“COVID vaccines do provide brief immunity of from weeks to months. After that, they make you more susceptible to catching COVID … virtually all efficacy studies fail to extend beyond roughly 6 months, which is when efficacy turn negative and the vaccinated get sick more
…
I don't believe the premise of this article is true. Meryl hasn't ta…
“COVID vaccines do provide brief immunity of from weeks to months. After that, they make you more susceptible to catching COVID … virtually all efficacy studies fail to extend beyond roughly 6 months, which is when efficacy turn negative and the vaccinated get sick more
…
I don't believe the premise of this article is true. Meryl hasn't taken into account the “case-counting bias.” Several researchers have convincingly argued that initial booster “vaccine effectiveness” followed by “waning” and then “negative effectiveness” (after about 4-6 months) is actually a statistical illusion. The reality is that boosters have negative effectiveness (compared to those “not up-to-date”) the entire time.
Professor Vinay Prasad wrote that “Many observational studies of vaccine effectiveness exclude cases that occurred within 14 days of dose … Omitting these cases is irresponsible … this can make an inactive product— something totally useless— look like it works.” Norman Fenton has called this a “cheap trick” and argues that “any claims of Covid-19 vaccine efficacy based on these studies are likely to be a statistical illusion.”
After about 4-6 months of a booster vaccine rollout, almost everyone is done getting the shot (e.g. the CDC rolls out Covid boosters in Sept and people stop getting shots by Jan – Feb). Madhava Setty explained in a CHD article that “the quicker the uptake of the therapy (be it a vaccine or placebo), the greater the initial exaggeration of efficacy. As uptake approaches zero the true efficacy of the intervention emerges.”
Several other researchers have also published papers about this “case counting bias” including Peter Doshi, John Ioannidis, and Raphael Lataster.
Here's some links to some of their research (from my notes for a MI lobbying letter I was working on a couple months ago):
A thorough comment! It’s difficult to imagine a mechanism for how an injection into the systemic compartment of the body, which therefore bypasses the immune system of the mucosal system of the upper airways, can prevent symptomatic infection. Prof Clancy says there may be some spillover effect of immunity from the systemic compartment to the mucosal membranes, but would this be significant, or even detectable? So it seems ridiculous for a study such as Pfizer’s to show significant benefits, even for the small snip of a person’s life from 2 weeks to a few months from an injection. Obviously there is no overall benefit to a person, because there is negative efficacy after a few months. But even for that brief snip from 2 weeks to a few months, there must be confounding factors such as … significant over-testing of the control group (which means it must have been unblinded), misallocation of ‘cases’ to the unvaccinated, others?
I’ve wondered myself how our bodies would mount an attack with the initial process designed to evade our immune systems. My understanding is the LNP like the Trojan Horse, inserted or transfected into the nucleus and directed the body to produce spike protein which then our immune system recognized as the enemy and mounts an attack. It’s confusing about immunity waning and apparently in some people the body keeps producing spike hence long vax. It is such a failure of duty that our health agencies and governments are totally relying on pharma for answers and subsequent reporting (pharma constantly misses the deadlines and gets a pass). We have no choice but to rely on independent scientists who don’t have the windfall of money pharma has. It’s disgraceful.
Does anyone recall a damning, detailed, and chronological history on Fauci? I thought I had saved a shareable format, but alas, it’s nowhere to be found (possibly scrubbbed on line). I recall evidence that he was responsible for AIDS. I was recently presented with the opportunity to discuss the topic calmly, but don’t have the links now to support my viewpoint.
@Guy; Please explain how you can trust our 50 billion fraud fines industry where "the science is settled, the vast majority of scientists will agree with whomever is funding them." AND where our medical industry's iatrogenic medicine kills 250,000 to 800,000 each & every year! (Depending on what expert you believe! I wonder if you 11 can "take these facts I presented, "into account"? I think Meryl and I better know how to interpret your silly cited/ paid for "science" where "The jabs are safe and effictiev." Yah "safe" [for pharma] "effictiev" [for the botto line] Just not for humans!
"Paid for science'? None of the "experts' I cited are funded by Big Pharma. All of them have a track record of being very critical of the industry & "paid for science." In particular, I recall Norman Fenton facing a lot of push back and censorship of his work (see his Substack "Where Are the Numbers?" or his book "Fighting Goliath -- Exposing the Flawed Science and Statistics behind the Covid-19 Event").
So you can't comment on my 50 billion fraud fines. & iatrogenic medicine that kills 250,000 to 800,000 a year! Just charge "Meryl hasn't taken into account the “case-counting bias!” I think she knows more & is wiser than you!
NHS data from early 2021 showed a lower infection rate but 8x higher death rate in the shot group. They didn’t use the 2 week window, so these data look to be fairly reliable before immunity waned. Scroll down to Figure 1:
“COVID vaccines do provide brief immunity of from weeks to months. After that, they make you more susceptible to catching COVID … virtually all efficacy studies fail to extend beyond roughly 6 months, which is when efficacy turn negative and the vaccinated get sick more
…
I don't believe the premise of this article is true. Meryl hasn't taken into account the “case-counting bias.” Several researchers have convincingly argued that initial booster “vaccine effectiveness” followed by “waning” and then “negative effectiveness” (after about 4-6 months) is actually a statistical illusion. The reality is that boosters have negative effectiveness (compared to those “not up-to-date”) the entire time.
