• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Covid Vaccine

Oh sh*t.


mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Caused More Deaths Than Saved: Study​

Researchers called for a ‘global moratorium’ as the study revealed ‘well-documented’ serious adverse events and an unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio.

The peer-reviewed study, published in the Cureus journal on Jan. 24, analyzed reports from the initial phase 3 trials of Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines...The study also looked into several other research and reviews of the trials. It found that the vaccines had “dramatically lower” efficacy rates than the vaccine companies claimed.

Moreover, based on “conservative assumptions, the estimated harms of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines greatly outweigh the rewards: for every life saved, there were nearly 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections.”

“Given the well-documented SAEs (serious adverse events) and unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse and enforce a global moratorium on these modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.”

The authors also recommended an “immediate removal” of the COVID-19 vaccines from the childhood immunization schedule. They pointed out that children were at very low risk from the infection.

“It is unethical and unconscionable to administer an experimental vaccine to a child who has a near-zero risk of dying from COVID-19 but a well-established 2.2 percent risk of permanent heart damage based on the best prospective data available.”

Following the first trials of Pfizer and Moderna, it was claimed that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines had a 95 percent reduction of symptomatic COVID-19. The study pointed out that this efficacy assumption was false.

“There were 1,594 such cases in the vaccinated group and 1,816 in the placebo. When factoring in both confirmed and suspected cases, vaccine efficacy against developing symptoms drops to only 19 percent, far below the 50 percent RR (relative risk) reduction threshold required for regulatory authorization,” the study said.

“Thus, when considering both confirmed and suspected cases, vaccine efficacy appears to have been dramatically lower than the official 95 percent claim.”

Researchers criticized the Pfizer and Moderna trial reports for “exclusive focus” on relative risk or RR measure while omitting absolute risk reduction. They argued that absolute risk reduction “gives a better indication of a drug’s clinical utility.”

“Both types of risk estimation are required to avoid reporting bias and to provide a more comprehensive perspective on vaccine efficacy. Omitting the absolute risk statistics leads to overestimation of the clinical benefits of the vaccines.”

“An absolute risk reduction of approximately 1 percent for the COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations meant that a substantial number of individuals would need to be injected in order to prevent a single mild-to-moderate case of COVID-19.”

To prevent one case of COVID-19 infection, 142 individuals would need to be vaccinated with Pfizer’s shot, the study said. When it came to Moderna, 88 people had to be injected.

Taking into account these numbers as well as the infection fatality rates of COVID-19, the researchers concluded that roughly 52,000 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent one COVID-19-related death.

This would mean two lives saved for roughly 100,000 injections of the Pfizer vaccine. However, there is a risk of 27 deaths per 100,000 doses of Pfizer shot, the researchers calculated.

Researchers cited a September 2022 analysis to detail the pervasiveness of serious adverse effects (SAE) among the vaccinated group in the trials. The analysis looked at both Pfizer and Moderna trial data, discovering roughly 125 SAEs per 100,000 vaccine recipients. This indicated one SAE per 800 vaccines.

“The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 percent higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group (compared to placebo) … The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 percent higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group,” the analysis stated.

“These findings stand in sharp contrast with the FDA’s initial claim that SAEs reported by the two pivotal trials were ‘balanced between treatment groups,’” researchers from the Jan. 24 study noted.

This discrepancy could be because the FDA only counted the number of individuals with serious adverse events rather than the total SAEs experienced by the trial subjects, they said.
 
The exception, not the rule.

Adelaide father to get compensation after developing heart condition from COVID-19 vaccine​


An Adelaide public servant is set to receive compensation for a heart condition he developed from a reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine.

Daniel Shepherd, 44, developed pericarditis after a rare reaction to his third Pfizer COVID-19 jab, which he was required to have before beginning a job with the Department of Child Protection.

Shepherd told 9News he now has the heart of a 90-year-old.
 
