We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

The most damaging paper of the pandemic has just been published in The Lancet

The most damaging paper of the pandemic has just been published in The Lancet and it makes stunning reading.

26 comments to The most damaging paper of the pandemic has just been published in The Lancet

  • Thomas Fairfax

    How is this not front page news across the world?

  • Snorri Godhi

    Actually, it has been submitted to The Lancet. Now it is no longer available as a preprint.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    If it’s in The Lancet then I can see why the firms makung these vaccines wanted immunity from being sued in the event of trouble.

  • Clovis Sangrail

    The Lancet has withdrawn it, criticising the methodology…

  • Steven R

    Like there was ever any doubt they would withdraw or reject it. It’ll be the same thing with JAMA or NEJM or any other major medical journal.

  • Paul Marks.

    These papers get submitted to the journals – but they do not tend to get published.

    The reason is that what the (rather innocent) researchers think is Earth shattering, shocking news, that the Covid “vaccines” kill and injure people (that they are neither “effective” or “safe”) has been known from the start.

    Telling the establishment “the Covid injections kill people” is like telling them “water is wet!” and expecting them to be shocked.

    For example, the Members of the House of Commons who laugh at, and viciously attack, Andrew Bridgen M.P. will say, privately, “of course, he is right”

    And Members of Parliament are not, in the main. very senior in the international establishment.

    Telling the editors of the Lancet that the Covid injections have killed people really is telling them that water-is-wet – they already know that, they have always known that.

    They do not care. After all what is important to the establishment, including the international medical establishment, is not the health of individual patients (what could be more “reactionary” than the health of individual patients – they hate reactionary things), what they care about is the international Collectivist political and cultural agenda – and to further this “noble” aim, they must have control over the population.

    This also applies to the Corporate side of the establishment – even if the corporations did not make lots of money by doing these things, even if they made a loss pushing poison (and so on) they would do it anyway – for the “noble cause” of international collectivism.

  • Paul Marks.

    Steven R. – of course.

    John Campbell (PhD) recently interviewed a very well qualified Danish researcher on the dangers of the Covid injections.

    The Danish lady was shocked that her paper was not published by the Lancet or some of the other journals – although it was eventually published by a small, but peer reviewed, journal.

    It was difficult not to laugh – as OF COURSE the main journals did not publish it, they, the establishment, already know that the Covid injections injure or kill some people (and are no more “effective” than they are “safe”) – they have always known that.

    I posted the interview on Twitter and Facebook – which will give Central Office yet another reason to punish me.

  • Kirk

    At this point, anyone who believes the establishment “authorities” on any issue is a damn fool.

    We’re dealing here with the legacy of a century-plus selection process, wherein we decided to enshrine a sort of weaponized low-grade autism as our archetype for who should be in charge of everything. Are you surprised that they’re proving to be incompetent?

    My beef with all this is that I’ve been told all my life that “doing well on the tests” is a proxy for virtue. If you get yourself a college degree on the strength of those tests, and then wind up in charge of anything, you really have to screw the pooch before anyone will call you on it. As in, “We’re on the front page of every major international newspaper…” screw up. Even then? EPA? Colorado? Mine breach?

    Those assholes got promotions and performance bonuses. The ecosystem of the upper Colorado River got killed for a thousand miles.

    I wouldn’t mind so much if there were some accountability, some responsibility, but… There isn’t. Anywhere. It’s all the same sort of freakishly disconnected people doing the same things, everywhere, and the rest of us with relatively normal psyches are here watching them do their thing to the rest of us, ensconced in their positions of authority, safely wielding the power we gave them against us.

    I don’t know what the hell the IQ test actually measures, but it sure as hell doesn’t measure good judgment or wisdom. Nor does the system we’ve put into place actually assess performance, observing the effect these brilliant half-wits have on the world. And, they are half-wits: They’ve got exactly half of what real intelligence is, the part that enables them to make really big, really stupid decisions. The part that confers the wisdom not to do these things just isn’t there, because we can’t measure it or quantify it in some classroom-based written exam. Because of that, our world is run by the educated-yet-idiot class that “did well on the tests”, and we wonder why everything is going to wrack and ruin around our ears.

    The decision to built a technocratic meritocracy was a mistake. In order to have a meritocracy, the people running it occasionally have to demonstrate, y’know… Merit. Haven’t seen that in a few generations, have we?

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Oh well, it was withdrawn.

    The problem with this is that one side will say this proves there is a dark conspiracy to keep the evils of these vaccines under wraps, and the other will say it shows that worriers about vaccines are kooks. Those who take the risk-management approach – because they were old and had underlying conditions and thought the risks worth taking – will argue that this doesn’t really advance the argument one way or the other.

