JAPAN - Prof dr Yasufumi MURAKAMI: "The more doses you get, the sooner you’re likely to die"

[Hummin]

1 minute ago, dinsdale said:

I know how science works and I know how funding science works. As for suspect for me anything coming from "science/scientists" that directly recieve funding or their institutions recieve funding from big pharma is suspect. This was not a view I had or even thought about before the "made in Wuhan virus" spread globally.

Again, conspiracy and truths or something in the middle is not science by beliefs, even we want to believe.

 

I do not say vaccines is safe for everyone, or everyone should take vaccines, I just look at the data, and for my older people and people in risk zones, there is a choice to make.

 

And for the virus being a conspiracy have to bee seen with diplomatic eyes and the world situation. Without proofs, claiming China accidentally released the virus or on purpose has its consequences. 

 

Normal thinking people evaluate the whole scenario why things are it is, or you can attack each and one string by string and make chaos? 

 

I want to see the proofs before I make up my mind.

 

Everything has it's time

[dinsdale]

Alas during the pandemic actaul peer reviewed proof was buried because it didn't conform to the narrative. Campbell had links to real independant and peer reviewed research but his channel was not allowed on here. 

[GanDoonToonPet]

1 hour ago, simon43 said:

What is the unit of measurement for the vertical axis on that chart? It isn't labeled.

 

On one of the graphs y-axis is the Chinese character 人 which means 'person'.

 

Japanese has 3 systems of characters, which is why I'll never attempt to learn it, with one of them based on Chinese characters (kanji).

[Hummin]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

Where is the article? 

 

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

The article that you mention as retracted does NOT refer to the current post.

Try to keep up... 

 

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

Read the 3 postings in the thread addressing the database with the records of 18 million vaccinated Japanese people database that was analyzed by prof MURAKAMI.

 

How hard can it be? Still waiting for the source of the study

[Red Phoenix]

9 minutes ago, Hummin said:

How hard can it be? Still waiting for the source of the study

I don't speak/read Japanese but this X-post should point you to the source. 

> 

 

[Hummin]

6 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

I don't speak/read Japanese but this X-post should point you to the source. 

> 

 

 

So it is not a final report yet? Got it

[Red Phoenix]

9 minutes ago, Hummin said:

 

So it is not a final report yet? Got it

The Japanese created a database in which they entered the health records of 18 million vaccinated people, and that database is accessible for researchers to conduct studies on the data.  One of them being prof dr MURAKAMI. 

As mentioned in an earlier response, also Ed DOWD, an ex-Blackrock data analyst, analysed the available US records (e.g. from life and health insurance companies) and came to similar conclusions.   

[Hummin]

1 minute ago, Red Phoenix said:

The Japanese created a database in which they entered the health records of 18 million vaccinated people, and that database is accessible for researchers to conduct studies on the data.  One of them being prof dr MURAKAMI. 

As mentioned in an earlier response, also Ed DOWD, an ex-Blackrock data analyst, analysed the available US records (e.g. from life and health insurance companies) and came to similar conclusions.   

Indications and indiser are never presented as science

 

This is science, but still up for debate, analysis and to be proven wrong, and new updated findings will be presented and added to existing science chronically. Science is always open for new findings. 

 

Moreover, this new study showed that people receiving only one or two vaccine doses had a significantly higher risk of all-cause death (HRs 1.40 and 1.36, respectively; both p < 0.001), while the subjects receiving three or more vaccine doses showed a substantially lower risk of death (HR 0.22; 95% CI: 0.20–0.23).

 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11278956/#:~:text=Moreover%2C this new study showed,CI%3A 0.20–0.23).

[gamb00ler]

2 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

You certainly earned the badge...

 

 

As usual, you completely missed the context.  It was humour/humor.  Probably even you could have caught that if you were paying attention. 

[gamb00ler]

22 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

The Japanese created a database in which they entered the health records of 18 million vaccinated people, and that database is accessible for researchers to conduct studies on the data.  One of them being prof dr MURAKAMI. 

