You missed possibly the most important point. The last rows in the chart. Vaccinated then recovered somehow wanes faster than recovered or recovered then vaccinated. Seems the vaccine could mess with the immune response leaving you worse off than if you just recovered. Highlighting these should only be used on the most vulnerable populations.
You missed possibly the most important point. The last rows in the chart. Vaccinated then recovered somehow wanes faster than recovered or recovered then vaccinated. Seems the vaccine could mess with the immune response leaving you worse off than if you just recovered. Highlighting these should only be used on the most vulnerable populations.
Steve found that the vaccines are more dangerous than the virus across all age groups, therefore should not be used by anyone https://www.skirsch.com/covid/VCage.pdf
Point well taken however I would disagree with "anyone". When looked at with more factors than age there are subgroups that it would make sense to give it to. For example, someone over 70 who had recently undergone immune destroying chemo (I have one such individual in my extended family) I think it makes sense in that case as getting the virus when that immunocompromised is literally a death sentence. However to your point I think healthy people can handle this virus just fine and with early treatment the hospitalization/death rate can drop to negligible numbers.
Disagree Steve. The shots are dangerous for any age cohort and the immunocompromised and they don't work. You can't justify an unsafe, ineffective vaccine on anyone.
The vaccines only reduce the risk of infection by < 2%. Articles in medical journals have confirmed this. The absolute risk reduction (ARR), for all the Covid vaccines (i.e. vaccine effectiveness, how much do they reduce an individual's risk of infection) is < 2%. A study published in The Lancet confirms all the Covid19 vaccines' ARR is < 2%.
Pfizer .9%
Moderna 1.4%
J&J 1.8%
AstraZeneca-Oxford 1.9%
Gamaleya (Sputnik V) 1%
"Covid-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness - the elephant (not) in the room"
Dr. Ronald Brown's peer reviewed article analyzed Pfizer's and Moderna's clinical trial data that they submitted to the FDA for their EUA and he confirmed their vaccines reduce the risk of infection by only .7% and 1.1%, respectively, (their ARR). The FDA, Pfizer and Moderna did not disclose the ARR to the public, ignoring the FDA's own reporting guidelines*. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996517/
*The FDA Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based UserтАЩs Guide states, тАЬProvide absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.тАЭ (page 60). https://www.fda.gov/media/81597/download
The ARR can easily be calculated looking at the clinical trial data. It's high school math, using simple division and subtraction. You don't have to be as brilliant as Kirch to calculate the ARR. So anyone could have seen this for themselves.
Peter Doshi, Associate Editor of the BMJ, also reported the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines' ARR were less than 1%.
Also, the jabs have antibody dependent enhancement risk.
An NIH/NIAID funded study published Oct. 28, 2020 on Informed Consent said vaccine clinical trial participants were not properly informed of the antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) risk, which is "non-theoretical and compelling" where the vaccinated could experience "severe disease, lasting morbidity or even death" but would otherwise have a mild case if unvaccinated.
ADE is why a SARS CoV vaccine has never been brought to market. In previous animal trials, vaccinated mice and ferrets, when later exposed to the SARS coronavirus, developed acute liver failure and lung inflammation, respectively, due to ADE, and either died or had to be euthanized. Fauci warned about ADE in an early press conference, but said it would be observed in animal studies. But they skipped animal studies during Operation Warpspeed and any animal studies that were conducted were not disclosed to the public. Animal studies are the most critical component in vaccine safety trials.
In this brief video, Dr. Robert Malone (nominated for Nobel Prize), inventor of the original core technology platform for the mRNA and adenovirus DNA gene based vaccines, talks about ADE and how the vaccine trials did not test for ADE risk and the FDA knew this when they approved their EUA. He said the clinical trials were flawed, he objects to the FDA's recommendation for pregnant women to get the shot and he is completely against "this crazy push to vaccinate all the kids." Kirsch has done a round table discussion with Malone and Bret Weinstein.
Dr. James Lyons-Weiler warned the ADE increases the likelihood of more serious disease when exposed to any future coronavirus, whether it's a Covid19 variant, a new SARS CoV or even the common cold.
