BREAKING – Three studies published by the CDC, UK Government & Oxford University find the Covid-19 Vaccines do not work
突發 - 疾控中心、英國政府、 牛津大學發表的三項研究發現 Covid-19 疫苗不起作用
BY DAILY EXPOSE ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2021
A graduate of Yale University who also obtained a PHD at Princeton University and an MD degree from the John Hopkins University School of Medicine has published a paper in which she concludes that mandating the public to take a vaccine is a harmful and damaging act because of excellent scientific research papers which clearly demonstrate the vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission of Covid-19. Nina Pierpont (MD, PhD) published a paper on September 9th analysing various studies that were published in August 2021 which prove the alleged Delta Covid-19 variant is evading the current Covid-19 injections on offer and therefore do not prevent infection or transmission of Covid-19. The Doctor of Medicine explained in her published paper that vaccines aim to achieve two ends – Protect the vaccinated person against the illness Keep vaccinated people from carrying the infection and transmitting it to others.
However, the Doctor of Medicine writes that herd immunity will not be reached through vaccination because new research in multiple settings shows that the alleged Delta variant produces very high viral loads which are just as high in the vaccinated population compared to the unvaccinated population.
Nina Pierpoint（醫學博士，博士）於 9 月 9 日發表了一篇論文，分析了 2021 年 8 月發表的各種研究。這些研究證明，所謂的Covid-19 Delta變體正在逃避當前為公眾提供的 Covid-19 疫苗，因此疫苗並不能防止感染或傳播COVID-19冠狀病毒。 醫學博士在她發表的論文中解釋說，疫苗旨在實現兩個目的： 保護接種疫苗的人免受疾病侵害
防止接種疫苗的人攜帶感染並將其傳播給他人
然而，醫學博士寫道，疫苗接種不會達到群體免疫，因為在多個環境中的新研究表明，所謂的 Delta 變體產生非常高的病毒載量，與未接種疫苗的人群相比，接種疫苗的人群病毒載量同樣高。 因此，根據Nina Pierpoint的說法，推行疫苗強制接種，例如現在在英國對所有護理之家員工強制執行的措施，沒有任何理由，因為接種疫苗並不能阻止甚至減緩所謂的占主導地位的Delta Covid-19 變種的傳播。 這導致醫學博士得出結論，自然免疫比疫苗接種更具保護性，因為所有嚴重的 Covid-19 疾病都會產生健康水平的自然免疫。 Pieroint（醫學博士，博士）引用了三項研究，其結果和數據支持她的結論，其中包括2021 年8 月 6 日發表在疾病控制中心 (CDC)“發病率和死亡率周報”上的一項研究，另一項研究於2021 年8 月 10 日由牛津大學發表，以及2021 年8 月 24 日發表的最終研究，該研究由英國衛生和社會保健部資助。 疾病預防控制中心（CDC）的研究 CDC研究的重點是馬薩諸塞州居民在兩周內，參加室內和室外公共集會的469例病例。結果發現，其中346例是接種了疫苗的居民，其中79%出現所謂的Covid-19症狀，1.2%住院。 然而，其餘123例病例屬於未接種疫苗的人群，只有 1 人住院（0.8%）。兩組均未發生死亡。該研究還發現，接種疫苗和未接種疫苗的病毒載量非常相似，這意味着它們相同傳染性。 牛津大學的研究 牛津大學的研究對2021年3月至4月期間接種了牛津/阿斯利康病毒載體注射液的900名越南醫院工作人員進行了檢查。2021年5月中旬，所有醫院工作人員的Covid-19病毒檢測均呈陰性，然而，6月11日在接種過疫苗的工作人員中發現了第一個病例。 然後，所有 900 名醫院工作人員都接受了 Covid-19 病毒的重新測試，並立即發現了另外52例病例，迫使醫院進入封鎖狀態。在接下來的兩周內，又發現了16個病例。 研究發現，76%的 Covid-19 陽性員工出現呼吸道症狀，其中3名員工出現肺炎，1 名員工需要接受三天的氧氣治療。發現完全接種疫苗的感染組的病毒載量峰值比未接種疫苗的員工在3月至2020年4月發現的峰值病毒載量高 251 倍。 英國衛生與社會關懷部的研究 英國衛生與社會保健部的研究分析了英國正在進行的全人群 SARS-CoV-2 監測，包括對人群病毒載量的測量。 該研究發現，接種疫苗和未接種疫苗的人群中的病毒載量幾乎相同，並且遠高於Covid-19疫苗推出之前記錄的病毒載量。該研究還發現，接種疫苗的人群中的大多數病例在呈陽性時都會出現症狀。 該研究的作者得出結論，輝瑞和牛津/阿斯利康注射液對他們聲稱的 Delta Covid-19 變體已經失去效力。但他們堅持認為，它們在防止人們感染 Delta Covid-19 變體方面非常有效，有效性為 67% 至 80%。 Nine Pierpoint（醫學博士，博士）在她的論文中正確地問到，當在研究中新的PCR測試陽性的隨機樣本中，有82%是完全接種過疫苗的人時，他們如何得出結論。 醫學博士寫道： 如果一種疫苗將被感染的風險降低三分之二（67%），我們預計陽性樣本中接種疫苗的比例將低於人群中接種疫苗的比例。
