This is very helpful. It’s been my impression that vax efficacy is low to zero & taking into account all causes mortality, is likely a net negative (that is, outcomes would be better had the vax not been introduced into the population).
Worse, the vaccines could never have worked. We know from review of flu vaccination over a decade & more of use in U.K. (with very similar findings in subsets of the US population), that they do not reduce hospitalisation or deaths. Those I've discussed this with agree that the fundamental flaw is this: the frail elderly are more vulnerable to novel pathogens because their immune systems respond poorly. That’s why they’re vulnerable. Logically however, why would we expect their immune systems respond well to an intramuscular injected vaccine? It appears they don’t.
Those creating c19 vaccines will have been aware of the flu vaccines data & cannot avoid the logical conclusion that this strategy is fundamentally flawed.
They made “vaccines” because they knew they could fool most people.
Instead, had there been a novel, lethal pathogen, which I no longer believe the evidence supports, the appropriate public health response would EXCLUDE vaccination and focus upon emerging pharmaceutical treatments (chloroquine was established as useful in SARS 2003, so it was anticipated that there would be such repurposed treatments).
The conclusion is that the c19 vaccines were at best misguided, more likely deliberately foisted on the public for malign reasons that are definitely not SOLELY monetary gain.
In terms of characterising them, I offer the following: “superfluous, ineffective & toxic”.
Great. The best option is to never use any vaccines. I would bet the same type of efficacy chart would apply to most of them if we could ever get true data. As a 72 year old non-vaxxer over more than 50 years, why am I still alive? You would think with all the scares and panics and fear mongering done by big pharma, the CDC and the medical establishment that anyone not swimming in drugs and vaccines would have no chance of survival.
Of course we've known that efficacy was likely zero, or worse, since you (and others) pointed out the lopsided exclusions in the Pfizer RCT. It also showed a 23% increase in death in the vaccine group, which is now pretty obviously a signal and not noise given the increases in all-cause mortality associated with vaccine rollout. How much more data do people need? Just kidding, I know they're all RCT fundamentalists who are incapable of incorporating Bayesian inference with basic principles of statistics.
I’ve a PhD in Pharmacology and worked in Big Pharma (now retired). So I know a fair bit about drug development, clinical trials, regulatory affairs etc.
I have to say the trickery surrounding the Covid “vaccine” narrative astounds and depresses me in equal measure.
The “95% effective” narrative was launched on the back of the original Randomised Controlled Trials and I believe the crux of this whole scam relates to the carefully chosen soft endpoint in the clinical trial protocol. The endpoint chosen was symptomatic, PCR +ve, C19 “cases”……..and crucially…….it didn’t matter how MILD the symptomatic case was. Just 1 symptom of about 10, was enough for the Pfizer trial.
Vaccine efficacy was based on comparing the case count in vax v placebo group after a certain time point. (As we know, a lot depends on how these cases were chosen for counting but that is another story).
Now, although a mild case was counted as a negative/failure in therms of vax efficacy calculations in the trial (high vax efficacy was claimed due to the very low numbers of cases in the vax group compared to the placebo group), in the real world, the vaxd public are being led to believe that developing a mild case is somehow a success in terms of vax effectiveness…..precisely because the case is MILD. What is in fact vax failure by the standard used in the trials, is now sold as vax success! What a scam!
As if that wasn’t enough, the public aren’t aware that the 95% vax efficacy claim refers to Relative Risk Reduction and not Absolute Risk Reduction. The vaxed & boosted public think that if they go for a few months without getting C19, it must be the vax that’s protected them. They’re unaware that 99% of the placebo group in the trials conducted over 2-3 months didn’t get C19 either.
When the vaxd eventually do get C19, as most vaxd people I know seem to do, not only are they led to believe it would have been worse without the vax, they also believe it’s soon time to get another booster.
The vax has done absolutely nothing but the public believe it must be effective due to the false narrative.
Furthermore, the CDC has confirmed that the vaxed carry & transmit virus ie become infected so it’s not a vaccine by any normal definition. So more trickery has meant the WHO simply changed the definition of “vaccine”.
In summary, Big Pharma, aided by Government messaging, has managed to con the public. How can they fail with a product & narrative such as this?
The vaccine efficacy argument has completely devolved into a "Who are you going to believe, the CDC, Pfizer and the mass media, or your own lying eyes?"
