JAMA paper accidentally proves that COVID “vaccines” did NOTHING to help the elderly
The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a study recently that tries to claim that Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “booster” shots help to reduce the risk of death from COVID. The only problem is that the study accidentally proved the opposite.
Entitled “Infections, Hospitalizations, and Deaths Among US Nursing Home Residents With vs Without a SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Booster,” the study makes unprovable claims about this alleged “death benefit” that, upon closer look, are completely made-up.
Critical thinkers who look at the study with an open mind will quickly see the following anomalies with the data:
1) If COVID boosters really worked as claimed, then the IFR (Infection Fatality Ratio) for those getting boosted would be lower, not higher as was shown in the study.
2) If COVID boosters really prevented death, then the IFR for those getting boosted should start to diverge after just a few weeks – and the curves for the un-boosted should not diverge.
3) There is no data sharing of de-identified aggregate data, which investigator Steve Kirsch says is “suspicious.”
4) There is also a lack of information about all-cause mortality (ACM) among the treatment group, which is also suspicious.
5) As Kirsch explains, we should “always wonder why they don’t show you the IFR of each cohort starting on day 0,” which is exactly what happened in this paper.
(Related: JAMA published another study recently accusing physicians of spreading COVID misinformation on social media.)
Infection Fatality Ratio found to be 28% higher in COVID boosted compared to COVID un-boosted
Amazingly, the study data shows the exact opposite of what its authors claim concerning the risk of dying after getting boosted for COVID.
It is clearly revealed in the paper that the IFR for the boosted is actually 28 percent higher than the IFR for the un-boosted.
“In other words, in System 2, the vaccine made you more susceptible to die from COVID based on this data,” Kirsch explains in a Substack post about the paper.
“It’s now out in the open and you can’t unring that bell. But the paper never pointed this out for some reason!”
As for Figure 1 in the paper, that one would appear to show that COVID boosters “work,” but even this alleged benefit is a “mirage,” Kirsch notes.
“The unboosted group of System 1 (yellow dashed line) is clearly an outlier; it looks nothing like the unboosted group of System 2 (blue dashed line),” Kirsch explains – take a look at the study to view these images and their respective colored lines for yourself.
“The unboosted groups track each other for days 7 to 14, then mysteriously diverge on Day 14. [What] is that about? The unboosted groups should track each other if these are large, diverse populations. So we have a problem.”
If COVID boosters really worked as claimed, then the data would show both the boosted and the un-boosted tracking the same at the start, only to later diverge – but there is no sign of this whatsoever in either boosted group.
“The System 2 line flattens out on day 35, but that’s most likely due to a non-lethal variant (Omicron) so we aren’t getting any data points to be able to compute a slope,” Kirsch explains, adding that “we simply run out of deaths because COVID is such a non-problem at that point.”
The takeaway from all this, as usual, is that COVID jabs – all of them – are a fraud. They do not help old people, or anyone for that matter, and this new JAMA paper is proof-positive of that.
“It is also troubling that the data from day 0 is not available and that they are not publicly releasing the data,” Kirsch concludes. “There is no reason for this if there is nothing to hide.”
The latest news about COVID injections can be found at ChemicalViolence.com.
Sources for this article include: