The SAIC Data Shows Zero Vaccine Efficacy
The Vaccine Wars Part LXII
Other Vaccine Wars articles can be found here.
I stole the following graphic from a Meryl Nass article. What does it tell us?
It looks like Meryl did some napkin math:
merylnass:Now Fleming-Dutra presents and gives the commercial that everyone should stay up to date with the vaccine and pregant and breastfeeding women should especially get it. What? Her data claim the vaccine worked wonderfully for Delta. But here is some DOD contractor data on Delta in the vaccinated elders—about 10% benefit
I wanted to see for myself, so I ran the numbers myself. Understand that I estimated points in the chart above, but I think I did an okay job. Somebody with better eyeballs can check my work.
Meryl's napkin math checks out. I compute a naive vaccine effectiveness (VE) rate of 11.4%.
However, that's without the proper adjustment! This VE fails to account for risk-adjustment of person days:
The way to correct the study is to multiply each person day by the risk factor of the endpoint that we’re measuring. That creates the numbers in the “risk-adjusted” columns above. Without that correction factor, we make two cohorts of essentially identical risk (well, maybe taller people have a slightly harder time ducking for cover?) look as though they have vastly different outcomes.
Our naive VE also doesn't take the possibility of the well known "healthy user bias" (HUB) into account. Since HUB is positive, but unknown in this case, and it is likely a smaller size than usual for such a defined demographic, I'll ignore it. But since I've seen risk-adjustment of person days make a substantial difference in the past, I might as well correct for it by normalizing the data as if infection rates were constant.
Forgive the garbage g-spreadsheet diagram. What we see is very close to zero efficacy during most weeks, but vastly negative efficacy at the outset of the vaccination campaign. The brief dip is during the low-point when my ability to properly estimate got challenged by the pixel sizes.
The true VE after risk-adjustment is -24.8% on average. But a better description might be something like, "The first couple of weeks are tough before the vaccines become useless."
It's worth pointing out how this zero efficacy result (close to a flat line if we smooth my work above) matches prior observations that county level data shows VE tracking HUB very tightly.
In an email [I need you to know that I'm a] Biostatistics Professor Jeffrey Morris says he doesn't see how I made my risk adjustment, but the normalization was very basic and standard. I think he just didn't bother to click on the spreadsheet link I provided. Then he sort of mumbled something out about how all the other studies show positive VE without committing to citations. Yawn.
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.