Anti-vaxxers crumble as every prediction fails to come true

Is there a signal contained in this data? Sure seems like it. Why is no one from the government public health departments or the vaccine manufacturers investigating this? Why does it take Ed Dowd who is the president of an investment firm and makes money by acting on signals with regard to stock picks to notice this? Where are the government officials whose job it is to protect the lives of US citizens? Maybe there is no causation with regard to the correllation between excess mortality spike in the 25 – 64 working age group and the vaccine mandate but how can anyone be sure without an investigation.

Dowd, Ed. "Cause Unknown": The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 & 2022 (Children’s Health Defense) (pp. 352-353). Skyhorse. Kindle Edition.

 

Pfizer broke down their data into two age groups — 16 to 55 years old, and greater than 55 years old. Pfizer reported adverse events/side-effects related to these two age groups.

They analyzed data related to sub-groups based on age, sex, race, ethnicity, body-mass index, and the presence of an underlying condition.

The safety profile of the vaccine was also observed during Phase 1 testing and confirmed in the phase 2/3 portion of the trial. Phase 1 trials consisted of young fit people with few health concerns which isn’t really representative of the overall population. As the trials progressed into later phases and got bigger, older and more vulnerable people were included in the trials.

The purpose of the study was not to address whether or not the vaccine was the cause of adverse events. They had a built-in safety protocol, that if adverse events were occurring in a greater number in the vaccine group than the placebo group, the study would have stopped and it would be investigated if the vaccines were associated with the greater number of adverse events. All medication research studies have this safe-guard built-in.

You seem to be missing the point that they were looking at safety in terms of comparing two groups to see if there was any difference between the two groups. In terms of safety, all adverse events were reported by the participants. Again adverse event refers to an health occurrence that occurred after the vaccine was given. The subjects had to report all adverse events. So if somebody ate some bad food and got food poisoning that had to be reported even though not related to the vaccine. How on earth do you suppose Pfizer could have discerned what the cause of each adverse event was in a total 37,706 participants? This is why epidemiological studies look at reports of adverse events from many different angles to look for adverse events that might be associated with the vaccine.

The data from Pfizer’s study indicated that there was no significant difference between the placebo and vaccine group which goes along with previous results from the other phases and from research done with other vaccines.

Moderna had two age groups — age 18 to 65 and older than 65. Moderna also had sub-groups and so on.

One cannot make an intelligent decision if they base their decisions solely on misinformation churned out by anti-vaxxers. One can make intelligent decisions based on research and epidemiological studies and consensus. It’s called informed decision making and for that you need a variety of information from resources. Informed decision making does not come from solely looking at misinformation and lies.

They are churning out misinformation and lies and anybody who knows anything about vaccines, immunology, the history of vaccines, how the covid vaccines were developed, and so forth can see right through their BS. There are hundreds of people with expert knowledge and specialized knowledge related to vaccines who are more trustworthy than a bunch of clowns who have no expert or specialized knowledge related to vaccines. The hard questions are being answered honestly with research. The lies are coming from those who engage in opinion and speculation.

The data from Moderna and Pfizer shows no such thing. Your willful denial of the facts is astounding. The adverse events in the phase three trials have not been shown to be caused by the vaccines so stop spamming that misinformation repeatedly.

Let me say it slowly — A —— serious ——- adverse ——- event ——- is ——- any —— adverse ——- health ——-event ——- that ——-is ——- reported —— to ——- have ——— occurred ——- after ——— a —— vaccine —— has —— been ——- given ——- which —— may —— or ——- may ——- not —— be —— related —— to —— the ——- vaccine.

Fraiman et al basically can only say that 1 in 800 people reported an adverse event which may or may not be related to the vaccine. End of. Any causative statements are an outright lie.

Pfizer and Moderna both got results of no significant difference between the groups in terms of reported adverse events. What did you expect them to do? Interview thousands of people when a someone reported something. So somebody reports severe diarrhea in one of the groups. How do you link that with the vaccine when there are tons of reasons the person got ill with the diarrhea. How about reports of depression? Did the vaccine make them depressed, how would you show that? How about prostate cancer which develops ever so slowly? Prostate cancer is very prevalent in males over 65. So a few get diagnosed within a week of the vaccine because the subjects were required to report anything the report it as an SAE. Did the vaccine cause the prostate cancer within 7 days? How about the person who got in a car accident and broke their leg? Not even relevant, yet Fraiman is counting all the things I have just mentioned in his 1 in 800 p-hacked number.

