Long-term Lancet study, vaccines don’t prevent death

The fact the pubs were closed so little face to face contact, uncertain economic times so women put off having children etc etc etc up to and including it was a bloody hot summer - we had to socially distance indoors and it was too hot for sex outdoors

 

Seriously, that's what you want to run with?

21 of Feb 2021 was when the rollout of the covid shots began.

From January 2021 onwards, a series of state and territory-based lockdowns took place, including:
8-11 January Queensland lockdown
31 January - 5 February Western Australia lockdown
12-17 February Victoria lockdown
29 March - 1 April Queensland lockdown
24-27 April Western Australia lockdown
27 May - 10 June Victoria lockdown
26 June - 2 July Northern Territory lockdown

Obviously, these are not all the lockdowns. ABS data
https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/imp...consumption-insights-alternative-data-sources

 

Source?

 

It's interesting to learn that big pharma had to change the definition of the word "vaccine" to coincide with their narrative. As the mRNA shots are not vaccines. They do not include the coronavirus in a weakened state as the old-school vaccines.

Internal CDC Emails Show WHY They Changed the Definition of ‘Vaccine’ Again

The 1918 “Spanish Flu”: Only The Vaccinated Died
Can mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines cause prion disease or Alzheimer’s?
(STUDY) Why so many vaccinated people are getting sick: Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE)
BANNED VIDEOS of VACCINE ADVERSE REACTIONS
Adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines and measures to prevent them (I couldn't resist. Don't take that junk and you'll be fine. That's how you prevent them, adverse effects that is.)

BTW, I have a very good understanding of how an internal combustion engine works, and I don't need a medical degree on how and when I smell bullshit.

 

a comment from one of your citations I think worth mentioning:


our constitution is above the government, the parliament and the courts and no state of emergency/disaster or whatever can override our constitutional rights. see WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76., Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970 QUOTE 3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be “neutral” and include those whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361. END QUOTE It ought to be understood that “religious objection” includes “secular objection”. As for the issue of vaccination one can check out The Irrefutable Argument Against Vaccine Safety – with Author Del Bigtree



The Irrefutable Argument Against Vaccine Safety – with Author Del …
27 Jun 2018 … The lecture will discuss the revelations of the CDC whistleblower Dr. William Thompson, who has provided 10000 documents that back up his …


.

 

(((((Sigh))))))
Just when I thought I had reached the end of the knowledge lack.

Let us start with “there is more than one type of vaccine”

https://historyofvaccines.org/vaccines-101/what-do-vaccines-do/different-types-vaccines
https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/there-are-four-types-covid-19-vaccines-heres-how-they-work

As for the claim about the Spanish flu - we are talking 1918 here - they were still thinking it was caused by a bacterium! https://www.clinicaloncology.com/CO...accine-Efforts-In-the-1918-Flu-Pandemic/58837


Oh! So you know more about medicine than someone who has a tertiary qualification? As for the internal combustion engine - so you are really knowledgeable about the PHYSICS involved? Because my dear that is what I wrote.

I am loving how you are trying to make this a game of “whack a mole” as we have shifted from conspiracy theory to conspiracy theory

 

For starters, I'm only showing you how easy it is to find information that disproves all that you defend. The weird science that many follow blindly is clearly evident that it has caused adverse effects and deaths. It's not my problem that many want to ignore this. When the evidence is there in your face and the majority will only put their blindfolds on to mask the fact that the latter occurs.

It's not about having a degree/diploma or certificate in medicine, it's the ability to smell bullshit. The rubbish narratives coincide with an agenda, but that is beyond some people.

The point about the Spanish Flu is stated in that title. The vaccine killed more people than the bug. I just wanted to point out the obvious for you, because you missed it.

As I have stated before with you, you have trouble with the concept of a conspiracy theory. I'll remind you again.

A conspiracy theory is such when there is no evidence or proof to back up the claim. However, when there is evidence or proof, then the 'theory' part gets dropped and you just have a conspiracy. In all these cases, I have provided proof and evidence. They are conspiracies, just because they challenge the paradigms of many, that their weird science is challenged does it get dismissed by them?

There is plenty of evidence out there to find, but it's up to you whether you accept it or not. Once again, not my problem.

 

Here is something for those not in the know.