Could deeply negative efficacy during the first weeks after a shot account for the phenomenon that can be observed in many countries? I'm referring to the fact that the first vaccination campaigns were followed by a Covid wave in many places. Such as Afghanistan, Germany, Andorra, Angola, Saoudi Arabia, Argentina, Australia, Azerbaïdjan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bhoutan, Bolivia, Bosnia, Brasil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Cap-Vert, Chile, Cyprus, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ivory Coast, Croatia, Estonia, Eswatini, Fidji, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Equatorial Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, India, Iran, Isle of Man, Israël, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Koweit, Laos, Lituania, North Macedonia, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mongolia, Norway, New Zealand, Oman, Ouzbekistan, Pakistan, Paraguay, Netherlands, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Serbia, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad & Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vietnam...
If jabbed people are transformed into potential super-spreaders of Covid for a few weeks, vaccinating *during* a pandemic was the very last thing to do. Even if the vaccines had a positive benefit/risk balance on the individual level, that was likely to create a collective catastrophy. And maybe it did?
The vaccine revs up the immune response…in short order…but because the body cannot store vast amounts of T-cells…etc….they deplete….and leave you defenceless….pretty much what a darpa created toxin would try to accomplish to your enemy…..leave them weak and defenceless…and then just to make sure you mandate more off the same every six months….which is about how long it takes for immunity to recharge….again…by design…this so called safe and effective juice is really just an elixir of death….designed to rob you of an evolved immune system….just in case you became a 1% statistic…in return they promise you 30% chance of getting a name tag on your toe.
This supports my belief that the vaxes never had any real efficacy to begin with. Both nationally, and state by state, CV infections peaked late December 2020 to early January, depending on the state. Before vax campaigns could possibly have had any effect. I very clearly remember at the time Karl Denninger pointing this out and predicting that the wave had just started it’s collapse. Of course, everyone in corporate media gave the credit to the vaccines. And that explanation made sense to the dopes who get informed by them.
Nov 8, 2022·edited Nov 8, 2022Liked by Mathew Crawford
Hi Mathew,
Perhaps off the track - but I’ve been searching Marc Giradot and in my search found this about spike, I thought you may be interested. The microbiologist explains they are really not vaccines…. Too complex for me but interesting bc I’m feeling this is all going to have some interesting twists…
What's needed is a Vaxx phone app - "Vaxware." Inputs for age, race, gender (is that still allowed?), income, zip, height, weight (for BMI), vax brand, date, comorbidities, obesity score, and whatever else. Uploaded to the cloud for analysis and scoring.
Dashboard outputs for chance of death over various time frames. People could have fun.
I believe UK data shows that vaxx efficacy is positive for the first month or so and then declines back down to baseline, and then continues on negative increasing all-cause mortality. This long-term possibly permanent debilitating of the immune system will massively increase future healthcare profits via non-specific effects. Being non-specific you can't prove Pharma did it. It's a brilliant strategy.
We have evidence that this virus was spreading around in the winter of 2019, but we didn't see the huge spike in death till spring of 2020 when the emergency was declared. And a very high proportion of those deaths were from people in nursing homes. We know the medical care they were given was harmful.
Then we see another peak of deaths at vaccine rollout, and the excess deaths post vaccine roll out affected younger populations. So I think it's much more likely we saw a shift in cause of death as opposed to a shift in the virus.
I was looking at that Massechusets data today, and only 6% of the deaths in that first huge wave were attibuted primarly to covid, and that's with all the schannanigans, the bias would inflate that if anything.
Is the "brief dip" that section about 2/3 to 7/10 along where it drops to around -300% (week 20?) or that earlier one where it went below -600%?
Why does week 20 have that massive dip in VE? Looking at the spreadsheet, it's because the total number of infections is low, right? This is the point where Delta's infection of both takes off.
How much does it matter this is >=65 yoa? Would this be very different for much younger groups, maybe pre- and perinatals? The context prompting Meryl to put up the chart is vaccines for pregnant mothers under the notion that the vaccines worked for Delta, and she says they hadn't worked for the older crowd —given the immunity dynamics, is it reasonable to conclude, and the right and intended inference, that things will be much worse for the natal set?
Also, I did notice Meryl note: "The V-safe data shows less than half the expected miscarriages in vaccinated moms." Does anyone know if this was followed-up? Does vaccination for SC2 prevent miscarriages, too (🤨)?
This is very helpful. It’s been my impression that vax efficacy is low to zero & taking into account all causes mortality, is likely a net negative (that is, outcomes would be better had the vax not been introduced into the population).