As mentioned in an earlier response, also Ed DOWD, an ex-Blackrock data analyst, analysed the available US records (e.g. from life and health insurance companies) and came to similar conclusions.   

And.... observational studies in the case of treatments are easily affected by what is called the immortal time bias (ITB) as mentioned here:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2776315#:~:text=normally timed menopause.-,What Is Immortal Time Bias%3F,or exclusion of time intervals.

 

Studies that just rely on data collected without regard to eliminating potential bias (observational studies) are not reliable.  I expect the discussion of ITB is well above your experience/education on testing methodologies.  If that is the case, I hope you are prepared for the raucous laughter that will break out should you comment.

 

[peter zwart]

I think I would feel quite uncomfortable if I were vaccinated and read research findings like these. Could those crazies, the anti-vaxxers, have been right after all?

[Stiddle Mump]

5 minutes ago, peter zwart said:

I think I would feel quite uncomfortable if I were vaccinated and read research findings like these. Could those crazies, the anti-vaxxers, have been right after all?

www.CanYouCatchacold.com

 

If you have any doubt Peter bud. Have a look at the film section on the front page.

[gamb00ler]

4 minutes ago, peter zwart said:

I think I would feel quite uncomfortable if I were vaccinated and read research findings like these. Could those crazies, the anti-vaxxers, have been right after all?

You can read the critique of the study to see why the results of the study were rejected when reviewed.  The data collected was not sufficient to allow accurate conclusions to be drawn by the study authors.

[Hummin]

8 minutes ago, peter zwart said:

I think I would feel quite uncomfortable if I were vaccinated and read research findings like these. Could those crazies, the anti-vaxxers, have been right after all?

If you truly believe vaccines will hurt you, and you are forced to take vaccines? What do you believe is the result out of a study of 1000 like-minded, and a group who welcome and accept vaccines, and believe in them? 

 

Out of the 1000 anti vaxxers, my bet, you will find many who will be physically and mentally ill, and most likely quite a high percentage compared to those who believe in vaccines.

 

Nordic countries vs Usa would most likely show a significant difference 

 

 

[Red Phoenix]

9 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Indications and indiser are never presented as science

 

This is science, but still up for debate, analysis and to be proven wrong, and new updated findings will be presented and added to existing science chronically. Science is always open for new findings. 

 

Moreover, this new study showed that people receiving only one or two vaccine doses had a significantly higher risk of all-cause death (HRs 1.40 and 1.36, respectively; both p < 0.001), while the subjects receiving three or more vaccine doses showed a substantially lower risk of death (HR 0.22; 95% CI: 0.20–0.23).

 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11278956/#:~:text=Moreover%2C this new study showed,CI%3A 0.20–0.23).

 

In your post you wrote that this large Italian study conducted in the province of Pescara, showed that 'receiving three or more vaccine doses resulted in a substantially lower risk of death, than receiving only one or two doses' .  That would be a good argument for the fully vaxxed 'to get their booster'.  

But although that is indeed a finding of the study, it is by no means the main conclusion. 

 

The aim of the study was 'to verify the real impact of the vaccination campaign by comparing the risk of all-cause death between the vaccinated population and the unvaccinated population'.

So how are the unvaccinated doing mortality-wise versus the vaccinated? 

In the Introduction the study mentions: With 2 and even with 3/4 doses, the calculated Restricted Mean Survival Time and Restricted Mean Time Lost have shown a small but significant downside for the vaccinated populations.

And their overall conclusion (very last paragraph of the study) reads: 

We found all-cause death risks to be even higher for those vaccinated with one and two doses compared to the unvaccinated and that the booster doses were ineffective. We also found a slight but statistically significant loss of life expectancy for those vaccinated with 2 or 3/4 doses.

 

Note that I am aware that you posted this study to make the point that science is always open for new findings.  The original study showed that the group who received at least a booster dose had an unlikely significantly lower risk of all-cause death versus the unvaccinated.  But the correction of ITB allowed the researchers to eliminate remarkable distortions due to this bias.  

 

Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11278956/

[peter zwart]

4 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Out of the 1000 anti vaxxers, my bet, you will find many who will be physically and mentally ill, and most likely quite a high percentage compared to those who believe in vaccines.

