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

submitted by HiddenFox from theepochtimes.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Hematomato 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (25 children)

The paper starts off with a narrative summary of how the vaccine development was vastly accelerated, ignored established safety procedures, and was biased by political concerns. That's all well-documented, and they give dozens of cites in support.

But then they get to their "money shot" paragraph:

It is imperative to carefully weigh all potential risks associated with the COVID-19 mRNA products. Should substantial harms be linked to their use, the perceived “reward” conveyed by the NNV would necessitate a re-appraisal. For example, assuming an NNV of 119 and an IFR of 0.23% (both conservative estimates), approximately 52,000 vaccinations would be needed to prevent one COVID-19-related death. Thus, for the BNT162b2 injection, a generous estimate would be two lives saved from COVID-19 for every 100,000 courses of the biological. Given the evidence of trial misconduct and data integrity problems (see next section), we conjecture that this estimate is an “upper bound”, and therefore the true benefit is likely to be much lower. Regarding potential harms, assuming 30% false-positive reports and a moderate under-reporting factor of 21, we calculate a risk of 27 deaths per 100,000 doses of BNT162b2. Thus, applying these reasonable, 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.

Not one cite here, and two admissions that they're literally just making numbers up. "Assuming an NNV of 119 and an IFR of 0.23%" (based on apparently nothing) and "assuming 30% false-positive reports and a moderate under-reporting factor of 21" (also based on apparently nothing).

It's at this point that this "scientific paper" becomes about as useful as a Saidit post. Because they didn't do any, um, science. They just made up numbers.

[–]HiddenFox[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

I think that's why they used "for example" before they stated their case and gave those numbers. We will never have perfect data on what truly happened and the best we can do is use reasonable estimate and draw conclusions. They also state that the assumptions they are using are conservative.

This paper was also peer reviewed and comes from an accredited medical journal. (The Cureus journal https://www.cureus.com/) To me there is enough here to at least engage in serious debate. I think dismissing this paper would be a mistake.

[–]ActuallyNot 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

This paper was also peer reviewed and comes from an accredited medical journal. (The Cureus journal https://www.cureus.com/)

Sort of.

Also of note, the two controversial journals Oncotarget and Cureus accounted for over 50% of institutional publications deemed of possible concern.- Assessing Predatory Journal Publishing Within Health Sciences

Cureus, its reviewing, and its “Scholarly Impact Quotient”

Some Strange Goings On at Cureus

Cureus publications? Worth it or just a waste of time

The journal Cureus has retracted 56 papers nearly two years after it first began to suspect the works were of dubious lineage.

To me there is enough here to at least engage in serious debate.

It's weaker than from any other Springer-Nature publication I can think of. But certainly there should be a debate.

I think dismissing this paper would be a mistake.

Yeah. We should wait and see if the scientific community dismisses it or not. It is out of line with previous research.

[–]Bitch-Im-a-cow 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

You're very kind and patient.

It's absolutely disinformation, sponsored by the anti-vax propaganda establishment. For starters, the headline proposes something that is obviously impossible.

[–]jokerjoker 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

You're very kind and patient.

It's absolutely disinformation, sponsored by the anti-vax propaganda establishment. For starters, the headline proposes something that is obviously impossible.

/u/actuallynot wants everyone to get vaxxed,

[–]Bitch-Im-a-cow 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

No reasonable person cares anymore about the vaccine - take it or don't take it.

[–]jokerjoker 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

No reasonable person cares anymore.

one of my ex's was healthy until she got vaxxed.. within days, she has severe diabetes, almost cant see, has no feeling in her feet and can barely walk.. another man that i know was healthy, he died the day after he got vaxxed.. i listened to two young(early 30's) females that said that one has blood clots and the other says she had an aneurism..

whenever anyone asks me if i got vaxxed, i tell them that i got mine downtown.

https://rumble.com/v1wac7i-world-premier-died-suddenly.html

[–]Bitch-Im-a-cow 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

unrelated illnesses

[–]jokerjoker 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

unrelated illnesses

and how could you possibly know this?

[–]Bitch-Im-a-cow 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

because I'm not an idiot

there's a longer answer but, an explanation should not be necessary

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Because diabetes ins't one of the adverse events you get from the vaccine.

But transient myopia or hyperopia and pain and numbness in the legs and feet are symptoms of diabetes. You're listing Diabetes and a few of its common symptoms. The casual observer would suspect that your ex has diabetes, not a serious adverse event from a vaccine.

i listened to two young(early 30's) females that said that one has blood clots and the other says she had an aneurism.