From millions of doses having been given some rare concerns have come up and have been researched.

Why hasn’t Fraiman et al gone on to investigate the SAE’s? If they are so invested in the opinion that the SAE’s are caused by the vaccine, then why the hell don’t they do some research. There is tons of data available — why the silence?

 

I guess with the same thinking, we should trust a vaccine researcher to give us good information on signals related to stock picks even though that researcher would probably know nothing about investments and stocks.

 

You say it yourself:

And it is not Fraiman - it's the data from Pfizer and Moderna. And also the correct wording is "severe adverse effect" which are defined by the vaccine manufactures Pfizer and Moderna as:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9428332/#:~:text=The definition of,on medical judgment.

So again where is the data broken down as I suggested on those who experienced a severe adverse health effect after vaccination?

 

A signal is a signal regardless of who documents it. I am sure that some vaccine researchers are very good stock pickers because they look for signals.

The signal is clear. The causality is indeterminant. There is a correlation with a the vaccine mandate policy. Why has there not been a thorough investigation of this?

Dowd, Ed. "Cause Unknown": The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 & 2022 (Children’s Health Defense) (p. 354). Skyhorse. Kindle Edition.

 

If the ‘correct wording is severe adverse effect’ why do Pfizer and Moderna refer to it as a ‘serious adverse event’?

You posted:



The link goes directly to the paper written by Fraiman. You are once again leaving out a crucial piece of the definition which is the definition of a serious adverse event has to include the definition of an ‘adverse event’. The following is directly taken from Pfizer’s research protocol.



So as you can see an Adverse Effect is as I defined it previously. An adverse effect may or may not be related to getting the vaccine.

Then from the definition of Adverse Effect, Pfizer goes on to define an ‘Serious Adverse Effect’ (SAE) in the same way as quoted in Fraiman’s paper. You must accept from the definition of an adverse effect that an SERIOUS adverse effect is temporally related (experienced in the time frame after receiving the vaccine) and may or may not be related to the vaccine.

Therefore, as I keep trying to tell you, Fraiman or anybody else has no business taking data from the Pfizer and Moderna and making any statements of causation because for the nth time adverse effects are health issues that occur following vaccination, but are not necessarily caused by vaccination. So for the nth time, all Fraiman can claim is that 1 in 800 people might experience an SAE that isn’t necessarily caused by the vaccine. It is dishonest to say anything about causation related to adverse effects.

If you go to the Pfizer study — if you scroll to the bottom of the page, there is more information that can be accessed:

The protocol of the study — in depth — all definitions, everything they did, medical tests, inclusion/exclusion, adverse events reporting definition etc etc — everything in fine detail.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577/suppl_file/nejmoa2034577_protocol.pdf#page93

You can find more data — https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577/suppl_file/nejmoa2034577_appendix.pdf

The following is an example from their protocol of how they dealt with AE’s and SAE’s. The followed them up. This was important information in case a greater number of cases started showing up in the vaccination group. They would have halted the study and took a good hard look at the data. And it’s not like they kept the data to themselves regarding the reports.



Moderna has the same kind of supplementary information in their study.

Protocol — https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389/suppl_file/nejmoa2035389_protocol.pdf

Data broken down further — https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389/suppl_file/nejmoa2035389_appendix.pdf

Here’s some information from the protocol related to age groups.


You can look it up yourself and then stop making baseless claims based on misinformation and misunderstanding.

 

My point was that you left out the "severe". And I posted the quote from the Fraiman paper which is a quote from Pfizer and Moderna.

What you have listed are the CDC defined preconditions which result in persons being at high risk to Covid.

And the data which details what the serious adverse health events which were observed in those in the vaccine trials is still missing. What were the severe adverse events by age groups (16 - 65 is too broad) and were there any patients with preconditions.

Why would Fraiman et. al. write this if there was not concern about the 1 in 800 statistic (Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000)..

