Did you know this about vaccines?

[rachel]

From my understanding of comments in this thread, vaccines are never tested against saline placebos for harm, they are tested against other vaccines.

https://x.com/A1an_M/status/1783807671134478425

I don't think it's widely known but three out of four of the phase 3 AZ COVID vaccine trials used to measure its safety and effectiveness prior to its emergency use approval used a Meningitis vaccine, not saline, as the comparator with the COVID vaccine under test.

Talk about stacking the odds in your favour! It's basically saying "even though any vaccine causes the immune system to be overstimulated and carries a risk of autoimmune issues and a host of other potential adverse reactions we're going to ignore all of that and just say it's no different from a saline placebo"!

Unbelievable.

It's like using an old climate model to "prove" that a new climate model is correct.

Corrupt, junk science.

Link to AZ document on the topic:

https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centr ... ancet.html#

AZD1222 Oxford Phase III trials interim analysis results published in The Lancet
PUBLISHED: 8 December 2020

Interim analysis showed vaccine is effective at preventing COVID-19, with no severe cases and no hospitalisations more than 21 days after first injection

Regulatory submissions underway to support approval

Results of an interim analysis of the Phase III programme conducted by Oxford University with AZD1222, peer-reviewed and published in The Lancet today, demonstrated that the vaccine is safe and effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 and that it protects against severe disease and hospitalisation. The interim analysis for efficacy was based on 11,636 participants accruing 131 symptomatic infections from the Phase III UK and Brazil trials conducted by Oxford University.

As announced on 23 November 2020, the primary efficacy endpoint of the programme statistical plan, based on the pooling of two dosing regimens, showed that the vaccine is 70.4% (95.8% CI: 54.8% to 80.6%) effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 occurring more than 14 days after receiving two doses of the vaccine. A secondary efficacy endpoint of prevention of severe disease demonstrated no cases of severe infections or hospitalisations in the vaccine group.

A further analysis of the efficacy regimens showed that when the vaccine was given as two full doses, vaccine efficacy was 62.1% (n=8,895; CI 41.0% to 75.7%), and 90.0% (n=2,741; CI 67.4% to 97.0%) in participants who received a half dose followed by a full dose.

Vaccine efficacy was also assessed on the secondary endpoint of early prevention of severe disease after the first dose. There were no hospitalisations or severe cases of COVID-19 more than 21 days after the first dose of the vaccine. Ten participants in the control group were hospitalised due to COVID-19, among whom two were assessed as severe, including one fatal case...

Let's say both the vaccine and comparator have an ingredient in common - an adjuvant for example.
And that adjuvant causes 1 serious adverse event every 1,000 doses.
Meanwhile the other ingredients in the vaccine cause 1 serious adverse event every 10,000 doses, and in the comparator vaccine 1 every 50,000 doses.
In terms of AEs, for the vaccine you have 55 serious AEs every 50,000 doses, and for the comparator 51 every 50,000 doses.
As a percentage they look very similar, don't they? 0.11% versus 0.102% Both "99.9% safe".
So the trial report states, accurately but misleadingly "There was no statistical difference between the vaccine and the comparator"
But in reality, they are both not very safe, the new vaccine is less safe than the comparator, and we have absolutely no idea how dangerous the vaccine is compared to nothing at all.

Vaccine research is junk/tobacco science.
No vaccine has been tested against a true placebo. They use another vaccine instead.
Inject mercury in both groups & vaccine looks "safe."
If 2 brands of cigarettes are tested with similar lung cancer outcome, it doesn't prove safety.

Unfortunately, this is par for the course. Generally speaking, most if not all vaccine trials use a non-placebo solution for the control. It's either a previous generation vaccine, or the experimental vaccine without the viral material (still contains the adjuvants and other active ingredients).
This is one of the methods they use to hide the safety signals.
I recommend "Turtles All the Way Down" as an excellent, yet infuriating, primer on the topic.

That's how the majority of Vaccine 'safety' trials are done.
Use an existing vaccine that is considered safe (but which has never actually undergone safety trails itself) as the comparator.