Interested in @Confluence 's thoughts on this. May Florida prevail again.


content_Report_1.png
I'd like to read the report rather than this guy's interpretation. However, the language in the report segments he highlighted is very similar to my argument throughout this entire thread: The covid shot manufacturers and FDA did not follow proper, established procedures.

Even with the "emergency", it still seems clear that both safety and efficacy were never established in any way that any regulator should pass. But they did.
Liability is either with FDA or the manufacturers. This empanelled body will just speed the legal process by enabling faster discovery of relevant docs, I hope.

Again, it needs said that the two prior FDA commissioners were on pFizer's and Moderna's Board of Directors immediately preceeding the Covid issue.

Coincidence? Only if you still think that pangolins caused Covid.
 
Oh sh*t.


mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Caused More Deaths Than Saved: Study​

Researchers called for a ‘global moratorium’ as the study revealed ‘well-documented’ serious adverse events and an unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio.

The peer-reviewed study, published in the Cureus journal on Jan. 24, analyzed reports from the initial phase 3 trials of Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines...The study also looked into several other research and reviews of the trials. It found that the vaccines had “dramatically lower” efficacy rates than the vaccine companies claimed.

Moreover, based on “conservative assumptions, the estimated harms of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines greatly outweigh the rewards: for every life saved, there were nearly 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections.”

“Given the well-documented SAEs (serious adverse events) and unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse and enforce a global moratorium on these modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.”

The authors also recommended an “immediate removal” of the COVID-19 vaccines from the childhood immunization schedule. They pointed out that children were at very low risk from the infection.

“It is unethical and unconscionable to administer an experimental vaccine to a child who has a near-zero risk of dying from COVID-19 but a well-established 2.2 percent risk of permanent heart damage based on the best prospective data available.”

Following the first trials of Pfizer and Moderna, it was claimed that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines had a 95 percent reduction of symptomatic COVID-19. The study pointed out that this efficacy assumption was false.

“There were 1,594 such cases in the vaccinated group and 1,816 in the placebo. When factoring in both confirmed and suspected cases, vaccine efficacy against developing symptoms drops to only 19 percent, far below the 50 percent RR (relative risk) reduction threshold required for regulatory authorization,” the study said.

“Thus, when considering both confirmed and suspected cases, vaccine efficacy appears to have been dramatically lower than the official 95 percent claim.”

Researchers criticized the Pfizer and Moderna trial reports for “exclusive focus” on relative risk or RR measure while omitting absolute risk reduction. They argued that absolute risk reduction “gives a better indication of a drug’s clinical utility.”

“Both types of risk estimation are required to avoid reporting bias and to provide a more comprehensive perspective on vaccine efficacy. Omitting the absolute risk statistics leads to overestimation of the clinical benefits of the vaccines.”

“An absolute risk reduction of approximately 1 percent for the COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations meant that a substantial number of individuals would need to be injected in order to prevent a single mild-to-moderate case of COVID-19.”

To prevent one case of COVID-19 infection, 142 individuals would need to be vaccinated with Pfizer’s shot, the study said. When it came to Moderna, 88 people had to be injected.

Taking into account these numbers as well as the infection fatality rates of COVID-19, the researchers concluded that roughly 52,000 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent one COVID-19-related death.

This would mean two lives saved for roughly 100,000 injections of the Pfizer vaccine. However, there is a risk of 27 deaths per 100,000 doses of Pfizer shot, the researchers calculated.
I'm not sure how quantitative statistics can be measured as to how many lives this mRNA product saved, or for that matter how many lives it actually has taken.
I would hope that there will be verifiable studies done to definitively answer these questions, but I doubt whether we will ever know for certain.

Until then we'll continue the hear the rhetoric that even though I've contracted Covid for the 10th time, it would have been soooooo much worse if I didn't have my 8th booster.
 
I'm not sure how quantitative statistics can be measured as to how many lives this mRNA product saved, or for that matter how many lives it actually has taken.
I would hope that there will be verifiable studies done to definitively answer these questions, but I doubt whether we will ever know for certain.