 

Here is Fraiman interviewed about his (et. al.) paper. Start listening at the 8 minute mark. It is clear as Fraiman puts it by just counting the serious adverse events that the vaccine group had more of them. Fraiman contacted the NEJM about correcting the record but they did nothing. According the Fraiman the statistic for vaccines is typically 1 - 2 severe adverse events per million - clearly much better than 1 per 800.

https://www.google.com/search?q=fra...ate=ive&vld=cid:f0de2876,vid:vsh5xNjc1Fs,st:0

 

The Pfizer and Moderna studies were aimed at determining overall safety of the vaccines in a large population as well as the overall efficacy. You are defining what they should have studied in your own terms. They couldn’t look at everything all at once in an emergency pandemic situation. It’s fine to look back at the study and add what you think they should have researched. At the time it was an Emergency situation and what they needed to know was the vaccine safe to the general population and how effective was it. They compared two age groups. There was nothing in either study to suggest that the vaccine was less safe to one age group over the other. They weren’t trying to study if the vaccine actually caused any of the adverse events. They were looking for safety signals. Was there a significant difference in the vaccine group. From other vaccine studies, they already knew of things vaccines do cause — like sore arm, transient increase in temperature in some, muscle pain in some. There were no safety concerns from the first two phases.

The protocols I linked to spell out what they were studying and how they were going to study it.

Why did Fraiman do what he did? He performed a reanalysis of data and voiced his own opinion, it wasn’t proof of anything. As I have repeatedly said, all Fraiman could conclude was that 1 in 800 reported serious adverse events of special interest may or may not be directly associated with the vaccine. You also have to remember that it was the opinion of two clinical researchers whether or not something was a serious adverse event of special interest or not. That is poor science in itself.

He obviously wrote it because he believed it. That was Fraiman’s opinion and it is an extremely faulty opinion because the truth is — combined the mRNA vaccines may have been associated with an excess risk of SAE’s of special interest NOT ‘WERE’ associated because this wasn’t studied at all. This why the NEJM could not correct the record because you can’t correct a study with something that wasn’t studied.

Like I already said, the NEJM didn’t do anything because Fraiman reanalysis was faulty and based just on opinion. You can’t just amend a study because one researcher believes something. When Fraiman or anybody comes up with research that shows that vaccines are causing a 1 in 800 risk of an SAE, you can be sure that a lot will be done. What happened when clots, myocarditis, Guillaume-Barre were all suspected as signals — it was investigated and it wasn’t because one person did a reanalysis of data — it was from real world statistics. Medications are also not going to be removed from the market even if rare side-effects do occur because if that were true, no medications would be sold.

There have been many more studies related to the vaccines and they address different ages and so forth. When one is looking at something new in terms of medication you go from general to specific, healthy populations to more vulnerable populations. Has any of the research completed after the phase three trials come up with similar results that Fraiman suggests? There have been quite a few studies related to vaccine safety and adverse events. Why do you cling onto one person’s opinion rather than looking into the many other research studies that address the safety of the vaccines? It’s likely for the reason because it fits your narrative.

If Fraiman was right, then other researchers would agree with his numbers. It’s not like other researchers aren’t considering safety issues and adverse reactions.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=Pfizer+and+Moderna+safety+of+vaccines+mRNA+vaccines&btnG=

Why do you ignore more recent research? Billions of doses have now been given allowing for more information related to reported SAE’s and any new SAE’s that didn’t show up originally. The original clinical trials are far from the best dataset to consider in light of much more data being available.

Anyways, you can believe what you want.

Did either of the Moderna or Pfizer study look at if the vaccines caused serious adverse events? Yes or no.

 

Mr. MuchAdo:

For the nth time Fraiman, Weinstein, Dowd, many others, or myself are stating anything about causation. Fraiman is counting the number of SAE’s which are greater after vaccination than the placebo group. All that is claimed is that there is a correlation between vaccination and SAE’s. Vaccination may or may not be the cause or contributary to these SAE’s. See the below from Fraiman for example. Where is the claim of causation?


Results: Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95 % CI -0.4 to 20.6 and -3.6 to 33., respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 2.1 to 22.9); risk ratio 1.43 (95 % CI 1.07 to 1.92).