Worse, the vaccines could never have worked. We know from review of flu vaccination over a decade & more of use in U.K. (with very similar findings in subsets of the US population), that they do not reduce hospitalisation or deaths. Those I've discussed this with agree that the fundamental flaw is this: the frail elderly are more vulnerable to novel pathogens because their immune systems respond poorly. That’s why they’re vulnerable. Logically however, why would we expect their immune systems respond well to an intramuscular injected vaccine? It appears they don’t.
Those creating c19 vaccines will have been aware of the flu vaccines data & cannot avoid the logical conclusion that this strategy is fundamentally flawed.
They made “vaccines” because they knew they could fool most people.
Instead, had there been a novel, lethal pathogen, which I no longer believe the evidence supports, the appropriate public health response would EXCLUDE vaccination and focus upon emerging pharmaceutical treatments (chloroquine was established as useful in SARS 2003, so it was anticipated that there would be such repurposed treatments).
The conclusion is that the c19 vaccines were at best misguided, more likely deliberately foisted on the public for malign reasons that are definitely not SOLELY monetary gain.
In terms of characterising them, I offer the following: “superfluous, ineffective & toxic”.
Great. The best option is to never use any vaccines. I would bet the same type of efficacy chart would apply to most of them if we could ever get true data. As a 72 year old non-vaxxer over more than 50 years, why am I still alive? You would think with all the scares and panics and fear mongering done by big pharma, the CDC and the medical establishment that anyone not swimming in drugs and vaccines would have no chance of survival.
Of course we've known that efficacy was likely zero, or worse, since you (and others) pointed out the lopsided exclusions in the Pfizer RCT. It also showed a 23% increase in death in the vaccine group, which is now pretty obviously a signal and not noise given the increases in all-cause mortality associated with vaccine rollout. How much more data do people need? Just kidding, I know they're all RCT fundamentalists who are incapable of incorporating Bayesian inference with basic principles of statistics.
Thanks for all your amazing work Mathew.
I’ve a PhD in Pharmacology and worked in Big Pharma (now retired). So I know a fair bit about drug development, clinical trials, regulatory affairs etc.
I have to say the trickery surrounding the Covid “vaccine” narrative astounds and depresses me in equal measure.
The “95% effective” narrative was launched on the back of the original Randomised Controlled Trials and I believe the crux of this whole scam relates to the carefully chosen soft endpoint in the clinical trial protocol. The endpoint chosen was symptomatic, PCR +ve, C19 “cases”……..and crucially…….it didn’t matter how MILD the symptomatic case was. Just 1 symptom of about 10, was enough for the Pfizer trial.
Vaccine efficacy was based on comparing the case count in vax v placebo group after a certain time point. (As we know, a lot depends on how these cases were chosen for counting but that is another story).
Now, although a mild case was counted as a negative/failure in therms of vax efficacy calculations in the trial (high vax efficacy was claimed due to the very low numbers of cases in the vax group compared to the placebo group), in the real world, the vaxd public are being led to believe that developing a mild case is somehow a success in terms of vax effectiveness…..precisely because the case is MILD. What is in fact vax failure by the standard used in the trials, is now sold as vax success! What a scam!
As if that wasn’t enough, the public aren’t aware that the 95% vax efficacy claim refers to Relative Risk Reduction and not Absolute Risk Reduction. The vaxed & boosted public think that if they go for a few months without getting C19, it must be the vax that’s protected them. They’re unaware that 99% of the placebo group in the trials conducted over 2-3 months didn’t get C19 either.
When the vaxd eventually do get C19, as most vaxd people I know seem to do, not only are they led to believe it would have been worse without the vax, they also believe it’s soon time to get another booster.
The vax has done absolutely nothing but the public believe it must be effective due to the false narrative.
Furthermore, the CDC has confirmed that the vaxed carry & transmit virus ie become infected so it’s not a vaccine by any normal definition. So more trickery has meant the WHO simply changed the definition of “vaccine”.
In summary, Big Pharma, aided by Government messaging, has managed to con the public. How can they fail with a product & narrative such as this?
The vaccine efficacy argument has completely devolved into a "Who are you going to believe, the CDC, Pfizer and the mass media, or your own lying eyes?"
Could deeply negative efficacy during the first weeks after a shot account for the phenomenon that can be observed in many countries? I'm referring to the fact that the first vaccination campaigns were followed by a Covid wave in many places. Such as Afghanistan, Germany, Andorra, Angola, Saoudi Arabia, Argentina, Australia, Azerbaïdjan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bhoutan, Bolivia, Bosnia, Brasil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Cap-Vert, Chile, Cyprus, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ivory Coast, Croatia, Estonia, Eswatini, Fidji, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Equatorial Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, India, Iran, Isle of Man, Israël, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Koweit, Laos, Lituania, North Macedonia, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mongolia, Norway, New Zealand, Oman, Ouzbekistan, Pakistan, Paraguay, Netherlands, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Serbia, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad & Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vietnam...
