The influential medical journal BMJ reported on WHO modelling (not yet published proper, source) purporting that COVID-19 vaccines “saved at least 1.4 million lives” in Europe.
Given the absurdly low ARR of the Pfizer jab, I'd be quite surprised if even a single person is alive today because they got jabbed, but there are certainly plenty who aren't alive.
Hi Seacat. I was given your name as someone who delves into the Covid data. Have you looked at Ambulancecall outs and hospital admissions? I obtained basic data from St. John's, but after reading John Dee's analysis of Emergency admissions in an English region, I learned that over half of people admitted were driven there by Family.
Another coincidence? The acronym WHOERS when verbalized describes who these devils are. Much like the Public Health Emergency of International Concern acronym PHEIC verbalizes as Fake but a Wikipedia search tells you it's pronounced Fayk!! Who would spell it phonetically with a y instead of FAKE? They don't want people to see the word fake but they like to rub our noses in what they're doing to us. Evil.
I know it's not scientific just an observation from a layman.
When do we have to hold the editors of the BMJ responsible for publishing this junk? I think they should at least have to answer the questions from a subcommittee in the House of Commons about what exactly they look for in a study before they publish it and give examples of studies that did not qualify and talk about their backgrounds and potential conflicts of interest. Personally I think they should be required to have 2 people with extensive knowledge of vaccine side effects involved in peer review of every vaccine related article.
Notice there is no comparison of results in lesser vaccinated areas compared to more highly vaccinated areas. What a great way to avoid negative effectiveness and reality in general!
How about insurance data on hospital admissions or even total cost of hospital admissions for vaccinated (by number of shots) versus unvaccinated?
Maybe my method is wrong, but I always thought their numbers of how many lives were saved were easy to disprove using their own trial data. In the Pfizer trial, their were about 48k people, half getting the vac and half not. 2 people died "of COVID" in the unvaccinated arm vs 1 in the vaccine group, so therefore, 24k people had to be vaccinated to save one life. We know the trials were rigged anyway, but taken at face value, even if you vaxxie everyone in the world, per their own trial, only 24k/8 billion or 333k people could have been saved due to the vaxx.
For sure, I'm just saying if you grant them that their trials are legitimate and truly show results related to dying "from COVID" (they aren't legitimate and don't show what they claim), they still don't show that it's even possible for the shots to save 1 million lives, let alone the multiple millions they often claim.
Excellent critique! Before finishing your article, I was already musing about the fact that the We Support the Jab ¨Studies¨ all seem to be variations on the same types misuse, misrepresentation, and omission of data. And, then you confirmed it! Thanks for your work!
Given the absurdly low ARR of the Pfizer jab, I'd be quite surprised if even a single person is alive today because they got jabbed, but there are certainly plenty who aren't alive.
I look forward to your treatment io NZ data if you can get it out of our corrupt MOH.
Hi Seacat. I was given your name as someone who delves into the Covid data. Have you looked at Ambulancecall outs and hospital admissions? I obtained basic data from St. John's, but after reading John Dee's analysis of Emergency admissions in an English region, I learned that over half of people admitted were driven there by Family.
these people must be stopped if you give them an inch they become a ruler
Another coincidence? The acronym WHOERS when verbalized describes who these devils are. Much like the Public Health Emergency of International Concern acronym PHEIC verbalizes as Fake but a Wikipedia search tells you it's pronounced Fayk!! Who would spell it phonetically with a y instead of FAKE? They don't want people to see the word fake but they like to rub our noses in what they're doing to us. Evil.
I know it's not scientific just an observation from a layman.
When do we have to hold the editors of the BMJ responsible for publishing this junk? I think they should at least have to answer the questions from a subcommittee in the House of Commons about what exactly they look for in a study before they publish it and give examples of studies that did not qualify and talk about their backgrounds and potential conflicts of interest. Personally I think they should be required to have 2 people with extensive knowledge of vaccine side effects involved in peer review of every vaccine related article.
Notice there is no comparison of results in lesser vaccinated areas compared to more highly vaccinated areas. What a great way to avoid negative effectiveness and reality in general!
How about insurance data on hospital admissions or even total cost of hospital admissions for vaccinated (by number of shots) versus unvaccinated?
Well done!
Great job Raphael! I recommend readers do read your actual rapid response. https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q125/rr-0
Maybe my method is wrong, but I always thought their numbers of how many lives were saved were easy to disprove using their own trial data. In the Pfizer trial, their were about 48k people, half getting the vac and half not. 2 people died "of COVID" in the unvaccinated arm vs 1 in the vaccine group, so therefore, 24k people had to be vaccinated to save one life. We know the trials were rigged anyway, but taken at face value, even if you vaxxie everyone in the world, per their own trial, only 24k/8 billion or 333k people could have been saved due to the vaxx.
Actually, if you look at the final numbers, a few MORE people in the vax group died. And cardiac events were much elevated in the vaxxed as well.
For sure, I'm just saying if you grant them that their trials are legitimate and truly show results related to dying "from COVID" (they aren't legitimate and don't show what they claim), they still don't show that it's even possible for the shots to save 1 million lives, let alone the multiple millions they often claim.
That was one of the themes of my other 'series' of published articles: https://okaythennews.substack.com/p/science-summary-covid-19-vaccines
Excellent critique! Before finishing your article, I was already musing about the fact that the We Support the Jab ¨Studies¨ all seem to be variations on the same types misuse, misrepresentation, and omission of data. And, then you confirmed it! Thanks for your work!
The last paragraph sums it up nicely.
Their data can never be over exposed....Sterling exposure Mr L. Liked that little aside "Bill Gates's WHOERS.." should be given more prominence.
A further aside, there used to be an Aus expression of calling someone a hooer, a pesky nuisance. Seems apt for Bill G !