Discussion: The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets.

Discussion: The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets.


Fraiman should go on to investigate the SAE’s?? They don’t have the data because Pfizer and Moderna will not release the data. The bigger question is why haven’t Pfizer and Moderna released the public release of all participant data sets and an explanation of all associated SAE’s.

.


And again Fraiman et. Al., Dowd, Weinstein, Rancourt, and many others are not claiming proof of causation by vaccines. Only detailed analysis of each case can do that. Where are reports of any of the vaccine manufacturers doing this not to mention the orders of magnitude greater reportage of vaccine issues on the VAERS database. No one can make claim that there is not causation as well. As Fraiman state – only diclosure of the actual data will allow a quantitative statement to be made. There is no consensus that the vaccines are safe and should be recommended to all age groups and to those in all states of health. That is why Fraiman is calling for compete disclosure and investigation leading to a harm vs. benefit analysis and policy recommendations. For example why is vaccination being recommended for pregnant women and children under the age of 12. Where is the testing on those demographics.

We owe gratitude to those such as Fraiman et. al, Dowd, Weinstein, Rancourt, and many others who challenge prevailing groupthink despite the threat of cancellation by the witch hunters. History is full of examples of this. There was consensus that the earth was flat, that restricting trade with foreign countries would be beneficial for the US economy, and that bleeding was a medical procedure that would cure disease.

And again the comments above seem to be more critical of the Covid death reporting where over 90% of those who died had one or more of the serious preconditions defined by the CDC.

 

Pfizer and Moderna have had years to explain the excess SAE's. They have not. They have also not explained the orders of magnitude increase in VAERS.

Fraiman was correct. He and his co authors are able to count. And they counted excess SAE's.

I do not have proof that vaccination results in one out of 800 suffering from a severe adverse health event. There is however a correlation that might possibly indicate that as well as many other signals. I have been vaccinated for two reasons - I am over the age of 70 and because of government restrictions travel was not possible without a vaccination card. I am however appalled that the government mandated in a practical sense that everyone be vaccinated when clearly the only segment of the population at true risk from Covid were those over the age of 60 (85% of so called Covid deaths) and those who had one or more of the CDC designated serious preconditions (94% of so called Covid deaths)'

 

Mr. MuchAdo? It’s actually Ms.

Here’s three examples of a causative statement.

These are clearly causative statements. In these posts, you are clearly stating that Pfizer and Moderna’s data is showing 1 in 800 shots results in severe adverse effects.

This is misleading misinformation because the data in the study showed no such thing.

SAE’s were investigated in detail and reported. Do any researchers release all the participant raw data sets to the public as part of the study? Do you know how much raw data is associated with thousands of participants? You can’t just publish it without going through all of it and removing personal details, identifiers etc. You would also have to unblind the study etc etc.

How do you suppose any researcher is going to explain SAE’s? Most rare severe adverse events are related to something that is occurring in just a few people and these people are assessed in terms of health status, bloodwork and anything else relevant at the time of the data and not just by the researchers. It’s extremely difficult to pinpoint a cause in individual cases which is why they look for increased reports in the vaccine groups. If a particular SAE is occurring at a greater frequency, the study is stopped and the SAE is investigated.

The FDA is working on Pfizer’s raw data right now and it will be released so stop making unfounded claims. It’s going to be later in the year due to the amount of data they have to go through.

Consider this, if 5 people in the vaccine group had severe vomiting within 5 hours of receiving the vaccine and 4 people in the placebo group had severe vomiting after receiving the placebo. For the vaccine group does that mean the vaccine caused 5 people to experience severe vomiting. So what about the placebo group? Does that mean the placebo caused 4 people to vomit or was it because something else is going on with them — flu, food poisoning, pregnancy … ? Chances are in the vaccine group that the vomiting was caused by something else as well. This is why it’s very difficult to attribute causation to the vaccine group. An adverse event can be caused by a rare genetic abnormality, pre-existing health problems — known or unknown, a combination of factors, an idiosyncratic reaction to the vaccine itself. Most medications have tons of adverse events associated with them for the mere reason the adverse event occurred during the drug trial. Most adverse events that have occurred during a drug trial have never been proven to be caused by the medication under study. Generally, any untoward nasty side-effects start showing up in the first phases of a drug trial and the medications never see the light of day.