 

4 minutes ago, Hummin said:

If you truly believe vaccines will hurt you, and you are forced to take vaccines? What do you believe is the result out of a study of 1000 like-minded, and a group who welcome and accept vaccines, and believe in them? 

 

Out of the 1000 anti vaxxers, my bet, you will find many who will be physically and mentally ill, and most likely quite a high percentage compared to those who believe in vaccines.

 

Nordic countries vs Usa would most likely show a significant difference 

 

 

But still alive and never have the doubt of something where is no solid proof for. in either way.

[Red Phoenix]

20 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

And.... observational studies in the case of treatments are easily affected by what is called the immortal time bias (ITB) as mentioned here:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2776315#:~:text=normally timed menopause.-,What Is Immortal Time Bias%3F,or exclusion of time intervals.

 

Studies that just rely on data collected without regard to eliminating potential bias (observational studies) are not reliable.  I expect the discussion of ITB is well above your experience/education on testing methodologies.  If that is the case, I hope you are prepared for the raucous laughter that will break out should you comment.

 

You are lucky, as I just responded to @Hummin 's post, where the crux lies in this ITB issue.  

The original post of the researchers in the study that Hummin posted, did not take that bias into consideration and led them to make incorrect conclusions. 

And here their conclusion after they did take ITB into consideration. 

We found all-cause death risks to be even higher for those vaccinated with one and two doses compared to the unvaccinated and that the booster doses were ineffective. We also found a slight but statistically significant loss of life expectancy for those vaccinated with 2 or 3/4 doses. 

Let the raucous laughter begin... 

 

> https://aseannow.com/topic/1364152-japan-prof-dr-yasufumi-murakami-the-more-doses-you-get-the-sooner-you’re-likely-to-die/page/3/#findComment-19885840

 

[gamb00ler]

10 minutes ago, peter zwart said:

 

But still alive and never have the doubt of something where is no solid proof for. in either way.

It depends what you want to be proven.  What is your criteria?

It is solidly proven that the COVID vaccines greatly reduce the severity of a COVID infection.  If you say it isn't solidly proven unless it is 100% effective and/or 100% safe..... almost nothing in the field of medical treatment would meet that criteria.

 

Most elements on the list of claims from anti-vaxers are not solidly proven.

[Hummin]

2 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

In your post you wrote that this large Italian study conducted in the province of Pescara, showed that 'receiving three or more vaccine doses resulted in a substantially lower risk of death, than receiving only one or two doses' .  That would be a good argument for the fully vaxxed 'to get their booster'.  

But although that is indeed a finding of the study, it is by no means the main conclusion. 

 

The aim of the study was 'to verify the real impact of the vaccination campaign by comparing the risk of all-cause death between the vaccinated population and the unvaccinated population'.

So how are the unvaccinated doing mortality-wise versus the vaccinated? 

In the Introduction the study mentions: With 2 and even with 3/4 doses, the calculated Restricted Mean Survival Time and Restricted Mean Time Lost have shown a small but significant downside for the vaccinated populations.

And their overall conclusion (very last paragraph of the study) reads: 

We found all-cause death risks to be even higher for those vaccinated with one and two doses compared to the unvaccinated and that the booster doses were ineffective. We also found a slight but statistically significant loss of life expectancy for those vaccinated with 2 or 3/4 doses.

 

Note that I am aware that you posted this study to make the point that science is always open for new findings.  The original study showed that the group who received at least a booster dose had an unlikely significantly lower risk of all-cause death versus the unvaccinated.  But the correction of ITB allowed the researchers to eliminate remarkable distortions due to this bias.  

 

Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11278956/

Science is science and it come down to how you read it, and how you are willing and accept to follow all strings. Also age representatives.

 

Where most un vaccinated who are most likely more healthy than those who are vaccinated, who have out of risk for themsekves voluntary taken the vaccines and boosters because of health related issues. Age differences comes to mind as well.

 

But I'm all for healthy and true science showing the true picture, buy not abusing date for ill ment purposes.

 

The picture is always greater than cut copy and paste ideology.

