This thread was deleted by a volunteer moderator. I certainly don't want a thread this big deleted so I've restored. THat being said, this thread has served it's purpose. I've closed it to new posts.
We have a new 2024 vaccine thread here. New people don't need to try to wade through 20,000 posts to figure out what is going on.
The mRNA data from the vaccine trials isn't sufficient to draw that conclusion. It says as much in the paper you've cited.
It's not clear to me how they get the all-cause mortality confidence intervals for the adenovirus vaccine from the data in table 2, but, without having run the calculations, it doesn't look right.
How I read that study is that the randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed no mortality benefit for COVID mRNA drugs with the following limitations:
1. It doesn’t show longer term effects because the manufacturer unblinded the trial over time and gave the drugs to the control group. The drugs could have shown an increase in mortality over time (or a decrease) and we’ll never know since the trial was stopped and the drugs were released to the general population.
2. These RCT’s had an overall healthier population. The drugs could create more death for a less healthier population.
3. A third potential limitation that was not mentioned in the paper is that any RCT that was done should have used the contaminated product that is given to the general population.
4. A final limitation, in my opinion, is that having the manufacturer involved creates opportunities for scientific fraud. One can find articles and videos online about Pfizer whistleblowers.
The study you've linked doesn't show a mortality benefit, but doesn't rule out the possibility because the confidence intervals are larger than any reasonable expectation of a benefit. One would have to look at other data to get enough statistical power to see all cause mortality benefit and these sorts of studies exist and do show a statistically significant benefit to the mRNA vaccines.
The more bizarre bit of that study is that they conclude the adenovirus vaccine (J&J) does reduce all-cause mortality by a enormous and statistically significant amount (0.37 (0.19–0.70)) which seems more than a little implausible. Moreover, they've arrived at that, to my understanding, by combining two studies with very large error margins and which should be dominated by the first / much larger study. Either I'm misinterpreting the paper or they've screwed up the math.
Amazing what actual training and an IQ over 90 can do for these types of thinking.
Remember: antivaxxers wished MORE people would have died of COVID. That was the world they wanted.
Morris is simply posting graphs showing positive PCR tests show increased mortality. But he is ignoring the fact that the sicker people (such as those in hospitals) would be tested more and generate more “covid cases.” His observational research has numerous biases such as this. That is why randomized controlled trials are the gold standard when done correctly. The data we have from those trials show zero benefits on mortality from mRNA vaccines.
For those who haven’t watched the video I posted on the dangers of using observational data such as this, here it is:
Vinay Prasad, MD MPH; Physician & Professor Hematologist/ OncologistProfessor of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and MedicineAuthor of 450+ Peer Reviewed papers,...
“Ahhhhhhhhh. It doesn’t confirm my bias. Ahhhhhhhhh”
Well done.
I’ve added his study to the data, unfortunately there is already too data on the side of COVID vaccines preventing death and disease for that study to move the needle much.
I recommend reading the previous 500 pages to get a sense of the sum of the data!
Remember one data point rarely proves or disproves anything!
Enjoy learning :)
Another member of the “This does not confirm my bias” club. Welcome! Harambe will show you to your seat. The meeting will start soon. Make sure your vaccine card is filled out completely. We have the doubled-sided 11x14 cards available if you’re running out of room. 😂
Im sure you will just come back with a snarky comment or a snippet of data that doesn’t even prove your point.
The Duchess of York has had a mole removed from her body which tests have since found to be a malignant melanoma which is the most serious type of skin cancer.
THE DUCHESS of York last night urged more to join The Sun’s Jabs Army — as our recruit tally edged closer to smashing 40,000. Sarah Ferguson hailed our campaign as “fantastic” and spoke of the vita…
Amazing what actual training and an IQ over 90 can do for these types of thinking.
Remember: antivaxxers wished MORE people would have died of COVID. That was the world they wanted.
Morris is simply posting graphs showing positive PCR tests show increased mortality. But he is ignoring the fact that the sicker people (such as those in hospitals) would be tested more and generate more “covid cases.” His observational research has numerous biases such as this. That is why randomized controlled trials are the gold standard when done correctly. The data we have from those trials show zero benefits on mortality from mRNA vaccines.
For those who haven’t watched the video I posted on the dangers of using observational data such as this, here it is:
Morris has another post why a mortality endpoint for the trials makes no sense. You should read it! Again, he’s a biostats expert with years of experience pre COVID thinking about these issues. Trial design and stats are complicated and easy to misinterpret as your tweets and YouTube videos show.
