The tattered shreds of medical ethics flapping in the wind are the legacy of the COVID era.
2023-05-05. Emphasis added.
Booster doses were also shown to lose effectiveness over time
The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines fell below 20 percent a few months after vaccination, with booster shots seeing effectiveness drop below 30 percent.
The review, published in the JAMA Network journal on May 3, analyzed 40 studies estimating vaccine effectiveness (VE) over time against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection and symptomatic disease. The studies were selected from 799 original articles, 149 reviews published in peer-reviewed journals, and 35 preprints. The review found that the vaccine effectiveness of a primary vaccination cycle against the Omicron infection and symptomatic disease was lower than 20 percent at 6 months from the administration of the last dose.
...Researchers found that more people experienced myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination than after being infected by the virus. Myocarditis is a type of heart inflammation.
A March report from Phinance Technologies, a global macro investment firm co-founded by former BlackRock portfolio manager Edward Dowd, estimates that COVID-19 vaccine damages in the United States resulted in more than 26 million people being injured last year, with such injuries costing almost $150 billion to the economy...
WIND: ineffective with no lasting benefit for the risks.
Andreas Y writes:
Say you have group A that gets jabbed on day one and group B that doesn’t. Anyone who gets sick up to date 14 is unvaxxed. After that, you have separate vaxxed and unvaxxed groups, but even if they get sick equally on day 15, you’ll still show that the vaxxed group is doing better due to that 14-day backlog of calling everyone unvaxxed. The groups will catch up over time. That’s when you say the jab has worn off and everyone needs a booster, which takes 14 days to work. Repeat until done!
WIND: Big Pharma has mastered all sorts of ways to game the system with evert drug they come up with, so why would this time be any different.
2023-05-06. Emphasis added.
First and foremost, medical regulators shouldn’t be taking money from industry. Drug companies … over the last few decades, overall, have had a negative impact on society, because of the way that they exaggerate the safety and benefits of their pharmacological products,” argues cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra.
...“In my whole career, analyzing and looking at all sorts of different drugs over 20 years, I’ve never seen something with such poor effectiveness [and] such significant, unprecedented harms that we have rolled out to the population. It is extraordinary. And to add more insult to injury, this is now one of the most lucrative products in the history of medicine,” Dr. Malhotra says.
...If you are 70-years-old, you have to vaccinate 2,500 people to prevent one person being hospitalized with severe COVID. If you’re 60-years-old, it’s about 5,700 people. When you get under 50-years-old, you’re talking about tens to hundreds of thousands of people needing to be vaccinated to prevent one severe hospitalization.
Now, this is non-randomized data. What that means is it’s likely an overestimate of the benefits, because we know there’s something called healthy-user bias. In other words, people who are more likely to be vaccinated tend to be healthier than the people who were unvaccinated. We know that on average, that tends to be the case.
The effectiveness of this vaccine—and it’s been reinforced with this data—is extremely poor versus a known absolute rate of harm of at least 1 to 800 on the re-analysis of Pfizer and Moderna’s own trials.
It’s a complete joke, actually. In my whole career, analyzing and looking at all sorts of different drugs over 20 years, I’ve never seen something with such poor effectiveness, and such significant, unprecedented harms that we have rolled out to the population. It is extraordinary.
To add more insult to injury, this is now one of the most lucrative products in the history of medicine. It has made Pfizer $100 billion. But actually, it isn’t that surprising. John Ioannidis, professor of medicine at Stanford, somebody I describe as a Stephen Hawking-like figure in medicine, in a previous publication said, “The greater the financial interests in a given field, the less likely the research findings ought to be true.”
...these entities are immoral in the way that they conduct their business. I have often described it as being psychopathic. Everything emanates from that kind of cultural behavior downstream. It’s the smearing of people who are calling them out, and the silencing of whistleblowers. It’s the people who have a duty and responsibility to speak up being afraid to speak out. It’s all a downstream effect of these psychopathic drivers of ill health.
...The most worrying aspect from my perspective as a cardiologist is that it causes an acceleration of coronary artery disease. What that means is there will be late effects. For example, my father had a cardiac arrest six months after having the second dose of the vaccine. From my perspective now looking back, that was most likely the cause of his cardiac arrest, because it accelerated something that was relatively mild, and became quite severe within the space of a few months. Then, it drove him to have a cardiac arrest.
WIND: how much downstream harm will be properly accounted for? Trust the “experts” to have a wide-ranging toolbox for evading the issues.
Perhaps useful for a small cohort of the at-risk population, the Jab was useless for most and harmful for too many. The number to treat (NTT) is sky-high among the bulk of the population. No ethical or objective professional could ever approve such an absurdly harmful drug. Anyone who dared to speak out out was canceled, fired, shunned, etc. So much rationalization and evasion of facts was involved.
IMO, we have few ethical or objective doctors working today, particularly the incoming younger doctors. In my experience, most dwell in a fantasy land of the lies they’ve been fed their entire careers, and even if they harbor skepticism, how many can resist the gravitic pull of Standard of Care treatement guidlines, which in reality are a shoddy bare minimum that cures nothing and makes patients grist for the Big Medicine grindstones via assembly line medicine—not care but something closer to abuse (diabetes treatments come to mind).
The COVID Jab was applied coercively as a tool of oppression. For most, there was no real choice, and that is prima facie medical battery. But the worst actors are doctors, who went along with it, because regardless of their beliefs on safety and efficacy, it still remains medical battery to coerce someone to get the Jab, and there was not and could not have ever been informed consent for such a poorly-tested drug.
It was about making $150 billion dollars in profit for Big Pharma, at zero risk, funded by the US government.
Safe? Losing your eyesight is a pretty horrible side effect.
A new study in Nature shows the risk of retinal vascular occlusion in those vaccinated is significantly higher than in the unvaccinated. “Individuals with COVID-19 vaccination had a higher risk of all forms of retinal vascular occlusion in 2 years after vaccination, with an overall hazard ratio of 2.19 [very high] (95% confidence interval 2.00–2.39). The cumulative incidence of retinal vascular occlusion was significantly higher in the vaccinated cohort compared to the unvaccinated cohort, 2 years and 12 weeks after vaccination.”