Until then we'll continue the hear the rhetoric that even though I've contracted Covid for the 10th time, it would have been soooooo much worse if I didn't have my 8th booster.
Exactly this.

The science and the studies have become so perverse because of the politics/pharma/$$$$, that we will never have certainty or anything like reasonable conclusions.

That is how you can tell that fuckery occurred at the highest levels.
 
Oh sh*t.


mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Caused More Deaths Than Saved: Study​

Researchers called for a ‘global moratorium’ as the study revealed ‘well-documented’ serious adverse events and an unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio.

The peer-reviewed study, published in the Cureus journal on Jan. 24, analyzed reports from the initial phase 3 trials of Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines...The study also looked into several other research and reviews of the trials. It found that the vaccines had “dramatically lower” efficacy rates than the vaccine companies claimed.

Moreover, based on “conservative assumptions, the estimated harms of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines greatly outweigh the rewards: for every life saved, there were nearly 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections.”

“Given the well-documented SAEs (serious adverse events) and unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse and enforce a global moratorium on these modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.”

The authors also recommended an “immediate removal” of the COVID-19 vaccines from the childhood immunization schedule. They pointed out that children were at very low risk from the infection.

“It is unethical and unconscionable to administer an experimental vaccine to a child who has a near-zero risk of dying from COVID-19 but a well-established 2.2 percent risk of permanent heart damage based on the best prospective data available.”

Following the first trials of Pfizer and Moderna, it was claimed that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines had a 95 percent reduction of symptomatic COVID-19. The study pointed out that this efficacy assumption was false.

“There were 1,594 such cases in the vaccinated group and 1,816 in the placebo. When factoring in both confirmed and suspected cases, vaccine efficacy against developing symptoms drops to only 19 percent, far below the 50 percent RR (relative risk) reduction threshold required for regulatory authorization,” the study said.

“Thus, when considering both confirmed and suspected cases, vaccine efficacy appears to have been dramatically lower than the official 95 percent claim.”

Researchers criticized the Pfizer and Moderna trial reports for “exclusive focus” on relative risk or RR measure while omitting absolute risk reduction. They argued that absolute risk reduction “gives a better indication of a drug’s clinical utility.”

“Both types of risk estimation are required to avoid reporting bias and to provide a more comprehensive perspective on vaccine efficacy. Omitting the absolute risk statistics leads to overestimation of the clinical benefits of the vaccines.”

“An absolute risk reduction of approximately 1 percent for the COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations meant that a substantial number of individuals would need to be injected in order to prevent a single mild-to-moderate case of COVID-19.”

To prevent one case of COVID-19 infection, 142 individuals would need to be vaccinated with Pfizer’s shot, the study said. When it came to Moderna, 88 people had to be injected.

Taking into account these numbers as well as the infection fatality rates of COVID-19, the researchers concluded that roughly 52,000 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent one COVID-19-related death.

This would mean two lives saved for roughly 100,000 injections of the Pfizer vaccine. However, there is a risk of 27 deaths per 100,000 doses of Pfizer shot, the researchers calculated.
Another wordy, tiresome "study" cobbled together by rabid anti-vaxxers who twist and manipulate science to make it seem like it's saying something it isn't.

 

In the link Oneforthebus posted, the author, a doctor himself dismisses that article in the link you posted as a bunch of bull shlt.

There's a lot of information in the link you posted. Quite deep, way over my head. Lots of data.

Makes me wonder why these so called "anti-vaxers" would go to such lengths to publish such an article if it indeed is BS.
What's in it for them?
 
In the link Oneforthebus posted, the author, a doctor himself dismisses that article in the link you posted as a bunch of bull shlt.

There's a lot of information in the link you posted. Quite deep, way over my head. Lots of data.