Secondly, lol at trying to claim positive tests are biased. After June 2020 tests were ubiquitous and used by the millions. Of course, you still can’t explain why these fake Covid Deaths were listed as the underlying cause of death of 90+% of deaths. 90% of doctors in America are corrupt? That’s a conspiracy for sure! You’re forced to try and pretend COVID deaths were massively misassigned to hold your point. It’s amusing to see the corner you’ve painted yourself into.
I’ve added his study to the data, unfortunately there is already too data on the side of COVID vaccines preventing death and disease for that study to move the needle much.
I recommend reading the previous 500 pages to get a sense of the sum of the data!
Remember one data point rarely proves or disproves anything!
Enjoy learning :)
Another member of the “This does not confirm my bias” club. Welcome! Harambe will show you to your seat. The meeting will start soon. Make sure your vaccine card is filled out completely. We have the doubled-sided 11x14 cards available if you’re running out of room. 😂
Im sure you will just come back with a snarky comment or a snippet of data that doesn’t even prove your point.
More evidence free coping and seething and rather poor trolling.
More evidence free coping and seething and rather poor trolling.
Antivaxxers can do better!
Incredible. The Covid "vaccines" have been around for more than 3 years, yet TODAY, Mass. General Hospital claims they are experiencing the worst overcrowding in their over 200 year history. Are they exaggerating, or is it really worse than 2020 ?
Don't know quite what to make of this, but here's the story:
********
Between October 2022 and September 2023, patients boarded in the MGH emergency department for a total of 381,228 hours, a 32% increase from the previous 12-month period, according to the hospital.
A total of 103 patients were boarded in the emergency department last Thursday, marking “one of the most crowded days MGH has experienced in its two centuries of caring for Boston and its surrounding communities,” the hospital spokesperson said.
MGH President David F.M. Brown called the worsening situation a “full-blown crisis” for patients in need of care, as well as staffers who are facing “increasingly stressful situations.”
Morris is simply posting graphs showing positive PCR tests show increased mortality. But he is ignoring the fact that the sicker people (such as those in hospitals) would be tested more and generate more “covid cases.” His observational research has numerous biases such as this. That is why randomized controlled trials are the gold standard when done correctly. The data we have from those trials show zero benefits on mortality from mRNA vaccines.
For those who haven’t watched the video I posted on the dangers of using observational data such as this, here it is:
Morris has another post why a mortality endpoint for the trials makes no sense. You should read it! Again, he’s a biostats expert with years of experience pre COVID thinking about these issues. Trial design and stats are complicated and easy to misinterpret as your tweets and YouTube videos show.
Secondly, lol at trying to claim positive tests are biased. After June 2020 tests were ubiquitous and used by the millions. Of course, you still can’t explain why these fake Covid Deaths were listed as the underlying cause of death of 90+% of deaths. 90% of doctors in America are corrupt? That’s a conspiracy for sure! You’re forced to try and pretend COVID deaths were massively misassigned to hold your point. It’s amusing to see the corner you’ve painted yourself into.
Many people have years of expertise, not just Morris. The tests were common, but his graphs don’t control for the fact that healthy people likely to test far less than sicker people. The sicker people testing more often would be more likely to be “covid positive” and, of course, sicker people are more likely to die than others. His graphs have bias built in to them. RCT studies that are well conducted eliminate this bias.
You do realize that the employer for Morris had an $800 million increase in revenue in FY 2021 largely from mRNA royalties and that his department has a partnership with Pfizer … and Pfizer employees.
As I have said many times, it is not the doctors, but the CDC that is corrupted. I posted an article showing death certificates and examples of the CDC ignoring the actual cause of death.
Morris is simply posting graphs showing positive PCR tests show increased mortality. But he is ignoring the fact that the sicker people (such as those in hospitals) would be tested more and generate more “covid cases.” His observational research has numerous biases such as this. That is why randomized controlled trials are the gold standard when done correctly. The data we have from those trials show zero benefits on mortality from mRNA vaccines.
For those who haven’t watched the video I posted on the dangers of using observational data such as this, here it is:
Morris has another post why a mortality endpoint for the trials makes no sense. You should read it! Again, he’s a biostats expert with years of experience pre COVID thinking about these issues. Trial design and stats are complicated and easy to misinterpret as your tweets and YouTube videos show.
Secondly, lol at trying to claim positive tests are biased. After June 2020 tests were ubiquitous and used by the millions. Of course, you still can’t explain why these fake Covid Deaths were listed as the underlying cause of death of 90+% of deaths. 90% of doctors in America are corrupt? That’s a conspiracy for sure! You’re forced to try and pretend COVID deaths were massively misassigned to hold your point. It’s amusing to see the corner you’ve painted yourself into.
