patrick.net

“No lives were saved” by the COVID-19 injections, researcher and scientist Denis Rancourt told The Epoch Times in an email.

Rancourt and his fellow scientists conducted an in-depth, post-vaccine analysis, looking at over a dozen countries. What they found is that that all-cause mortality increased every time the COVID-19 shots were deployed. ...

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 17, 2024
For every 800 injections administered, Rancourt and his colleagues concluded in their 180-page paper that one vaccine-related death occurred.

This 1-in-800 number becomes even more alarming when you consider how many doses were given.

At the time of Rancourt and colleagues’ report, 13.5 billion COVID-19 injections were administered.

Divide that number by 800, and you end up with approximately 17 million COVID-19 vaccine-related deaths.

Why did Adhikari et al.'s research published in Frontiers in Immunology (needless to say most if not all academic research publishing is scientific garbage today owned by pharma) find that mortality rates in COVID patients vaccinated versus unvaccinated was 70% versus 37%?

https://palexander.substack.com/p/why-did-adhikari-et-als-research

Why did Adhikari et al.'s research published in Frontiers in Immunology (needless to say most if not all academic research publishing is scientific garbage today owned by pharma) find that mortality rates in COVID patients vaccinated versus unvaccinated was 70% versus 37%?

" https://palexander.substack.com/p/why-did-adhikari-et-als-research Why did Adhikari et al.'s research published in Frontiers in Immunology... find that mortality rates in COVID patients vaccinated versus unvaccinated was 70% versus 37%?"

But when all is said and done, the government cannot escape the simple fact that people are dying from non-COVID deaths at unexpectedly high rates since the “vaccine” rollouts.

On Thursday, Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, writing on his Substack, Popular Rationalism, reported a stunning admission in a paper co-authored by Dr. Anthony Fauci.

The upshot: mRNA vaccines are not effective in combating respiratory viruses. The Fauci paper, titled “Rethinking next-generation vaccines for coronaviruses, influenzaviruses, and other respiratory viruses,” was published in the open source journal Cell Host & Microbe in January 2023. ...




While Fauci now concedes the failed efficacy of mRNA vaccines, he has remained silent on the continuing reports of adverse reactions following COVID vaccination.

Fauci now concedes the failed efficacy of mRNA vaccines,

It is recognised that many studies reporting high efficacy for Covid-19 vaccines suffer from various selection biases. Systematic review identified thirty-nine studies that suffered from one particular and serious form of bias called miscategorisation bias, whereby study participants who have been vaccinated are categorised as unvaccinated up to and until some arbitrarily defined time after vaccination occurred. Simulation demonstrates that this miscategorisation bias artificially boosts vaccine efficacy and infection rates even when a vaccine has zero or negative efficacy. Furthermore, simulation demonstrates that repeated boosters, given every few months, are needed to maintain this misleading impression of efficacy. Given this, any claims of Covid-19 vaccine efficacy based on these studies are likely to be a statistical illusion.

We were told that COVID-19 vaccines protect us from severe illness and death. Therefore, we are supposed to expect countries that gave their citizens more COVID-19 vaccines to fare better.

Those who still believe such assertions may be surprised: in December 2023, like during many recent periods, more Covid vaccines meant greater excess deaths.

Vaccine Trials Were Biased: How Pfizer, Moderna Exaggerated Shots’ Efficacy

According to Raphael Lataster, Ph.D., a former pharmacist and self-described misinformation specialist, four recent papers describe serious biases in COVID-19 immunization trials that caused investigators to exaggerate the products’ meager benefits while downplaying their dangers.

Raphael Lataster, Ph.D., outlined his arguments on Substack, basing his conclusions on four papers:

A March 2023 paper by lead author Peter Doshi, Ph.D., describing “case-counting window” bias and its possible effect on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness reporting.

Lataster’s July 2023 response to Doshi’s paper, concluding the same type of bias affected safety reporting.

A July 2023 response by Doshi explaining how case-counting window biases were used to game the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine clinical trials.

Lataster’s own January 2024 paper, which discussed rampant biases in the trials in light of more recent data on myocarditis, a now-recognized side effect of the shots.

Then there's this. "Everybody knows" that covid vaccines save lives. In fact, we've known this from early 2021 that clinical trials proved that to be the case, as you can see here in the quote of a February article in the Journal of the American Medical Association.[2] But is it true? When that statement by prominent public health officials was penned there had been just one death, one death, across the 70,000 Pfizer and Moderna trial participants. Today we have more data and you can see that there were similar numbers of deaths in the vaccine and placebo groups. The trials did not show a reduction in death. Even for covid deaths, as opposed to other causes, the evidence is flimsy with just 2 deaths in the placebo group versus 1 in the vaccine group.

My point is not that I know the truth about what the vaccine can and cannot do. My point is that those who claim the trials showed the vaccines were highly effective in saving lives were wrong. The trials did not demonstrate this.

"[Dr. Mary Elizabeth Christian’s] parents, who were vaccinated, broke their isolation for a dinner to celebrate their 62nd wedding anniversary in July 2021. Within three days, they both tested positive. They died within two days of each other that August."

