The great COVID-19 pandemic
In April 2021 Schwaz in Austria was, it is claimed, the first region in Europe, to achieve over 70% adult double Covid-19 vaccination rate.
Data from Schwaz has been used retrospectively to claim that the vaccine almost immediately and miraculously stopped the deadly virus in its tracks.
We have received this interesting letter from Prof Glossmann a specialist in Clinical Pharmacology, Institute for Biochemical Pharmacology at the Medical University of Innsbruck, about the major claims of vaccine effectiveness based on data from Schwaz:
Having read our work highlighting the systemic problems (such as the ‘cheap trick’) with most published studies that claim covid vaccine effectiveness and safety, Prof Glossmann asked us if it would be possible to ‘debunk’ the claims made in the REDUCE study and this study.
We looked at the two papers. The REDUCE study is curious. It seems to not use the cheap trick, as it says:
“For each participant, we recorded incident SARS-CoV-2 infections from the date of receipt of the first BNT162b2 dose”
but the comparison is with a very strange ‘control group’ – it is drawn from a different district that wasn’t so heavily vaccinated as others. Hence, we suspect it suffers from the same bias as the Pfizer- Israel study: the unvaccinated were much more likely to have to take regular PCR tests.
We tried to download the data for the REDUCE study, but the page gives an error message https://www.sozialministerium.at/data/CovidFaelle_Timeline_GKZ.csv.
The second paper suffers similar design problems with the ‘synthetic’ control group of neighbouring less vaccinated districts. The data availability statement says:
“For this study we used data from the Austrian epidemiological reporting system (Österreichisches Epidemiologisches Meldesystem, EMS). These data are collected by the Austrian National Public Health Institute (Gesundheit Österreich GmbH, GÖG).
And is provided to the researchers through a restricted-access agreement. Access to this dataset can be given to other researchers through direct application for data access to the GÖG.
So the data is not publicly accessible. Without the data it is impossible to produce a convincing rebuttable. Prof Glossmann suspects (as we do) that the inaccessibility of the data is deliberate to ensure that these studies cannot be easily debunked.
One of the authors of REDUCE was Prof. Franz Allerberger, the highest official in the Institute of Infectious Disease Epidemiology of the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES).
Prof Allerberger allegedly had to leave his post after declaring publicly that there would be no pandemic without a PCR test. Prof Glosmann says that Allerberger congratulated him via email [“DANKE ! ,thank you !”] after he sent him the above letter.
Source: Substack
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
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.
VOWG
| #
I guess we won’t get to see the death stats.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
@ “… there would be no pandemic without a PCR test.”
The below is what I wrote in Jan 2021.
“Considering that the tests or testing are based on confirming the RNA sequencing only from an aliquot of media/culture/isolate, hence is a valid test, is pure nonsense. Such tests have no relevance to the virus, illness, and pandemic monitoring, and these PCR tests must be stopped immediately and preferably withdrawing all related results/data as false. This will be the legitimate and scientifically valid approach for getting out of the pandemic state.
It is hoped that science will prevail.”
(https://bioanalyticx.com/getting-out-of-the-coronavirus-pandemic-legitimate-and-scientifically-valid-approach/).
Reply
RC
| #
I don’t think there’s any truth on this Internet anymore. The science is all garbage, questioned at every level so no truth is allowed–no science is available. The Internet has become a scam in itself.
I’m just an ordinary citizen coming out of all this stuff. My dad was a scientist. He died in 1989 and knew how science was supposed to work. He studied science writing. It’s difficult, precise. But not anymore. Too bad–we used to have a good thing going with real science.
RC
Reply