Science summary: COVID jabs initially useless, now harmful

Photo by Martin Sanchez on Unsplash

An academic’s handy and short summary, sources included, concerning the mRNA jabs’ clinical trials and the increasing evidence of harm, for COVID Skeptics to share with their jab-endorsing loved ones, as well as randoms and bots they’re debating with on social media. No conspiracy theories. No wild speculations. No rants. Just a huge dollop of science, with a sprinkling of logic, and a dash of unintentional humour.

Useless - Clinical trials

We shall ignore the DNA jabs, since they already are restricted or outright banned in numerous countries, largely due to fatal blood clots, though the mRNA jabs can cause these too. We shall also largely overlook the jabs’ effect on preventing transmission, since hospitalisations and deaths are far greater concerns, and since a Pfizer exec already stated that they didn’t test for this, as they had to “move at the speed of science”. So, let’s look at what the Pfizer and Moderna trials can tell us about severe adverse effects and hospitalisations, overlooking the obvious conflicts of interest (such as that the manufacturers are trialling their own products and that Big Pharma effectively funds their regulators), the attempts to hide the data for many decades, and many other shenanigans.

The study led by Fraiman, eventually published in the major Vaccine journal, found: “The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials (2.3 and 6.4 per 10,000 participants, respectively).” Since individually, the confidence intervals for the absolute risk increase included the 0 point, we’ll be charitable and say there was simply no net benefit, or harm. That in itself is already a huge blow for the whole ‘safe and effective and necessary’ narrative.

On to deaths. The study led by Benn, available as a preprint with the major Lancet journal, found: “Based on the RCTs with the longest possible follow-up, mRNA vaccines had no effect on overall mortality despite protecting against fatal COVID-19.” The jabbed group had slightly fewer COVID deaths, but even more cardiovascular deaths, so more deaths in total. Again, being charitable and accounting for statistical significance, we can say that there was simply no net benefit, or harm.

So Pfizer’s and Moderna’s own trial data show no clear net benefit for the most severe outcomes (if you can show me otherwise, please do so). Our leaders approved the jab, effectively forced many of us to take the jab, and encouraged you to give it to your children. And yet the clinical trials appear to show no clear net benefit on severe outcomes including death. Shouldn’t that be shocking enough? A new product, using novel technology, with unknown long-term consequences, that doesn’t even seem to help, was approved, encouraged, and even forced on us. And that was then, 2020. Will the situation be better or worse now in 2023?

Expectation of harm - Logic

A potential net benefit of around 0 should be concerning enough. But as we are now several years removed from the trials we ought to expect, not suspect, that the net benefits to be derived from the jabs now should be significantly less. Thanks to more benign variants, the virus has become much less deadly over time. The jabs are for the most part obsolete, targeting strains that no longer dominate, and this even applies to the bivalent boosters. The effectiveness of the jabs wanes quickly, hence the continual promotion of booster shots. There is now widespread natural immunity acquired through prior infection. While it might sound darkly pragmatic, many of the most vulnerable to COVID are already dead. More time has elapsed, relative to the very short-term clinical trials, allowing more adverse effects to become known. In addition to these generally well-known and uncontroversial points, there is also some evidence indicating that there is a greater risk of adverse effects when the previously infected get jabbed, and that the jab largely undoes the benefits of the superior natural immunity.

Logic dictates that the benefits from the jab should now be greatly diminished, and that the risks should be considered to be at least a little bit higher. This means that since the net benefit of the jabs from the beginning already appeared to be around 0, we should now expect this to be less than 0. Net harm. That’s the logical expectation, anyway. Let’s see if there’s any evidence of this.

Evidence of harm - Negative efficacy

There are two streams of evidence that heavily indicate the jabs are very harmful. The first is the concept of negative efficacy, or negative effectiveness. This is the notion that the jabs, which are supposed to protect you in some way from the ‘rona, actually increase your chances of COVID infection/transmission, COVID hospitalisation, and COVID death. We all know by now that the effectiveness of the jabs wanes, but it rapidly wanes to 0, and then even goes beyond. There is quite a lot of evidence, from medical journals and government data (click each hyperlinked word for an example). This should already be the end of the discussion. Just in relation to COVID, within mere months the jabs go from possibly useful, to absolutely useless, to positively harmful. The benefits obviously cannot outweigh the harms, if the benefits have become negative, have become harms themselves. We would no longer have benefits vs risks. We would have risks plus risks.

