効果（VE）が本当はマイナス１００％だったｍRNAワクチンの効果を統計トリックで47%と見せかけてた論文がラファエルに発覚してしまいBMJが窮地に陥る

これはもうダメかもわからんね。

Evidence Against COVID-19 Vaccines in Medical Journals Continues to Grow

BY DR RAPHAEL LATASTER

 

7 SEPTEMBER 2023 3:15 PM

 

As a university academic, and former pharmacist, whose speciality is misinformation, disinformation and fake news, I have been very active of late in collecting (and writing) papers appearing in medical journals that provide evidence and arguments against the COVID-19 vaccines. Below is a summary of some of the recent papers I find to be most concerning.

Vaccine effectiveness and safety exaggerated

An article appearing in the Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, including BMJ Editor Peter Doshi amongst its authors, discusses several biases that, if not accounted for, indicate that the effectiveness of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in observational studies is being heavily exaggerated. The most important appears to be one many of us have worried about from the beginning, the dubious ‘case-counting window bias’, which concerns the seven days, 14 days or even 21 days after the jab where we are meant to overlook jab-related issues, particularly poor effectiveness, as “the vaccine has not had sufficient time to stimulate the immune system”. In an example using some data from Pfizer’s clinical trial, the authors show that thanks to this bias, a vaccine with effectiveness of 0%, which is confirmed in the hypothetical clinical trial, could be seen in observational studies as having effectiveness of 48%.

In a follow-up article in the same journal I revealed ways in which the situation may even be worse. The aforementioned ‘case-counting window bias’ is often accompanied by a ‘definitional bias’, whereby the Covid cases in the vaccinated are not just ignored, but shifted over to the unvaccinated. So building on the above example, a vaccine with 0% effectiveness can actually be perceived as having 65% effectiveness. My article also shows, touching on the intriguing (horrifying?) issue of negative effectiveness, “a vaccine with minus-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 minus-1,000% and lower”. I also explained that this exaggeration could equally apply to studies on vaccine safety, which would be important when comparing the overall health of the vaccinated and unvaccinated, as may be appropriate when looking into the mysterious rise in non-Covid excess deaths post-pandemic.

 

Doshi, joined by one of his earlier co-authors, decided to produce another article in the same journal, a follow-up to my follow-up, shifting the focus from observational studies to the clinical trials. They found that case counting “only began once participants were seven days (Pfizer) or 14 days (Moderna) post Dose 2, or approximately four to six weeks after Dose 1”. The obvious implication:

Decisions on when to initiate the case counting window affected calculations of vaccine efficacy. Because cases occurring in the four to six weeks between Dose 1 and the case counting window were excluded, reported vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 (the primary endpoint) at the time of Emergency Use Authorisation was higher than what would have been calculated had all COVID-19 cases after Dose 1 been included, as in a conventional Intent-to-Treat analysis.

They also found that “different case counting windows” were used at different times, ‘coincidentally’ yielding better results.

Not yet published, though under peer review, is my intended fourth and final article in this unofficial ‘series’. Firstly, I justify my earlier concern of exaggerated safety in observational studies, or studies built on observational data and models rather than data from controlled trials, by discussing a recently published paper in another journal, noting how the authors only count vaccine adverse effects from 14 days after the second dose (or seven days after the latest booster shot), and stopping the count at around four to five months. As if to highlight the potential magnitude of safety exaggeration with so many adverse effects being overlooked, the study, flawed as it is, showed only a very slight net benefit to vaccination. A more complete view of adverse effects (as well as cases in the ‘partially vaccinated’) could easily lead to the conclusion that the risks of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the benefits. I also explain that there are issues with the adverse effect counting windows in the clinical trials in relation to their short length. The safety monitoring ends mere months after vaccination, though adverse effects can manifest clinically years later.

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/09/07/evidence-against-covid-19-vaccines-in-medical-journals-continues-to-grow/

Negative effectiveness

I couldn’t leave you hanging after dangling this juicy but horrifying morsel in front of you earlier. I managed to get another rapid response published, in the BMJ proper this time, on the topic of negative effectiveness. While rapid waning of effectiveness and exaggeration of effectiveness is concerning enough, particularly as we learn more about the adverse effects, the phenomenon of COVID-19 vaccine negative effectiveness could completely end the discussion as to whether the COVID-19 vaccines are net useful or not. There is increasing evidence for this phenomenon (in relation to infections, hospitalisations and deaths), with one study revealing a dose-dependent relationship. The more COVID-19 jabs, the more the risk of COVID-19. If that sounds concerning to you, well, quite. My rapid response effectively refuted an article in the BMJ trying – and failing horribly – to explain this phenomenon away. If negative effectiveness is occurring, there is no such thing as ‘risks vs benefits’. There is only ‘risks plus risks’. We need explanations from the manufacturers and regulators, as a matter of urgency.

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/09/07/evidence-against-covid-19-vaccines-in-medical-journals-continues-to-grow/

 

The imprinting effect of covid-19 vaccines: an expected selection bias in observational studies

BMJ 2023; 381 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-074404 (Published 07 June 2023)Cite this as: BMJ 2023;381:e074404

Rapid Response:

We need proper explanations for apparent COVID-19 vaccine negative effectiveness

Dear Editor

A striking phenomenon regarding COVID-19 vaccines, referred to as ‘immune imprinting’ or the more specific ‘negative effectiveness’, has been recently discussed here in The BMJ.1 Referring to Chemaitelly et al., which indicated that those with 3 doses of vaccine were more likely to be infected than those with 2,2 Monge et al. hypothesise that “the increased risk of reinfection in individuals vaccinated with a booster compared with no booster is the result” of a selection bias wherein those receiving the booster are those “more susceptible to reinfection”; a sort of counter to the hypothesised ‘healthy vaccinee bias’. Apart from the article’s inconclusive conclusion that this phenomenon “may be fully explained by selection bias”, this hypothesis would not apply to all such studies.

For example, while it could be reasonable to suppose that people opting for dose 3 and beyond would tend to be at higher risk of COVID-19, and thus more prone to reinfection, it is not obvious that this would apply to the recent study on healthcare workers presented by Shrestha et al.3 This study reveals an even greater problem. The phenomenon is not limited to boosters but is also found when comparing those receiving 2 doses to those receiving 0. In fact, Shrestha et al. indicates that each dose up to 3+ resulted in increased infections. And there are many other studies showing this phenomenon, also with regards to hospitalisations and deaths, in addition to the now widely accepted rapid waning of effectiveness, when comparing the double dosed to the unvaccinated, including another study with Chemaitelly as lead author.4 5 Several recently published papers also explain how counting window issues likely led to exaggerated effectiveness and safety estimates in both observational studies and clinical trials.6 7 8

The explanation offered up by Monge et al. fails. What we need is a proper explanation for perceived COVID-19 vaccine negative effectiveness, by the vaccine manufacturers or drug regulators. We need to know if this has always been the case or only since omicron, if the effect is dose-dependent, if certain groups are more at risk, etc. Otherwise, the notion that the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines outweighs the risks is under threat. If the vaccines truly are negatively effective, it appears that the benefits do not outweigh the risks; there would be no benefits, and we simply add risks upon risks.

https://www.bmj.com/content/381/bmj-2022-074404/rr-0

ワクチン推進派の皆様方にDフラグ…

2022年1月6日木曜日

タンパク質に対する免疫反応が引き金になって起こる自己免疫疾患を患ってるノバックにラファエルがラッパを吹く

https://tokumei10.blogspot.com/2022/01/blog-post_19.html

2022年3月23日水曜日

超音波を発するラッパを吹く羽が生えてるHomo Superiorが出現したらHomo Sapiensは例外なく絶滅する

http://tokumei10.blogspot.com/2022/03/homo-superiorhomo-sapiens.html

、、、（爆ｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