Risk benefit of the covid19 vaccines is NEGATIVE according to a new peer reviewed paper from Stanford, UCLA researchers. Other studies corroborate it

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,348
24,802
1
2020evidence.org

Peer reviewed and published link:

Abstract​

Introduction: In 2020, prior to COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and Brighton Collaboration created a priority list, endorsed by the World Health Organization, of potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines. We leveraged the Brighton Collaboration list to evaluate serious adverse events of special interest observed in phase III randomized trials of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Methods: Secondary analysis of serious adverse events reported in the placebo-controlled, phase III randomized clinical trials of Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (NCT04368728 and NCT04470427), focusing analysis on potential adverse events of special interest identified by the Brighton Collaboration.

Results: Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of special interest, with an absolute risk increase of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95% CI -0.4 to 20.6 and -3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an absolute risk increase of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 (95% CI 2.1 to 22.9). The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials (2.3 and 6.4 per 10,000 participants, respectively).

Discussion: The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes such as hospitalization or death.
==========================================================================
This paper corroborates the below studies:

https://www.scivisionpub.com/pdfs/u...nalyzed-using-the-proper-scientific--1811.pdf
(US COVID-19 Vaccines Proven to Cause More Harm than Good Based on Pivotal Clinical Trial Data Analyzed Using the Proper Scientific Endpoint, “All Cause Severe Morbidity/Mortality”)

This study also found the shots provide negative protection after a few months:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966v2 (Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Omicron or Delta variants following a two-dose or booster BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination series: after 3 months the shots provide negative protection, VAIDS)

(Covid-19 vaccine boosters for young adults: A risk-benefit assessment and five ethical arguments against mandates at universities))
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: john4psu

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,467
615
1
Difficult to take this study seriously when it contains such whoppers as this: “There are people in the government. who desire to attack citizens with bioweapons…With the anthrax attack, conspirators were not apprehended because the investigation was prematurely ended …people at the top of the fbi sabotaged it.“ Also says covid was a bioweapons attack.
No wonder not peer reviewed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: knickslions

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,348
24,802
1
2020evidence.org

Abstract​

Introduction: In 2020, prior to COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and Brighton Collaboration created a priority list, endorsed by the World Health Organization, of potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines. We leveraged the Brighton Collaboration list to evaluate serious adverse events of special interest observed in phase III randomized trials of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Methods: Secondary analysis of serious adverse events reported in the placebo-controlled, phase III randomized clinical trials of Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (NCT04368728 and NCT04470427), focusing analysis on potential adverse events of special interest identified by the Brighton Collaboration.

Results: Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of special interest, with an absolute risk increase of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95% CI -0.4 to 20.6 and -3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an absolute risk increase of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 (95% CI 2.1 to 22.9). The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials (2.3 and 6.4 per 10,000 participants, respectively).

Discussion: The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes such as hospitalization or death.
==========================================================================
This paper corroborates the below one which also looked at the data from the "gold standard" double blind trials:

https://www.scivisionpub.com/pdfs/u...nalyzed-using-the-proper-scientific--1811.pdf
(US COVID-19 Vaccines Proven to Cause More Harm than Good Based on Pivotal Clinical Trial Data Analyzed Using the Proper Scientific Endpoint, “All Cause Severe Morbidity/Mortality”)

This study also found the shots provide negative protection after a few months:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966v2 (Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Omicron or Delta variants following a two-dose or booster BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination series: after 3 months the shots provide negative protection, VAIDS)
bump for NEGATIVE protection....wow these geniuses really knocked it out of the park with these "vaccines"
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,348
24,802
1
2020evidence.org
Here is an analysis of the OP study by former professor of medicine at Harvard medical school (and one of the main signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration) MARTIN KULLDORFF:


"...
The randomized controlled clinical trial is the gold standard of scientific evidence. When regulators approved the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines for emergency use in December 2020, two randomized trials showed that the vaccines reduced symptomatic covid infection by over 90% during the first few months after the second dose.

Pfizer and Moderna did not design the trials to evaluate long-term efficacy or the more important outcomes of preventing hospitalization, death, or transmission.