After injection, it was believed the vaccine would remain local in the deltoid muscle and some would go to the local draining lymph nodes to trigger an immune response. But a study showed the spike protein was found circulating in the blood of vaccinated healthcare workers at Brigham and Women's Hospital. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab465/6279075
A recent in vitro study shows the spike protein, from either virus infection or vaccination, directly interferes with the function of two important DNA repairing protein enzymes, BRCA1 (breast cancer) and 53BP1. The spike protein enters the cellтАЩs nucleus (which we were told it would not do) and dampens the DNA repair mechanism by as much as 90%.
SARSтАУCoVтАУ2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro
If your body can no longer repair DNA... cancer and autoimmune diseases, etc. will go unchecked. That's why doctors are reporting cancer and autoimmune conditions that were in remission or manageable, surging post jab.
The Japanese Pfizer biodistribution animal study (released after a Freedom of Information request from viral immunologist Dr. Bryam Bridle and international collaborators) showed after 48 hours, the lipo nanoparticles (which protect the fragile mRNA) collected in numerous areas throughout the body, especially the ovaries (infertility) and crossed the blood brain barrier (page 17, Table 2.6.5.5B).
Bridle is interviewed by attorney Reiner Fuellmich, co-founder of the Corona Investigative Committee, who is leading an international legal team against the corruption surrounding the pandemic. Fuellmich is joined by attorney Viviane Fischer and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, who mentions the ARR "betrayal" (time mark 32:43). https://www.bitchute.com/video/RZpqrxaztvt2/
The Perspectives on the Pandemic Series interviewed Dr. Bhakdi, who in February, 2021, along with a group of his colleagues, including Dr. Yeadon, warned the European Medicines Agency (the EU's FDA), about the potential danger of blood clots and cerebral vein thrombosis (CVT) in millions of people receiving the vaccines. Bhakdi explains what the vaccines do in the body and the CVT risk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyPjAfNNA-U
So much information that confirms these jabs are not safe. The Covid19 mortality rate is 99.95% for ages up to 69 and 99.998% for ages 0 to 19, yet they are conducting clinical trials on infants as young as six months old. This doesn't pass the smell test. The vaccines have never been about saving lives.
Thanks for your reply. I actually agree with most of what your saying here so would like to clarify my point a bit. I agree with the ARR vs RRR discussion completely, I think this has been a huge issue the whole time. When I said I could see some benefit in very specific situations I wasn't talking about risk of getting the disease which I believe is 100% for everyone. I also would have been interested to see public interest in these if they defined them as gene therapies and had to abide by the regulatory requirements of that class of drugs instead. Anyone that doubts these should be called gene therapy should see how the ICH/FDA defines this in their latest GT guidance which is ICH S12 released in September. That also interestingly says they recommend companies not only measure the delivery vehicle itself but also the expressed protein and track its distribution. Then they bizarrely state that the guidance doesn't apply to "prophylactic vaccines". Head scratcher there. In terms of ADE I agree on the informed consent and I was concerned about that myself but I'm a bit less concerned now as the signal for that doesn't appear the way it did in say Dengvaxia a few years ago. Additionally the MOA for Dengvaxia made perfect sense why we would see ADE. SARS-CoV-2 behaves differently than SARS-CoV and the information that I have to review doesn't show animal deaths upon exposure to the virus after vaccination. Sorry I can't post the materials here because I could lose my job but I reviewed Moderna, JnJ and Novavax (can't seem to find the Pfizer info). In terms of cancer risk there is a possibility but the problem with the study is they used the WT spike and not the altered spike used in the vax. Now does that discount the findings? No it does not and it doesn't prove safety either however in order to conclude that is happening we would need to study the actual antigen in question. Personally I think it's more likely that the transient immunosuppression caused by the vax is responsible for the rise in latent virus/cancer. That isn't to say though that I think efficacy is zero and risk/benefit tradeoff can be calculated. Based on the UK data if you normalize correctly (they don't in the report) you see *some* efficacy against hospitalization/death for a time. The problem I have with their methodology is they take cases and divide into the total pop (of vax or unvax) to get a rate per 100,000. This is incorrect as it overinflates the numbers as the populations are such different sizes, if you instead normalize to the number of positive tests the numbers look very different but show again some small efficacy. This goes back to the risk/benefit which can be calculated on an individual basis, in my case my risk of hospitalization is ~.000114% last I checked so even a 90% effective vaccine with this risk profile is unacceptable. However in the case of the family member I spoke of earlier their risk is orders of magnitude higher and a chance at a temporary reduction in their risk could be worth taking. Again I think this only applies to a small part of the population not the population in general and I'm not giving sweeping recommendations to anyone. The way I calculate risk is determine the risk reduction based on real world evidence (RWE) and multiply by risk of getting disease which I set at 1 (since I see it as 100%). Then I look at the known risk side of things and calculate those rates and it can make sense in some situations. The problem is in quantifying the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns so if the calculus is close I wouldn't do it. Personally, I believe early treatment is the best option however the vast majority of docs I've spoken with don't know how to do this and won't even try accepted therapies such as mAb's in patients that fit all the criteria even when I've handed them the info on how to get it and use it. It's a sad situation we find ourselves in to be honest.