Makes me wonder why these so called "anti-vaxers" would go to such lengths to publish such an article if it indeed is BS.
What's in it for them?
Many who feel like they were wronged/damaged want to be heard, want to shine a light on the brutally bad "science" that happened here, and some just want an eye for an eye.
 
In the link Oneforthebus posted, the author, a doctor himself dismisses that article in the link you posted as a bunch of bull shlt.

There's a lot of information in the link you posted. Quite deep, way over my head. Lots of data.

Makes me wonder why these so called "anti-vaxers" would go to such lengths to publish such an article if it indeed is BS.
What's in it for them?
Quackery is big business.
 
Quackery is big business.
Yeah probably, I just don't know how those responsible are profiting from putting together a research piece that is so involved and time consuming.
It even has graphs, charts.
 
Yeah probably, I just don't know how those responsible are profiting from putting together a research piece that is so involved and time consuming.
It even has graphs, charts.
Well, they have to make it look scientific I guess.

I can't speak for how each of these folks make their livings but some anti-vaxxers make millions off of things like Substack subscriptions. Some of them hawk supplements and natural "cures" and such. The most prominent anti-vaxxer I know of, Mercola, has a net worth over 100 million. Puts the Pfizer execs to shame!
 
Another wordy, tiresome "study" cobbled together by rabid anti-vaxxers who twist and manipulate science to make it seem like it's saying something it isn't.


Oh, I don't know. I posted a "peer reviewed study" and you post something from a site called...

Respectful Insolence

This is how ideology works. Science is about always questioning. Researchers put forward a "peer reviewed" study questioning the science.

Zealots reference Respectful Insolence, throw their hands over their ears and eyes and scream "Misinformation!"
 
In the link Oneforthebus posted, the author, a doctor himself dismisses that article in the link you posted as a bunch of bull shlt.

There's a lot of information in the link you posted. Quite deep, way over my head. Lots of data.

Makes me wonder why these so called "anti-vaxers" would go to such lengths to publish such an article if it indeed is BS.
What's in it for them?

My link was a peer reviewed study. We know what that means. I think we do.

She posted a link from a site called Respectful Insolence.
 
So, if you were asking what some Moderna science-y folks wanted to publish in the open, public domain, here is a new "paper":


Abstract​

mRNA formulated with lipid nanoparticles is a transformative technology that has enabled the rapid development and administration of billions of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine doses worldwide. However, avoiding unacceptable toxicity with mRNA drugs and vaccines presents challenges. Lipid nanoparticle structural components, production methods, route of administration and proteins produced from complexed mRNAs all present toxicity concerns. Here, we discuss these concerns, specifically how cell tropism and tissue distribution of mRNA and lipid nanoparticles can lead to toxicity, and their possible reactogenicity. We focus on adverse events from mRNA applications for protein replacement and gene editing therapies as well as vaccines, tracing common biochemical and cellular pathways. The potential and limitations of existing models and tools used to screen for on-target efficacy and de-risk off-target toxicity, including in vivo and next-generation in vitro models, are also discussed.

To support...Moderna's own scientists say...

1707357908194.png
 
To support...Moderna's own scientists say...

View attachment 12152

Amazing how people can just gloss over and ignore stuff like that right from the horses mouth.


My biggest issue was the horseshit they still made people endure after our little Chinese bioweapons lab critter mutated several times.

Thankfully they haven't "allowed" much more deadly lab cocktails to escape. Thankfully our southern border is secure. It would be crazy to have millions of unvetted invaders from 100+ countries come in setting up camp inside with foreign funding and internal connections.
 
I'd like to remind the group that I hate Ogres.

that said, please, carry on.
 
Here's Peter McCullough's supplement website.

????
What's the purpose of posting this?
Vitamins, minerals, amino acids, etc. are bad things to be selling...........?
A cardiologist promoting good health is corporate greed.....?
Yeah, how dare this snake oil salesman try to get people to buy these essential substances your body needs to exist.
F him and GNC and drug stores and grocery stores and specialty pharmacies.
 
Top