The randomized trials did collect adverse event data, including the presence of mild symptoms (such as fever) and more serious events requiring hospitalization or leading to death. Most vaccines generate some mild adverse reactions in some people, and there were considerably more adverse such reactions after the mRNA vaccines compared to the placebo.

That is annoying but not a major issue. We care about severe health outcomes. The key question is whether the vaccine’s efficacy outweighs the risks of severe adverse reactions.

The Fraiman study uses data from the same Pfizer and Moderna-sponsored randomized trials presented to the FDA for vaccine approval, but with two innovations that provide additional information.

First, the study pools data from both mRNA vaccines to increase the sample size, which decreases the confidence intervals’ size and the uncertainty about the estimated harms.

Second, the study focuses only on the severe adverse events plausibly due to the vaccines. Serious adverse events such as gunshot wounds, suicide, animal bites, foot fractures, and back injury are unlikely to be due to a vaccine, and cancer is unlikely to be due to a vaccine within a few months after vaccination. By removing such random noise, the ability (statistical power) to detect genuine problems increases. If there is no excess risk, shorter confidence intervals bolster confidence in the safety of the vaccines.

Classifying adverse events into the two groups is not a trivial task, but Fraiman et al. do an excellent job to avoid bias. They rely on the pre-defined Brighton Collaboration definitions of adverse events of special interest (AESI). Founded in 2000, the Brighton Collaboration has two decades of experience using rigorous science to define clinical outcomes for vaccine safety studies.

Moreover, Fraiman and colleagues blinded the process where they classified the clinical events as AESIs. Adjudicators did not know whether the individual had received the vaccine or the placebo. Hence, any criticism of so-called p-hacking is unwarranted.

So, what are the results? There were 139 AESIs among the 33,986 people vaccinated, one for every 244 people. That may sound bad, but those numbers mean nothing without comparison against a control group. There were 97 AESIs among the 33,951 people who received a placebo. Combining these numbers implies 12.5 vaccine-induced AESIs for every 10,000 people vaccinated, with a 95% confidence interval of 2.1 to 22.9 per 10,000 people. To phrase it differently, there is one additional AESI for every 800 people vaccinated (95% CI: 437-4762).

That is very high for a vaccine. No other vaccine on the market comes close.

The numbers for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are 10 and 15 additional events per 10,000 people, respectively, so both vaccines contributed to the finding. The numbers are similar enough that we cannot confidently say that one is safer than the other. Most excess AESIs were coagulation disorders. For the Pfizer vaccine, there was also an excess of cardiovascular AESIs.

While these safety results are concerning, we must not forget the other side of the equation. Unfortunately, the study does not calculate composite estimates that also included the reduction in serious covid infections, but we have such estimates for mortality.

Dr. Christine Benn and her colleagues calculated a combined estimate of the effect of vaccination on all-cause mortality using the same randomized trial data as Fraiman et al. They did not find a mortality reduction for the mRNA vaccines (relative risk 1.03, 95% CI: 0.63-1.71).

One important limitation of both Fraiman’s and Benn’s studies is that they do not distinguish the adverse reactions by age, comorbidities, or medical history. That is not their fault. Pfizer and Moderna have not released that information, so outside researchers do not have access..."
 

WPTLION

Well-Known Member
Jan 7, 2002
3,078
3,013
1
Here is an analysis of the OP study by former professor of medicine at Harvard medical school (and one of the main signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration) MARTIN KULLDORFF:


"...
The randomized controlled clinical trial is the gold standard of scientific evidence. When regulators approved the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines for emergency use in December 2020, two randomized trials showed that the vaccines reduced symptomatic covid infection by over 90% during the first few months after the second dose.

Pfizer and Moderna did not design the trials to evaluate long-term efficacy or the more important outcomes of preventing hospitalization, death, or transmission.

The randomized trials did collect adverse event data, including the presence of mild symptoms (such as fever) and more serious events requiring hospitalization or leading to death. Most vaccines generate some mild adverse reactions in some people, and there were considerably more adverse such reactions after the mRNA vaccines compared to the placebo.

