Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
LillBurtan
Även här måste man skilja på helt ovaccinerade och minst en dos.. många som fick långcovid innan vaccinen kom har tagit vaccin efteråt.. kan vaccinet ha förvärrat? Dragit ut på läkeprocessen? Är det longcovid eller vaccinet som ger skador? Här behövs studier där man skiljer på ovaccinerade och vaccinerade!
Ja, det påstods ju även i tidningarna att vissa som fått postcovid upplevde att vaccinet hjälpte dem osv, över huvud taget var det mycket prat och spekulation, och det är det väl fortfarande, om allt egentligen. Jag nämnde långt upp i den här tråden att det även finns en och annan forskare som har frågat sig om det de kallar "long vax", alltså bieffekter av vaccinet. Nedan har jag kanske hittat nåt som kan intressera dig om du inte kände till det.
Anti-covvid-vaxare, se hit! Eftersom jag gärna ser kritik av både Covid och vaccinen, så har jag kanske hittat en smoking gun åt er här, eller?
Jag vet inte om ni kände till detta och jag är inte statistiker, men kanske intresserar detta någon i tråden med den vanan, på endera sidan. Som vi alla vet är det svårt att hitta studier på nätet som pekar på negativa sidor av mRNA-vaccinet. Nedan är dock en sådan, svensk forskning från Chalmers, publicerad för 4 dagar sedan av en professor i statistik/matematik vid Chalmers. Han bygger här vidare på en preprint från i september, där han menar sig ha funnit tecken på att ökad vaccinering leder till ökad överdödlighet, Excess Mortality (EM) och alltså har gjort mer skada än nytta (net harm). I den tidigare preprinten skriver han:
"We find that, in the linear regression, the correlation between average EM and vaccination rate is strongly negative, a priori evidence to support the claim that the Covid vaccines have saved many lives. However, a closer analysis of the timeline suggests otherwise. The correlation was already strongly negative before the vaccines were rolled out and is only weakly negative thereafter. In theory, survivor bias could still explain this shift, especially since waves of EM closely align with Covid waves.
However, we find in addition that about half of our 28 countries experienced higher EM in 2022 than in 2021, and all that did so have higher than average vaccination rates. This is something which survivor bias cannot explain and raises the real possibility that the vaccines have not just failed to save many lives, but may have already caused net harm."
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202309.0674/v2
Och i den nya sammanställningen nu i december skriver han på s 13 uttryckligen ut sin poäng:
"
the overall thesis of this update, namely that evidence for the hypothesis of a causal link between mass Covid vaccination and (chronic) excess mortality is indeed crystallising over time, even if the amount of such excess mortality seems to be relatively stable. One can speculate that the former in turn could be due to the waning (randomising) influence of other measures introduced by different countries at the height of the pandemic."
Han väger alltså in andra faktorer, också att vi numera inte vet vilken roll Covid spelar eftersom C19 mäts mindre än förr. Det här är ju ingen peer-review-artikel utan hans egen forskning publicerad på Chalmers hemsida, men likväl skrivet av en forskare. Han skriver bland annat så här i inledningen:
"
EXCESS MORTALITY AND THE EFFECT OF THE COVID-19 VACCINES: UPDATE ON THE EUROPEAN DATA
Abstract. Several months have elapsed since we wrote a paper investigating the relationship between all-cause excess mortality (EM) and Covid vaccination rates across 28 EU/EES countries, using data from both Eurostat and Our World in Data (OWID). As 2023 draws to a close, we now have a further 4 months of Eurostat data and a further 5-6 months of OWID data and, given the urgency of the subject matter, think it is time for an update. (...) In particular, the shift in the correlation between EM and vaccination rates from the period before to that after the vaccine rollout continues to grow, no matter how we measure EM. In fact, for the raw EM data, the aggregate correlation in the post-rollout period has now turned positive."