假設我們從該國的1000人開始，我們將隨機抽取100人。該國接種了 80%的疫苗。這意味着在我們的100人樣本中，我們有80人接種了疫苗，20人未接種疫苗。
假設該病毒在整個採樣期間感染了10%的人，即總共10個病例。如果接種疫苗的人中有 8 人，未接種疫苗的人中有 2 人（80% 和 20% 的陽性，與人口中接種疫苗和未接種疫苗的比例相匹配），則疫苗對一個人是否會被感染沒有影響（0%功效）。如果疫苗有效率達到67%，接種組的病例將減少2/3至2.67例，總病例數僅為4.67例（接種2.67例，未接種2例）。
這意味着只有 2.67/4.67 或 57% 的病例在接種疫苗組中，而在未接種疫苗組中為 43%。（我們可以回到 10% 的總體陽性率，僅使用比率，接種疫苗的病例為 5.7，未接種疫苗的病例為 4.3。）
這就是為什麼受感染樣本中接種疫苗的比例非常接近總人口中接種疫苗的比例與作者得出的療效數據不相容的原因。
在我看來——就像在馬薩諸塞州的研究一樣——疫苗根本沒有降低對感染的易感性，實際上介於略微（不顯着）降低易感性和略微增加對 Delta 變體的易感性之間。
英國的研究清楚地表明，Delta 的病毒載量（以及對他人的傳染性）比 Alpha 大得多，而且對於 Delta，接種疫苗和未接種疫苗的感染者的病毒載量和傳染性是相等的。 上述三項研究使 Nina Pierpoint（醫學博士、博士）在她的論文中得出結論，強制他人接種疫苗是一種潛在的有害行為。 她寫道，由於強制接種的主要原因是保護他人免受感染，而這些研究毫無疑問地證明疫苗沒能做到這一點，因此強制接種Covid-19疫苗的人可能希望就他們的問題尋求法律諮詢。對那些被他們施壓接種疫苗的人造成潛在長期傷害的罪責和責任，並以被排除在就業、教育或社會之外的威脅。
Therefore, according to Nina Pierpont (MD, PhD), vaccine mandates; such as the one now enforced in the UK for all Care Home staff, have no justification because vaccinating individuals does not stop or even slow the spread of the alleged dominant Delta Covid-19 variant. Which leads the Doctor of Medicine to conclude that natural immunity is much more protective than vaccination because all severities of Covid-19 illness produce healthy levels of natural immunity. Nine Pierpont (MD, PhD) cites three studies whose findings and data support her conclusions and these include a study published August 6th 2021 in the Centre for Disease Control’s (CDC) ‘Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report’, another study published August 10th 2021 by Oxford University, and a final study published August 24th 2021 which was funded by the UK Department for Health and Social Care. The CDC study focused on 469 cases among Massachusetts residents who attended indoor and outdoor public gatherings over a two week period. The results found that 346 of the cases were among vaccinated residents with 74% of them presenting with alleged Covid-19 symptoms, and 1.2% being hospitalised. However the remaining 123 cases were among the unvaccinated population with just 1 person being hospitalised (0.8%. No deaths occurred in either group. The study also found that viral loads were found to be very similar among the vaccinated and unvaccinated, meaning they were equally infectious. 
