8 Comments

Great simple analysis. Of course they chose ages and time frames to make the vaccine look good and played trucks with counting windows, and they still found frightening negative effectiveness. Let’s have the HHS give a $50 million grant to the Children’s Health Defense to conduct critical studies.

Expand full comment

Don't forget my 1%!

Expand full comment

I think you’ve earned it! Thanks again!

Expand full comment

But if you are chosen to do the studies, you could earn much more than that.

Expand full comment

Very interesting. WHO should make the EuroSAVE data available to independent researchers. Many issues. We know the PCR test cannot detect if there is active virus, and we don’t know the CT they used. No accounting for healthy vaccinee. The reported VE is already pretty terrible. They recommend annual jabs due to waning effectiveness, while no long term studies are done.

Expand full comment

I think your latter prognosis is the more likely. Let's look at the definition of vaccinated v unvaccinated and what is their denominator for working out the fates. Most unvaccinated people I know never reported their covid case and certainly never went near a hospital. And this study doesn't compare all cause morbidity and mortality of the two sub-pipulations. These figures would dwarf the impact of covid. And can we trust testing and the doctors who provide the raw data? Many died from Covid before even getting to hospital, mainly the elderly who died in nursing homes, like my mother and other residents, when Covid hit.

Expand full comment

“Were the jabs negatively effective from the very beginning, and it was only data manipulation and even falsification that made them look effective?”

💯🎯🤑

Expand full comment

Hi

To prove the vaccines have close to none effectiveness is enough to prove that Covid-19 itself has never been able to give a visible increase in the number of deaths in a year. The easiest way is by showing that the average number of chronic conditions amongst official "Covid-19 victims" is not increased against the number in a big group of alive ones with the same age-structure. The age-adjustment eliminates any meaning of older ones dying more often than younger ones from Covid-19. If the number is not visibly increased it means the "victims" of the virus were, in fact, in a vast majority natural deaths rebranded wrongly to Covid-19 ones. It is explained in 'Extended Abstract', 'remarks' and 'Additional Notes' on Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/record/8312871

The main body of the script is already a long and difficult method but clear too. If one keeps on saying the average age of the virus's victims was as high as 75.6 years then has to change data first to make it possible to decrease the average further life expectancy from 12.6 to visibly below 9 years, otherwise it means Covid-19 chooses to kill stronger ones.

Expand full comment