NO TROLLS What is the actual case against COVID Vaccination?

[Chief]

www.covidresearch.net for annotated studies you might like to use when debunking the Covid-deniers and anti-vaxxers.

 

[The_Wookie]

Hi guys,

When I was putting together the links and references for the links sticky thread, I was trying to find proper source material for the people who arent in favour of the COVID Vaccine - I can find plenty of material - properly referenced and sourced - in favour of it and debunking myths and such, but not much in terms of proper sourcing to support a case against.

So - and I almost certainly will regret requesting this - if you have properly sourced information and can discuss it like a mature adult then feel free to post it below.

We can all benefit from an informed discussion.

 

[faible]

We can all benefit from an informed discussion.

Agreed.

Might as well give people the opportunity to present evidence without being trolled...

 

[Roby]

Stocks_go_Up It blows your mind but have you ever wondered how the vaccine kills you? The actual mechanism of it?

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Stocks_go_Up It blows your mind but have you ever wondered how the vaccine kills you? The actual mechanism of it?

Potentially:

RETRACTED: SARS–CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS–CoV–2) has led to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID–19) pandemic, severely affecting public health and the global economy. Adaptive immunity plays a crucial role in fighting against SARS–CoV–2 infection and directly influences the clinical...

www.mdpi.com

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine

Background BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine encoding a prefusion-stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. BNT162b2 is highly efficacious against COVID-19 and is currently authorized for emergency use or conditional approval...

www.medrxiv.org

Also this safety trial from Pfizer:

"During the blinded, controlled period, 15 BNT162b2 and 14 placebo recipients died; during the open-label period, 3 BNT162b2 and 2 original placebo recipients who received BNT162b2 after unblinding died. None of these deaths were considered related to BNT162b2 by investigators. Causes of death were balanced between BNT162b2 and placebo groups"

So despite effectively reducing risk of covid, out of 44,000 people split evenly, more people have died from all causes who had the injection, 6 months post trail.

 

[Gruffles]

Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine

Background BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine encoding a prefusion-stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. BNT162b2 is highly efficacious against COVID-19 and is currently authorized for emergency use or conditional approval...

www.medrxiv.org

Also this safety trial from Pfizer:

"During the blinded, controlled period, 15 BNT162b2 and 14 placebo recipients died; during the open-label period, 3 BNT162b2 and 2 original placebo recipients who received BNT162b2 after unblinding died. None of these deaths were considered related to BNT162b2 by investigators. Causes of death were balanced between BNT162b2 and placebo groups"

So out of 44,000 people split evenly more people have died who had the injection.

So out of the people who died (0.08% of the trial patients), 53% had a vaccination and 47% didn't... and you think this is statistically relevant?

 

[Red Black and Blue]

So out of the people who died (0.08% of the trial patients), 53% had a vaccination and 47% didn't... and you think this is statistically relevant?

Yes. But it's actually 41% because placebo that died did so after receiving the jab post study.

You're assuming that safety of the vaccine is the only thing that can be drawn from the info... The IFR of COVID of 0.54 should have seen 71 deaths in the placebo group from serology average of 65%. There is no death benefit from taking the jab if you are healthy, in fact a slight cost.

 

[Gruffles]

The IFR of COVID of 0.54 should have seen 71 deaths in the placebo group

If they all were infected with covid

Edit - Ah yes, my maths was off with the placebo numbers. Cheers.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

If they all were infected with covid

No if 65% were as is the averages I've seen other studies use for roughly that time frame. It would 118 if it was 100%. Even if it was only 25% we should see another 29 deaths.

 

[Gruffles]

No if 65% were as is the averages I've seen other studies use for roughly that time frame. It would 118 if it was 100%.

Sorry, poor wording on my behalf there, I meant that if those 65% all actually got covid.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Sorry, poor wording on my behalf there, I meant that if those 65% all actually got covid.

Case fatality rate is roughly 2.7% in Australia. Can't find a specific USA or AUS infection fatality rate, but the international one if seen used in studies I've read this week is 0.54. These are infections that go unrecorded. So CFR is roughly 5x IFR. America has had 48 million cases x 5. 240 million out of 330. So rough estimate is 72% of the country has had it.

If 72% of the placebo group had it at a IFR of 0.2. 31-32 people should have died of covid.

 

[kingswood71]

Yes. But it's actually 41% because placebo that died did so after receiving the jab post study.

You're assuming that safety of the vaccine is the only thing that can be drawn from the info... The IFR of COVID of 0.54 should have seen 71 deaths in the placebo group from serology average of 65%. There is no death benefit from taking the jab if you are healthy, in fact a slight cost.

Where does the "serology average of 65%" come from??

 

[kingswood71]

Case fatality rate is roughly 2.7% in Australia. Can't find a specific USA or AUS infection fatality rate, but the international one if seen used in studies I've read this week is 0.54. These are infections that go unrecorded. So CFR is roughly 5x IFR. America has had 48 million cases x 5. 240 million out of 330. So rough estimate is 72% of the country has had it.

If 72% of the placebo group had it at a IFR of 0.2. 31-32 people should have died of covid.

but only 850 people caught covid in the study who were not vaccinated??

"Among 42,094 evaluable ≥12-year-olds without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, 77 COVID-19 cases with onset ≥7 days post-dose 2 were observed through the data cut-off (March 13, 2021) among vaccine recipients and 850 among placebo recipients,"
So not sure where 65% comes from??

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Where does the "serology average of 65%" come from??

https://cgdev.org/sites/default/files/three-new-estimates-indias-all-cause-excess-mortality-during-covid-19-pandemic.pdf

Table on page 6. Implied infection rate (30/6/21) is 65.9. The IFR information is right above that as well.

