What are the best "gold standard" data sources for determining COVID safety and efficacy?
What are the best "gold standard" data sources for determining COVID safety and efficacy?
What are the best "gold standard" evidence sources for getting to the truth about the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccine program?
Executive summary
Did the introduction of the COVID vaccines save lives in America?
To answer this question, the best method is to identify the best “ground truth” gold-standard data source(s) and then focus our efforts on the correct interpretation of that data.
The three questions
To answer the main question posed above, there are really 3 sub-questions that we need to answer:
How did the vaccines affect the risk of being infected with COVID?
How did the vaccines affect the risk of dying from COVID once infected?
How did the vaccines affect non-COVID all-cause mortality?
What are the definitive data sources for each of these questions?
My proposal:
Worldwide COVID case numbers reported by OWID and accessible from this page
The Czech Republic record-level data obtained under FOIA request from the Czech government
Summary
Identifying the most definitive data sources for each question is extremely important.
Did I get it right?
Is there a more definitive data source than the ones listed here for the 3 questions? Let me know if you have a more definitive dataset and tell me why you think it is more definitive. I just want to know the truth. Thanks!
The widely accepted gold standard is the randomized clinical trials, which showed a net mortality effect of "4 KILLED FOR EVERY 3 SAVED" and a double-digit percentage increase in non-COVID (mostly cardiovascular-related) deaths with mRNA vaccination. The "it's not statistically significant" excuse that vaccine advocates or "scientific" purists use to dismiss these unfavorable results is somewhat ridiculous, because the COVID mortality benefit in the trials was even SMALLER than the excess non-COVID mortality risk, so the justification for taking the vaccine is entirely moot to begin with if they bring up "statistical significance". And anyone in the field knows that company-sponsored clinical trials such as these always yield an unrealistically OPTIMISTIC representation of a pharmaceutical product, because the companies design their trials in a best-case scenario for their product.
Clinical trial mortality results for Pfizer and Moderna combined:
COVID deaths: 2 vaccine vs. 5 placebo (-60%)
non-COVID deaths: 29 vaccine vs. 25 placebo (+16%)
overall: 4 excess non-COVID deaths for every 3 less COVID deaths (4 KILLED FOR EVERY 3 SAVED)
https://www.cell.com/action/showFullTableHTML?isHtml=true&tableId=tbl1&pii=S2589-0042%2823%2900810-6
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/04/09/covid-vaccines-increase-risk-of-heart-related-deaths-by-up-to-50-lancet-analysis-of-trial-data-finds/
In my opinion the work done by Dr. Naomi Wolf and her team of 3,250 professional analysis has to be a prominent source for truth as it reviewed Pfizer's own data and came to the conclusions that the vaccine did not provide protection, did not prevent transmission and was deadly. It also revealed that reproductive issues were uppermost in Pfizer's own analysis. The book: "The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer's Crimes Against Humanity" is succinctly discussed in this interview with Del Bigtree at the 11 minute mark Dr. Wolf discloses that Pfizer knew within three months of rollout that the shot did not work. At the 13 minute mark she also reveals that Pfizer and the CDC etc. knew the shots caused heart problems by April 2021. Starting at the 19 minute mark she reveals that Pfizer documents seem to have a disproportionate interest in reproductive health and that 70 percent of the adverse events were with women. https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/dr-naomi-wolf-reveals-shocking-details-in-the-pfizer-papers-2/ You now know why they wanted to hide this information for 75 years