Och i Summaryn:
"Our overall conclusion in [2] was that, while the EM data was still consistent with a wide range of possible interpretations as far as the safety and efficacy of the Covid vaccines was concerned, those interpretations which implied their having already done net harm, along with a worsening trend, were more persuasive.
Now we find ourselves even more persuaded of these negative conclusions, though the data does not yet point unequivocally in that direction and may not even do so by the end of 2024, depending on how EM rates are calculated. But the situation is already alarming, in particular given the recent award of the Nobel Prize in Medicine for an innovation whose benefit is so much in doubt."
Han konstaterar till exempel:
"Clearly, the pattern that has been evident since April 2022, with
EM and vaccination rates positively correlated across the EU/EES region, remains firmly in place. Indeed, the four months of additional data suggests no significant change in the trend whatsoever."
Och där finns en graf över hur Excess Mortality hänger samman med vaccinationer:
"Figure 2. The plot shows how EM rates correlate with current rates of full vaccination for every month from March 2020 to October 2023."
Efter figur 3 konstaterar han att överdödligheten fortsätter i just de länder som vaccinerat sin befolkning mycket:
"The least-squares fit now predicts an aggregate EM rate of about 16.78−100×0.0832 = 8.46%
in a fully vaccinated population, whereas in June it would have predicted 20.12−100×0.1222 =
7.70%.
This is particularly alarming, as it suggests that EM rates are not falling at all in highly
vaccinated countries, further adding to the evidence that the problems these countries are deal-
ing with are chronic in nature."
Medan överdödligheten i länder som inte vaccinerat sin befolkning särskilt mycket enligt honom sjunker:
"Comparing Table 4 to the corresponding table in [2], only four countries now have a higher
average EM rate in the period 5/21 − 10/23 than they did in the period 5/21 − 6/23: Iceland,
Ireland, Malta and Portugal. All are highly-vaccinated.
Comparison of the two tables also
quickly reveals that average post-rollout EM rates are generally falling most rapidly in the
countries with the lowest vaccination rates."
Han skriver alltså även om överdödlighet i samband med Covid, och hur svårt det är att bedöma den längre eftersom den dödligheten inte rapporteras som förr:
"
5. Relationship between Covid and all-cause mortality rates
In [2] we observed that, throughout the pandemic to date, the correlation between Covid
mortality rates and vaccination rates had closely tracked that between all-cause EM rates and
the latter. Moreover, peaks in the absolute level of all-cause EM were closely aligned with peaks
of Covid waves. What was particularly interesting was that this pattern seemed to persist post-
omicron, despite the emergence of several new factors:
(i) Rates of Covid morality declined such that (official) Covid deaths could no longer account
for anything but a small fraction of overall EM.
(ii) The correlation between EM and vaccination rates exhibited a profound shift post-
omicron, as exhibited in Figures 2 and 8.
(iii) reporting of Covid data became ever more patchy.
In the intervening months, factor (iii) has become an ever greater issue, and we have reached
the point where we feel the data still being reported at Worldometers can no longer be
assumed to provide anything like a reliable indicator of the overall picture."
Här finns även ett stycke om Finland jag inte kände till:
"For example, Owid has recorded EM of over 35% in Finland for November1, clearly the highest monthly figure for that country since the pandemic began. Finland is one of those few European countries which had very little Covid at all pre-omicron, and it has one of the worst post-omicron trends, both in terms of Covid and all-cause mortality (see Table 4)."
Här är artikeln:
https://research.chalmers.se/en/publication/539029
Om han har rätt vet jag inte, och inte han heller, som han skriver. Har han missat något? Det är ju också tydligt att närmast all annan forskning man finner på nätet istället talar om vaccinen enbart i positiva ordalag, om hur de har räddat liv. Men för att något ska bli vetenskapligt så måste ju andra röster också höras, som anser motsatser och gör andra tolkningar oavsett om de har rätt eller fel, och det här verkar alltså vara en sån. Kanske nån som är vanare än jag att läsa statistik inte håller med honom, eller håller med honom?
