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

Just a little side note here- it was Ronald 'govt is the problem' Reagan who passed damages immunity for the vaccine manufacturers. So we pay a tax on the product that goes into a govt fund that pays out vaccine injury/death damages and the manufacturers get ...a nasty letter from govt, I guess? This all because the vaccine manufacturers were going to simply stop making vaccines due to their projected profit losses of paying out injury damages. Or, to put another way, apparently vaccines are not and never have been 'safe' enough to turn a profit in the free market, so govt had to step in...

 

Nothing does. I thought everyone knew that.

 

Tell that to those who bought a jab or 5.

 

No need. Everyone knows we all die one day. It was effective against Covid, so it prolonged many lives.

 

~ It was really good for those who bought Moderna & Pfizer stock ...

 

Are you sure about that, that the injections are effective against covid? Here, the Gates grifter states it otherwise. And if you didn't know already, Bill Gates has invested heavily in big pharma, in particular, covid jabs.

 

I was disgusted to learn that a woman I knew asked, "do you think it would be a good idea to invest in shares for these covid vaccine companies?" I said you can do what you want, providing you check in your moral and ethical compass at the door. As the blood of millions will be on your hands, you'll make a tidy return on your investment right, no conscience required, hey?

 

Yes.

 

~ I understand Gates made a small fortune ...

 

You didn't listen to Uncle Bill, did you?

 

Somewhere around 22 billion bottle caps.

 

Sure I did, but as expected, he did not say what you claim he said.

 

You might want to listen more carefully to the 1st 30 seconds of the interview, he says, "the current vaccines aren't infection blocking, they aren't broad (spectrum) and they don't last long".

So what do they do then Bill? They mess with the immune system, don't they?

He says exactly what I stated. The injections (vaccines) don't work as people were told they would, should and could have.

 

Well, that is very different from what you are pushing in the thread title. If you think they were useless, then so be it. What do I care.

 

You should, shouldn't you? You and everyone you know took that junk.

And how is it different to the thread title, it is confirming it via a different means that they don't work.

 

Well, as I understand science, no one study, or even a couple of studies, is the final word on anything. Moreover, I don't like epidemiological studies in general, as it relies on observational surveys, not placebo driven blind control groups. There is no way in hell you could do a double blind study on 30 million people, so that is observational surveys, surveys of which the outcomes are dependent on the caliber of surveys, whose cohorts are subject to many variables which, in my view, dilute the efficacy of the study insofar as the validity of conclusions.

Problems inherent with epidemiological studies: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC156932

Some issues with epidemiological studies;

1. Confounding variables: Epidemiological studies often involve numerous factors that can influence the outcomes being studied. Confounding variables can complicate the analysis and interpretation of data, making it difficult to determine causality.
   
   
2. Bias: Epidemiological studies can be subject to several types of bias, including selection bias, information bias, and recall bias. These biases can affect the accuracy and validity of the results.
   
   
3. Small sample size: Epidemiological studies often rely on a sample of the population rather than the entire population. Small sample sizes can limit the generalizability of findings and increase the likelihood of chance findings. Too large of a sample size puts the problem at the opposite extreme, how does one garner reliable data from 30 million people?
   
   
4. Ethical considerations: Some epidemiological studies involve collecting sensitive data, such as information about sexual behavior or drug use, which can raise ethical concerns about privacy and confidentiality.
   
   
5. Limitations of observational studies: Epidemiological studies are observational in nature, which means that researchers cannot control for all variables that may affect the outcomes being studied. This can make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about causality.
   
   
6. Conflicting results: Different studies may have different designs, study populations, methods, or other factors that can result in conflicting findings. This can make it challenging to determine the most accurate conclusions.
   

This, from the desk of Dr. Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of the Lancet one of the most prestigious journals of the health and biosciences:

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.

