patrick.net

Even more astonishing, following the meeting, the CDC itself tweeted a very critical comment from Dr. Malone, questioning how the drugmakers can even tell the shots work.

ACIP member Robert W. Malone, MD: "There is no established correlative
protection for COVID. Period. Full stop. And stop saying otherwise."

What Dr. Malone meant is that there is no agreed-upon measurement —like a specific antibody level— that reliably predicts whether a person “is protected” from covid, either in terms of bare infection or severe disease.

Absent “consensus” on even what proves protection exists, how can the drugmakers claim the shots produce protection? Stop saying that.

Malone was pointing out that pharma’s claims of efficacy were only based on large-group statistical conclusions, rather than any hard-science-based —i.e. measurable— biological effect. Whereas, most other vaccines do have established correlates of protection— meaning that there are well-defined, measurable biological markers (often specific antibody levels) that can reliably predict immunity.

" https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/unprescribed-saturday-september-20 "

ABSTRACT - Many media and public-record statements, including Congressional statements and testimony, since 2022, have often asserted that COVID‑19 vaccination in the USA prevented some 100 million infections, saved some millions of lives, saved some tens of millions of hospitalizations, and saved some 1 trillion dollars in associated medical costs. These fantastic and unverifiable claims are based on theoretical models of so‑called counterfactual scenarios, which are back predictions under hypothetical absence of COVID‑19 vaccination. The said claims are reported in several scientific articles, often in leading scientific journals, however their authors sparingly show and essentially never examine the time evolution of the back predictions for plausibility. We calculate time evolutions corresponding to the back predictions. We show that if one accepts the counterfactual models and their inputs to then calculate the corresponding excess all-cause mortality that would have occurred, then one graphically obtains excess all-cause mortality by time (by week) that is contrary to realistic behaviours. By accepting the counterfactual models, we must believe that the two main COVID-19 vaccination campaigns (doses 1+2 and first-booster dose rollouts, in early and late 2021, respectively) coincidentally were each applied just in time prior to two staggering spontaneous many-fold increases in viral virulence. In other words, we must believe that the massive and repeated COVID-19 vaccine rollouts did not significantly reduce mortality in 2021 and in 2022 compared to 2020 (they actually did not) because the virus became more virulent than ever in those years, twice, in early 2021 and in late 2021―early 2022, producing 5‑fold hypothetical increases in excess all-cause mortality by year. The counterfactual scenarios are so improbable that they can, on the sole basis of the predictions themselves, be qualified as impossible.

Last week, a significant new peer-reviewed vaccine study published in the well-regarded journal BMC Infectious Diseases, titled, “Real world effectiveness of antipneumococcal vaccination against pneumonia in adults: a population-based cohort study, Catalonia, 2019.” Teaser: they found negative efficacy of minus eighty percent, meaning older adults given pneumonia jabs were 80% more likely to get pneumonia. Thanks a lot, doc.

https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-025-11596-w

The global market for pneumococcal vaccines is valued between $8 - $10 billion in 2024–2025. And it’s growing fast. Over the next ten years, forecasters project the market will nearly double, expecting a total market of $15–$17 billion. Unsurprisingly, Pfizer is the big gorilla, hogging nearly all of the pneumonia jab market (80%). ...

The study was pretty simple and hard to argue with. They compared electronic vaccination records (jabbed versus unjabbed) against subsequent admissions for pneumonia as well as death records. They found: (1) people given the jabs were +80% more likely to wind up hospitalized for pneumonia, and (2) there was no measurable improvement in risk of either hospitalization or death among the vaccinated group, which you would hope to see if the stupid shots worked.

The researchers explained they did the study because they couldn’t find where anyone had ever tested the shots for real-world efficacy. ...

The Catalonian study (and others) are cementing concerns that antibody response might not after all translate into meaningful protection against common and deadly outcomes. ...

This study is shocking, but don’t expect anything terrific. Pharma has entire teams, departments, staffed with ex-regulators who are dedicated to damage control, and they’ve probably been working on a response to these results since well before the study finished peer review. Indeed, the study noted that this year, new versions of the vaccines are expected, giving Pfizer cover to issue a vague statement of regret over the inefficiencies of past years, and then keep right on pushing the newest generation of pneumonia shots on vulnerable patients.

In other words, it’s whack-a-mole. While scientists wait for data and conduct studies, jabmakers keep tweaking their formulae to evade scrutiny and provide plausible deniability. The only permanent solution is to stop letting them use surrogate markers of response rather than provable results, and to restore legal liability for ineffective and harmful products.

But there is some good news. This study feels different. Major research groups (like this big hospital system) usually avoid tackling massive pharma profit centers like pneumonia jabs— but Catalonia did it anyway. These particular scientists, at least, are obviously growing skeptical about using antibody levels to intuit efficacy. And then, it was actually prominently published: Historically, even when negative results about major vaccines have been published, they usually pop up in lower-impact journals, are hidden behind paywalls, or are published as brief “Technical Notes.”

But this study was big, population-based, peer-reviewed, open access, well-written, and from a reputable European institution.

I can’t escape feeling like the tide might be going out on the vaccine industry’s salad years. There might be a sea change swelling in vaccine skepticism (don’t call it ‘hesitancy’) from institutions and researchers around the world.

@newstart_2024
Sen. Ron Johnson Exposes the “3.2 Million Lives Saved by Vaccines” Myth — The Math Doesn’t Add Up

In a fiery Senate exchange, Sen. Ron Johnson dismantled the claim that COVID vaccines “saved” 3.2 million American lives — calling it propaganda, not science.

He revealed the so‑called Commonwealth Fund “study” wasn’t peer‑reviewed. It was a blog post built on questionable modeling — not real data.

Then he pulled CDC’s own numbers:

- 2019: 2.85 million deaths

- 2020: 3.38 million (no vaccines)

- 2021: 3.46 million (mass vaccination)

Johnson asked the question no one in public health dares ask — if vaccines saved millions, why did deaths keep climbing?

To make that claim true, U.S. deaths would’ve had to surge past 5 million per year. They didn’t.

He accused the NIH of blocking early treatments, pushing remdesivir and ventilators, and rewriting science to fit a political script.

His message hit hard: The numbers don’t lie — but the narrative might.

" https://x.com/AlexBerenson/status/1994021844500795845 "

" Pfizer's mRNA vaccine for influenza failed when tested against the standard flu shot in a 27,000- person trial of older adults - a failure Pfizer has not announced for years. "

they were deliberately killing people to make money!