACM deaths due to COVID, i.e., the fraction of all the ACM deaths that were caused by COVID.

The data clearly shows that any mortality benefit you get from taking the vaccine and lowering your risk of death from COVID is more than offset by the mortality you lose from the vaccine itself. This isn’t new. It is something I have been saying since May, 2021. But now I finally found direct government data where I could demonstrate this for all ages under 80.

In the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, there was a 40% increase in ACM in the vaccinated group. They killed an estimated 7 people for every person they saved from COVID!

In the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, there were a total of 21 deaths in the vaccine group and 15 deaths in the placebo group.

This 40% increase in the all-cause mortality in the trial (21/15=1.4) was of course dismissed as not statistically significant. While that is true, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pay attention to the number.

But now, based on the UK data, we know that the result in the Phase 3 trial wasn’t a statistical fluke. Not at all.

In fact, if we look at the risk benefit, we see that we saved 1 life from dying from COVID (1 COVID death in the treatment group vs. 2 COVID deaths in the placebo group= 1 life saved), but there were 7 excess non-COVID deaths (20 - 13).

So the Pfizer trial showed that for every person we saved from COVID, we killed 7 people. However the numbers were too small to place a high confidence in this point estimate.

 

knickslions

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2005
1,382
1,288
1
That’s true which is why you need to look at all cause mortality rates between the vaccinated vs unvaccinated.


“…
Also, the Substack article, All-Cause Mortality by Vaccination Status, is excellent and provides a wide range of charts that are particularly illuminating showing visually that the the vaccines are not as safe as people claim. Just look at the black link here which is the unvaccinated.

The graph below is data from the UK ONS on all-cause mortality.

Lines above the 1x line are cohorts where the vaccine is nonsensical. In short, over time, it becomes more and more obvious that the vaccines are a disaster. How can anyone explain the huge increase in all-cause mortality?


Figure 6. Only at the start of the data collection period did the numbers look favorable for the vaccine. They all turn negative over time for Doses 1 and 2 over time meaning the vaccines are nonsensical. No cherry picking required. You can see it visually. Source: All-Cause Mortality by Vaccination Status
The article concludes:


It’s a great read.

Methodology​

I compared the all-cause mortality (ACM) for people who got 2 shots at least 6 months ago with the unvaccinated since this was the row that would be the most difficult to show an anti-vaxx signal.

Our goal in this analysis was not to get definitive numbers. We describe later the proper way to do a risk-benefit analysis. Our goal was to show that the vaccines are dangerous even if you look at a row that is least likely to make your point.

Summary of the data

This summary below (which I put on the Summary tab which is to the right of the Table 6 tab) shows the rates of all-cause mortality per 100,000 person-years for each age range and also shows the risk benefit ratio.

Figure 2. A summary of the calculations from the UK data. This is shown in the Summary tab of my spreadsheet.

Here’s the legend for each column:

  1. A: age range for the row
  2. B: ACM rate for unvaxxed
  3. C: ACM rate for vaxxed
  4. D: Risk benefit calculation which is # non-COVID lives lost due to the vaccine / # of COVID lives saved from the vaccine. This is the single best metric for justifying the use of an intervention. The larger this number is, the less sense the intervention makes. A value >1 means the intervention should never be used. The cells with * means that the vaccine actually caused more COVID cases to happen than the unvaccinated. Note: you need to view the full spreadsheet to see the data used to calculate this number. You cannot do it from the summary data on this screen.
  5. E: ACM of vaxxed/ACM unvaxed, i.e., Column C/ Column
    B. A value >1 means the intervention should never be used since it is costing lives. This is a crude measure of the effectiveness of an intervention as we explain below.
  6. F: % of ACM deaths due to COVID, i.e., the fraction of all the ACM deaths that were caused by COVID.

The data clearly shows that any mortality benefit you get from taking the vaccine and lowering your risk of death from COVID is more than offset by the mortality you lose from the vaccine itself. This isn’t new. It is something I have been saying since May, 2021. But now I finally found direct government data where I could demonstrate this for all ages under 80.

In the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, there was a 40% increase in ACM in the vaccinated group. They killed an estimated 7 people for every person they saved from COVID!

In the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, there were a total of 21 deaths in the vaccine group and 15 deaths in the placebo group.

This 40% increase in the all-cause mortality in the trial (21/15=1.4) was of course dismissed as not statistically significant. While that is true, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pay attention to the number.

But now, based on the UK data, we know that the result in the Phase 3 trial wasn’t a statistical fluke. Not at all.

In fact, if we look at the risk benefit, we see that we saved 1 life from dying from COVID (1 COVID death in the treatment group vs. 2 COVID deaths in the placebo group= 1 life saved), but there were 7 excess non-COVID deaths (20 - 13).

So the Pfizer trial showed that for every person we saved from COVID, we killed 7 people. However the numbers were too small to place a high confidence in this point estimate.

LMAO
 

1Hammers1

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2014
774
1,457
1
Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo on Friday release the state's analysis of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, revealing an 84 percent "increased risk of cardiac-related death among men 18-39." Florida "will not be silent on the truth," he said.

The guidance "recommends against the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines for males ages 18-39 years old." In a statement, Ladapo said that "Studying the safety and efficacy of any medications, including vaccines, is an important component of public health. Far less attention has been paid to safety and the concerns of many individuals have been dismissed – these are important findings that should be communicated to Floridians."
What I do not understand. He is saying it's not a good idea for 18 to 39 year old males. What about 14-17 , or 1-17 ? Also I keep reading about healthy young women dropping dead from cardiac arrest with no explanation ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

1Hammers1

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2014
774
1,457
1
It long past time to end the mandates for this shot.
 

interrobang

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2016
24,113
36,600
1
It long past time to end the mandates for this shot.

They haven't followed EUA guidance in a long time. Now it's just a rubber stamp with no safety or efficacy data (except for a few mice) required