What has Bill Gates got to do with "science", in particular, a keen investment in "vaccines", when he has no formal education whatsoever in any field of medicine?
Did you know he has a family bloodline in eugenics?
Why has India, banned Gates and his foundation from ever stepping foot there again, apart from being sued by the Indian government for killing and maiming 10s of thousands?

Now before you shoot the messenger, the guy in the video narrating is just pointing out the obvious. Take a listen to what Bill Gates says in his "TEDx talk about 10 years ago.

Bill Gates Admits He Wants To Lower The Population Using Vaccines and Abortion
Bill Gates's History of Vaccine Corruption Inflicting Harm and Death on Unsuspecting People in Poor Countries
Why Are Indians So Angry at Bill Gates?
The latest backlash against the Gates Foundation in India is the result of years’ worth of concerns raised by human rights activists and civil society.
Meet Bill Gates The Eugenicist Control Freak

It's not that hard to connect these dots. Have fun.

 

When your experts are all working for the same company it's called crony capitalism. That is what the medical industrial complex has become. Those who condone that approach are like members of a church, the church of the poisoned mind.

 

So whats happening in the yellow areas?






Im still waiting for someone to tell me how its possible for a 'vax' to have those yellow areas? I thought a vax was supposed to promote immunization of a target virus not create more problems, especially for the people with comoribidities that need it most!?


Then what about this one?

Those yellow areas remained unexplained by the vaxors out here! again especially the last set, the people with the highest comorbs!



.

 

I can't find any of the graphs on the UK site. I did a reverse image search with one of the images (Monthly age-standardised mortality rates have been consistently lower for people who had received a third dose or booster at least 21 days ago) and got one hit on twitter, and not on any of the UK government sites. The link related to the graph went to the database site on a UK government site - https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...thsoccurringbetween1january2021and31march2022

From the ons.gov.uk site, I downloaded the 'statistical bulletin' related to the graph and could find no actual graph in the bulletin, just a link to their database with tables of raw numbers. Anybody can correct me if they actually find the graph on a UK government site, I can't. It seems to me that graphs are being manufactured elsewhere using the raw data from the government tables to show what they want you to see but it's unreliable misinformation.

The UK government site actually states:

The monthly age-standardized mortality rates (ASMRs) are not equivalent to measures of vaccine effectiveness; they account for differences in age structure and population size, but there may be other differences between the groups (particularly underlying health) that affect mortality rates.

Changes in non-COVID-19 mortality by vaccination status are largely driven by the changing composition of the vaccination status groups; this is because of the prioritisation of people who are clinically extremely vulnerable or have underlying health conditions, and differences in timing of vaccination among eligible people.
(https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...eathsoccurringbetween1january2021and31may2022)

It is very important to understand, what Nass as an Epidemiologist should understand, if you have a large number of vaccinated people, and relatively few unvaccinated people, the raw numbers are likely to show more infection/deaths among the vaccinated. This is not a sign of vaccine failure. As an epidemiologist, Nass shouldn't be drawing any conclusions from raw data about vaccine effectiveness because any conclusions would be faulty.

I will try to explain something about using raw data. This is totally hypothetical and simplistic. Let's say 52 million people in the UK have been vaccinated and 11 million are not vaccinated. I am ignoring age groups, number of vaccinations/boosters and so on. The government collects raw data and concludes that 1200 vaccinated people have died in a year in total, and 800 unvaccinated people have died in that same amount of time. Looking at the raw data of 1200 vs 800, one could deceptively say that more vaccinated people have died, therefore the vaccines are useless while totally ignoring the 52 million vaccinated vs 11 million unvaccinated.

Continuing with the hypothetical situation. The government publishes the raw data in terms of deaths per month for that year for the two groups. Looking at the raw data for each group, the average deaths for vaccinated people would be 100 per month and 67 per month for unvaccinated. Somebody could take that raw data and say more vaccinated people have died from Covid-19 while totally ignoring the 52 million vaccinated vs 11 million unvaccinated.