You missed possibly the most important point. The last rows in the chart. Vaccinated then recovered somehow wanes faster than recovered or recovered then vaccinated. Seems the vaccine could mess with the immune response leaving you worse off than if you just recovered. Highlighting these should only be used on the most vulnerable populations.
Steve found that the vaccines are more dangerous than the virus across all age groups, therefore should not be used by anyone https://www.skirsch.com/covid/VCage.pdf
Point well taken however I would disagree with "anyone". When looked at with more factors than age there are subgroups that it would make sense to give it to. For example, someone over 70 who had recently undergone immune destroying chemo (I have one such individual in my extended family) I think it makes sense in that case as getting the virus when that immunocompromised is literally a death sentence. However to your point I think healthy people can handle this virus just fine and with early treatment the hospitalization/death rate can drop to negligible numbers.
Disagree Steve. The shots are dangerous for any age cohort and the immunocompromised and they don't work. You can't justify an unsafe, ineffective vaccine on anyone.
The vaccines only reduce the risk of infection by < 2%. Articles in medical journals have confirmed this. The absolute risk reduction (ARR), for all the Covid vaccines (i.e. vaccine effectiveness, how much do they reduce an individual's risk of infection) is < 2%. A study published in The Lancet confirms all the Covid19 vaccines' ARR is < 2%.
Pfizer .9%
Moderna 1.4%
J&J 1.8%
AstraZeneca-Oxford 1.9%
Gamaleya (Sputnik V) 1%
"Covid-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness - the elephant (not) in the room"
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext
Dr. Ronald Brown's peer reviewed article analyzed Pfizer's and Moderna's clinical trial data that they submitted to the FDA for their EUA and he confirmed their vaccines reduce the risk of infection by only .7% and 1.1%, respectively, (their ARR). The FDA, Pfizer and Moderna did not disclose the ARR to the public, ignoring the FDA's own reporting guidelines*. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996517/
*The FDA Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based UserтАЩs Guide states, тАЬProvide absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.тАЭ (page 60). https://www.fda.gov/media/81597/download
The ARR can easily be calculated looking at the clinical trial data. It's high school math, using simple division and subtraction. You don't have to be as brilliant as Kirch to calculate the ARR. So anyone could have seen this for themselves.
Peter Doshi, Associate Editor of the BMJ, also reported the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines' ARR were less than 1%.
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-lets-be-cautious-and-first-see-the-full-data/
"Absolute risk vs. relative risk Reporting the findings: Why you should always use absolute risk numbers" https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/tips-for-understanding-studies/absolute-vs-relative-risk/
Also, the jabs have antibody dependent enhancement risk.