With the vaccines, any vaccine, often millions of doses need to be given to uncover rare adverse events. Because such an event is so rare, it wouldn’t be something to stop vaccination.

Simply, receiving a data dump of all the raw data from each participant will not address causation until further clinically studied.

I have already shown that those clowns did attribute causation. When you state giving a shot resulted in 1 in 800 people experiencing an adverse event that is a causative statement.

How about you explain why a detailed analysis of each case can establish causation. I’m interested in your reasoning.

I don’t know you keep hanging onto Fraiman’s statement that only disclosure of the actual data will allow a quantitative statement to be made. No amount of raw data will define causation until further studies are completed and other possible factors ruled out.

When you know that any drug actually causes an adverse event — it is called a side-effect. An adverse event is something that may or may not be caused by the vaccine. If 200 hundred people experience irregular heartbeats in a vaccine group, follow-up by a physician would determine the presence or the absence of an irregular heartbeat. The only way to determine whether the vaccines caused the irregular heartbeat would be to study the 200 people together as a group and find out as a group what they have in common — age, sex, genetics, environment, weight, underlying health conditions and so forth. This kind of detailed information would not have been collected during the vaccine trials. A larger group would have to be compared with the same common factors and so forth. You can’t just get data that agrees the person was experiencing an adverse event and then attribute causation to vaccine with only raw data. Way more investigation is needed with a larger sample size.

There are and have been studies with children and adolescents. “COVID-19 vaccines were evaluated in a total of 10 950 children and adolescents in seven published studies and over 49 530 participants in 26 ongoing randomized controlled trials” — https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jmv.27940

Pregnant women are excluded from drug trials due to ethical and safety concerns (mostly related to fetus). However, there is a lot of observational data that indicate that the vaccines are safe for pregnant women and the fetus. I believe there are now some Phase 4 trials that include pregnant women.

Why call those who question them — ‘witch hunters’. It’s not ‘group-think’. Really, comparing consensus to flat-earth believers? The purpose of science is to question and progress. The purpose of science is to question science. That isn’t group think. Looking at Fraiman et al exposes them as being erroneous and basically using opinion for their ‘scientific’ statements. Then the anitvaxxers take that kind of thing, ignore every other piece of research on the planet, and don’t question any other piece of science that is available — talk about group-think. When you have scientific consensus from hundreds of different researchers, million of vaccines being given, epidemiological data coming out of every country on the planet, the opinions of non-experts with definite bias should not have any gratitude whatsoever. They led people into believe the vaccines were causing severe adverse events in 1 in 800 people which as I have shown is total bull poop.

All you seem to have is repeating 1 out of 800 as some proof without any other examples to demonstrate what you are saying is correct. When you have been shown to be wrong, you simply backtrack and make illogical comparisons to witch hunts, flat earth, and bleeding.

Anyways, I’m out. I think I have said enough to make it known —

Adverse Events were tracked by Moderna and Pfizer and in no way were shown to be actual side-effects of the vaccines. Weinstein and his band of merry ***** had no business making the misleading lying statements they did.

 

The Pfizer Moderna data is clear. One out of 800 had severe adverse health effects. The only way to prove causation is to analyze the data which Pfizer and Moderna have not done. There is nothing misleading about the preceding. And there is nothing misleading about recommending that there be a harm vs benefit analysis be conducted.

And you continue to ignore the analysis of Dowd and Rancourt.

 

Is it peer reviewed?

 

Peer review is meaningless.

 

VaccineGate turned out to be a real as PizzaGate

 

I asked you in my previous post, how do you imagine that causation can be proven by analyzing the data from the two three phase studies? What would be involved in that? How exactly would they decide causation from the data? Please do explain.

When deciding causation, one has to look at whether or not the observed rate of a serious adverse event is in excess of the background rate (what normally happens in the general population).

You absolutely can’t look at all the serious adverse events of interest and lump them into being caused by the vaccine. Each SAE has to be looked at individually.