But you can just map it yourself with cases and IFR x 5.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

but only 850 people caught covid in the study who were not vaccinated??
View attachment 1282453
"Among 42,094 evaluable ≥12-year-olds without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, 77 COVID-19 cases with onset ≥7 days post-dose 2 were observed through the data cut-off (March 13, 2021) among vaccine recipients and 850 among placebo recipients,"
So not sure where 65% comes from??

Using PCR tests not serology.

 

[Werewolf]

A good start is Open VAERS. Lots of material posted in the conspiracy threads. I'll post more later.

 

[kingswood71]

https://cgdev.org/sites/default/files/three-new-estimates-indias-all-cause-excess-mortality-during-covid-19-pandemic.pdf

Table on page 6. Implied infection rate (30/6/21) is 65.9. The IFR information is right above that as well.

But you can just map it yourself with cases and IFR x 5.

But you cant apply that to a study were participants where all checked for evidence of covid infections........

 

[kingswood71]

Using PCR tests not serology.

Pretty sure they used serology too....

ClinicalTrials.gov

clinicaltrials.gov

 

[Red Black and Blue]

But you cant apply that to a study were participants where all checked for evidence of covid infections........

But PCR tests have low positive rates...

SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality during the first epidemic wave in Madurai, south India: a prospective, active surveillance study

In a large-scale SARS-CoV-2 surveillance programme in Madurai, India, we identified equal risk of asymptomatic infection among children, teenagers, and working-age adults, and increasing risk of infection and death associated with older age and comorbidities. Establishing whether surveillance...

www.thelancet.com

By contrast, risk of asymptomatic RT-PCR-confirmed infection did not differ across ages 0–44 years, and thereafter increased by a factor of 1·6 between ages 45–49 years and 80 years or older. Seroprevalence was 40·1% (95% CI 35·8–44·6) at age 15 years or older by the end of the study period, indicating that RT-PCR clinical testing and surveillance testing identified only 1·4% (1·3–1·6%) of all infections in this age group.

Testing 13% of the population with PCR tests found 1.4% of all cases that serology found.

 

[kingswood71]

But PCR tests have low positive rates...

SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality during the first epidemic wave in Madurai, south India: a prospective, active surveillance study

In a large-scale SARS-CoV-2 surveillance programme in Madurai, India, we identified equal risk of asymptomatic infection among children, teenagers, and working-age adults, and increasing risk of infection and death associated with older age and comorbidities. Establishing whether surveillance...

www.thelancet.com

Testing 13% of the population with PCR tests found 1.4% of all cases that serology found.

See above.
They used serology also....
"Testing for SARS-CoV-2 virus was conducted using the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test. Testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was conducted using the Roche Elecsys ® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody test".
I totally get what you are saying but in a study to work out efficacy, you would positive cases to be missed. It would make no sense to do that.
The study protocol did serological sampling at specific points:
"Serum samples will be obtained for immunogenicity testing at the visits specified in the SoA.
The following assays will be performed:
• SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assay
• S1-binding IgG level assay
• RBD-binding IgG level assay
• N-binding antibody assay"
The study design protocol says that they looked for asymptomatic covid by "In addition, a serological definition will be used for participants without clinical presentation
of COVID-19:Confirmed seroconversion to SARS-CoV-2 without confirmed COVID-19: positive N-binding antibody result in a participant with a prior negative N-binding antibody
result"

 

[Red Black and Blue]

See above.
They used serology also....

"Because the percentage of participants who reported symptoms but were missing a valid polymerase-chain-reaction test result was small and slightly higher in the placebo arm, data for these participants were not imputed in the analysis."

Like here they only reference PCR tests for the under 12's. I assume serology during the surveillance arm on site, but not the 6 months post when they went back to their lives. Likely serology after PCR confirmation.

 

[kingswood71]

"Because the percentage of participants who reported symptoms but were missing a valid polymerase-chain-reaction test result was small and slightly higher in the placebo arm, data for these participants were not imputed in the analysis."

Like here they only reference PCR tests for the under 12's. I assume serology during the surveillance arm on site, but not the 6 months post when they went back to their lives. Likely serology after PCR confirmation.

I get what you are saying about PCR generally, but serology WAS taken at specific intervals. In a study, you need to not miss positive cases from either group. In a study, you are acutely aware of that and design the study so you dont miss them.
The actual protocol/study design makes this clear that this was done at reg. intervals, including if someone presented with covid-like symptoms.


So serology was checked at intervals and also was checked for unplanned covid like illnesses.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

I get what you are saying about PCR generally, but serology WAS taken at specific intervals. In a study, you need to not miss positive cases from either group. In a study, you are acutely aware of that and design the study so you dont miss them.
The actual protocol/study design makes this clear that this was done at reg. intervals, including if someone presented with covid-like symptoms.
View attachment 1282484
View attachment 1282485
So serology was checked at intervals and also was checked for unplanned covid like illnesses.

I need to use another browser, Brave hasn't pulled up either of those tables on the study page.

So not that much covid.

But there should be 4.5 excess deaths from the reported case numbers and there was sub 6 in the placebo arm. Not as drastic but still in favor of placebo.

 

[kingswood71]

I need to use another browser, Brave hasn't pulled up either of those tables on the study page.

So not that much covid.

But there should be 5 excess deaths from the reported case numbers and there was sub 6 in the placebo arm. Not as drastic but still in favor of placebo.

Firefox They are from the study protocol....
There were 15 deaths in the Vaccinated arm and 14 in the placebo.
The COD are listed in the supp. data.
Its not entirely clear if any of the 29 deaths were covid related....There were only 31 severe cases, so perhaps no one died from Covid in either group....