How many lives were actually saved by Covid vaccines?

This is an interesting article from PANDA critiquing the intellectual midgetry behind claims the “vaccines” saved “(throw any ridiculous number you like here) million lives”, often via similar modelling studies to those regularly out by an order of magnitude during the pandemic itself, and sometimes used as basis for restrictive lock down rules. As they say with modelling...garbage in, garbage out.

It’s good to have people willing to begin looking at such claims more realistically. I can remember in late 2021 the observational data showing quite a divergence from the claims via (mis)interpretation of “gold standard” RCT’s (that should have been dismissed anyway for conflicts of interest, unwillingness to supply supplementary supporting data, and known procedural anomalies).

It became obvious at this time that “vaccination” was having no impact on covid spread (I remember one published large scale observational study that showed a slight trend towards more spread). How they managed to completely change the narrative and convince people that an ineffective vaccine that failed all of its claims and correlated with more covid was somehow only meant to stop “severe covid” is anyone’s guess, but it happened.

I also remember a study by a group of UK academics around this time that found a strong correlation between vaccine uptake and increased mortality in the unvaccinated. The implications of this are obvious and unfortunately the rebuttals seemed to amount to name calling and not much else (charlatans!...anti-vaxxers!).

This article finds it most likely that the vaccines saved 0 deaths from covid. This is admittedly very charitable and largely because certain data is unavailable. It also ignores the huge number of Adverse Events associated with these products and simply focuses on immediate effects of the “vaccines” on covid.

It is a continuation of another article here.

A study done in the UK, and involving more than one million participants, found that an almost unimaginable 33.8% of vaccinees reported Covid-like symptoms in that first week after injection. Not all of these symptoms were indicative of a Covid case, of course, but the conclusion in that study was that “symptoms cannot per se be differentiated from Covid-19 with clinical robustness.” In other words, a full one third of people getting the shot suffered (within a single week) the exact same symptoms that they were seeking to avoid. Bad as this is, however, we are not here discussing side effects. Rather, we are seeking to determine if the shots prevented any Covid deaths.

It will be recalled from a previous article in this series that Pfizer claimed their shots prevented 154 symptomatic cases of Covid for every 21,720 people given the product. Thus, if the percentage of extra people infected with symptomatic Covid in the first week after receiving the injection is as small as 0.7%, then the Pfizer shot loses all of its stated benefit entirely. At that point it becomes functionally irrelevant whether or not VE wanes with time. Of course, if the Pfizer shot increased the number of people contracting Covid in the first week by more than 0.7% (as the above study strongly implies it does), it has a negative benefit, and may have increased the number of Covid deaths.

It is not our intent to discredit the vaccine rollout on account of only one study. Have other studies verified that a significant wave of Covid happens in the first week or two after receiving a Covid shot? Certainly—the effect is well documented. Another UK study, for example, found that “participants aged 80 years and older vaccinated with BNT162b2 … had a higher odds of testing positive for Covid-19 in the first nine days after vaccination. … Vaccine effectiveness was therefore compared with the baseline post-vaccination period.” In other words, on account of all the extra infections during the first nine days, they excluded this period in their calculation of effectiveness.

Likewise, an article in the BMJ affirmed that there has been “a genuine increased risk of contracting infection post vaccination,” especially in the first two weeks.

a reply to: Quintilian

Sir/Ma'am, that aspect is one of concern but a MAJOR factor was not included.
I will say this again...
It is right in front of your faces yet for some reason this must be some conspiracy. And to an extent it is.
I'll help you out a little.
Look at what vacancies specifically have to be kept cooled to a certain temperature.
After you figure that out the rest should be easy to figure out.
After one doubles down they REALLY do.
Why do you think big pharmaceutical companies don't directly attack certain wild conspiracy theories?
It's not because they are above them.
It is because it makes you look over there instead of what can be seen in almost every pharmacy across the globe.

What covid?
Husband and I are currently ill. Aches and pains, headache turning into some rolling cough.
Worst is already over. Started on Monday.
In all honesty this is how 'getting ill' has been like for me all my life.

If I didn't read any news I'd just call it a summer cold, a bit fluey but merely some sort of bug making the rounds.

Last time we were ill was in 2020, again nothing I haven't had before.
As I said, I'm already over the worst, which is pretty quick.
No jibby jab here. Plus whatever it is, we are now all up to date with our natural immune system.

I noticed a lot of people have subsidised the words cold or flu with covid.
Why is suddenly everthing covid?
Someone wrote their son had covid.
How would they even know?
Certainly not from any of those moronic tests. It's probably one of the 36 corona strains which have been around forever and give us everything from a runny nose to full blown flu.
Nothing has changed just what we call it.
I don't believe in covid.

a reply to: Hecate666

Oh I believe there is/was a new strain of coronavirus doing the rounds that was dangerous to a certain demographic (in a similar way to the flu).

You make a good point about immunity from previous coronavirus infection though (colds). It was known from the beginning that a large group of people would already have some cross immunity from having a (coronavirus) cold, but this seems to have been suppressed.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

Yes, I recently watched a segment with Ryan Cole where they subjected around 100 vials of various vaccines to microscopic analysis.

While it explained away a lot of the concerns amateurs have when analysing this way, and found none of the more harmful stuff as claimed (no graphene oxide for instance) it did find huge variability of contents. Some people would have been injected with a huge load of lnp's while others would have basically been getting saline.