    I continue to take the view that while vaccines should have been rolled out if they could have hastened the end of lockdowns, and be part of a “shielding approach” in preference to indiscriminate lockdowns, vaccine mandates were illigitmate extensions of State power. Evidence is also clear to me that vaccines had very little impact on preventing a spread. That being the case, the argument for vaccine passports, and the monstrous treatment of people in countries such as Canada, or Australia, vanishes.

  • Kirk

    There were signs even back during the vaccine rollout that things were emphatically not on the “up and up”.

    They didn’t complete the studies, closing the loop. They essentially destroyed them by opening up the double-blind and dosing the people who didn’t actually get the vaccine. They were very open about all of that, if you were paying attention.

    That was why I did not and will not accept the “vaccine”. Any time they start screwing around with the definitions of things, the way they did? Yeah; clear warning sign. Said so at the time, yet thousands were taken in by that chicanery.

    mRNA vaccine technology has been the “fusion” of the biotech industry since at least the 1990s. I speculate that COVID allowed the opportunistic mainstreaming of this technology when it was not ready for use. The folks in “Big Pharma” saw a chance to monetize their investments, took them, and here we are.

    Follow the money. See who got rich in the NIH, from royalty payments and such. Ask yourself “Cui bono?”

    If, after doing so, you’re still so bloody stupid as to “buy the narrative”, you’re pretty much beyond help. Too stupid to live, frankly. The WEF thanks you for your service…

  • Bell Curve

    Evidence is also clear to me that vaccines had very little impact on preventing a spread

    No impact whatsoever it seems.

  • Kirk

    Like I said… It wasn’t a “vaccine”, it was a cash-grab.

    What’s the “failure rate” on vaccinated people getting and transmitting the disease, again? Can you think of any other vaccinations that have similar “leakage rates”? Hell, can you think of any other vaccines that have been approved, with such a low rate of effectiveness?

    No? Do the f*cking math, people: You got ripped-off.

    I don’t even know why this is even debated, except that people don’t like to feel stupid. All of my family members got the vaccine because it was mandated for travel; they ALL got COVID again, after the vaccinations. Or, at least, tested positive for it, which is another issue entirely. That’s six people with the full range of vaccination, all six of whom got COVID per the tests AFTER the vaccinations.

    Hmmmm… Curious, that? And, I’m not an outlier with this experience, either. I don’t know anyone who got the vaccine who didn’t have a “COVID” encounter after. All of them are certain the vaccine saved their life, tho…

    Follow the money. See who benefited. Answer your own questions.

  • I caught Covid in March 2020, never got the vax. Was exposed many times after that, never caught it again. Most (by no means all) my vax’ed friends & associates got Covid multiple times.

  • bobby b

    Hard to draw conclusions. I’m unvaxxed, caught Covid three times. (Yes, confirmed with tests.) Supposed to be impossible, I thought.

    Still looking for a copy of the (pulled) pre-print. Daily Skeptic had one, supposedly, but now I can’t even raise their website. Either too busy, or someone objected to their use of the paper.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Bobby’b: getting vaccine doesn’t stop you getting a bug. It is designed to stop you getting very ill or die from it.

  • bobby b

    JP: True, but my puzzlement was how I contracted Covid three times. I thought natural immunity would have prevented #2 and #3.

    (Or, as a doc friend pointed out, maybe I didn’t really have it – just had three bad colds – but the tests over-indicated the virus.)

  • Roué le Jour

    So, the UK government dividend the population into “essential” and “non essential”. The essential carried on working keeping society running while the non essential cowered behind their sofas. Naturally many of the essential paid the ultimate price for their selfless behavior, right? Right?

  • Fraser Orr

    @bobby I think for the same reason you can get the flu every year — there are different strains of the bug.

    Thanks for the link to the paper, I wanted to read it since the sample size seemed a bit small — so I’d like to assess the methodology to see if the Lancet was justified in pulling it.

    FWIW, I am also unvaxed, and have had Covid twice. First time it was pretty debilitating for a couple of days (specifically, I have never been so tired in my life), after than it was a bit like a minor flu. (FWIW I took two days off work only.) Second time it was the same with the volume turned down 50%. Didn’t take any time of work.