That is annoying but not a major issue. We care about severe health outcomes. The key question is whether the vaccine’s efficacy outweighs the risks of severe adverse reactions.

The Fraiman study uses data from the same Pfizer and Moderna-sponsored randomized trials presented to the FDA for vaccine approval, but with two innovations that provide additional information.

First, the study pools data from both mRNA vaccines to increase the sample size, which decreases the confidence intervals’ size and the uncertainty about the estimated harms.

Second, the study focuses only on the severe adverse events plausibly due to the vaccines. Serious adverse events such as gunshot wounds, suicide, animal bites, foot fractures, and back injury are unlikely to be due to a vaccine, and cancer is unlikely to be due to a vaccine within a few months after vaccination. By removing such random noise, the ability (statistical power) to detect genuine problems increases. If there is no excess risk, shorter confidence intervals bolster confidence in the safety of the vaccines.

Classifying adverse events into the two groups is not a trivial task, but Fraiman et al. do an excellent job to avoid bias. They rely on the pre-defined Brighton Collaboration definitions of adverse events of special interest (AESI). Founded in 2000, the Brighton Collaboration has two decades of experience using rigorous science to define clinical outcomes for vaccine safety studies.

Moreover, Fraiman and colleagues blinded the process where they classified the clinical events as AESIs. Adjudicators did not know whether the individual had received the vaccine or the placebo. Hence, any criticism of so-called p-hacking is unwarranted.

So, what are the results? There were 139 AESIs among the 33,986 people vaccinated, one for every 244 people. That may sound bad, but those numbers mean nothing without comparison against a control group. There were 97 AESIs among the 33,951 people who received a placebo. Combining these numbers implies 12.5 vaccine-induced AESIs for every 10,000 people vaccinated, with a 95% confidence interval of 2.1 to 22.9 per 10,000 people. To phrase it differently, there is one additional AESI for every 800 people vaccinated (95% CI: 437-4762).

That is very high for a vaccine. No other vaccine on the market comes close.

The numbers for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are 10 and 15 additional events per 10,000 people, respectively, so both vaccines contributed to the finding. The numbers are similar enough that we cannot confidently say that one is safer than the other. Most excess AESIs were coagulation disorders. For the Pfizer vaccine, there was also an excess of cardiovascular AESIs.

While these safety results are concerning, we must not forget the other side of the equation. Unfortunately, the study does not calculate composite estimates that also included the reduction in serious covid infections, but we have such estimates for mortality.

Dr. Christine Benn and her colleagues calculated a combined estimate of the effect of vaccination on all-cause mortality using the same randomized trial data as Fraiman et al. They did not find a mortality reduction for the mRNA vaccines (relative risk 1.03, 95% CI: 0.63-1.71).

One important limitation of both Fraiman’s and Benn’s studies is that they do not distinguish the adverse reactions by age, comorbidities, or medical history. That is not their fault. Pfizer and Moderna have not released that information, so outside researchers do not have access..."
And to think almost all of the people taking the vaccine had NO risk from covid. They knew all of this but they only way to make the vaccines look successful was to vaccinate everyone. You see when you run the #'s from the UK on the vulnerable that were vaxxed it really doesn't look that good....but when you add those under 50 the vaccine looks ok.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,348
24,802
1
2020evidence.org
And to think almost all of the people taking the vaccine had NO risk from covid. They knew all of this but they only way to make the vaccines look successful was to vaccinate everyone. You see when you run the #'s from the UK on the vulnerable that were vaxxed it really doesn't look that good....but when you add those under 50 the vaccine looks ok.
Exactly. What's indisputable at this point is the folks at the top who have been pushing for mandates, etc. have some other agenda that's not related to public health. There's much debate over what that agenda is (depopulation, digital vax pass/social credit system, etc.) but we'll never know until tribunals are held for crimes against humanity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rll1957

rll1957

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
1,943
1,358
1
Exactly. What's indisputable at this point is the folks at the top who have been pushing for mandates, etc. have some other agenda that's not related to public health. There's much debate over what that agenda is (depopulation, digital vax pass/social credit system, etc.) but we'll never know until tribunals are held for crimes against humanity.
Control
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206