COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be less effective at dealing with the Delta variant of COVID-19. But like a lipstick on a pig, the vaccines are given to the population for no valid medical reason; it’s just for show and it’s not a good show. Delta is the only variant of COVID-19 in Australia so it’s important that the vaccines actually work at preventing it and as we look into it, they don’t.
Framing The Debate
We’ve seen this all before with masks. They, whoever “they” even are, told us to wear masks and that would fix things. The problem is it, doesn’t. Sure, masks prevent you from spreading but not catching. So, they’re not the ultimate approach.
We seem to have forgotten the good practices of handwashing and being hygienic. That was the message early on. But it was drowned out by the government and media which dulled out masks as comfort blankets instead of educating the populace to do the right thing. Vaccines are just more of the same; more comfort and less science.
The woke mob, the government and powerful companies don’t care. They don’t need real solutions if the population think things are fixed. We’re sick and tired of governments lying to us over the past 18 months; yet somehow, we keep complying.
If it’s one thing we know, it’s contradictions and doublethink is rife. The vaccines weren’t labelled as silver bullets by now former NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian and NSW Chief Medical Officer Dr. Kerry Chant and they made it clear that they weren’t but they will be required for entry to some places. It’s something that we have to ‘Do First’ according to the Australian Government, yet boosters will be around for years. The vaccines aren’t a preventer of COVID-19 spread; yet people are segregated on their vaccine status.
Let’s look at the studies. These are key and to be clear all relate specifically relate to Delta. Without these studies, we’d just have anecdotes and the fact-check mob wouldn’t like that.
New England Journal Study (England)
This first study was published in The New England Journal of Medicine in August 2021. This study looked at the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines in England. One dose of either vaccines, on average, had an efficacy of just 30.7% when it came to preventing symptomatic Delta. However, with two doses of a vaccine lead to 88.0% and 67.0% efficacy for Pfizer and AstraZeneca respectively. Why is one dose just so bad? Why is there the need for two does? Just make one good dose like Johnson & Johnson.
Those numbers aren’t good. Particularly when vaccine passports are introduced as a means of preventing the infected people from gathering, yet as many as one in three people could have COVID-19 and spread it despite a little green screen or piece of paper (I’m talking about vaccine records) claiming otherwise when interpreted as the government wants you too.
However, the study is fundamentally flawed. It’s a test-negative case-control test. What does that mean? I’ll let some experts explain, “Test-negative studies recruit cases who attend a healthcare facility and test positive for a particular disease; controls are patients undergoing the same tests for the same reasons at the same healthcare facility and who test negative”. And specifically for this study, “In brief, we compared vaccination status in persons with symptomatic Covid-19 with vaccination status in persons who reported symptoms but had a negative test. This approach helps to control for biases related to health-seeking behavior, access to testing, and case ascertainment.”
So, basically they got a bunch of vaccinated people who had symptomatic COVID-19 and compared them to just anyone who had similar symptoms but tested negative. You can already see the issues. It’s a non sequitur study; basically the conclusion doesn’t follow the premise. What have people with symptoms of COVID-19 but don’t actually have it got to do with vaccinated yet COVID-19 positive people? None.
When comparing if a brick will crack your skull with no protection or a helmet, I don’t look at people who have symptoms of a cracked skull but don’t actually have it and compare it to people who had a helmet yet still had a cracked skull. That’s just so silly.
You know from high school that you don’t conduct a test like they did; what they did wasn’t a fair test. You need to have one independent variable. For example, you find out if salt decreases the boiling temperature of water by comparing salt with water and water without salt and seeing at what temperature they boil. For whatever reasons, these people just forget the basics. I’ve said it before in another post but it’s simple to do a test like this; “What would be scientific would be to have a single independent variable, what you’re looking for between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, infection firstly (both symptomatic and asymptomatic infection) and then a second test further test of those who were infected about whether they’re hospitalised or not. You’d need to ensure both participants lived and travelled in the same conditions. Perhaps people could be paired up and travel together to all places. They obviously can do separate things when they’re not in the company of others but there needs to be an equal opportunity to be infected. Except, they’re not doing that and it gets worse for them.”
Nature Study (France)
Another study was published in Nature in July of this year was clear with its conclusions and we can see that from the title, “Reduced sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 variant Delta to antibody neutralization”. The article is quite technical and you have to search some terms to work out exactly what they’re saying. The “sera” or the part of blood which provides immunity, contained virtually no immunity when they had a dose of either Pfizer or AstraZeneca. The study is based on 56 people from the French city of Orléans.