[Red Phoenix]

34 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

You can read the critique of the study to see why the results of the study were rejected when reviewed.  The data collected was not sufficient to allow accurate conclusions to be drawn by the study authors.

The retraction of the study you are referring to does NOT refer to the current thread, the member who posted it thought it was about the Japanese 18 million vaccinated database that the current thread is addressing, but what he posted referred to another Japanese study that was published and then retracted by the publisher (not by the authors, by the way). 

[Hummin]

1 minute ago, Red Phoenix said:

You are lucky, as I just responded to @Hummin 's post, where the crux lies in this ITB issue.  

The original post of the researchers in the study that Hummin posted, did not take that bias into consideration and led them to make incorrect conclusions. 

And here their conclusion after they did take ITB into consideration. 

We found all-cause death risks to be even higher for those vaccinated with one and two doses compared to the unvaccinated and that the booster doses were ineffective. We also found a slight but statistically significant loss of life expectancy for those vaccinated with 2 or 3/4 doses. 

Let the raucous laughter begin... 

 

> https://aseannow.com/topic/1364152-japan-prof-dr-yasufumi-murakami-the-more-doses-you-get-the-sooner-you’re-likely-to-die/page/3/#findComment-19885840

 

 

 

Immortal time bias (ITB) is common in cohort studies and distorts the association estimates between the treated and untreated. We used data from an Italian study on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness, with a large cohort, long follow-up, and adjustment for confounding factors, affected by ITB, with the aim to verify the real impact of the vaccination campaign by comparing the risk of all-cause death between the vaccinated population and the unvaccinated population. We aligned all subjects on a single index date and considered the “all-cause deaths” outcome to compare the survival distributions of the unvaccinated group versus various vaccination statuses. The all-cause-death hazard ratios in univariate analysis for vaccinated people with 1, 2, and 3/4 doses versus unvaccinated people were 0.88, 1.23, and 1.21, respectively. The multivariate values were 2.40, 1.98, and 0.99. Possible explanations of this trend of the hazard ratios as vaccinations increase could be a harvesting effect; a calendar-time bias, accounting for seasonality and pandemic waves; a case-counting window bias; a healthy-vaccinee bias; or some combination of these factors. With 2 and even with 3/4 doses, the calculated Restricted Mean Survival Time and Restricted Mean Time Lost have shown a small but significant downside for the vaccinated populations

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381899520_A_Critical_Analysis_of_All-Cause_Deaths_during_COVID-19_Vaccination_in_an_Italian_Province

[Red Phoenix]

14 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Science is science and it come down to how you read it, and how you are willing and accept to follow all strings. Also age representatives.

Where most un vaccinated who are most likely more healthy than those who are vaccinated, who have out of risk for themsekves voluntary taken the vaccines and boosters because of health related issues. Age differences comes to mind as well.

But I'm all for healthy and true science showing the true picture, buy not abusing date for ill ment purposes.

The picture is always greater than cut copy and paste ideology.

 

Am I abusing 'data for ill meant purposes' by posting the aim and actual conclusions of the Italian study that you mentioned?  

[jaywalker2]

6 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

And here a link to another article with more info on that Japanese database of 18 million vaccinated people, which shows clear evidence that “The more doses you get, the sooner you’re likely to die” (prof dr MURAKAMI). 

 

Source: https://www.2ndsmartestguyintheworld.com/p/all-vaccines-will-kill-you-japan

 

The data speaks for itself—and the 3 to 4 month spike is impossible to ignore.

 

 

The slow kill bioweapon injections are wreaking such death and destruction that it is finally becoming impossible to ignore. Just as predicted in the Event 201 pandemic exercise, Japan was projected to be one of the first nations to reject a hypothetical vaccine due to their high societal IQ.

Note: Event 201 was the October 2019 organised table-top exercise to simulate what might happen if there was a severe pandemic.  It was a collaboration between the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

You lost me at slow kill bioweapon

[Hummin]

14 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Am I abusing 'data for ill meant purposes' by posting the aim and actual conclusions of the Italian study that you mentioned?  

