11 Comments

I'd like to understand the mathematical basis for the upper limit of 74,000; not finding it in the article anywhere.

For example, are you multiplying 4.5 billion people * some infection rate * some IFR, or...?

Expand full comment

Thanks for the question. We arrived at this estimate as follows:

1. Pfizer's clinical trials claimed the shots prevented 154 infections for every 21,720 jabs.

2. 4.5 billion jabs

3. Max IFR of 0.23%

So, 4.5B x (154 ÷ 21720) x 0.0023

Equals 73,384 max deaths prevented.

We had explained it in the 1st article of this series. See the link in the article.

Expand full comment

Thank you!

Expand full comment

How does one say it....COVID vac....The Big Lie....and ultimately The Big Killer...now for cancers to be a REAL concern. These agents of death and disability...those who pushed this poison..no different than Jones Town koolaide...they have dehumanized death...and in a very bad way...early passings...no visits...broken families...all planned out in detail like a well planned funeral...a funeral for a society in belief of God and Country.

Expand full comment

I don't understand why no one ever mentions the fact that these alleged cases are *never* confirmed with cultures. After the 2006 PCR-generated "pertussis" outbreak in New England, every case of which was later found to be a false positive, the CDC called culturing the "gold standard" for identifying a virus and warned against using PCR, especially at high cycle thresholds (above 20). Since starting in 2020 the CDC urged labs worldwide to use 40-45 Ct; since rapid antigen testing is even less reliable than high-cycle PCR; since there's not a single symptom of covid that can distinguish it from a common cold caused by any of the other 200 or so viruses that cause the same symptoms; and since the perverse (to put it mildly) incentives for hospitals, doctors, and labs to diagnose covid haven't been reversed, there's no reason to believe that a single one of the cases, much less deaths, are really attributable to covid. Even leaving all that aside, the fatality rate is something like .002% for anyone under 65 without multiple co-morbidities. SARS 1.0 killed fewer than 800 people globally. It's ridiculous to think that this cold virus, constantly mutating to become less pathogenic, has killed any more than that. People can parse the statistics until they're blue in the face, but without a single case proven via culturing, it's all 100% speculation and hypotheticals.

Similarly, no one ever mentions that the starting points for judging efficacy--the statistics published by the drug companies and accepted by the FDA, all of whom know exactly what they're doing--are presented only in RRR terms and never with ARR to add context. In the summer of 2021 The Lancet reported the ARR for each injection like this: BioNtech: .84%; Moderna: 1.24%; Janssen: 1.19%; AZ: 1.28%. Now rewrite the article with those starting points. Better yet, don't bother, because the ARR alone makes it obvious that no one's been saved by these injections. No additional calculations are required.

The "vaccines" don't prevent infection, transmission, hospitalization, or death. They aren't vaccines and they have saved no lives, but they have killed thousands of people who were at zero risk of dying from a cold.

Expand full comment

The PCR issue has certainly made it difficult to disentangle what happened. The cycle threshold issue is certainly real. The difference between ARR and RRR is highly significant. The failure to communicate this to the public was a tragedy, possibly criminal.

But some PCR tests have been confirmed with genomic sequencing and cultures. See:

https://www.jccf.ca/manitoba-chief-microbiologist-and-laboratory-specialist-56-of-positive-cases-are-not-infectious/

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2001017

For an interesting and relevant discussion, see:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0052752

Expand full comment

The JCCF article is one of the more fair and accurate I've seen; the CDC's paper is mostly over my head but I don't see anything in there addressing the inappropriateness running PCR at stupid-high cycles, and they say they used no more than 22 Ct; and as far as I can make out from the NEJM article, they're reporting that they found a coronavirus and used a couple different methods to do it.

I know that some PCR tests *have* been confirmed with cultures, but also that in 2020 the CDC suddenly forgot all about calling culturing the "gold standard," so those "cases" everyone screamed about on the news and used to base their "studies" on are almost guaranteed to be false positives, just as they were in 2006 with the pseudo pertussis outbreak.

Expand full comment

Great article --as you say "completely useless"

I would also say "completely unnecessary" bearing in mind the very low if not zero IFR especially for children.

Expand full comment
May 31, 2023·edited May 31, 2023

As you said "A study done in the UK, and involving more than one million participants, found that an almost unimaginable 33.8% of vaccinees reported Covid-like symptoms in that first week after injection". This to me is preposterous ... unless we believe that Covid was "lying in wait ready to pounce on vaccinees" in the week or so after an injection (that'd be a super smart virus!). I'd suggest an alternative reason: the mRNA/DNA jabs turn people into spike factories, and considering the spike is a major component of the virus (some would say the most important component), if that isn't effectively giving the vaccinees Covid then what is it? So despite the official claims - often repeated - that the jabs "can't give you Covid", I disagree, I'd suggest that's exactly what they do to many people (not all perhaps) and hence why so many people suddenly test + soon after their injections.

Expand full comment
May 31, 2023·edited May 31, 2023

Good point. Since ...

- killer late-stage COVID (Corona Virus Disease) is caused not so much by the live SARS-CoV-2 virus, but by the "viral graveyard" which lingers on long after the virus is gone;

- and spike protein is known to be responsible for the lion's share of that Disease;

- and mRNA/DNA injections turn humans into spike-protein-generating machines ...

Yes, it does seem correct on some level to say that the jabs can give you COVID. If you can survive the jab without injury, you probably could have survived a SARS-CoV-2 infection without injury.

Expand full comment