Can bad scientific practices be fixed? Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivised to be productive and innovative. Would a Hippocratic Oath for science help? Certainly don't add more layers of research red-tape. Instead of changing incentives, perhaps one could remove incentives altogether. Or insist on replicability statements in grant applications and research papers. Or emphasise collaboration, not competition. Or insist on preregistration of protocols. Or reward better pre and post publication peer review. Or improve research training and mentorship. Or implement the recommendations from our Series on increasing research value, published last year. One of the most convincing proposals came from outside the biomedical community. Tony Weidberg is a Professor of Particle Physics at Oxford. Following several high-profile errors, the particle physics community now invests great effort into intensive checking and re-checking of data prior to publication. By filtering results through independent working groups, physicists are encouraged to criticise. Good criticism is rewarded. The goal is a reliable result, and the incentives for scientists are aligned around this goal. Weidberg worried we set the bar for results in biomedicine far too low. In particle physics, significance is set at 5 sigma—a p value of 3 × 10–7 or 1 in 3·5 million (if the result is not true, this is the probability that the data would have been as extreme as they are). The conclusion of the symposium was that something must be done. Indeed, all seemed to agree that it was within our power to do that something. But as to precisely what to do or how to do it, there were no firm answers. Those who have the power to act seem to think somebody else should act first. And every positive action (eg, funding well-powered replications) has a counterargument (science will become less creative). The good news is that science is beginning to take some of its worst failings very seriously. The bad news is that nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system.


Show me several studies, double blind placebo controlled studies, at the minimum, that support your premise, then we have something to debate.

I know you like Reagan, a popular source for memes, but his quip isn't really an argument, it's just an appeal to his base.

One thing I've observed, over the years, if you want someone to run your company, don't hire someone who hates your company.

The moral of that story is don't hire Republicans to run the government, and know that the guy who says he's from the government here to help you, fear only if that person is a Republican. They hate government, which is why they can't govern.

 

Wha???

Those studies were good enough for you to run to the jab center and get all your jabs! Now you dont want to talk about it because they arent good enough for you!

 

~ If CDC actually wanted to "prevent the spread " they should have mandated plastic bags over the head and face.

​

 

yes, the vaccine trains your immune system to fight the virus if\when you do get it

the vaccine does not act like a condom that repels the virus

could a variant mutate that the vaccine no longer covers... sure... but that would not be a failure of the vaccine

could your immune system be compromised and the virus still win, sure ... but that would not be a failure of the vaccine

I think anti-vaxxers already know all this, but pretend not to at this stage

 

Of course vaccines don't prevent death. Nothing does. When your time is up......it is up.

 

The human body does not need "training" to fight a virus.

then the jab is not a vaccine in the first place.

 

No, that's what the non-mRNA vaccines do. By using weakened versions of the virus it is fighting against.

Keep telling yourself that. You might want to listen to the first 30 sec of the clip, a man who invested heavily in the covid sciences.

What is sad and funny is that those who believe this junk does any good have convinced themselves they've done the right thing.

Here is a research paper you may want to read. It details and outlines what mRNA technology does to the immune system and body.

Innate Immune Suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes and microRNAs

And here is another question, why would Pfizer want to hide/suppress their 800,000 pages of test results and
findings of their wonder drug for 75 years, but was overruled and has begun to release the pages? Here is just
one small portion of their documents.

5.3.6 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT
REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021

What is really going on is that those who got caught in the web of lies try to justify the use and advocate it
and slip into Stockholm Syndrome.

 

You forgot to mention the conclusion line:

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Review of the available data for this cumulative PM experience, confirms a favorable benefit: risk balance for BNT162b2

Comment is vague, lacks standard expected of scientific analysis.

ResearchGate is not a publisher. ResearchGate is not a journal. It is simply an academic social network, and any articles on it should be cited using their own citation information, with no mention of ResearchGate. Although There are credible researchers with strong records of good quality peer-reviewed publications, even the occasional Nobel prize-winner, who are signed up to ResearchGate. But there are also many others with much weaker publication records, and contributions of doubtful value.

Source: https://tinyurl.com/ydvfh6x6

 

It is a platform to host these kinds of papers. Look at the content of the paper and not the hosting platform. Interesting that so many when they dissect anything always look at the host as the flaw, funny that.

Stockholm syndrome, if you knew about it or looked it up you know what is meant by it. But here it is anyway

It's an analogy I like to use because it fits very well with how so many, in particular, in this forum is taken hostage by the official narratives, the pseudo-science of the mRNA junk and the hand-picked sock puppets
that spruik the necessity to be jabbed and advocate it along with defending the latter (hand-picked sock puppets).

No, it was there in the document to be read by all. I wasn't hiding it.
However, you failed to address this question that was asked;

?

 

anti-vaxers always pretend not to understand what a vaccine is