  • Fraser Orr

    So, FWIW, I read the study (hat tip to BobbyB for providing a link above.) I’m afraid I don’t really think it is the smoking gun everyone here seems to think it is. What they did is searched for all papers in some medical databases that contain autopsies where the Covid 19 vax was listed as a possible cause of death, giving them 325 autopsies[1]. They then had three doctors look at the autopsies to determine if the vax actually WAS the cause of death, and concluded that in about 3/4 of the deaths were caused by vaccine adverse reactions — most commonly myocarditis.

    So what does that mean? It means they looked at 325 people who doctors already suspected died from the vaccine and concluded that those doctors were mostly right. This doesn’t seem like a “stop the press” moment to me.

    Now we have to remember that hundreds of millions of people were given this vaccine several times, and yet there are only 75% x 325 documented cases of vaccine caused mortality. That is not at all a high number, and certainly compares favorably with other vaccines. Of course 325 is the number of reported cases, so surely the number of ACTUAL cases is much higher. I have heard, though can’t currently locate, a German study indicating morbidity and mortality in 1/50,000 young men in Germany. Now that is a terrible number. There are other studies out there that I think are damning, but this one here doesn’t seem to me to be one.

    In their discussion they say:

    We found 73.9% of deaths after COVID-19 vaccination were attributable to fatal vaccine injury syndromes

    But that isn’t what they found at all. And this inaccurate statement would justify pulling the paper by Lancet.

    Please correct me if my assessment is wrong. I didn’t read the paper in depth, but the first few pages alone give a pretty straightforward summary of the study and results.

  • Fraser Orr

    Just as a follow up to this statement in the paper:

    We found 73.9% of deaths after COVID-19 vaccination were attributable to fatal vaccine injury syndromes

    Approximately three million people die in the United States from all causes each year. If you take the vaccine twice in a year and consider the two weeks following to be the hot zone, then 300,000 or so people die in the two weeks after a covid vaccination, just due to random causes of death from car accidents to cancer. If the statement above is true (even qualifying it to be the “two weeks after” only), then we’d expect quarter of a million people each year to be dying of vaccine injuries, half of myocarditis. That is plainly ridiculous.

    Health authorities classified everyone who died with Covid to have died of Covid, which was deeply dishonest. We shouldn’t do the same thing on the flip side.

  • X Trapnel

    @Fraser Orr. Spot-on. Post hoc ergo proper hoc.

    The harms – real or otherwise – of the Covid vaccines are not the first clubs we should get out of the bag to hit Big Lockdown off the tee. Lockdown would have been wrong if the Covid vaccines had been the Elixir of Eternal Youth.

  • bobby b

    Fraser Orr: “I wanted to read it since the sample size seemed a bit small — so I’d like to assess the methodology to see if the Lancet was justified in pulling it.”

    Yeah, that was my motivation also. Sadly, my complaint that too many people are over-willing to simply serve their own tribe’s messaging needs applies on both sides of the divide. I’m of the belief that we ought to be calling out the inaccuracies made by our own side first.

    Even if they hadn’t made that rather sweeping overstatement in the conclusion, it would be read that way by the reading public anyway. Best to let it stew for a bit and do some review before releasing.

    Even if it had the imprimatur of honesty and rigor that comes from being in the Lancet. 😉

  • Paul Marks.

    Johnathan Pearce

    The Danish study I mentioned was published in a peer reviewed journal.

    The term “dark conspiracy” is rather loaded – but the facts are as follows….

    The Covid injections have caused injuries and deaths.

    And the international establishment has, repeatedly, falsely claimed that the Covid injections are “safe and effective”, and has tried to cover up the findings of well qualified researchers whose work shows that the Covid injections are neither “effective” or “safe”.

    Imagine, for a moment, that this “public health” campaign been an innocent mistake – that the international establishment really believed that the Covid injections were “safe and effective” – they would be shocked and horrified to discover that they are not.

    But the international establishment are not shocked or horrified at all – because they always knew.

    Not a “dark conspiracy” – just a fact.

  • Fred Z

    Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.

    ie, The Lancet

  • Snorri Godhi

    Fraser Orr must surely be thanked and complimented for identifying the problem with “the most damaging paper”.

    I myself, after reading Steve Kirsch’s post at the link in the OP, wondered: What does it mean, “74% of deaths post-vax”?
    Does that mean that 74% of people who got the vax and died since, died because of the vax?
    That would imply a ~300% increase in the death rate of the vaccinated.
    In a hypothetical country where 50% of the population is vaccinated, the excess deaths would be ~150%.

    I doubt that such a rate of excess deaths would go undetected, except perhaps in North Korea.

    Bobby is quite right in saying that we should be more critical/skeptical about “research” whose conclusions have libertarian implications.