The Oxford University study examined 900 hospital staff members in Vietnam who had been vaccinated with the Oxford / AstraZeneca viral vector injection between March and April 2021. The entire hospital staff tested negative for the Covid-19 virus in mid May 2021 however, the first case among the vaccinated staff members was discovered on June 11th. All 900 hospital staff were then retested for the Covid-19 virus and 52 additional cases were identified immediately, forcing the hospital into lockdown. Over the next two weeks, 16 additional cases were identified. The study found that 76% of the Covid-19 positive staff developed respiratory symptoms, with 3 staff members developing pneumonia and one staff member requiring three days of oxygen therapy. Peak viral loads among the fully vaccinated infected group were found to be 251 times higher than peak viral loads found among the staff in March – April 2020 when they were not vaccinated. 
The UK Department of Health & Social Care study is an analysis of ongoing population wide SARS-CoV-2 monitoring in the UK and includes measures of viral load among the population. The study found that viral loads among the vaccinated and unvaccinated population are virtually the same, and much higher than had been recorded prior to the Covid-19 injection roll-out. The study also found that the majority of cases among the vaccinated population were presenting with symptoms when they became positive. 
The authors of the study conclude that the Pfizer and Oxford / AstraZeneca injection have lost efficacy against what they claim to be the Delta Covid-19 variant, but they maintain that they are substantially effective at keeping people from becoming infected with the Delta variant in the range of 67% to 80%. Nine Pierpont (MD, PhD) rightly asks in her paper how they can conclude this when 82% of the random sample of new positive PCR tests in the study were fully vaccinated people. The Doctor of Medicine writes – ‘If a vaccine reduces the risk of becoming infected by two-thirds (67%), we would expect the proportion of vaccinated in the positive sample to be less than the proportion of vaccinated in the population.
Say we start with 1000 people in the country, of whom we will randomly sample 100. The country is 80% vaccinated. This means that in our sample of 100 we have 80 vaccinated and 20 unvaccinated people.
Let’s say that the virus has infected 10% of the people across the sampling period, or 10 total cases. If 8 of the infected are among the vaccinated, and 2 in the unvaccinated (80% and 20% of the positives, matching the ratio of vaccinated and unvaccinated in the population), the vaccine has made no difference in whether one can get infected (0% efficacy). If the vaccine is 67% effective, the cases in the vaccinated group would be reduced by 2/3 to 2.67 cases, and the total cases would be only 4.67 cases (2.67 vaccinated and 2 unvaccinated).
This means that only 2.67/4.67 or 57% of the cases would be in the vaccinated group, and 43% in the unvaccinated. (We can go back to 10% overall being positive just using ratios, yielding 5.7 cases among the vaccinated and 4.3 among the unvaccinated.)
This is why the proportion vaccinated in the infected sample, very close to the proportions vaccinated in the total population, are incompatible with the efficacy numbers generated by the authors.
It appears to me—as in the Massachusetts study—that the vaccine is not decreasing susceptibility to infection at all, and is in reality somewhere between slightly (insignificantly) decreasing susceptibility and slightly increasing susceptibility to the Delta variant.
The UK study is clear that viral load (and thus infectiousness to others) is much greater with Delta than with Alpha, and that, with Delta, viral load and infectiousness are equal in vaccinated and unvaccinated infected people.’
The above three studies lead Nina Pierpont (MD, PhD) to conclude in her paper that mandating others to take a vaccine is a potentially harmful, damaging act. She writes that since the principal reason of a mandate is to protect others from infection, and these studies prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they do not do this, those who mandate the Covid-19 injections may wish to seek legal counsel regarding their culpability and liability for potential long-lasting harm to those whom they pressure into vaccination with the threat of exclusion from employment, education or society. https://theexpose.uk/2021/09/12/three-studies -find-the-covid-19-vaccines-do-not-work/
|
