Dr Clare Craig Profile picture
Jan 17 15 tweets 4 min read Read on X
How do we how well the covid vaccines performed?

We can look at this question from multiple angles and see. 🧵
First, there was the "secondary attack rate".

When someone tested positive this measure could be taken of the percentage of household contacts that later tested positive.

If vaccines reduced risk of infection this should have fallen.

It did not. Image
Another measure is how many people developed antibodies before and after vaccine. Image
Next we can turn to USA to look at what happened to the amount of virus in the sewage.

Something weird happened in early 2022 (shortly after massive booster campaign) but the post vaccine waves prior to that were same dimensions as before. Image
If vaccine reduced the susceptible population from 10% to 1% (which it didn't!) then a wave would take much longer to pass through the population (based on incorrect conventional beliefs) - because the virus would find it harder to find a new host.

The timing did not change. Image
What about serious illness?

As with every wave there were geographical outliers unaffected. In summer and autumn 2021 those included UK, Portugal and Ireland - the most westerly European populations.

Elsewhere, there was little change in hospital admissions - perhaps some. Image
Nor in intensive care admissions. Image
Covid labelled deaths appear a little lower but... Image
excess deaths match the virus in sewage trajectory.

The slight difference in spring 2021 is because of earlier deaths in the vaccinated who get their infections earlier because of immune suppression. Image
Even in the UK, the Delta wave was flatter but over its full course nothing much changed in hospitals.

Covid labelled deaths were lower - but there are good reasons to think they were overdiagnosed earlier on. Image
If there was a vaccine benefit then it should have been evident in geographical regions unaffected before 2022.

It wasn't.

Mortality was equivalent to US or Sweden in first wave.
To believe the vaccines were effective you need to believe all sorts of false assumptions fed into models by false prophets:

1. Everyone was susceptible to every variant
2. Lockdowns postponed a covid tsunami
3. Vaccines then stopped the covid tsunami
You also need to persuade yourself that the repetitive waves lasting ~16 weeks with peaks since at same times of year to before, are somehow different to what we should have expected all along.

You can comment that there is more virus around now... Image
That is because vaccinated people have a worse response to covid than the unvaccinated.

The third dose of mRNA presents a risk of the immune sytem switching to "let's ignore it as if it's food or pollen" response (IgG4 class switching).
There's plenty of evidence that the vaccinated had a higher risk of infection as a consequence.

Far from making things better the vaccines increased risk in the first two weeks from immune suppression.

Increased risk long term.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dr Clare Craig

Dr Clare Craig Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ClareCraigPath

Mar 20
One of the most important stories of lockdown has rarely been shared.

It is the story of Seattle.

They broke ranks and started an important experiment. 🧵
One research laboratory decided to break the rules for the sake of public health.

Rather than wait for a CDC approved covid test, they adapted an existing influenza test and started testing.

yahoo.com/news/seattle-l…
The regulator was not impressed.

This was a research laboratory doing clinical diagnostic testing and that was not allowed.

The lab was shut down on 9th March 2020.

nytimes.com/2020/03/10/us/…
Read 9 tweets
Feb 9
Remember the Beta variant in South Africa?

Remember how AstraZeneca said their vaccine was only 10% effective against it?

They blamed the variant but it has nothing to do with that...🧵

bbc.co.uk/news/world-afr…
All the vaccines ever did was make people immune suppressed for two weeks.

The consequence was that those who were susceptible to a particular variant had their infections earlier than they would have.

You can measure after that point and get an illusion of benefit.
This trick only works if you vaccinate during a wave.

For the UK - we were fast getting to those most susceptible to dying. Our death wave looks like a witch's hat on top of Europe's because of the earlier infections.

N.B. the impact was felt by the unvaccinated too. Image
Read 6 tweets
Jan 17
"Cancer" is a big bucket and some diagnoses are much more consequential than others.

This needs drilling down.
e.g. death rates are much more comparable Image
Colon cancer
5.2 for men in 2017
5.3 in 2021 Image
Read 21 tweets
Dec 15, 2024
The last 4 years has been a period of modelling based on assumptions laundered through the medical literature and called "The Science".

If you thought the "real world" evidence was more reliable think again. 🧵
@Jikkyleaks has exposed a massive fraud at the heart of the covid literature.

Instead of using the difficult, fragmented and hard to collate data from the actual real world, pharma sponsored datasets which contain modelled synthetic data were used.
Like all models this synthetic data will have been based on prior assumptions:

assumptions like vaccines preventing 96% of infections.

The consequent results stand out ludicrous disprovable claims.
Read 4 tweets
Dec 9, 2024
Today saw the release of minutes for the working group set up to advise MHRA on the covid vaccines.

They knew the issues but ignored them...🧵
On 27th November they briefly discussed a lack of any potential benefit for the under 50s but quickly concluded that there was a favourable risk/benefit for anyone aged over 16 years!

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67503fbc…Image
They made the case that the already infected should be injected because of lack of evidence of risk!

What about the fact they didn't need it! Image
Read 25 tweets
Dec 4, 2024
I have been working on the MHRA funding model today.

It's awful.

There was no money to keep the public safe.

🧵
86% of MHRA funding comes from fees.

bmj.com/content/377/bm…

But MHRA do not set the fees.
MHRA cannot adapt the fees to the circumstances.
The fees are set by legislation.

legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/190/… Image
To take an extreme case, Herceptin was approved (by EMA) based on a trial of under 500 women.

If that happened today the fee would be £102,000 for MHRA licensing.

What would that cover?

gov.uk/government/pub…
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(