Continuing with the hypothetical situation. Somebody comes along and takes the raw data from the government site and puts in on a graph to represent deaths per month of both groups. Again, it would certainly look like vaccinations didn't make a difference because more vaccinated than unvaccinated people have appeared to have died. This totally ignores the sheer number of people who have been vaccinated. In reality, looking at the yearly total from each group, .002% of the vaccinated people died and .007 percent of the unvaccinated people died. So, looking at the whole picture in this scenario, in terms of actual numbers, more unvaccinated people actually died proportionally because the unvaccinated group is so much smaller. Do you see how using raw data can be deceptive? Does anything here demonstrate that vaccines don't work? It's just taking raw numbers and making some statement what the numbers appear to show. It's just raw data. I am just trying to demonstrate how raw data can be manipulated and it is clear to me that this is what is being done.

It's not crystal clear though because the data pool is ignoring the huge number of vaccinated people compared to a relatively small group of unvaccinated people and a whole bunch of other factors. It's actually very deceptive.

The data has to be researched and addressed properly to come to any conclusions.

- https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2022/02/1...-protect-against-omicron-what-the-data-shows/
- https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...thsoccurringbetween1january2021and31march2022
- https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-022-07418-y
- https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2796615

I think I have already established without doubt that there was no actual study published in the Lancet. There apparently seem to be no graphs on the UK government website and all the data is in spreadsheets already on the UK site. The graphs that seem to have been manufactured elsewhere are from the raw data in the spreadsheets.

I just want to point out again -- the original article stated that a study came from the 'prestigious' Lancet journal, when it did not. There are links to people/websites that are known to promote disinformation related to the vaccines; there are graphs that are stated to come from UK government sites that appear not to; raw data is being deceptively used to produce these graphs to make deceptive statements about vaccine effectiveness.

 

I just want to point out again that I did not make the title, if you have a complaint feel free to email the people that created it.

I also want to just point out that the OFFICIAL data supports Nass's claims.

No they are not 'known' that is false, they are nothing more than 'claimed' by their opponents, HUGE difference!
If you believe its not false feel free to post court records to demonstrate the validity of your belief.

The other side will tell you that the vaxers are spreading disinformation and justify it with an 'authority fallacy'!

Didnt look too hard did you?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...eathsoccurringbetween1januaryand31october2021

Yes that is why there are so many people like Nass and a long list of others that are exposing and pointing out the fraud being perpetrated upon the people of the world.

I just want to point out again the thread is not about whether or not its on lancet, its about false constructs and conclusions used to make a profit without regard to life.


AGAIN: Explain the yellow shaded areas where the unvax lines are lower than the vax lines. You do know how to interpret a simple chart I presume?

 

Err, huh?

Who's working or "the company"? We're talking about civil servants.

 

one could also deceptively say the contrary!
while I didnt say it in this thread, all the stats are biased in favor of vax success, its all garbage!

For instance wheres the placebo group?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/health/us-coronavirus-thursday/index.html


NY and CA data on 30 million Americans prove that natural immunity provides 3 times more protection than vaccination vs. infection, and a bit more protection against hospitalization
CDC cowrote this and misrepresented the conclusions. Prior infection is unquestionably superior to vaccination at preventing both mild and severe disease
https://merylnass.substack.com/p/ny-and-ca-data-on-30-million-americans?s=w

As I was browsing CDC reports from January 2022 in the MMWR yesterday, I came across a study of cases and hospitalizations in the vaxxed and unvaxxed from the Departments of Health of California and New York, plus CDC scientist coauthors. There are several reasons why this paper is very important.

1. The data came from the states themselves, which did their own calculations before CDC could apply its statistical adjustment magic and muddy the water regardign the results.
   
   
2. Because NY and CA, like other states, collect vaccination data from all vaccine providers in the state, the quality of the data is likely to be very good. Other studies that rely on self-reports of vaccinations, antibody tests or medical records have less reliable data. About 3/4 of the adults were vaccinated.
3. There are over 20 million people included in California's cohort, and over 10 million in New York's cohort, so the level of certainty about the results will be high.

Having said that, I must now warn you that the study is written up in what is an incredibly confusing way. I suspect this was done deliberately, probably by the CDC coauthors, in order to misdirect readers into focusing on the minutiae of two week periods (delineated in a 1.5 page Table 2 that should be ignored).

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit might be a crude way of describing this process.

Forget about the various waves, which are irrelevant.