Professor Vinay Prasad wrote that “Many observational studies of vaccine effectiveness exclude cases that occurred within 14 days of dose … Omitting these cases is irresponsible … this can make an inactive product— something totally useless— look like it works.” Norman Fenton has called this a “cheap trick” and argues that “any claims of Covid-19 vaccine efficacy based on these studies are likely to be a statistical illusion.”
After about 4-6 months of a booster vaccine rollout, almost everyone is done getting the shot (e.g. the CDC rolls out Covid boosters in Sept and people stop getting shots by Jan – Feb). Madhava Setty explained in a CHD article that “the quicker the uptake of the therapy (be it a vaccine or placebo), the greater the initial exaggeration of efficacy. As uptake approaches zero the true efficacy of the intervention emerges.”
Several other researchers have also published papers about this “case counting bias” including Peter Doshi, John Ioannidis, and Raphael Lataster.
Here's some links to some of their research (from my notes for a MI lobbying letter I was working on a couple months ago):
Vinay Prasad May 13, 2024: Observational studies of COVID vaccine efficacy are riddled with bias/ Not counting cases 14 days after dose 2 is a problem – A look at Peter Doshi's paper https://www.drvinayprasad.com/p/observational-studies-of-covid-vaccine
Doshi paper https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36967517/
https://madhavasetty.substack.com/p/an-elegant-demonstration-of-how-efficacy
Norman Fenton, et al. The extent and impact of vaccine status miscategorisation on covid-19 vaccine efficacy studies Martin Neil, Norman Fenton, Scott McLachlan https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.09.24304015v2.full
Norman Fenson slide show https://cmsindipendente.it/sites/default/files/2024-04/slide%20roma%2002%20Fenton%20N.%2020240420.pdf
Norman Fenton Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkh6N-ZL3_k
Raphael Lataster, PhD Feb 28, 2024 “Science summary: COVID-19 vaccines’ effectiveness and safety exaggerated in clinical trials & observational studies, academics find” https://okaythennews.substack.com/p/science-summary-covid-19-vaccines
Raphael Lataster, PhD Jul 01, 2024 “COVID-19 vaccine negative effectiveness further discussed in major medical journals” https://okaythennews.substack.com/p/covid-19-vaccine-negative-effectiveness
A thorough comment! It’s difficult to imagine a mechanism for how an injection into the systemic compartment of the body, which therefore bypasses the immune system of the mucosal system of the upper airways, can prevent symptomatic infection. Prof Clancy says there may be some spillover effect of immunity from the systemic compartment to the mucosal membranes, but would this be significant, or even detectable? So it seems ridiculous for a study such as Pfizer’s to show significant benefits, even for the small snip of a person’s life from 2 weeks to a few months from an injection. Obviously there is no overall benefit to a person, because there is negative efficacy after a few months. But even for that brief snip from 2 weeks to a few months, there must be confounding factors such as … significant over-testing of the control group (which means it must have been unblinded), misallocation of ‘cases’ to the unvaccinated, others?
I’ve wondered myself how our bodies would mount an attack with the initial process designed to evade our immune systems. My understanding is the LNP like the Trojan Horse, inserted or transfected into the nucleus and directed the body to produce spike protein which then our immune system recognized as the enemy and mounts an attack. It’s confusing about immunity waning and apparently in some people the body keeps producing spike hence long vax. It is such a failure of duty that our health agencies and governments are totally relying on pharma for answers and subsequent reporting (pharma constantly misses the deadlines and gets a pass). We have no choice but to rely on independent scientists who don’t have the windfall of money pharma has. It’s disgraceful.
Why not "wonder" how a 50 billion in fraud fines & leader in iatrogenic death industry could sell you anything?
Does anyone recall a damning, detailed, and chronological history on Fauci? I thought I had saved a shareable format, but alas, it’s nowhere to be found (possibly scrubbbed on line). I recall evidence that he was responsible for AIDS. I was recently presented with the opportunity to discuss the topic calmly, but don’t have the links now to support my viewpoint.
@Guy; Please explain how you can trust our 50 billion fraud fines industry where "the science is settled, the vast majority of scientists will agree with whomever is funding them." AND where our medical industry's iatrogenic medicine kills 250,000 to 800,000 each & every year! (Depending on what expert you believe! I wonder if you 11 can "take these facts I presented, "into account"? I think Meryl and I better know how to interpret your silly cited/ paid for "science" where "The jabs are safe and effictiev." Yah "safe" [for pharma] "effictiev" [for the botto line] Just not for humans!
"Paid for science'? None of the "experts' I cited are funded by Big Pharma. All of them have a track record of being very critical of the industry & "paid for science." In particular, I recall Norman Fenton facing a lot of push back and censorship of his work (see his Substack "Where Are the Numbers?" or his book "Fighting Goliath -- Exposing the Flawed Science and Statistics behind the Covid-19 Event").
So you can't comment on my 50 billion fraud fines. & iatrogenic medicine that kills 250,000 to 800,000 a year! Just charge "Meryl hasn't taken into account the “case-counting bias!” I think she knows more & is wiser than you!
NHS data from early 2021 showed a lower infection rate but 8x higher death rate in the shot group. They didn’t use the 2 week window, so these data look to be fairly reliable before immunity waned. Scroll down to Figure 1:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8459929/