In the Moderna study, 3 people in the placebo group had a heart attack (myocardial infarction) and 5 people had a heart attack in the mRNA vaccine group.

This is out of approx 30,000 total enrolled subjects.

Three placebo group subjects had an MI totally unrelated to the vaccine. Can one draw any kind of conclusion that the mRNA vaccine caused the 5 subjects in the vaccine group to have a heart attack when that number is much lower than the background rate of heart attacks within the population. The background rate for heart attacks is 4,000 per 10 million people in a timeframe of two weeks. One would not even infer there might be some causation with the low numbers of MI’s in the study. The data of number of heart attacks is already available in the Moderna summary so no need to get extra data related to that.

Another thing researchers look at is the question of ‘Is it biologically plausible that the vaccine would cause participants to experience a heart attack’. Is there an ingredient that is causing the adverse event? Taking the example of heart attack, it wouldn’t be an ingredient alone or else heart attacks would be very prevalent, so is it plausible to suggest it is something unique to the 3 people having a cardiac event related to the ingredient? It’s highly unlikely.

Perhaps there is something unique about the immune system of these three people that might have initiated a cardiac event. It is highly unlikely that the answer would be found in the raw data of the subject. The would have to go back to the three people and do more research related to their genetics, environment, metabolism, health status, common health problems, blood work, actual cardiac anomalies, and any identified immune problems to name a few.

Another thing that researchers would look at when considering causation — can the heart attack be explained by other variables and if it can, then vaccine causation would be ruled out.

It’s more than just getting and analyzing the subjects data. They weren’t doing research related to causation because they were looking for signals — significant differences between the groups. You don’t take a bunch of different SAE’s and discern causation from raw data. A researcher would look a signal — like myocarditis — and look for causation related to that only — looking at background rate, plausibility, exclusion of other causes etc.

Fraiman could get all the raw data and he would have to research each SAE of interest individually but he wouldn’t get an answer from the raw data alone and number of subjects with each SAE of interest is far too small to make any statements. A larger study with subjects who experienced a single SAE would have to be performed for any significant results.

When Fraiman et al, go on about 1 in 800 people — they are making a general statement of opinion about a mishmash of serious adverse effects of interest and they did so without considering background rates, plausibility, specificity and so forth. It’s nothing but opinion.

I ignore Dowd and Rancourt because they aren’t experts in the field and they have made disingenuous spurious misleading generalizations without doing any research whatsoever.

 

Why? Are you alluding to one type of peer review over another?

It has had its criticisms over the years but it’s still a good vehicle to maintain quality, ethical standards, and suitability for publication. Unfortunately, some of the more dodgy journals don’t use qualified peer reviewers. It’s not the be all and end of research publishing but the better journals have strict guidelines with better peer review as a result.

 

It’s analyzed by medical examination and medical tecords of those who suffered the severe adverse health events after vaccination. Pfizer and Moderna should have done that immediately. Failure to do so is irresponsible.

Dowd and Rancourt are well qualified to analyze data. James Croll was a janitor who discovered the Milankovitch solar cycle. And we all know Einstein’s story.

 

MBH98 and MBH99 are papers which determined that the Medieval Warm Period did not happen by analyzing Bristlecone Pine tree rings. The papers were peer reviewed but were subsequently completely discredited.

 

Anti-vaxxers crumble as every prediction fails to come true.​

~ I don't recall any "predictions" from those opposed to mandatory vaccines ... " ?

 

Did someone force you to be vaccinated?

 

Oh I see, two peer-reviewed papers out of millions were discredited which makes peer-review useless?

That makes no sense.

 

There are many sources which clearly show that peer review is no guarantee of veracity. Here is another egregious example from a paper published in the Lancet which concluded that hydroxychloroquine, an anti inflammatory drug developed 7 decades ago and used successfully to treat malaria and covid was dangerous.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...tions-in-modern-history-how-could-this-happen

 

Even if that figure was correct (which I very much doubt), you're responding to a video of someone claiming that there would be more than 50 million deaths caused by the COVID vaccines in the US alone. There are valid questions to be asked about these vaccines and the actual side-effects up to and including death they caused in some people, but this kind of exaggerated rhetoric only serves to prevent those rational questions being asked and answered.