In fact, I would recommend you avoid reading the text of the paper altogether, unless you want to struggle through it for a few laughs. CDC must have selected their most turgid writers to put this together.

The laughs come when you compare the Summary (Conclusions) with what the paper actually showed. More laughs can be had by reading the "at least 7 ways we might be wrong" section at the end. They are not belly laughs, but grimaces about how far "The Science" has fallen.

Instead of reading, simply study Table 1 and the Figure. You can find them at the end of the article.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm

Or just read this sentence: "Whereas French and Israeli population-based studies noted waning protection from previous infection, this was not apparent in the results from this or other large U.K. and U.S. studies

Table 1.

The California (CA) data:

Vaccinated, no prior COVID vs Unvaccinated with prior diagnosis: 0.3% of each cohort wound up in hospital, i.e., vaccination was equal to natural immunity at preventing hospitalization. Not better.

How about cases?

In CA, of those who were vaccinated but had not previously had COVID, 15.5% got COVID

Of those unvaccinated but had had COVID, 5% got COVID Natural immunity was 3x better at preventing cases.

Now to the New York (NY) data:

Vaccinated, no prior COVID: 18.2% got a case of COVID.

Unvaccinated with prior COVID, 6.2% got COVID.

Natural immunity was 3x better at preventing cases.

If you then take a look at the Figure, you are supposed to only notice the unbroken line representing cases in the unvaccinated who had no natural immunity.

FIGURE. Incident laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated hospitalizations among immunologic cohorts defined by vaccination and previous diagnosis histories — California, May 30–November 13, 2021*,†

But turn your attention to the broken lines that hug the X axis of the graph. They reveal that from July till early November 2021, when the data collection ended, natural immunity provided better protection aganst hospitalization than vaccination.

How did CDC report this? They deliberately misrepresented the results, concluding that everyone needed vaccinations, even those with natural immunity.

Scientific misconduct is a crime when the researchers used DHHS funds for their research. Misrepresentation of results falls under the rubrik falsification. Here are CDC's conclusions:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm

What are the implications for public health practice?

YIKES!

 

And I am trying to teach you that without critically thinking about the information there you can easily be duped

An awful lot of fake information out there is easily traceable back to the Joseph Mercolas who are making billions off of selling fake “remedies”.

Not one reputable medical offer ever claimed either vaccines or medications were risk free and there are some really weird reactions like Polycythemia Vera or Steven Johnson’s Syndrome which can occur even after ingestion of over the counter medications. Should we ban all medications because some people have severe reactions to them?

 

My knowledge of the situation doesn't stem from just publications but from experience.
All of my wife's family have been jabbed at least twice, and all have had 'covid' at least twice. Two have had adverse effects, mother and daughter (wife's sister and niece) 61 and 31 respectively. The wife's sister has swollen feet past her ankles. A stiff breeze would blow her away, she's a stick with no prior events in her life until she took the jabs. The niece has myocarditis. Fit healthy girl, non-smokers both of them and no family history of any heart disease. Only after the jab does this occur.
For me and my family, We didn't play those mind games the government pushed. Unfortunately, my wife works in retail, she had to mask up. No covid, no shots, no adverse effects or anything.

As for me, I am not a fan of big pharma. Most all meds are not cures, all they do is mask symptoms. Who benefits? The pharmaceuticals and the doctors who prescribe and push these medicines.
As a personal experience and example;
I had a stroke when I was 36, and I have recovered since. It took almost 9 years. That was 17 years ago when it occurred. I was put on Asasantin, to thin my blood and Lipitor to lower my cholesterol which I took religiously for 4 years. I was always lethargic and began to have growths on my scalp begin to grow. I began my research and found out the evils of those two meds I was taking and looked at alternatives, 'natural' ones. Once I found what I needed to consume I ditched the prescribed meds. I haven't been lethargic and the growths on my scalp disappeared. In all of that, through my research, I found out many things, including cholesterol and its function in the body. As the body naturally produces "good" HDL cholesterol as opposed to LDL "bad". Lipitor inhibits the production of HDL. As HDL is the 'band-aid' of the body at the site of inflammation. So if there is no HDL there to patch things up, what occurs? Chronic illness.
I fcken ran to the hills figuratively when I learnt all this. All my blood work is good, sugars, HDL and LDL are in check. No thanks to big pharma meds, but diligent research and a change in diet did it.