[napoleon]

excellent info

[rachel]

https://x.com/JoshWalkos/status/1631021866495123459

Another overlooked piece of history is that Polio had an entirely different definition until 1955 when it was changed. Prior to 1955, Polio, Aseptic, Meningitis, and Coxsackie virus infections were recorded as “Polio”.

After 1955 those virus infections were recorded as separate diseases. It’s no wander polio was seen as such a pervasive disease in the first half of the 20th Century.

Another book written in 1988, “Immunisation: Reality Behind the Myth goes into the details of our understanding of Polio in the 1950’s:

"An even more interesting abuse of statistics becomes apparent when perusing polio statistics. The diagnostic criteria and reporting procedures for the disease changed. In the 1950s, the sophisticated virological techniques of today did not exist. And the technology that existed was rarely available to practicing physicians. Therefore, most diagnoses were based upon clinical observation, not sophisticated virological studies. Since polio was epidemic, most physicians were cavalier in making a diagnosis of "non-paralytic poliomyelitis" in children presenting with vague symptoms of muscle aches, malaise, and fever. Since polio was "going around", such children must have had polio. Today, they might be diagnosed as having influenza, again in the absence of laboratory confirmation. And like influenza today, most cases of polio were self-limited. The cases progressing to the paralytic form got the publicity. Interestingly, as the number of polio cases decreased.”

It’s interesting to note that cases of Polio skyrocketed in the United States directly after the introduction of the Diphtheria and Pertussis vaccines.

This Figure is taken from the National Morbidity Reports taken from U.S. Public Health surveillance reports; Lancet (April 18, 1950), pp. 659-63. It shows this correlation quite clearly. Could they have increased susceptibility to polio?

This chart from Sharpes book shows the overall decline of Diptheria in 4 European Countries, following the same pattern as the United States.

The same for Whooping cough

Measles in England and Wales.

Measles mortality dropped almost 99% by 1963, the year measles vaccination commenced in the United States.

Diphtheria mortality rate, plummeted 87% from the start of the 20th century to 1930 in the United States. General use of the diphtheria vaccine did not begin until the late 1940s.

Mortality for Pertussis, another component of the DTP vaccine, dropped by 50% before 1930.

The same with Whooping Cough

The fact of the matter is that mortality from the nine leading infectious diseases had already dropped dramatically by about 90% from the turn of the century to the late 1940s when the first vaccines came into general use. Again, with no significant contribution made by vaccines.

This has been verified independently by researchers such as Thomas McKeown in the 1970’s and again by a team of researchers in 2000 at Johns Hopkins University and the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics led by Dr. Bernard Guyer. They wrote:

“Nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccines were available. […] Vaccination,” they conclude, “does not account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century”

Link to the paper:
https://zero.sci-hub.st/3186/ceb0b014e9 ... er2000.pdf

This chart shows the cumulative overall rate of Infectious Disease Mortality from 1900-1996. All on a steady decline before any vaccines were in widespread use.

It’s also very noteworthy to point out the decrease in mortality in tuberculosis, which was the deadliest disease of the era. Tuberculosis mortality decreased by almost 50% in the second half of the 19th century.

Other infectious diseases whose mortality declined steeply in this era include typhoid, whose death rate dropped by close to 80%; scarlet fever, which also decreased by about 80%; and the bowel diseases dysentery and cholera, whose mortality had cumulatively dropped by approximately 30%. Again all before a vaccine was in widespread use.

Conclusion: The data is patently clear, medical interventions (i.e., medicines and vaccines) played only a marginal role in reducing mortality from infectious disease during the 19th and 20th centuries.

So why is it that we are inundated with messaging to the contrary?

Because it’s a religion and any dissent against the orthodoxy is considered blasphemy. There is too much money, power, and influence involved, any deviation from the “safe and effective” mantra cannot be tolerated regardless of the harms inflicted.

[rachel]

SAFE & EFFECTIVE

THE EARLIEST MENTION OF IT IN A HEADLINE, IN THE NEW YORK TIMES THAT I COULD FIND THE PHRASE WAS NOVEMBER 1, 1935 AND IT WAS USED TO REJECT A CLAIM THAT A NEW VACCINE WAS EFFECTIVE AGAINST INFANT PARALYSIS.