If you combine this with conditions needed to keep some of them viable, the variability was probably even greater.

There was a study that found that if you were vaccinated for it you were more likely to get it. More doses increased your odds. That study has been peer reviewed and stands.

a reply to: Quintilian

How many lives were lost due to those vaccines?
How many careers destroyed?

They tried to take everything from everyone, and a lot of people are still suffering from it.
I still see people wearing cheap paper masks, the doctors office still requires them.
This insanity has broken hundreds of millions of people.

It makes me sad to see how easy it was to break them

a reply to: Quintilian

The only lives that were saved by this "covid" event are those of the parasitic overlords, and only in the measure of a few extra years. Give or take the lives of those... inspired to join the fight against evil.

Be relentless.

We will never know the truth. I am skeptical that vaccines saved many lives.

First off, when you look at the average age of a c19 death it actually exceeds the average mortality rate! This means the vast majority of people dying from c19 where very old and already likely on their death bed when you factor in most people didn't die of c19, but with c19.

This remained true before the vaccines and after the vaccines. As such, it would be nearly impossible to say how many lives were saved by vaccines as we already know most young and healthy people, c19 was nothing more than the seasonal flu.

The question then becomes what were the rates of death for old people who were vaccinated vs those that weren't. There are studies claiming that the unvaccinated had higher rates of death than those who were vaccinated. However, if I recall, it seemed like the numbers are so small statistically, that it is hard to draw any hard conclusions imho.

Does anyone actually know a single person that has died of COVID-19, that was NOT vaccinated? I do not. But, I do know some that were vaccinated and died of COVID-19. I also know SEVERAL (too many) people who are suffering long-term damage from COVID-19, all are vaccinated.

The good news is that covid apparently cured old age since apparently no one died from just being old anymore during the pandemic.

a reply to: Hecate666

I know of quite a few folks around here who've come down with something recently. Sore throat, fever, fatigue, cough.

It's the same thing that goes around almost every year and always has. Pollens are high this year and allergy sufferers are really feeling it. How our bodies react to allergens can sometimes manifest into other forms of sickness but with all things seasonal...it shall soon pass.

Have you noticed (general audience) that they've really stepped up the game of naming waves of sickness to something other than "seasonal" or "sporadic" to make things sound more terrifying? "Long-Term Covid" etc?

Fear is being used as a weapon (I'm sure we all agree) to help big pharma's stock bump up a few points.

Welcome to the laboratory my friends. WE ARE the guinea pigs

a reply to: Quintilian

There are nearly a hundred studies showing efficacy of ivermectin

asymptomatic

How many rh- asymptomatic people died from the jab?

a reply to: Quintilian

The answer is zero.

The "vaccine" was a litmus test for critical thinking. Those that allowed untested poisons to be injected into their bloodstream failed the test. For those that failed this test, I hope you work fervently at detoxing as much as you can.

Some people say those that received the injections deserve what is coming. I disagree, and want the best for them.

originally posted by: ketsuko
There was a study that found that if you were vaccinated for it you were more likely to get it. More doses increased your odds. That study has been peer reviewed and stands.

I'm not doubting that for a second. There were all sorts of indicators the vaccines were leading to negative efficacy (especially with boosters).

Wasn't aware it was published in mainstream literature though, thought censorship would've knocked that on the head. Do you have a link, or can you remember the particular study?

a reply to: Quintilian

An answer only the democrats know with 100% certainty. In reality, nobody will ever know whether or not the people who were vaccinated would have even gotten covid, much less died from it or lived through it.

a reply to: Quintilian

It was one of the sites on the PJ Media group that reported on it ... let me go look. I am confined to phone posting though, so I will only be able to point you at it.

It's in Open Forum Infectious Diseases, Vol. 10, Issue 6, June 2023

"Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Bivalent Vaccine"

originally posted by: ketsuko
There was a study that found that if you were vaccinated for it you were more likely to get it. More doses increased your odds. That study has been peer reviewed and stands.

Exactly. It only fought against the first strain, which was already over and a new one was making its rounds by the time the vaccine came out. Common sense tells me that the vaccine was useless.

a reply to: LSU2018

The argument was that they used a part of the virus that was not supposed to mutate. That turned out to not be true. It mutated enough that the vaccine was less effective with each strain.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Quintilian

It was one of the sites on the PJ Media group that reported on it ... let me go look. I am confined to phone posting though, so I will only be able to point you at it.

It's in Open Forum Infectious Diseases, Vol. 10, Issue 6, June 2023

"Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Bivalent Vaccine"

Ah, that's the Cleveland Clinic study.

From memory it was somewhat misconstrued. The effectiveness of the new bivalent vaccine correlated with how many previous vaccine doses people had (which probably makes sense). The more previous doses, the less effective the bivalent vaccine was (with 0 previous doses the optimum).

It didn't say that being unvaccinated was better in itself. Again from memory every vaccinated category still had better protection than the unvaccinated (which was the baseline), or so they claimed.

The controversy there with vaccine efficacy weakening the more doses given, was the possibility of repeat vaccinations leading to ADE.

ps. I find the lot of the claims sketchy though and have real doubts the "vaccines" achieved anything helpful (with a horrendous safety profile to boot). They were always unnecessary for otherwise healthy people, even if they actually worked.