Share this comment
You say "there were benefits. There certainly was protection against severe disease. At least transiently. That was beneficial to reduce pressure on hospital systems."
Have you read medrxiv.org/content/10.…?
Does this paper "The extent and impact of vaccine status miscategorisation on covid-19 vaccine efficacy studies" not completely inval…
You say "there were benefits. There certainly was protection against severe disease. At least transiently. That was beneficial to reduce pressure on hospital systems."
Have you read https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.09.24304015v1?
Does this paper "The extent and impact of vaccine status miscategorisation on covid-19 vaccine efficacy studies" not completely invalidate your point that "there certainly was protection against severe disease"? In my opinion it does. I mean the UK ONS admitted to Norman Fenton in writing a while ago that their flawed data should NOT have been used to make any judgements on vaccinated groups versus unvaccinated groups. And yet scientists did not see that the data was flawed and wrote plenty of papers on the basis of that flawed data. It seems that you are also referring to such flawed data when claiming that "there certainly was protection against severe disease". Can you see your own fallacy after studying "The extent and impact of vaccine status miscategorisation on covid-19 vaccine efficacy studies". Or does it in your opinion not matter that in those vaccine efficacy studies vaccinated patients were misclassified as unvaccinated patients?
Also your claim "That was beneficial to reduce pressure on hospital systems."
What makes you so sure that there was indeed pressure on hospital systems?
Let us look for example at Germany: During 2020 and during 2021 there were only 17 million people hospitalized in Germany annually as opposed to 19 million in 2019. How can one say that there was pressure on the hospital systems, when in fact nurses were laid off and some medical staff were put on short-time work? The analysis from the "Initiative Qualitätsmedizin" that analysed the data of a considerable statistically significant percentage of hospitals in Germany found that not more people were in ICU for influenza like illnesses during the first year of the Covid crisis than in 2019 (https://www.initiative-qualitaetsmedizin.de/monatliche-analyse-jan-bis-nov-2020). In Germany there is also the work of data analyst Tom Lausen that shows that neither ICUs nor hospitals during the first waves were overwhelmed with patients. The German Health Minister Jens Spahn also admitted in spring 2021 in a press conference that neither ICUs nor hospitals were overwhelmed during 2020 and also not in the winter of 2020 and 2021, and that there was in very few hospitals at the most an occasional overload [as is the case every winter during the flu season].
With 2 million less patients being hospitalized per year, and also not more (rather quite a few patients less) being admitted to ICU, it seems really debateable whether there was any pressure on Germany's hospital system. In UK during the first Covid "wave" the nurses also reported that they had plenty of time dealing with a fairly moderate number of Covid patients after the UK government had decided to kick out all those patients who would have probably needed surgery for non-Covid things.
How can one claim that the vaccination reduced the pressure on hospital systems when there was no pressure. Any pressure on hospital systems came mainly down to having to quarantine Covid-asymptomatic patients who had a positive Covid test but had in fact been admitted to the hospital for diseases other than Covid.
How can we trust doctors and experts like you who continue to base their analysis and conclusions on flawed covid-19 vaccine efficacy data?
This is really an enigma to me. Could you not have had a closer look and seen that the data that those covid-19 vaccine efficacy studies are based on is flawed? I mean it is not so difficult to see that there is a miscategorisation. Why are you not mistrusting such flawed data a little bit more? Why do you experts take many claims that are being made at face value without questioning them? If you would ask questions, you would be able to see that this so-called vaccine efficacy data was in fact seriously flawed.
I demand that ALL those studies that relied on those data sets that miscategorized the vaccine status are withdrawn.
I have come to the conclusion that the vast majority of scientific experts are neither scientific nor experts. Otherwise they would by now have been able to acknowledge that their assumptions and claims regarding vaccine efficacy were based on flawed data. They would withdraw their studies in shame. And they would indeed apologize to the public for having made a serious misapprehension thereby misleading the public with regards to Covid-19 vaccine efficacy studies.
It is essential that Dr Philip read the preprint on MedRxiv that is refrred to in this comment.
It is by Norman Fenton and others, and shows that many (all?) trials of vaccines from the earliest Pfizer were largely if not totally dependent on miscategorization. That is the modRNA vaccines were almost totally ineffective in stopping infection.
In Germany residents from old people's homes were prioritised for Biontech/Pfizer vaccination in January 2021. The vaccine was rolled out from 27 December 2020, and many residents would have received two Covid injections in January 2021.