Dr. Christian’s parents were vaccinated. They got Covid and died anyway.

Because the mRNAs failed. ...

The mRNAs seriously injured or killed many people who received them. How many? I don’t know, and I won’t guess, but the number is not trivial. They caused many more people to suffer for days or weeks with severe side effects.

And they do not work. ...

Omicron’s relative lack of virulence did the world - and the vaccine fanatics - a great favor. As overall Covid deaths dropped, vaccinators argued the mRNAs helped against serious disease even after they failed against infection. That theory is almost certainly untrue, and the studies that show it are hopelessly tainted by a statistical artifact called “healthy vaccine user bias.”

What would have happened if Delta or similarly virulent variants had continued to circulate in 2022 as the mRNAs failed? We will never know, but based on fragmentary evidence from late 2021, I suspect deaths would have remained so high that even mRNA fanatics had to admit the complete failure of the jabs. ...

Everyone knows this now, which is why so few people took the mRNAs in 2023, not just in the United States but in countries like Australia and Japan that had near-complete compliance with the initial regimen.

In most other countries, the vaccinators have come to partial terms with this failure. They may not have admitted it openly, but they have modified their recommendations to discourage or even ban most adults under 65 from getting more mRNA shots.

Only in the United States have the vaccinators refused to bend to reality. Last fall, the Centers for Disease Control tried to press mRNA boosters on everyone over six months old - a bizarre recommendation, given Omicron’s mildness in children.

Until the CDC and other public health authorities come clean about the fact that the jabs did not work as promised, confidence in all government institutions is likely to continue to erode.

But of course the Times cannot admit this fact, much less properly investigate the mRNAs. It has been carrying water for the vaccinators for three-plus years.

So it will continue to look around, puzzled, as its credibility erodes alongside the institutions it supposedly covers as a watchdog.

Every time I see one of these PhD's with some brain dead comment I just want to send them this:




This Fumb Duck was still proudly taking the shots in December of 2023? Wow. Just WOW.

Negative effectiveness

As if that all were not enough, Lataster also mentions what may be the most distressing issue around the jabs in Article 2, negative effectiveness (keep following the negative effectiveness links backwards in time to go through the many OTN entries on this issue). This is where, apart from all the (other) known and unknown adverse effects, the vaccines appear to increase the risk of COVID-19 infection and/or hospitalisation and/or death. Clearly not what one gets vaccinated for. There would be no analysis of the risks vs the benefits possible. We would only have risks upon risks.

Lataster shows how, with the biases discussed in Articles 1 & 2, “a vaccine with −100% effectiveness, meaning that it makes symptomatic COVID-19 infection twice as likely, can be perceived as being 47% effective”. Furthermore, “Repeated calculations will show that moderate vaccine effectiveness is still perceived even with actual vaccine effectiveness figures of −1000% and lower.” In other words, the possibility that the vaccines were always negatively effective, and only appeared effective due to incomplete data, poor methods, short counting windows, and even outright fraudulent practices, is very much on the table. Interestingly, even the BMJ, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world, appears to be aware of perceived negative effectiveness, publishing, amongst others, a rapid response on the topic by Lataster (source, OTN entry).

A new study has concluded that the more Covid mRNA shots a person receives, the more likely they are to contract COVID-19.

Dr. Nabin Shrestha and his team conducted an analysis of data from Cleveland Clinic employees.

The researchers reported that they found that the likelihood of a person contracting Covid increased each time they received a dose of the vaccine.

People who received two or more doses were at higher risk of COVID-19, they noted.

The risk of contracting COVID-19 was 1.5 times higher for those who received two doses and 1.95 times higher for those who received three doses, the researchers found

Those who received three or more doses were 2.5 times more likely to contract the virus.

The higher risk was compared to people who received zero or one dose of a vaccine.

The pseudo-effectiveness of Covid vaccines against death from unrelated causes is not a new observation. The same kind of pseudo-effectiveness was discovered long ago for the flu vaccines. It is called the “healthy vaccinee effect.” For various reasons, unrelated to the vaccines, people who are vaccinated have better background health (on average) than people who are not, and therefore, they are less likely to die from “anything,” including flu and Covid. Vaccinated or not, they would have had lower Covid mortality than their unvaccinated counterparts.

When we try to estimate the effect of Covid (or flu) vaccines, the healthy vaccinee effect becomes the healthy vaccinee bias, a source of distortion that must be removed. (Conversely, we may call it the “unhealthy unvaccinated” bias.) Research on this topic has been sparse, however. Neither the pharmaceutical industry nor public health officials have had an interest in discovering that common vaccines were not as effective as they claimed them to be, or perhaps not effective at all.

Cleveland Clinic previously published the first major report of “negative effectiveness” after repeated administration of COVID mRNA “vaccines”. What the heck is “negative effectiveness” you may ask? This is a rather nuanced way of saying that, sometime after administration, those who received the “vaccine” products became MORE likely to develop COVID 19 clinical disease. Not only do the “vaccine” products not provide substantial long term protection from infection and disease, but they actually make recipients more likely to develop clinically significant COVID.