发表评论-Pascal-万维博客-万维读者网（电脑版）

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（医学博士，博士）于 9 月 9 日发表了一篇论文，分析了 2021 年 8 月发表的各种研究。这些研究证明，所谓的Covid-19 Delta变体正在逃避当前为公众提供的 Covid-19 疫苗，因此疫苗并不能防止感染或传播COVID-19冠状病毒。

医学博士在她发表的论文中解释说，疫苗旨在实现两个目的：

保护接种疫苗的人免受疾病侵害
防止接种疫苗的人携带感染并将其传播给他人

然而，医学博士写道，疫苗接种不会达到群体免疫，因为在多个环境中的新研究表明，所谓的 Delta 变体产生非常高的病毒载量，与未接种疫苗的人群相比，接种疫苗的人群病毒载量同样高。

因此，根据Nina Pierpoint的说法，推行疫苗强制接种，例如现在在英国对所有护理之家员工强制执行的措施，没有任何理由，因为接种疫苗并不能阻止甚至减缓所谓的占主导地位的Delta Covid-19 变种的传播。

这导致医学博士得出结论，自然免疫比疫苗接种更具保护性，因为所有严重的 Covid-19 疾病都会产生健康水平的自然免疫。

Pieroint（医学博士，博士）引用了三项研究，其结果和数据支持她的结论，其中包括2021 年8 月 6 日发表在疾病控制中心 (CDC)“发病率和死亡率周报”上的一项研究，另一项研究于2021 年8 月 10 日由牛津大学发表，以及2021 年8 月 24 日发表的最终研究，该研究由英国卫生和社会保健部资助。

疾病预防控制中心（CDC）的研究

CDC研究的重点是马萨诸塞州居民在两周内，参加室内和室外公共集会的469例病例。结果发现，其中346例是接种了疫苗的居民，其中79%出现所谓的Covid-19症状，1.2%住院。

然而，其余123例病例属于未接种疫苗的人群，只有 1 人住院（0.8%）。两组均未发生死亡。该研究还发现，接种疫苗和未接种疫苗的病毒载量非常相似，这意味着它们相同传染性。

牛津大学的研究

牛津大学的研究对2021年3月至4月期间接种了牛津/阿斯利康病毒载体注射液的900名越南医院工作人员进行了检查。2021年5月中旬，所有医院工作人员的Covid-19病毒检测均呈阴性，然而，6月11日在接种过疫苗的工作人员中发现了第一个病例。

然后，所有 900 名医院工作人员都接受了 Covid-19 病毒的重新测试，并立即发现了另外52例病例，迫使医院进入封锁状态。在接下来的两周内，又发现了16个病例。

研究发现，76%的 Covid-19 阳性员工出现呼吸道症状，其中3名员工出现肺炎，1 名员工需要接受三天的氧气治疗。发现完全接种疫苗的感染组的病毒载量峰值比未接种疫苗的员工在3月至2020年4月发现的峰值病毒载量高 251 倍。

英国卫生与社会关怀部的研究

英国卫生与社会保健部的研究分析了英国正在进行的全人群 SARS-CoV-2 监测，包括对人群病毒载量的测量。

该研究发现，接种疫苗和未接种疫苗的人群中的病毒载量几乎相同，并且远高于Covid-19疫苗推出之前记录的病毒载量。该研究还发现，接种疫苗的人群中的大多数病例在呈阳性时都会出现症状。

该研究的作者得出结论，辉瑞和牛津/阿斯利康注射液对他们声称的 Delta Covid-19 变体已经失去效力。但他们坚持认为，它们在防止人们感染 Delta Covid-19 变体方面非常有效，有效性为 67% 至 80%。

Nine Pierpoint（医学博士，博士）在她的论文中正确地问到，当在研究中新的PCR测试阳性的随机样本中，有82%是完全接种过疫苗的人时，他们如何得出结论。

医学博士写道：

如果一种疫苗将被感染的风险降低三分之二（67%），我们预计阳性样本中接种疫苗的比例将低于人群中接种疫苗的比例。  假设我们从该国的1000人开始，我们将随机抽取100人。该国接种了 80%的疫苗。这意味着在我们的100人样本中，我们有80人接种了疫苗，20人未接种疫苗。  假设该病毒在整个采样期间感染了10%的人，即总共10个病例。如果接种疫苗的人中有 8 人，未接种疫苗的人中有 2 人（80% 和 20% 的阳性，与人口中接种疫苗和未接种疫苗的比例相匹配），则疫苗对一个人是否会被感染没有影响（0%功效）。如果疫苗有效率达到67%，接种组的病例将减少2/3至2.67例，总病例数仅为4.67例（接种2.67例，未接种2例）。  这意味着只有 2.67/4.67 或 57% 的病例在接种疫苗组中，而在未接种疫苗组中为 43%。（我们可以回到 10% 的总体阳性率，仅使用比率，接种疫苗的病例为 5.7，未接种疫苗的病例为 4.3。）  这就是为什么受感染样本中接种疫苗的比例非常接近总人口中接种疫苗的比例与作者得出的疗效数据不相容的原因。  在我看来——就像在马萨诸塞州的研究一样——疫苗根本没有降低对感染的易感性，实际上介于略微（不显着）降低易感性和略微增加对 Delta 变体的易感性之间。  英国的研究清楚地表明，Delta 的病毒载量（以及对他人的传染性）比 Alpha 大得多，而且对于 Delta，接种疫苗和未接种疫苗的感染者的病毒载量和传染性是相等的。

上述三项研究使 Nina Pierpoint（医学博士、博士）在她的论文中得出结论，强制他人接种疫苗是一种潜在的有害行为。

她写道，由于强制接种的主要原因是保护他人免受感染，而这些研究毫无疑问地证明疫苗没能做到这一点，因此强制接种Covid-19疫苗的人可能希望就他们的问题寻求法律咨询。对那些被他们施压接种疫苗的人造成潜在长期伤害的罪责和责任，并以被排除在就业、教育或社会之外的威胁。

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.

CDC Study

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.

Oxford University Study

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.

UK Department of Health & Social Care Study

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/