Rebuttal To Nature Communications Pro-Vax Paper
Full of the usual lies and distortions from the pro-vax crowd
Published in Nature Communications, the paper, titled “Cohort study of cardiovascular safety of different COVID-19 vaccination doses among 46 million adults in England” is full of lies, distortions and blatant exaggerations. Lets get into it.
Lies About Number Of Lives Saved
The paper opens with this blatantly obvious exaggeration, claiming it has:
[…] prevented 14.4 million deaths from COVID-19 worldwide in the first year of the pandemic […]
The lie has a number of massive flaws.
1 - It’s based on a model. Models are not data, they are estimates, and they are worthless. When saying whether or not a life was saved, you need to work from actual medical data, and not imaginary mathematical figures.
2 - It is literally physically impossible to have saved 14.4 million people in a single year worldwide from COVID-19 deaths… because during the peak of the pandemic in 2020, only 1.8 million deaths were officially reported, and the WHO claims a maximum (unevidenced) 3 million. Literally, the 14.4 million “saved lives” is a fabrication by the authors, because not only are they attempting to claim more lives saved than were actually in danger, but they’re also falsely claiming a 100% success rate with no proven causation.
3 - It falsely takes sole credit for other aspects, such as preventative (E.G. masks) and intervention procedures (E.G. drugs) and does not isolate data on treatment paradigms.
Makes A Contradictory, Unresolvable Claims
The paper goes on to state:
[…] We show that the incidence of thrombotic and cardiovascular complications was generally lower after each dose of each vaccine brand, except for previously recognised rare complications of the ChAdOx1 vaccine and the mRNA vaccines. […]
This is a meaningless, misleading, contradictory statement. They’re trying to trick you by saying ‘it is lower, except for the times when it is not’.
They repeat it again by intermingling the words ‘similar’ and ‘lower’:
[…] The incidence of composite arterial thrombotic events (AMI, ischaemic stroke and other arterial embolism) was similar or lower […]
It can’t be both similar to unvaccinated and lower compared to unvaccinated. It can be only one or the other. These weasel words are meaningless and contradictory.
They Create A Bizarre Exception Category
They claim they omitted ‘third dose vaccination’ by inventing the bizarre justification it was part of an “extended primary course” and “not a booster”.
[…] Third dose vaccination, which is distinct from the booster dose and is administered as part of an extended primary course, was not considered. […]
This sounds like they’re intentionally omitting the worst cohorts who have received exactly three shots. Since when was the third shot considered “extended primary course”? And why would that make it something to exclude?
Lump And Divide Tactics
The paper lumps all types and brands of shots together when concluding about the “lowering of risk”, but divide the shots into individual brands when discussing actual risk.
This is a type of averaging fallacy, where the harms signal is buried in a collection of shots. So for example, say the mRNA shot kills you via heart attack and the GM adenovirus shot kills you via blood clot, the GM adenovirus shot not killing you by heart attack would cancel out the mRNA shot killing you by heart attack.
Another example.
It’d be like if you created a group called ‘criminals’ consisting of rapists and serial killers. You average out the number of kills and rapes over the net group of criminals and say ‘criminal killings and rapes are lower than the average criminal population!’, conversely you’d say ‘the risk of rape is higher in rapists, and the risk of murder is higher in the serial killers’.
Lump and divide tactics.
They Invent A Medical Term That Doesn’t Exist
In the paper they regularly refer to a term called…
[…] composite arterial thrombosis […]
…claiming the shots reduce this, but this appears to be a made-up term, which has no medical definition.
The paper tries to define it as meaning “AMI [acute myocardial infarction], ischaemic stroke and other arterial embolism”.
Running a search for the term only pulls up papers shilling in favour of the vaccines and has zero medical definitions. For example, Google only produces 2 pages — all of which reference the BS paper:
Duckduckgo similarly circularly refers to the same set of papers (again, running out after a handful of references):
It would strongly demonstrate the paper was not properly peer reviewed, given the lack of questioning over the supposed terminology for symptoms.