An NIH/NIAID funded study published Oct. 28, 2020 on Informed Consent said vaccine clinical trial participants were not properly informed of the antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) risk, which is "non-theoretical and compelling" where the vaccinated could experience "severe disease, lasting morbidity or even death" but would otherwise have a mild case if unvaccinated.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcp.13795?fbclid=IwAR3UmkB4jtA0lPACSOucFNfLrS2JNv7-A3pxRIDw8eDOH2aG7V6XBUPutnk
ADE is why a SARS CoV vaccine has never been brought to market. In previous animal trials, vaccinated mice and ferrets, when later exposed to the SARS coronavirus, developed acute liver failure and lung inflammation, respectively, due to ADE, and either died or had to be euthanized. Fauci warned about ADE in an early press conference, but said it would be observed in animal studies. But they skipped animal studies during Operation Warpspeed and any animal studies that were conducted were not disclosed to the public. Animal studies are the most critical component in vaccine safety trials.
Dr. James Lyons-Weiler warned about ADE, which occurs through pathogenic priming. I had discussions with him about his article before LinkedIn (owned by Microsoft) shut down his account in Sept 2020 and he said he hoped people would heed his warning. "Notice to Clinicians, Regulatory Agencies and Vaccine Manufacturers: Enhanced Immunopathology via SARS-CoV-2 Pathogenic Priming May Matter Most" https://web.archive.org/web/20200414004642/https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/notice-clinicians-regulatory-agencies-vaccine-via-may-lyons-weiler/
In this brief video, Dr. Robert Malone (nominated for Nobel Prize), inventor of the original core technology platform for the mRNA and adenovirus DNA gene based vaccines, talks about ADE and how the vaccine trials did not test for ADE risk and the FDA knew this when they approved their EUA. He said the clinical trials were flawed, he objects to the FDA's recommendation for pregnant women to get the shot and he is completely against "this crazy push to vaccinate all the kids." Kirsch has done a round table discussion with Malone and Bret Weinstein.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/jHcDEhJgn3y6/
Dr. James Lyons-Weiler warned the ADE increases the likelihood of more serious disease when exposed to any future coronavirus, whether it's a Covid19 variant, a new SARS CoV or even the common cold.
The spike protein is a cytotoxic antigen. The spike protein was believed to be a benign/harmless antigen. However, a Salk Institute study reported the spike protein itself is cytotoxic and causes systemic damage separate from the virus itself. https://www.salk.edu/news-release/the-novel-coronavirus-spike-protein-plays-additional-key-role-in-illness/
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318902
After injection, it was believed the vaccine would remain local in the deltoid muscle and some would go to the local draining lymph nodes to trigger an immune response. But a study showed the spike protein was found circulating in the blood of vaccinated healthcare workers at Brigham and Women's Hospital. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab465/6279075
A recent in vitro study shows the spike protein, from either virus infection or vaccination, directly interferes with the function of two important DNA repairing protein enzymes, BRCA1 (breast cancer) and 53BP1. The spike protein enters the cellтАЩs nucleus (which we were told it would not do) and dampens the DNA repair mechanism by as much as 90%.
SARSтАУCoVтАУ2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro
https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/10/2056/htm
If your body can no longer repair DNA... cancer and autoimmune diseases, etc. will go unchecked. That's why doctors are reporting cancer and autoimmune conditions that were in remission or manageable, surging post jab.
The Japanese Pfizer biodistribution animal study (released after a Freedom of Information request from viral immunologist Dr. Bryam Bridle and international collaborators) showed after 48 hours, the lipo nanoparticles (which protect the fragile mRNA) collected in numerous areas throughout the body, especially the ovaries (infertility) and crossed the blood brain barrier (page 17, Table 2.6.5.5B).