Nothing should be forced on people via mandates or coercion. If a disease is such a risk to the populace, wouldn't you think common sense would prevail for people to take up those meds to save their life? Instead, we have bureaucrats forcing an untested (human) product onto the masses.

 

I didn't say anywhere that you 'made' the title. Well, you did though because how else does a thread title appear on this forum?

Explain that please. You do know a 'claim' is to state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

I have no idea what you are banging on about here.

Okay, and?

Thank you for pointing that out. Those graphs are indeed the raw data from the UK database so I take back my comment that they are being manufactured elsewhere. However, the conclusions being manufactured by people like Nass are deceptive and don't consider what is known as the big picture (other variables/factors) and as the UK website points out you can't draw any conclusions about vaccine efficacy from their raw data).

If you took a look at actual research, up-to-date research as well as older research, and took a look at the websites of actual scientists -- epidemiologists, immunologists, vaccinologists --, understood how raw data is to be used and analyzed, understood statistics, understood the virus itself, understood immunity, took a look at the recent peer-reviewed studies of vaccine efficacy etc etc -- you would understand that there is no 'fraud' being perpetrated on the world except the fraud of people like Nass.

Your title specifically mentioned the Lancet and you just assumed that the study actually was in the Lancet because unlike me, you don't seem to do any fact checking of your sources. In fact, the title of the thread is misinformation itself because the Lancet did not publish any such study but I am pretty sure it's exactly what you wanted to communicate by choosing such a title. So it turned out your original source which you named your thread title after was full of erroneous information which I pointed out. It linked to erroneous information. It linked to the blog of Nass who doesn't seem to understand much except how to twist raw data. If you look at more scientific websites, non-government, you will find a vast amount of information posted by real experts who rely on actual research based on thousands of people and published in peer-reviewed journals. They don't just look at raw data and say things like the 'bottom line is'.

Your thread title was the first false construct and the first false conclusion in this thread.

I do know how to interpret a complex chart as well. The point is that the charts are basically being used by unscrupulous people who want to promote some point based on misinformation. Any point made from the graphs would be incomplete and erroneous without considering many other factors because it's based on raw data. I tend to look at the big picture. I try to fact check all sources when I can. It's a really complex situation with a ton of stuff to consider other than just raw data.

https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/communicating-data-is-more-than-just-presenting-the-numbers/

 

Do you understand the term “anecdotal”?

 

So you don't believe it's true, because it didn't happen to you or yours, or you fail to connect the dots?

 

I look at the bottom line, alive versus dead.
I could care less about anyones song and dance stories.

Then why have you not explained the yellow area to 'validate' your attempted claims that I requested an explanation for?

Then why have you given me an example "In the context of COVID-19 case rates"--(from your citation) of "case rates" when an applicable example would be death rates?

I need justification based on Vaxd and Unvaxd death rates as requested.

Yes I agree, however the unscrupulous people are the health agencies that unless you can justify the yellow area as a good thing for vax proves its the health agencies are lying to us and murdering innocent people in the name of profit.

Yes the data and graphs are in fact from the source I claimed, the guv

Well I wont compare cases to dead, I compare live/dead/vaxd/unvaxed, I dont need song and dance sales tactics to promote gold plating a pile of ****.

What other factors 'in the database' that we need to consider?

The raw data IS the big picture!
Lack of any necessary raw data IS also the big picture.
The database is the 'whole of the evaluable picture', no other consideration is legitimate in a 'valid' analysis.

Right now there is no explanation by vax proponents for the yellow shaded parts of the graph, and no rational reason for anyone to believe the vax is success outside of false marketing by pharma and big gov....sounds like full on administrative fascism at its finest!

So once again, we are waiting on a full explanation of the yellow shaded areas, thanks

 

The Lancet has no credibility any more as a science publication. They have published too many deliberately misleading 'studies' trying to promote fake 'science', same as the 'mental health' quacks have been doing for decades. They chose to become advocates and not objective reporters of facts, same as most media have.

 

Evidence?

 

Yes, quite a bit. You should educate yourself about that some time.

 

Produce some here to ‘educate’ me then, unless you don’t have any.

 

Read what I wrote not what you think I wrote