This would also imply in order to cut down the number of positive matches, they invented a term that does not exist within medical databases and does not exist within medical literature, allowing them to apply it subjectively to get the results they want.
Running a literal string search (where the entire phrase has to be matched) for “composite arterial thrombosis” in OpenVAERS produces no results.
The CDC Wonder database (the spine of VAERS) also does not find any such terms listed as symptomology (meaning, it does not exist):
However a search for arterial thrombosis (with no “composite” word) does turn up results:
It suggests that the addition of the term “composite” was used to modify the number of returned results during searches to make the number of positive results in COVID-19 shots look lower.
Running an open ended search in VAERS for the terms “composite arterial thrombosis” in the adverse event fields for COVID-19 shots produces no results.
This leads us to the next trick the paper exploits…
Conflation Of Different Illnesses With Different Causes
This deception is quite extensive to unpack.
[…] composite arterial thrombotic events (AMI, ischaemic stroke and other arterial embolism) […]
So it conflates AMI [acute myocardial infarction] with ‘arterial thrombotic events’, however acute myocardial infarction is a heart attack which can have causes which aren’t related to arterial thrombotic events, for example blunt chest trauma.
Ischaemic stroke also has multiple causes which can include non-arterial thrombotic events. For example, one cause, Atherosclerosis, involves a narrowing of the blood vessels in general (usually caused by cholesterol), and another, Vasculitis, involves inflammation.
An ‘arterial embolism’ is not the same as ‘arterial thrombosis’. An embolism is effectively a travelling blood clot, where-as thrombosis is used to mean or imply a stationary blood clot.
For an embolism to count, it has to basically become a blood clot that gets dislodged, travel somewhere, then block a more vital part of the body.
They Invent Two Novel Groups To Try To Claim Victory
In the paper, they write:
[…] Eleven cardiovascular outcomes were analysed: AMI, ischaemic stroke, lower limb deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), intracranial venous thrombosis (ICVT), mesenteric thrombus, portal vein thrombosis (PVT), any thrombocytopenia, subarachnoid haemorrhage & haemorrhagic stroke (SAH & HS), myocarditis and pericarditis.[…]
There’s nothing wrong with the above individual categories, but then they go on to invent two more Texan sharpshooter fallacy groups (no doubt retroactively selected to bias favourability by cherry picking individual sub-group categories):
In addition, two composite outcomes were analysed: composite arterial (AMI, ischaemic stroke and other arterial embolism) and composite venous (PE, DVT, ICVT and PVT).
From the Texan sharpshooter fallacy where they cherry pick acute myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke and “other arterial embolism” (the latter of which isn’t defined) they conclude that:
[…] composite arterial thrombotic events (AMI, ischaemic stroke and other arterial embolism) was similar or lower […]
Using their second Texan sharpshooter fallacy group (where they appear to have confused “composite” with “common”), they conclude:
[…] incidence of common venous thrombotic events, (mainly pulmonary embolism and lower limb deep venous thrombosis) was lower after vaccination […]
But this grouped analysis is worthless because it was done retroactively after they had acquired the data, allowing them to cherry pick the results that looked the best for them by using paired groups (causing an averaging fallacy).
If the individual symptoms were that bad, why were they grouped together and not demonstrated in seperate?
Notice, however, the paper engages in a fallacy: what happened to the other eleven individual datasets? The absence of the declaration they were lower implies all individual categories were higher in vaccinated groups.
Indeed, the paper is forced to conclude that there was a higher rate of harms involving a thrombotic illness, which they claim it lowers! Oops!
They gaslight and claim these cherry picked findings support a “wide uptake”. Directly after last minute admitting to it causing harms. They offer no numerical or empirical evidence to back the claim of “rare”.
