JAMA paper shows Covid vaccines didn’t help the elderly at all
A paper published in JAMA nearly a year ago which purports to demonstrate a benefit of the booster actually does no such thing. But those lacking critical thinking skills won’t see the issues
The paper Infections, Hospitalizations, and Deaths Among US Nursing Home Residents With vs Without a SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Booster was published to show that the COVID boosters reduce your risk of death from COVID.
But if you are a critical thinker, you see that the “death benefit” simply does not exist.
For example, the paper shows that the infection fatality rate (IFR) for the residents at 128 Veterans Health Administration community living centers increased by 28 percent in residents who got the boosters.
That’s the WRONG way… they told us it was supposed to make things better, not worse!
So the attempt to show that the COVID boosters have a death benefit was an epic fail.
Introduction
Critical thinkers realize five things about this paper:
- If the vaccine worked, the IFR (Infection Fatality Ratio) for those getting the booster would be lower, not higher.
- If the vaccine worked to prevent death, the IFR for those getting the booster should begin to start diverging after a couple of weeks. The curves for the unboosted shouldn’t diverge!
- You should always be suspicious when there is no data sharing of de-identified aggregate data.
- You should always be suspicious when they don’t show you the all-cause mortality (ACM) of the treatment group.
- You should always wonder why they don’t show you the IFR of each cohort starting on day 0.
Details
Check this out. The IFR for the unboosted in System 2 is 2.4/171.2=.014 whereas the IFR for the boosted is 1.3/72.5=.018.
The IFR for the boosted is 28 percent higher than the unboosted.
In other words, in System 2, the vaccine made you more susceptible to die from COVID based on this data. It’s now out in the open and you can’t unring that bell. But the paper never pointed this out for some reason!
In System 1, however, the vaccine “appeared” to work. But did it really work? Look at Figure 1 in the paper (showing infections on top and deaths below) and you’ll see the benefit was a mirage.
Figure 1 from the paper shows that in System 1, the unboosted were IMMEDIATELY worse off than the boosted. That’s not how it works. The yellow lines for System 1 were supposed to track each other and then diverge gradually as the vaccine starts to work its “magic.”
Why can’t we see the data from Day 0? And why hasn’t the data on a nursing home basis been made available ?
The unboosted group of System 1 (yellow dashed line) is clearly an outlier; it looks nothing like the unboosted group of System 2 (blue dashed line). The unboosted groups track each other for days 7 to 14, then mysteriously diverge on Day 14.
WTF is that about? The unboosted groups should track each other if these are large, diverse populations. So we have a problem.
Also, note that the endpoints in Fig 1 (right side of graph) do not match the numbers in Figure 1, e.g., 11.3, 160, 171. That has to be troubling for any critical thinker that the graphs don’t match the tables.
If the vaccine really worked, the boosted and unboosted should track at the start in terms of slope and the boosted (solid line) should then diverge out where the slope is lower after around 2 weeks.
There is no sign of this whatsoever in either boosted group. The System 2 line flattens out on day 35, but that’s most likely due to a non-lethal variant (Omicron) so we aren’t getting any data points to be able to compute a slope… we simply run out of deaths because COVID is such a non-problem at that point.
Summary
The COVID vaccines have been a massive fraud. They don’t help the elderly at all. This JAMA paper is evidence of that.
There is no sign of a benefit because the slopes never decreased after the vaccines had a chance to “kick in” (Figure 1C solid lines).
But it does require some critical thinking skills to realize this. These skills seem to be in short supply nowadays.
It is also troubling that the data from day 0 is not available and that they are not publicly releasing the data.
There is no reason for this if there is nothing to hide.
See more here substack.com
Header image: Reuters / Henry Nichols
Some bold emphasis added
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About Covid 19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Unfortunately, medical/pharmaceutical professionals are realizing the error now, when in fact, actual science described/predicted this outcome at the beginning of the pandemic, even before the introduction of the vaccines, stating:
“On the other hand, it is impossible to develop a proper vaccine because, as noted, one cannot monitor the virus or disease and then how the vaccine’s effectiveness will be established. It cannot be! Therefore, a fake vaccine will most likely be developed to satisfy the regulatory wish and calm down the created public hysteria and fear. Unfortunately, such vaccines, if developed and administered, will undoubtedly create potentially dangerous side effects, without any presumed benefits, by interfering with the body’s immune system and other related physiological processes.”
https://bioanalyticx.com/science-for-the-pandemic-at-the-authorities-false-in-fact-fraudulent-requires-urgent-action/
@ “The COVID vaccines have been a massive fraud.”
The fraud is not by itself but the result of the “medical science,” which is the fraud, as there is no such as “medical science.” See here: https://bioanalyticx.com/experts-are-doomed-made-claims-without-knowing-science/
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
The link in the above message (for my name) is incorrect. If needed, please use this link (https://bioanalyticx.com/). Sorry for the inconvenience.
(FIXED) SUNMOD
Reply
Mel
| #
Yes you need to start with all cause mortality data from day 0, boosted vs unboosted. If you don’t you are clearly hiding something and this is a study demonstrating nothing. Further we know effectiveness drops dramatically after 90 days. This study should have a web site that continually updates all cause mortality going forward. Easy stuff.
Reply