There is no science, past or present, that can possibly justify booster shot on top of booster shot on top of booster shot on top of jabs that all failed miserably and might have harmed more people than help. Think profits booster. Follow the money, the gravy train for Big Pharma.
Dr. Anthony Fauci is claiming that there was not enough time to wait for clinical trial data before clearing updated COVID-19 booster shots.
“We don’t have time to do a clinical trial because we need to get the vaccine out now,” Fauci said on CBC this week, pointing to how about 400 Americans are dying per day with COVID-19 and thousands of others are in hospitals with the disease.
... No human data was or is available for the formulations. Pfizer and Moderna presented data on preclinical testing, done on mice...
WIND: there is nothing else you need to know: Fauci and his ilk and the CDC were never trustworthy, and never will be. Only children and idiots think so.
We have moved from wiping-out evidence (destroying the COVID jab clinical trial control groups), to “we don’t need no stinkin' clinical trials!”. Get your jab you Sciencism Denier, and shut the f*ck up!
Franklin K, MD writes:
WIND: Franklin K objects to my characterization of jabs and boosters.
I should clarify: I assume that The Jab is more appropriate for the at-risk (eg the elderly). Sorry I cannot spell everything out every time for pedantic critics. For everyone else (eg children through 50 year olds in decent health), there is no credible evidence that the risks outweigh the benefits. Especially for those who had and recovered from COVID (a huge proportion of the population).
I am no expert on scientific studies, but I don’t have to be; anyone with critical thinking skills in a “hard” field involving math and science can analyze the key features of a study in the areas that matter. For me, that is mathematics, statistics, computer science, operations research). And I claim, based on experience, that many if not most MD’s have poorly developed critical thinking skills along with organizational pressures along with PTSD-like biases from treating COVID along with general professional insecurities about unwashed non-MDs like me that leave them highly vulnerable to cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.
Taking the first study on Franklin K’s list, let’s analyze its credibility.
... Confounding sociodemographic and clinical characteristics may have led to bias in the analysis of effectiveness. We attempted to overcome such bias by adjusting for the variables known to affect mortality due to Covid-19. However, for some sources of bias, measurement or correction may not have been performed adequately.
...During the study period, death due to Covid-19 occurred in 65 participants in the booster group (0.16 per 100,000 persons per day) and in 137 participants in the nonbooster group (2.98 per 100,000 persons per day). The adjusted hazard ratio for death due to Covid-19 in the booster group, as compared with the nonbooster group, was 0.10 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07 to 0.14; P<0.001)... At the end of the study period, 758,118 participants (90%) had received the booster.
...number of deaths due to Covid-19 was sufficient to show a significant association between the use of the booster and lower mortality due to Covid-1
..all participants included in our study had chosen to receive the first two doses early in the vaccination campaign, and therefore, it is possible that they had similar health care–seeking behavior.
WIND: this study has problems. BTW, why do we need an editorial to firm up studies?
Taking the optimistic view first:
Vaccinating 758118 people kept the deaths to 65 participants. Not vaccinating 85090 participants saw 137 deaths. That is a death rate of 0.00857% among the jabbed/boosted, and 0.16% among the unjabbed, a ratio of 18.6. I deem the unjabbed 0.16% infection fatality rate credible because it closely mirrors the widely quoted infection fatality rate (0.1% to 0.3%). In other words, the unjabbed died at the expected rate.
Overall then, the study is strongly in favor of jab/boosters. However, validity of the the numbers is the issue; one cannot just accept the numbers as rigorous:
- First, the newest boosters have had no human studies. That’s a huge red flag. It cannot be assumed that a new booster will have fewer side effects or more efficacy.
- It's a retrospective study of only the elderly and with no control group. This places the study at the lowest level of credibility.
- Self-selection means there is no randomization—the rusty iron standard, not the gold standard. Even the placebo effect could greatly affect results. Participants who are more health-aware are likely healthier, etc.
- The abysmally short 54-day study period games the system. Where is the 365 day followup?! This is the same scientific fraud that was used on the original jabs—a short study period used to persuade, cutting off a study if trends start to change and/or suppression studies/results that do not favor. A dirty trick long employed by Big Pharma.
- The deaths themselves might be gamed due to overwhelming medical bias leading to falsely attributed causation. Knowing a patient was jabbed or not could in and of itself lead to false attribution (eg no “blinding” and thus potentially quite high bias, particularly among doctor who object to unvaccinated patients).
- 95% confidence interval is a widely used, but low credibility standard. The absolute numbers of deaths are low, which undermines credibility. Worse, a lopsided jabbed vs unjabbed group size leads to low confidence in those numbers.
- Prior COVID infection seems to have been completely ignored. Yet it would be a confounder that would dwarf the effect of the boosters.
- The study does not contemplate deaths or injuries that might have been provoked by the jab/boosters. The medical community writes off deaths, neurological disorders, etc as coincidence (the arrogance of ignorance). And anything but death is a non-event as far as these studies are concerned. Offer that platitude to someone who develops a life-destroying neurological condition.
- With an NTT (number to treat) of ~10.5K, a single person is allegedly saved, while 10499 others might well suffer from serious side effects. And only for a very short period of the study, with effectiveness rapidly waning. What about cumulative effects of the jabs, as yet unstudied, and strongly discouraged from being studied and never funded? You don’t know what you don’t know.
- Follow the money. There is a lot of fraud out there, some of it subtle.
- Association (correlation is not causation) is low-grade science, indefensible for any public policy.
With Omicron the weak sauce that is is, should any young person get boosted? What about the elderly? What about the risk of long COVID? No one can answer any of these for you personally—you are not a statistic and everything about you is different from the next person.
Studies like this are what we have. But they a narrow slices of a complex area. There is no rational basis to make a decision . That is, without solid data on serious side effects, studies like this are just halfpinions. No real risk assessment can be done. You must assume the jab/booster offer you personally a benefit. It becomes a psychological decision, not an intellectual one.
To think it is an informed decision given the lack of study of side effects and deaths precipitated by the jab/booster is self deception.
For the elderly, studies like this strongly favor getting jabbed/boosted, at least in the short term, and that’s the rub: no one is funding or studying the side effects or deaths that might have been caused by the jab/boosters and/or repeated boosters.
As a healthy and relatively healthy person, these studies of the elderly tell you next to nothing, perhaps worse than nothing (misleading/inapplicable/unbalanced). With low risk of dying and long life ahead, will you take a risk of permanent damage repeated boosters?