Summary Of Faults
Made-up number of deaths prevented with no real world basis
Contradictory statements and claims with dubious strength-of-claim outcomes (“similar or lower”)
Excludes third dose category for no valid reason
Lump and Divide tactics on products in an attempt to average out and fudge the numbers on risks
Made-up symptom selection criteria which has no medical basis
Lumping diseases with different possible causes into a singular cause category
Analysing 11 symptom groups, and then committing a Texan sharpshooter fallacy by isolating specific groups into two arbitrary categories in order to pick the best looking categories in yet another Lump and Divide tactic
Admitting to the risk of harms in a single paragraph, but then claiming this is a reason to support uptake, which literally means you are in favour of harming people.
This paper in my opinion is worthless garbage, and should be immediately retracted with due haste.
Found this informative?
Help inform?
Thoughts, dear reader?
Us proud Conspiracy Theorists realised the stats about Fauci's modified Covid were exaggerated beyond reality. The establishment used every evil method imaginable to exaggerate Covid impact.
When I hear Covid Death stats emanating from the 'Experts' enjoying financial benefits from the deadly injections called vaccines. I prefer to start with a mortality rate of ZERO until an old person is killed by remdesivir or intubation. I was all to justify profits from poorly planned injections (Vax?)
I stopped wearing a mask in mid 2020, when it suddenly dawned upon me that I was promoting a farce which would continue until people began telling others of their suspicions and beliefs. This was after realising that 'natural immunity' should protect the vast majority of us all. I'm 79 and in good health.
I then went on to defy all the unreasonable draconian 'Rules' that were imprisoning and silencing those of us prepared to disobey the 'Experts'. 'Early Covid science' seemed to be constantly modified to suit the 'Lock-Down' and 'distancing' rules. It seemed to me that I/we were being oppressed. I'd had enough! I realised that being a Conspiracy Theorist was, in reality, a badge of honour for those telling the truth.
After a few short months, the EXPERIMENTAL INJECTIONS they pretended were 'VACCINES' appeared.
'NO LIABILITY' for human DEATH by injection must mean the continuance of DEADLY mRNA injections ('vaccines') must cease immediately. They do NOTHING except reduce life expectancy and cause infertility! Perhaps that was the designated purpose of such useless 'medicines'?
The FDA, CDC, Big Pharma, all colluded to hide proven medicines like IVERMECTIN, etc, and hid such information in order to justify the lucrative spoils that were liberally shared around those involved in the Authorisation of a temporary licence for launch of the expensive, unproven, unsafe, deadly jabs.
I prefer to believe that all mRNA DEADLY INJECTIONS (called vaccines) do permanent irreparable damage to EVERY RECIPIENT! The makers want us all to believe post-injection injuries and DEATHS are "RARE". I believe that EVERY jab reduces the recipients natural immunity, making them more susceptible to many illnesses and diseases. Each extra jab reduced LIFE EXPECTANCY by 3 - 5 years.
Some are claiming the mRNA Gene Editing Experiments can eventually be expelled from the body. I believe this is more Pfizer, et al, propaganda to keep their lucrative gravy train on track. Vax damage is PERMANENT! DO NOT ACCEPT ANOTHER JAB UNTIL 'LIABILITY' IS REINTRODUCED! Common sense!
Using Coronavirus, the WEF went after our health in order to break our resolve, judgement, and to obtain total dominance of our will. Next in line is their modified Bird flu, which will justify Stage 2. By maximising existing viral diseases, Big Pharma & the chain they support, created a vast and highly profitable market of new customers experiencing their money making diseases.
VAX induced DEATHS are caused by the pretend injections that Moderna, Pfizer, FDA, CDC, etc, call 'vaccines'. These jabs are designed to frequently cause harm and to reduce LIFE EXPECTANCY.
Unjabbed Mick (UK) I'll live longer without medical intervention (AKA Pre-Meditated Mass-MURDER!)
If I am not mistaken, the editors of a couple of the larger medical journals are on recorded as saying, in effect, that much of the "research" is so heavily biased by the funding source as to be worthless. It's not science at all by my (M.S.) understanding of the process.