Another member of the “This does not confirm my bias” club. Welcome! Harambe will show you to your seat. The meeting will start soon. Make sure your vaccine card is filled out completely. We have the doubled-sided 11x14 cards available if you’re running out of room. 😂
Im sure you will just come back with a snarky comment or a snippet of data that doesn’t even prove your point.
More evidence free coping and seething and rather poor trolling.
Antivaxxers can do better!
Called it! 👍
(not that it was hard to do since that’s his m.o.)
Now his stooge sidekick will be along any time now to feebly try and back him up.
Harambe sticks fingers in ears and yells, “This does not confirm my bias, therefore it can’t be true!!!!!” Then mumbles something about 300k, anti-vaxxers, and Fauci as he curls up on the floor in the fetal position.
Like 96%-97% of medical doctors recommend Covid vaccines but all these dumb mofo with no money, no education keep telling me they’re dangerous.
That looks to be about the same percentage of doctors who work for HMOs and hospitals. If they don't adhere to the "party line" they lose their jobs. Still doubtful such a high percentage are still recommending the shots but of course you are just pulling that statistic out of thin air. Here is a statistic: in 2023 over 400 US surgeons committed suicide - why did so many feel the need to do that?
Also FYI neither of your studies or mine was published in “The Lancet” or by the NIH. Ifs clear you rarely if ever engage with scientific literature! 😂
Morris has another post why a mortality endpoint for the trials makes no sense. You should read it! Again, he’s a biostats expert with years of experience pre COVID thinking about these issues. Trial design and stats are complicated and easy to misinterpret as your tweets and YouTube videos show.
Secondly, lol at trying to claim positive tests are biased. After June 2020 tests were ubiquitous and used by the millions. Of course, you still can’t explain why these fake Covid Deaths were listed as the underlying cause of death of 90+% of deaths. 90% of doctors in America are corrupt? That’s a conspiracy for sure! You’re forced to try and pretend COVID deaths were massively misassigned to hold your point. It’s amusing to see the corner you’ve painted yourself into.
Many people have years of expertise, not just Morris. The tests were common, but his graphs don’t control for the fact that healthy people likely to test far less than sicker people. The sicker people testing more often would be more likely to be “covid positive” and, of course, sicker people are more likely to die than others. His graphs have bias built in to them. RCT studies that are well conducted eliminate this bias.
You do realize that the employer for Morris had an $800 million increase in revenue in FY 2021 largely from mRNA royalties and that his department has a partnership with Pfizer … and Pfizer employees.
As I have said many times, it is not the doctors, but the CDC that is corrupted. I posted an article showing death certificates and examples of the CDC ignoring the actual cause of death.
Morris bad, Rancourt good. 17 million secret deaths that no one else can find. 🙄
Please show evidence of the CDC changing a death certificate, which would be required to fake the hundreds of the thousands of COVID necessary for Rancourts theories. 😂
Two cases of immune reactions to a vaccine that was given hundreds of millions of times globally!
It’s so rare that single case studies get published!
You are supporting my points with these. The vaccines are heavily studied, monitored, and found to be extremely safe and effective.
Imagine if we had a case study every time someone ended up with a post COVID infection immune disorder. Heres a study that founds thousands in Hong Kong alone; googled in 15 seconds -
Also FYI neither of your studies or mine was published in “The Lancet” or by the NIH. Ifs clear you rarely if ever engage with scientific literature! 😂
I'm beginning to think you actually took the vax, because you are now acting demented. Not in The Lancet or on the NIH website? And to remind you (if you ever knew to begin with which you likely didn't), those papers had to undergo both peer and editorial review before publication.
I'm beginning to think you actually took the vax, because you are now acting demented. Not in The Lancet or on the NIH website? And to remind you (if you ever knew to begin with which you likely didn't), those papers had to undergo both peer and editorial review before publication.
Right, it's often not clear to people who have little experience with academic journals, but the first link is to an article published in Zeitschrift für Rheumatologie and accessed through the NIH website, which are two very different things. The second link is to an article published in The Lancet Rheumatology, which isn't the same journal as The Lancet. The Lancet has been around for 200 years, while The Lancet Rheumatology was only on volume 3 at the time the article was published.
Thank you for this opportunity to clear up the confusion. Academic practices can be arcane and needlessly confusing. Peer review is great, but saying an article is peer reviewed is much less impressive after you've been through it a few times.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
