danish study shows no benefit to overall mortality from mRNA vaccines

have regulators been pushing the wrong vaccines?

this danish study is making the rounds. it’s an assembly/meta study of RCT’s for covid vaccines. what is perhaps most interesting here is not even so much the conclusion (as this has been known for a year by any intrepid enough to read the supplementary data in the mRNA drug trials) but rather the fact that is is now becoming OK to say this out loud and to publish it in places like “the lancet”.

as can be seen right from the beginning, they are addressing the real question very directly:

this is a criticism with which long term readers of the musings of certain internet felines will be familiar. the mRNA jabs are not like other vaccines. they work in an entirely new modality and one fraught with quite a lot of known (and certainly unknown as well) issues. there was little if any testing around this and the systems set up to assess drugs like these were simply inadequate to the task.

this rush to EUA not only allowed a seriously rigged drug trial methodology to be used (ignoring or misattributing the ill effects of immuno-suppression post dose 1 and for 7 days post dose 2, both know and serious issues deliberately designed out of assessment despite the fact that all those getting the jabs would experience them) but also more or less ignored the overall mortality data despite the fact that it was not only available, but unfavorable.

certain felines were heard to describe it as “not so much as a vaccine study as an instagram selfie”

pfizer safety and efficacy: 6 month study

it appears these danish researchers are coming around to this viewpoint as well.

this was always available data. there were few deaths in the pfizer trial overall as the enrollees were generally young and healthy. 79% had zero comorbidities.

and they clearly played some games. they called a death in the vaxx arm “covid pneumonia” to avoid having a “covid death” and excluded it when calculating VE.

there was also a significant cardiovascular risk signal. this is why more people died overall in the active arm than in placebo. in the moderna trial, overall mortality was exactly equal in the 2 arms.

the danes summarize this neatly here:

essentially, you get some reduction in “covid deaths” but it is offset and a bit more by cardiovascular deaths. this alone should give quite a lot of pause. it’s fairly astonishing that it was so completely ignored around approval as is the fact that something on the order of 27k deaths from these vaccines have been reported to VAERS. in the past, vaccines (like swine flu or h1n1) were pulled form the market for killing single digit numbers of people.

this is something altogether different and is certainly being under-reported because that’s how VAERS works.

taken as a whole, this starts to look like some pretty significant regulatory misbehavior. it seems that none of the normal rules ever applied here.

this becomes all the more jarring when one realizes that there may have been a better option. there was quite a strong push early on to move away from and even discredit other vaccine types in the US, particularly the one shot JnJ and the astra zeneca (never approved in US). these are a different type of vaccine (though still little like a traditional vaccine). they were derided as not working as well and often excluded even from vaccine requirements.

this relegated them to de minimis market share (JnJ) and outright exclusion (AZ).

and according to this danish data aggregation, that may have been a very bad thing, because, unlike pfizer and moderna, both JnJ and AZ did show significant benefits to overall mortality. (though GAM appears to have done nothing and has error bars you could sail a tugboat through, though, in fairness, so does AZ. only JnJ looks especially sound on that)

it aggregates like this:

this difference is stark.

the adenovirus carrier drugs had a 63% risk reduction for overall mortality.

it was 81% for JnJ.

the mRNA drugs showed a 3% risk INCREASE. (+7% pfizer, 0% moderna)

they pulled it all together into this forest plot:

and this makes it very easy to see the issue.

• both vaccine types reduced covid mortality (but adenovirus worked better.)

• but adenovirus vaccines decreased the likelihood of cardiovascular and other non-accident deaths. mRNA vaccines enhanced them.

• and if you single out JnJ it outperformed by wide margins

• and this led to a large divergence in overall outcomes. the mRNA vaccines vastly underperformed.

this has led folks like harvard epidemiologist and gatopal™ martin kuldorf to ask an important question:

because it’s starting to look like they were.

other countries started figuring this out last year.

the french are correct to stop using moderna on anyone under 30.

and these are the original studies with the original variants back before the mRNA vaccines lost a ton of efficacy by driving viral evolution towards vaccine escape and OAS and perhaps even ADE (because that’s what leaky vaccines do) which may well have inverted their efficacy and made them a part of the contagion problem.

and that issue looks to be getting worse.

covid is becoming increasingly vaccine enabled

and it’s spreading to hospitalization and covid mortality, leading to the frightening possibility of mRNA accelerating not just other deaths but covid deaths as well.

and if we have indeed managed to create herd level antigenic fixation, it will keep getting worse.

meanwhile, the side effects from boosters will be cumulative and perhaps even multiplicative.

there are just a dazzling number of questions here that need to be answered.

• how were drug trials this rigged and slanted and incomplete allowed with a vaccine modality never before used in humans and known to be incredibly dangerous rubber stamped and rushed through?

• how did regulators and politicians ignore the overall mortality data altogether?

• how, when the promises of these vaccines stopping spread were near instantly disproven were the results of the trials overall, the approval for these drugs, and the mandates and health hectoring to get jabbed with them not reassessed and ceased?

  (and yes, they absolutely, unequivocally DID promise that)

yes, the vaccines were supposed to stop covid spread. yes, the "experts" told us so.

• how did we ignore the safer and apparently more effective choices to zero in on the more dangerous and less beneficial? who made that choice and set those talking points?

• how did the FDA, CDC, and NIH all become the functional marketing arms for mRNA vaccines to the exclusion of nearly all else to the point where the top vaccine people at FDA quit in disgust?

these astonishing events demand an astonishing reckoning.

it might be a great start to understand precisely why scott gottlieb quit mid term as FDA commissioner in april 2019, right before this all kicked off, to go join the pfizer board of directors.

it might also be a great start to forensically trace just where the technology the NIH licensed to moderna for their covid vaccine came from. it’s implausibly instant appearance has never seemed plausible.

there has also been a notable absence of US reporting on outcomes by vaccine type. why are we not getting to see the overall mortality data at societal scale broken down by vaxx type and vaxx status? surely this is data that could be aggregated. i wonder what it might show us?