Evidence of harm - Excess non-COVID deaths

The jabs being negatively effective should already end the debate, but there is another concerning stream of evidence, revolving around the mysterious rise of excess non-COVID deaths, throughout the world, which no-one seems to be able to explain. What they do somehow know with absolute certainty, however, is that it isn’t the jab. Even though the jab can cause the very things driving the rise in excess non-COVID deaths. This is more speculative, but highly concerning, and the jab, as you will see, should be considered to be a major suspect.

In Australia, hospitals were under pressure in areas with few to no COVID cases and deaths but high jab uptake. Non-COVID deaths were on the rise in the UK and the US. In the UK they were even noticing that excess non-COVID deaths were dwarfing COVID deaths, perhaps indicating that something worse than COVID is among us. The Germans were noticing similar things, adding that stillbirths were also on the rise. Australian doctors began to notice, too. In January, the UK’s propaganda machine, sometimes known as the BBC, pointed the finger at the unjabbed, but our analysis showed that their government’s data actually indicated that the unjabbed were now doing far better than the jabbed, with regards to non-COVID deaths, as well as COVID deaths. Further data released in the UK this month again had the Brits claiming that the jabbed were doing well (the same Brits who inadvertently admit they use definitions of vaccinated and unvaccinated unsuited for safety analyses), but our analysis of their very latest data revealed that the unjabbed, who make up at least 10% of the adult population, appear to be doing brilliantly, despite their ongoing persecution, contributing only around 5% of the COVID deaths and around 3% of the non-COVID deaths. Best of all, the English government doesn’t seem to think this is worth looking into, because there’s a rise in many causes of death and it’s happening everywhere else as well. Okay then.

Maybe it’s climate change. Or an ageing population. Or stress. Or the lockdowns. Or eggs. Or it’s because Putin is so trigger happy. Or it’s because Trump came down that darned escalator and said some things. It might even be because the ending of Game of Thrones really sucked. Like really badly. But maybe it’s the jab. The same jab that we know can kill people, and via cardiovascular (and other) problems to boot. Let’s at least take a look, hey?

Conclusion

The best scientific evidence, from the very beginning, and despite the shenanigans of the manufacturers, failed to show that the jabs offered a clear net benefit for the most serious health outcomes. As the pandemic has evolved, we should now expect that the jabs can only offer a net harm. After all, far less lethal variants are now dominant, there is widespread natural immunity, and more is known about adverse effects. The recent evidence seems to support this, with the concerning phenomenon of negative efficacy already enough to determine that, at least at present, the risks are not and cannot be outweighed by benefits. There is also a mysterious rise in excess non-COVID deaths, which, while still officially unexplained, happen to coincide with the introduction of the jabs, and are largely-driven by the sort of problems the jab is known to cause. Whatever the reasons, the unjabbed at this point in time appear to be doing much better health-wise than the jabbed, with regards to COVID, and everything else. If only we could figure out what they were doing differently.

To be continued…

That’s all we have time for now. Unfortunately we couldn’t get into how natural immunity was downplayed, then admitted to be superior. Or how COVID, even at its most deadly, paled in comparison with cardiovascular issues, cancer, and even tobacco use. Or how COVID deaths were inflated, raising further questions about the true numbers of the unjabbed and unjabbed COVID deaths. Or how so many lies were told by the authorities, such as that the jab stops infection and/or transmission or that the resulting spike protein really only stays at the injection site for a couple of weeks at most. Or how easily accessible financial data shows that the jab manufacturers are owned by the same people that own the mainstream media, the big tech companies, the energy companies, the food companies, and pretty much everything else. Or how the same media outlets we trust in regards to COVID routinely lie, such as about certain politicians and their relatives. For all this and more, including updates on these pressing concerns, please continue perusing the entries here at Okay Then News. Subscriptions are free.

Until next time,

Dr Raphael Lataster