The German Office of National Statistics wrote in its January 2021 report the following:
"The above-average number of deaths in January 2021 was largely due to an increase in deaths in the 80+ age group. In January, 29% or 14,464 more people aged 80 and over died than the average for the previous four years in this month. The number of deaths among the under-80s differed significantly less from the four-year average in January (+4% or +1,461 deaths)."
It can really not be ruled out that a high percentage of those extra 14,464 deaths of this highly vaccinated group are due to Covid vaccination. I wonder how much the "efficacy" of the Covid vaccine went up because those dead vaccinated people can no longer be infected and hospitalized for or with Covid because they had died so quickly after being vaccinated.
Furthermore, when it comes to evaluating the pressure on hospital systems, one should really also take into account the many side effects of the vaccines that needed hospitalization.
Data Analyst Tom Lausen who analyzed the data from Health Insurances in Germany discovered that doctors did report quite a lot of side effects to Health Insurances (yet only a much smaller number to the German Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System). The data indicates that there were more hospitalizations due to Vaccine Adverse Effects than the government wanted to admit. From that German Health Insurance Data we can tell that many doctors and nurses took sick leave after their Covid injections. It was altogether quite a high number of sick leave days. In my opinion it is not all that clear that the vaccines reduced the pressure on the hospital systems. Also they found that vaccinated nurses and doctors had a very high load of covid infections. Really a very substantial amount of Covid infections in the Covid vaccinated.
Also to give further factual evidence with regards to my claims made in the comment further above I would like to refer to the a study at the University Clinic Hamburg Eppendorf.
"From 30 April to 12 May 2020, interviews were conducted with the clinic directors responsible at the UKE (University Clinic Hamburg Eppendorf) by telephone, video or face-to-face using a partially standardized questionnaire.
... In most clinical areas, both inpatient and outpatient occupancy rates and workloads fell sharply in some phases. In some cases, however, workloads also increased, e.g. due to the adaptation of work processes, changes in communication and personnel structures and additional hygiene measures."
[Me: Workloads in some cases increased because they reduced staff numbers as a result of the sharp fall in both inpatient and outpatient occupancy rates.]
Very good point.
In truth I always recognised the risks.
The problem was that the population was given no other options. In that situation, a vaccine for the high risk could be better than nothing.
Austria's chief epidemiologist Prof. Dr. Franz Allerberger, the Head of AGES, said in an interview with CIBIS in early summer 2021, i.e. more than one year into the Covid crisis that in his opinion nobody would have noticed the pandemic if it was not for the PCR testing.
Nonetheless he thought that as the vaccines seemed to be safe one should administer them to people. The only reason for administering unnecessary vaccines apart from that they seem to be not harmful was according to Allerberger that they would alleviate the fear of people and brings them immediate relief from fear of catching Covid.
How ludicrous is this?
Injecting people with potentially harmful mRNA or vector vaccine technology so as to relieve their fear of catching Covid when the whole scientific community should have known that the goal of mRNA therapeutics is NOT even to prevent Covid infection?
https://www.oval.media/e6bd5618-c2e9-45a2-9d5a-f76a3704909d/
It is not clear what you are saying here. Why was the population not given other options? Why is a potentially harmful injection better than nothing? Is doing nothing not better than a potentially harmful injection?
Usually, I have to give some balance in these presentations.
Recognise that the vaccine has reduced the numbers of severe covid presentations. It is not clear that it has impacted all cause mortality.
In a perfect situation with targeted vaccination, early treatment and no lockdowns, there would have been minimal deaths.
Why in your opinion has the vaccine reduced the numbers of severe covid presentations? Can you provide me with the data sets that would support your claim that the vaccine in fact reduced the numbers of severe covid presentations?
Very revealing, all these postings from you Gabrielle. You have rightly put Dr. McMillan on the backfoot on his small soft corner for the vaccine and the claim of it having saved serious illness. The companies and authorities began peddling this claim everywhere later in 2021, as the increasing vaccinations could not stop reinfections or burgeoning fresh cases. The claim was an opportunistic grab of attention, those vaccinated not getting sick as the claimed beneficiaries of the vaccine. Even when numbers began showing that more vaccinated were getting sick than unvaccinated, there was this casual twist of explanation that more people were now vaccinated. In public perception, one stunning observation cannot be disputed. In 2021, there were more vaccinations, more infections, more deaths, than say 2020 without vaccine.