When people did have two doses, 95% of people produced an immune response. That’s 5% of people that the vaccine failed for and that’s not an acceptable rate if the government is going to coerce people to get a vaccine without care for natural immunity and immunity from prior infections. Now before you go and say that I’m ridiculous for having a go at the 95% success rate, remember that COVID-19 has a 99.95% survival rate for under 50s in Australia and around 94% for over 50s, despite the massive deaths in Victorian nursing homes which clearly biased the figure.
So, is 95% good enough or not? You can’t have it both ways. Don’t talk about lockdowns and segregating unvaccinated people when 95% is an ‘okay’ figure for producing an immune response because of vaccines but 94% or 99.95% survival rate is not okay to base what restrictions we should impose because of COVID-19.
Oh and that doesn’t even take into account the level of immunity either, it’s just some of a response. If 95% of your friends brought you pizza but you found out most of them where 1cm wide, the 95% would be of no consolation. Both the coverage and the amount are important.
In fact, the response had “titres three- to fivefold lower against the Delta variant than against the Alpha variant”. A titre is basically just a unit of measurement for antibodies. So, we can see that these vaccines are three to five times less effective than they were against the Alpha variant and even they were less effective than against the original COVID-19 (by original I mean the one China leaked out of the Wuhan lab because the true ancestor/s of the virus are unknown at the moment).
The results were similar to the previous study as they said, “The two-dose effectiveness against the Delta variant was estimated to be 60% and 88% for the AstraZeneca and the Pfizer vaccine, respectively”. They said the quite part out loud when they declared, “These results strongly suggest that vaccination of previously infected individuals is likely to be protective against a large array of circulating viral strains, including the Delta variant.” Previous infection is the best form of protection from future infections. No synthetic medicine will be better than what the body produces.
They also have problems with their tests since they said, “No statistical methods were used to predetermine sample size. The experiments were not randomized and the investigators were not blinded to allocation during experiments and outcome assessment. Our research complies with all relevant ethical regulations.” But I don’t have much more to say on that since they’re at least honest that the tests weren’t randomised and properly compared between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.
We’ll look at one more study; this one is from Qatar but it hasn’t been peer reviewed. They looked at both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and they’re one of the most vaccinated countries; so, they know what they’re looking at. For two doses, which is the focus since we know that a single dose is virtually irrelevant, Pfizer prevented infection by 84.8% and Moderna was 79.0%. Effectiveness against any severe, critical or fatal disease was 89.7% for Pfizer and 100% for Moderna.
Once again, don’t jump the gun on their conclusions since it’s another study littered with methodical problems. Firstly, they just collect national data without any understanding for statistical biases and this is the same problem as the Scottish study that I talked about in another post. Like the first study I talked about, it too uses the horrible test-negative case-control test. Can any of these people do an actual fair test?
Can I Really Trash These Papers?
There’s probably someone thinking that I’m trashing all the papers yet say that they’re supporting my position and that’s hypocritical. It’s not and I’ll explain why. Most are fundamentally flawed and I could do better tests myself with my high school science knowledge. I’ve said in a previous post, you can’t do a proper test when there are multiple variables. It has to be one-to-one the same conditions. The only difference should be the vaccine status.
So, anything they put out can just be thrown out because in most of these studies there’s no equal chance of infection. Both the vaccinated and unvaccinated are in different conditions and they have made no attempt to pair people up to see what happens in the same conditions.
My point is that even if you think I’m wrong and the papers are solid pieces of evidences, they still destroy the “safe and effective” lie. Now it’s fair that you can say that I’m having it both ways but it would be a boring post if I didn’t point things out that the papers say. Plus, I’m not saying that these papers glean no information but I’m saying it’s helpful to look at where the numbers come from and why they aren’t fair tests. Also, it’s not anti-science to do this because science is a method not a viewpoint.
Let me close with a meme. It’s about the fact that vaccinated people have died with COVID-19 and that’s contrary to the “safe and effective” message but it’s completely understandable if you know that dying with COVID-19 doesn’t mean because of it.
As you can see the media and the political establishment have a choice. You can either say that the vaccine works or say that all deaths with COVID-19 are actually from COVID-19. You can’t have both. The vaccine works and no one (or at least one in a million) can die from COVID-19 or you can say as many have said for ages that dying with COVID-19 doesn’t mean because of.
You have that decision too. Does the vaccine work or are all COVID-19 deaths because of it? You can’t have both. There’s a smarter answer than just one of them and you can take the opposite of both. The vaccines don’t work as described and people can die with COVID-19 and not necessarily because of it.
US Founding Father Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying, “in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”; I add would add one more thing, the return of Jesus Christ. That statement holds true, COVID-19 vaccines are no certainty to work and with Delta, they’re even less likely to work. There are more reasons not to take a COVID-19 but to paraphrase the Gladiator, are you not informed?
Sources (In order of use)