A close examination of the 2026 JAMA target-trial emulation shows that mathematical over-correction is being used to substitute real-world biology with statistical fiction.
If the medical profession accept that this mortality benefit is not a paradox and that the treatment effect is not artefactual then logically they claim a) the treatment reduces mortality burden of other pathogens (flu, COVID, etc) but also b) that it reduces the mortality burden from the other class of causes more usually addressed by other treatments. Hence it is likely better than statins, or blood pressure meds etc.
The universal vaccine will in time replace all competing treatments and will become the whole of medicine itself.
A true 'cure all' as peddled by snake oil salesman.
To paraphrase Homer, "Vaccines: the cause of, and solution to, all life's problems."
I majored in English because psychology required statistics and I'd still be trying to pass that, so I can't appreciate the technical elements of this article. I did appreciate that the study authors expect people to take "It's because that's why" as an explanation: The booster for a fake virus not only prevents deaths related to that non-existent virus but death from all causes. Why? Because of invisible hypothetical stuff caused by the same fake virus. It's subclinical. Don't worry about it.
Whoever bought the study did it to be able to distill the results into those idiotic headlines. They're feeding anti-intellectual ammunition to the chumps who keep sticking their arms out, which they probably hope will have the immediate effect of propping up interest in pharma's products. Anyone on the fence about the jabs, anyone whose doctor says, "Oh, by the way" at the end of an appointment, will now be more likely to agree to it. The study claims are also the foundation for a longer-range plan to claim that the magic potions are life-extending elixirs. Health in a hypodermic needle. They're not bioweapons at all. Sure, they'll protect you from the 99.99% survivable fake cold virus and give you myocarditis, but they'll also keep you safe in a car crash. They are in fact the cause of and solution to all life's problems.
I did applied statistics up to age 18 as part of A level maths. I quite enjoyed it. The pure maths I struggled with.
Statistics are fine for 'We have x number apples and y number oranges' but once one starts down the 'We have x number apples because we have y number oranges' route it becomes meaningless as there are too many variables to consider. We get blinded by the numbers so I just say vaccines are disease causing toxic substances, injecting them will and can only harm if anything.
All valid points, but there is, I think, value in attacking shoddy work from multiple angles. This particular piece has got a lot to say about the philosophy of science.
The deception is a level higher: there is no evidence of contagion, no evidence that germs cause disease, and no isolation of a supposed virus has ever been performed, purified, and introduced to a host to prove contagion. Cell culture experiments fail control if they even have one, and various later control experiments have independently proven that the same "virus" particles are found doing the same cell culture experiment with a clean, uninoculated, sample.
There is simply no reason for vaccines, which need a proven concept of contagion which is entirely lacking, so in that sense it's much more fruitful to focus on contagion instead of vaccine studies.
Even if there was some valid correlation "...in preventing heart attacks" what about the various ailments, including heart issues, strokes, etc as a result of these horrific injections?!
Do they prevent more than they cause?
They cannot ask that question so the entire issue comes down to ignoring the harms of the forced injections (an immense crime in itself) plus reinforcing the notion that there was some novel disease causing pathogen at large from 2020 on.
Recall George Box's: "𝙰𝚕𝚕 𝚖𝚘𝚍𝚎𝚕𝚜 𝚊𝚛𝚎 𝚠𝚛𝚘𝚗𝚐, 𝚋𝚞𝚝 𝚜𝚘𝚖𝚎 𝚊𝚛𝚎 𝚞𝚜𝚎𝚏𝚞𝚕." The epistemic issue is that the JAMA vaccine model is so wrong that it's 𝐆𝐈𝐆𝐎. Humans are not red & blue billiard balls, inelastic & without history, easily modeled by the ideal gas law. It is sheer scientific idiocy to blithely plug numbers into pv = nRT, do a few mathematical manipulations, & triumphantly declare "T".
If the medical profession accept that this mortality benefit is not a paradox and that the treatment effect is not artefactual then logically they claim a) the treatment reduces mortality burden of other pathogens (flu, COVID, etc) but also b) that it reduces the mortality burden from the other class of causes more usually addressed by other treatments. Hence it is likely better than statins, or blood pressure meds etc.
The universal vaccine will in time replace all competing treatments and will become the whole of medicine itself.
A true 'cure all' as peddled by snake oil salesman.
The single jab to rule them all.
The problem with that comment is that people who are responsible for spending the taxes governments collect from us will take it at face value....
To paraphrase Homer, "Vaccines: the cause of, and solution to, all life's problems."
