patrick.net

Based on our data, we conclude that SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccination does not contribute to the protection of the healthcare workforce in a post-pandemic setting. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination may even temporarily increase the likelihood of symptomatic infection and workday loss.

Kennedy added:

“They think I’m being evasive because I won’t make a kind of a statement that’s almost religious in nature, ‘it saved a million lives.’ Well, there is no data to support that. There’s no study. There’s modeling studies. There’s faulty data.”

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who thanked Kennedy for “putting up with this abuse,” backed Kennedy’s statements on the dangers of the COVID-19 vaccines and said federal health agencies hid the early signals for myo and pericarditis.

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.