Long-term Lancet study, vaccines don’t prevent death

Oh, so it's sophisticated to have unelected career bureaucrats rule the country?

 

Let's unpick this a bit. The article this refers to is here . The 'Long-term Lancet study, vaccines don't prevent death' article can't link to a study in the 'Lancet' because no such study exists in the Lancet.

Due to the fact, the author, Art Moore, can't link to an actual study in the Lancet, he links to an article in The Blaze. Art Moore wrote:

A long-term study published by the prestigious British journal The Lancet that follows up on participants in the Moderna and Pfizer trials found the vaccines had no effect on overall mortality.
Among 74,000 trial participants, there were 31 all-cause deaths among the vaccinated and 30 among the placebo groups as of January, reported Daniel Horowitz of The Blaze.

Bear with me, underneath Art Moore's name, it says WND. What is WND I asked myself. Well it turns out:

WND (formerly WorldNetDaily)[3] is an American far-right[1] fake news website.[2] It is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories,[27] including the false claim that former President Barack Obama was not born in the United States.[29] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily)

OR
​

WorldNetDaily is an online publication founded and run by Joseph Farah that claims to pursue truth, justice and liberty. But in fact, its pages are devoted to manipulative fear-mongering and outright fabrications designed to further the paranoid, gay-hating, conspiratorial and apocalyptic visions of Farah and his hand-picked contributors from the fringes of the far-right and fundamentalist worlds. (https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/worldnetdaily)

Moving along. Within The Blaze opinion piece, written by Horowitz who is known for not being very accurate when writing articles, we find a link to the "Lancet" study.

Horowitz states:

“Based on the RCTs with the longest possible follow-up, mRNA vaccines had no effect on overall mortality despite protecting against fatal COVID-19.”

This bizarre, yet revealing conclusion of a recent preprint Danish study in the prestigious Lancet should be international news, yet only a few Americans are aware of it.

The study is not published in the Lancet to start with. So both the author of the 'Long-term Lancet study, vaccines don’t prevent death' and the author who he linked to both told big lies that about study being published in the Lancet. They are either lying for click-bait purposes or they are just too stupid to actually figure out that the study hasn't been published in the 'prestigious' Lancet. Following the link to the Danish study we learn what is meant by a 'preprint'.

Preprints with The Lancet is part of SSRN´s First Look, a place where journals identify content of interest prior to publication. Authors have opted in at submission to The Lancet family of journals to post their preprints on Preprints with The Lancet. The usual SSRN checks and a Lancet-specific check for appropriateness and transparency have been applied. Preprints available here are not Lancet publications or necessarily under review with a Lancet journal. These preprints are early stage research papers that have not been peer-reviewed. The findings should not be used for clinical or public health decision making and should not be presented to a lay audience without highlighting that they are preliminary and have not been peer-reviewed. For more information on this collaboration, see the comments published in The Lancet about the trial period, and our decision to make this a permanent offering, or visit The Lancet´s FAQ page, and for any feedback please contact preprints@lancet.com.

Just to add that SSRN describes themselves as: providing the online database of early scholarly research – a permanent and searchable online library – always available, worldwide. We make it simple for authors to post their working papers and abstracts. Academics and researchers can browse the SSRN data library and upload their own papers free of charge.

In the comments section of the preprint Danish study, which I suggest should be read by all, there are some very good reasons why the study is very weak. It's probably the best place to start.

As an aside: Anything that Dr Nass has claimed should be disregarded because she has no idea how to use or apply statistical information. In short, she is an idiot who is too stupid to know she providing erroneous and misleading information.

 

To be fair DHMO is a major factor in nearly 100% of deaths by drowning.

 

So whats happening in the yellow areas?

 

No, my disingenuous chum.

It's smart to employ specialists to provide advice. It's quite stupid to elect knuckledragging half-wits with little to no experience in specialties to provide advice.

 

Recent births! The focus was on the births during Nov-Dec 2021, both from myself and the YT video. When were the mRNA shots first rolled out? 9 months prior those months, what is the human gestation period?
You see, this proves how and why 'data' gets missed by many. Dodging, ducking and weaving to avoid the connection of facts to reveal the unpleasant truth.

 

I havent gone through it yet but (first blush) it appears that may be some pretty nice research you did, thanks for the info either way, however.....I see nothing that justifies writing this off yet as you are suggesting.
AFAIK the graphs come direct from the UK databases done by the UK guv.
I really need a thorough explanation of the yellow areas between the vaxed and unvaxed.
I think nass has valid arguments, and have not heard convincing arguments to the contrary. Be the first

 

~ Willful ignorance is a strange thing.
As time goes by everyone will learn the truth ...

​

 

That thing the saying, "ignorance is bliss" is strong in many.

 

Great "science", guys!

 

Political Forum does not allow Covid-19 misinformation, but... well, it kind of does.

 

What would make anyone want to take something of which the consequences are unknown, other than the bullshit purveyed by bureaucrats, believing that a weird science concoction will give any benefit for something that has a survivability rate on average of 98%. Great science and great expectations, not.

 

These guys wouldn't be able to post anything if the forum really didn't allow misinformation.

 

see post 79 above, it appears it does not!

tru and it appears the so called vax did not bother the healthy people but tragically reduced the unvaccinated bodies ability to fight its comorbidities. see post 79, I invite quality counter arguments that justify the vax actually did work.

yes the unvaxed line is below the vaxed line and everyone on the planet is free to download that data if they have a problem with the guvs charts.

 

And IF they were affecting fertility we should have seen an ongoing issue with lower births -Duh!

 

As I keep pointing out to you - one of the more dangerous chemicals on the planet is DHMO lols!

 

So as you can see, I have to point out to you, the ABS is always behind in collating the data. It is a year ago that this data goes back, so it won't be long before the latest data can be revealed. Could you work that out, of course not? Duh!

 

But the latest data from them does NOT support your hypothesis as the birth rate is climbing again. This is what happens - see you have fallen for the classic classic logical fallacy

 

Oh, your distraction from the fact that the mRNA shots cause adverse effects and deaths. Calling on this are we? Why don't you create a thread about that?

 

What was the first shot to be introduced and the first to be kicked off the obtainable list? AstraZeneca. No correlations hey?

The fertility rate is increasing because those who were asleep are waking up to the bullshit.

 

Again


Correlation does not necessarily equal causation

 

What is it then? You're so adamant it has nothing to do with the mRNA shots, what then?

 

In its solid form it is responsible for more wintertime road traffic accidents than C2H5OH.