If jabbed people are transformed into potential super-spreaders of Covid for a few weeks, vaccinating *during* a pandemic was the very last thing to do. Even if the vaccines had a positive benefit/risk balance on the individual level, that was likely to create a collective catastrophy. And maybe it did?
Tell me this ends soon.
Fuck it. I'm going deer hunting (not for gatzez nor phaucezes)
Now adjust for VAERS and URF 41 and VE is super negative.......
The vaccine revs up the immune response…in short order…but because the body cannot store vast amounts of T-cells…etc….they deplete….and leave you defenceless….pretty much what a darpa created toxin would try to accomplish to your enemy…..leave them weak and defenceless…and then just to make sure you mandate more off the same every six months….which is about how long it takes for immunity to recharge….again…by design…this so called safe and effective juice is really just an elixir of death….designed to rob you of an evolved immune system….just in case you became a 1% statistic…in return they promise you 30% chance of getting a name tag on your toe.
This supports my belief that the vaxes never had any real efficacy to begin with. Both nationally, and state by state, CV infections peaked late December 2020 to early January, depending on the state. Before vax campaigns could possibly have had any effect. I very clearly remember at the time Karl Denninger pointing this out and predicting that the wave had just started it’s collapse. Of course, everyone in corporate media gave the credit to the vaccines. And that explanation made sense to the dopes who get informed by them.
Hi Mathew,
Perhaps off the track - but I’ve been searching Marc Giradot and in my search found this about spike, I thought you may be interested. The microbiologist explains they are really not vaccines…. Too complex for me but interesting bc I’m feeling this is all going to have some interesting twists…
https://off-guardian.org/2022/11/07/that-mrna-vaccines-cause-cells-to-produce-spike-proteins-is-a-fairy-tale/
Also - Liam doing a great job, I really enjoy his contribution.
Did we really expect anything more from eight dead mice? And 26 deaths reported to the VAERS so far.
No adjustment for user-income?
What's needed is a Vaxx phone app - "Vaxware." Inputs for age, race, gender (is that still allowed?), income, zip, height, weight (for BMI), vax brand, date, comorbidities, obesity score, and whatever else. Uploaded to the cloud for analysis and scoring.
Dashboard outputs for chance of death over various time frames. People could have fun.
I believe UK data shows that vaxx efficacy is positive for the first month or so and then declines back down to baseline, and then continues on negative increasing all-cause mortality. This long-term possibly permanent debilitating of the immune system will massively increase future healthcare profits via non-specific effects. Being non-specific you can't prove Pharma did it. It's a brilliant strategy.
We have evidence that this virus was spreading around in the winter of 2019, but we didn't see the huge spike in death till spring of 2020 when the emergency was declared. And a very high proportion of those deaths were from people in nursing homes. We know the medical care they were given was harmful.
Then we see another peak of deaths at vaccine rollout, and the excess deaths post vaccine roll out affected younger populations. So I think it's much more likely we saw a shift in cause of death as opposed to a shift in the virus.
I was looking at that Massechusets data today, and only 6% of the deaths in that first huge wave were attibuted primarly to covid, and that's with all the schannanigans, the bias would inflate that if anything.
Is the "brief dip" that section about 2/3 to 7/10 along where it drops to around -300% (week 20?) or that earlier one where it went below -600%?
Why does week 20 have that massive dip in VE? Looking at the spreadsheet, it's because the total number of infections is low, right? This is the point where Delta's infection of both takes off.
How much does it matter this is >=65 yoa? Would this be very different for much younger groups, maybe pre- and perinatals? The context prompting Meryl to put up the chart is vaccines for pregnant mothers under the notion that the vaccines worked for Delta, and she says they hadn't worked for the older crowd —given the immunity dynamics, is it reasonable to conclude, and the right and intended inference, that things will be much worse for the natal set?
Also, I did notice Meryl note: "The V-safe data shows less than half the expected miscarriages in vaccinated moms." Does anyone know if this was followed-up? Does vaccination for SC2 prevent miscarriages, too (🤨)?
Big Pharma's liability protection evaporated when fraud was shown.
No need for any more discussion in this Matter.
Time to build the gallows.