https://freewestmedia.com/2021/06/04/pfizer-biontech-animal-trials-show-dangerous-concentrations-of-nano-particles-in-organs/
Bridle is interviewed by attorney Reiner Fuellmich, co-founder of the Corona Investigative Committee, who is leading an international legal team against the corruption surrounding the pandemic. Fuellmich is joined by attorney Viviane Fischer and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, who mentions the ARR "betrayal" (time mark 32:43). https://www.bitchute.com/video/RZpqrxaztvt2/
Doctors4CovidEthics is an international organization co-founded by microbiologist Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi and other scientists from 33 countries to raise awareness about the vaccine/booster risks. https://doctors4covidethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Vaccine-immune-interactions-and-booster-shots_Sep-2021.pdf
The Perspectives on the Pandemic Series interviewed Dr. Bhakdi, who in February, 2021, along with a group of his colleagues, including Dr. Yeadon, warned the European Medicines Agency (the EU's FDA), about the potential danger of blood clots and cerebral vein thrombosis (CVT) in millions of people receiving the vaccines. Bhakdi explains what the vaccines do in the body and the CVT risk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyPjAfNNA-U
So much information that confirms these jabs are not safe. The Covid19 mortality rate is 99.95% for ages up to 69 and 99.998% for ages 0 to 19, yet they are conducting clinical trials on infants as young as six months old. This doesn't pass the smell test. The vaccines have never been about saving lives.
In an interview with American Frontline Doctors, Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Pfizer Chief Science Officer said "It's my considered view that it is entirely possible that this [vaccines] will be used for massive-scale depopulation." https://web.archive.org/web/20210328131119/https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/exclusive-former-pfizer-vp-to-aflds-entirely-possible-this-will-be-used-for-massive-scale-depopulation/
Thanks for your reply. I actually agree with most of what your saying here so would like to clarify my point a bit. I agree with the ARR vs RRR discussion completely, I think this has been a huge issue the whole time. When I said I could see some benefit in very specific situations I wasn't talking about risk of getting the disease which I believe is 100% for everyone. I also would have been interested to see public interest in these if they defined them as gene therapies and had to abide by the regulatory requirements of that class of drugs instead. Anyone that doubts these should be called gene therapy should see how the ICH/FDA defines this in their latest GT guidance which is ICH S12 released in September. That also interestingly says they recommend companies not only measure the delivery vehicle itself but also the expressed protein and track its distribution. Then they bizarrely state that the guidance doesn't apply to "prophylactic vaccines". Head scratcher there. In terms of ADE I agree on the informed consent and I was concerned about that myself but I'm a bit less concerned now as the signal for that doesn't appear the way it did in say Dengvaxia a few years ago. Additionally the MOA for Dengvaxia made perfect sense why we would see ADE. SARS-CoV-2 behaves differently than SARS-CoV and the information that I have to review doesn't show animal deaths upon exposure to the virus after vaccination. Sorry I can't post the materials here because I could lose my job but I reviewed Moderna, JnJ and Novavax (can't seem to find the Pfizer info). In terms of cancer risk there is a possibility but the problem with the study is they used the WT spike and not the altered spike used in the vax. Now does that discount the findings? No it does not and it doesn't prove safety either however in order to conclude that is happening we would need to study the actual antigen in question. Personally I think it's more likely that the transient immunosuppression caused by the vax is responsible for the rise in latent virus/cancer. That isn't to say though that I think efficacy is zero and risk/benefit tradeoff can be calculated. Based on the UK data if you normalize correctly (they don't in the report) you see *some* efficacy against hospitalization/death for a time. The problem I have with their methodology is they take cases and divide into the total pop (of vax or unvax) to get a rate per 100,000. This is incorrect as it overinflates the numbers as the populations are such different sizes, if you instead normalize to the number of positive tests the numbers look very different but show again some small efficacy. This goes back to the risk/benefit which can be calculated on an individual basis, in my case my risk of hospitalization is ~.000114% last I checked so even a 90% effective vaccine with this risk profile is unacceptable. However in the case of the family member I spoke of earlier their risk is orders of magnitude higher and a chance at a temporary reduction in their risk could be worth taking. Again I think this only applies to a small part of the population not the population in general and I'm not giving sweeping recommendations to anyone. The way I calculate risk is determine the risk reduction based on real world evidence (RWE) and multiply by risk of getting disease which I set at 1 (since I see it as 100%). Then I look at the known risk side of things and calculate those rates and it can make sense in some situations. The problem is in quantifying the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns so if the calculus is close I wouldn't do it. Personally, I believe early treatment is the best option however the vast majority of docs I've spoken with don't know how to do this and won't even try accepted therapies such as mAb's in patients that fit all the criteria even when I've handed them the info on how to get it and use it. It's a sad situation we find ourselves in to be honest.