I majored in English because psychology required statistics and I'd still be trying to pass that, so I can't appreciate the technical elements of this article. I did appreciate that the study authors expect people to take "It's because that's why" as an explanation: The booster for a fake virus not only prevents deaths related to that non-existent virus but death from all causes. Why? Because of invisible hypothetical stuff caused by the same fake virus. It's subclinical. Don't worry about it.
Whoever bought the study did it to be able to distill the results into those idiotic headlines. They're feeding anti-intellectual ammunition to the chumps who keep sticking their arms out, which they probably hope will have the immediate effect of propping up interest in pharma's products. Anyone on the fence about the jabs, anyone whose doctor says, "Oh, by the way" at the end of an appointment, will now be more likely to agree to it. The study claims are also the foundation for a longer-range plan to claim that the magic potions are life-extending elixirs. Health in a hypodermic needle. They're not bioweapons at all. Sure, they'll protect you from the 99.99% survivable fake cold virus and give you myocarditis, but they'll also keep you safe in a car crash. They are in fact the cause of and solution to all life's problems.
I did applied statistics up to age 18 as part of A level maths. I quite enjoyed it. The pure maths I struggled with.
Statistics are fine for 'We have x number apples and y number oranges' but once one starts down the 'We have x number apples because we have y number oranges' route it becomes meaningless as there are too many variables to consider. We get blinded by the numbers so I just say vaccines are disease causing toxic substances, injecting them will and can only harm if anything.
See, that was my whole problem with math: Letters are for writing. As soon as I saw them in math problems I was out of there.
1. What happened to “correlation is not causality”?
2. Are Bradford-Hill criteria employed for causality?
3. The two vaccine arms may be subject to healthy vaccinee effect.
4. Comparison with unjabbed is not performed
5. Models tell you what they are programmed to tell you
6. The ORIGINAL trials showed higher ACM and more cardiac events in the jabbed arm than in the control arm.
All valid points, but there is, I think, value in attacking shoddy work from multiple angles. This particular piece has got a lot to say about the philosophy of science.
…and far too many models
Yes shoddy work should be attacked. There is far too much sciencism. Thank you.
The deception is a level higher: there is no evidence of contagion, no evidence that germs cause disease, and no isolation of a supposed virus has ever been performed, purified, and introduced to a host to prove contagion. Cell culture experiments fail control if they even have one, and various later control experiments have independently proven that the same "virus" particles are found doing the same cell culture experiment with a clean, uninoculated, sample.
There is simply no reason for vaccines, which need a proven concept of contagion which is entirely lacking, so in that sense it's much more fruitful to focus on contagion instead of vaccine studies.
Vaccine studies are a good excuse to keep the arguments going when the truth is poisoning has never been good for health.
Even if there was some valid correlation "...in preventing heart attacks" what about the various ailments, including heart issues, strokes, etc as a result of these horrific injections?!
Do they prevent more than they cause?
They cannot ask that question so the entire issue comes down to ignoring the harms of the forced injections (an immense crime in itself) plus reinforcing the notion that there was some novel disease causing pathogen at large from 2020 on.
«𝑭𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒎𝒐𝒅𝒆𝒍 𝒕𝒐 𝒎𝒊𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚, 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒎𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒂𝒄𝒄𝒆𝒑𝒕 𝒂 𝒃𝒊𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚: 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒔 16 𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒔 𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 24 𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒔 𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝒄𝒂𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒂𝒄 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒏 𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒃𝒆 𝒅𝒊𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒍𝒚 𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒃𝒖𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒂𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒕 𝒑𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒈𝒆𝒏 𝒊𝒕𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒇.»
Recall George Box's: "𝙰𝚕𝚕 𝚖𝚘𝚍𝚎𝚕𝚜 𝚊𝚛𝚎 𝚠𝚛𝚘𝚗𝚐, 𝚋𝚞𝚝 𝚜𝚘𝚖𝚎 𝚊𝚛𝚎 𝚞𝚜𝚎𝚏𝚞𝚕." The epistemic issue is that the JAMA vaccine model is so wrong that it's 𝐆𝐈𝐆𝐎. Humans are not red & blue billiard balls, inelastic & without history, easily modeled by the ideal gas law. It is sheer scientific idiocy to blithely plug numbers into pv = nRT, do a few mathematical manipulations, & triumphantly declare "T".
Medicine by the #'s is specious & fallacious.
Jingoes, I can't keep up. I thought it was Ozempic that's the wonder drug of the Universe.
Both on substack and X, this Lancet paper has caused a lot of pushback. But, one thing we do know, pharma controls the journals.
This was a JAMA paper - are you referring to a different paper?