Those can be adverse events from the vaccine. They're rare, and the vaccine protects against a higher chance of getting them from the infection.

https://rumble.com/v1wac7i-world-premier-died-suddenly.html

Lets see what the skeptics thing of this "documentary":

The Anti-Vaccine Documentary Died Suddenly Wants You to Feel, Not Think

Died Suddenly: A tsunami of antivax misinformation and conspiracy theories

A clot too far: An embalmer dissects antivax misinformation about blood clots in Died Suddenly

When an antivax physician “dies suddenly”: The case of Dr. Rashid Buttar

Looks like they're saying it's bullshit. Huh! Who would've guessed?

[–]SaltyTexan 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I'm not anti-vax, I believe that vaccinations, especially ones that have gone through thorough testing and trials are actually a good thing. What I don't think you and others like you realize is that this vaccine was released under emergency situations, meaning it wasn't properly tested or vetted in trials before being released to use on the general public.

That causes a lot of issues, especially when people are starting to show side effects of those vaccines. I don't think that is something any intelligent person should overlook. It wasn't ready to be released and now people are dealing with the side effects. The general population basically were the lab rats.

[–]Bitch-Im-a-cow 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

5.6 billion people worldwide have taken the vaccine without complications. Studies of patients requiring temporary bloodthinners after taking the shot show that this was extremely rare, something like 1 in a 500,000 patients.

SARS virus and vaccine research began in a substantial manner in 2003. For almost 20 years before COVID there were tested SARS vaccines. For the COV 2 strains, there were new tests for those vaccines, lasting approximately 3 months, which is a relatively normal testing period, if working with almost 20 years of vaccine research.

[–]SaltyTexan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

SARS virus and vaccine research began in a substantial manner in 2003. For almost 20 years before COVID there were tested SARS vaccines. For the COV 2 strains, there were new tests for those vaccines, lasting approximately 3 months, which is a relatively normal testing period, if working with almost 20 years of vaccine research.

Yes but anytime you modify something you change it's makeup therefore making it a new thing. I completely understand that COVID is a form of the SARS virus, but even that small difference is enough to make it a new virus altogether. So I stand by what I said about the public being the lab rats. And yeah in clinical trials not everyone will have side effects, because everyone's makeup is different, they are exposed to different things, they eat differently and live in different environments, which is why they use such a large diverse group when doing clinical trials, they have to or the data becomes compromised. You can't pick and choose people who you think would make your drug appear safe. It's like letting a criminal choose their own jury.

[–]Bitch-Im-a-cow 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If you know this much about viruses and vaccines, you'll know that the only update to a SARS vaccine is the inclusion of a small portion of a new virus strain or an mRNA adjustment that attacks a new strain. Differences between updates are incredibly small, related to the new strains. Testing for that vaccine with the tiny new strain would naturally have simiar results as previous tests.

[–]SaltyTexan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you know this much about viruses and vaccines, you'll know that the only update to a SARS vaccine is the inclusion of a small portion of a new virus strain or an mRNA adjustment that attacks a new strain

Yes which is why I said that ANY change even the most minute change can effect how the vaccine or virus will respond. That is why one corona vaccine may not protect against different strains of COVID. Just because the SARS-CoV-1 is genetically similar to the SARS-CoV-2, doesn't mean they are the same or they will react the same when presented in the same host, or when introduced to the same vaccine. They are more like cousins, alike but also vastly different. We've had how many different stains of COVID now and it's only been around for about 4-5 years. Depending on who you believe about when it really got out.

[–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We will never have perfect data on what truly happened and the best we can do is use reasonable estimate and draw conclusions.

We can absolutely do better than that. We can gather new data, carefully study the data we do have, and create mathematical models with upper and lower bounds. That's what we do, for example, when we try to estimate the mortality from a war.

These authors don't seem to do any of that. They're just like "Here's some numbers we made up; I promise they feel conservative to me; here's the conclusion we draw from them."

This paper was also peer reviewed and comes from an accredited medical journal.

Sadly, that means nothing. It's a pay-to-play industry these days, and garbage non-science makes it into peer-reviewed medical journals every single month.

To me there is enough here to at least engage in serious debate.

To me, there's enough here to engage in further study. "Debate" gets us nowhere. Debate is just two guys with their dicks out, waving around rulers and insisting one of them is bigger than the other with ever bothering to measure.