 

There is quite tricky to go through data and biased date, checked controlled verified data. Copy past selective data, and where researches data have been selective geographically as well age, health, who choosed to be vaccinated or not. We know the recommendations for vaccines and boosters, so ? What results did you expect really? 

The correction of ITB has allowed us to eliminate remarkable distortions due to this bias from the original study about the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, carried out in the province of Pescara, Italy. Moreover, the original study showed that the group who received at least a booster dose had an unlikely significantly lower risk of all-cause death versus the unvaccinated, unlike those vaccinated with one or two doses who had significantly higher risks than the unvaccinated

 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11278956/

[Hummin]

I first came aware of Covid vaccine was in this part of the forum. So I understand better now

 

 

[Lacessit]

In 1900, the average life expectancy in the UK was a mere 46 years, mostly due to high rates of early childhood and infant mortality. We did a bit better in Australia, 52 years.

 

The only vaccination in general use was for smallpox. Diphtheria vaccinations did not come into general use until the mid-forties, and polio the early fifties.

 

Since then, we have had an increase in average lifespan in the UK to 78 years, and in Australia to 83 years. This is all due to vaccines, antibiotics and other modern marvels of technology such as PET scans and anesthesia..

 

What we really need for the anti-vaxxers is a disease to come along with a 95% mortality rate, and a vaccination which is 99% effective in preventing death. It would be interesting to see how many would stick to their guns, and how many still carped about side effects.

 

Every time an anti-vaxxer campaign gets traction with the public, disease rates increase. The latest example is measles in America. It's directly caused by anti-vaxxer disinformation.

 

 

[Hummin]

8 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

In 1900, the average life expectancy in the UK was a mere 46 years, mostly due to high rates of early childhood and infant mortality. We did a bit better in Australia, 52 years.

 

The only vaccination in general use was for smallpox. Diphtheria vaccinations did not come into general use until the mid-forties, and polio the early fifties.

 

Since then, we have had an increase in average lifespan in the UK to 78 years, and in Australia to 83 years. This is all due to vaccines, antibiotics and other modern marvels of technology such as PET scans and anesthesia..

 

What we really need for the anti-vaxxers is a disease to come along with a 95% mortality rate, and a vaccination which is 99% effective in preventing death. It would be interesting to see how many would stick to their guns, and how many still carped about side effects.

 

Every time an anti-vaxxer campaign gets traction with the public, disease rates increase. The latest example is measles in America. It's directly caused by anti-vaxxer disinformation.

 

 

well, people are blinded by Hollywood, strong healthy gladiators, Vikings, and settlers. 
 

Only Monty Python had some great graphics and correct stories of the ancient times. 
 

you can’t beat ignorance, it is impossible 

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

well, people are blinded by Hollywood, strong healthy gladiators, Vikings, and settlers. 
 

Only Monty Python had some great graphics and correct stories of the ancient times. 
 

you can’t beat ignorance, it is impossible 

I can accept ignorance.

 

When it becomes wilful ignorance in the face of evidence -based science, peer-reviewed by people who are actually qualified in the field, then I remind myself of Einstein's aphorism.

[Red Phoenix]

18 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

In 1900, the average life expectancy in the UK was a mere 46 years, mostly due to high rates of early childhood and infant mortality. We did a bit better in Australia, 52 years.

The only vaccination in general use was for smallpox. Diphtheria vaccinations did not come into general use until the mid-forties, and polio the early fifties.

Since then, we have had an increase in average lifespan in the UK to 78 years, and in Australia to 83 years. This is all due to vaccines, antibiotics and other modern marvels of technology such as PET scans and anesthesia..

...

 

 

[Hummin]

18 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I can accept ignorance.

 

When it becomes wilful ignorance in the face of evidence -based science, peer-reviewed by people who are actually qualified in the field, then I remind myself of Einstein's aphorism.

I can assure you and everyone else, my lack of knowledge is ignorance, Because I’m no scientist, but I want to believe in what is right and wrong, and try to separate wrong from right. I accept I can be wrong, and I am willing to change my view in exchange for correct information and proven sciences