36 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Do you understand English ???

Yes  but what you posted was a jumbled up assortment of English words that make no sense to me.

 

TT what is that ?

 

40 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

nonsense and propaganda about covid pumped out then.

There certainly was and still is a lot of nonsense and propaganda

pumped out.

 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, TedG said:

All you are doing is attacking the source.  It's better to attack the substance of the paper. 

 

1. When the authors are so vastly NON-credible on the given topic as is the case here, that's an easy-to-understand starting point to cover.

 

2. But on the so-called substance part, you seem to have missed this above:

 

 

 

Here is a ChatGPT summary of the article. 

 

The article titled “A Step-by-Step Evaluation of the Claim That COVID-19 Vaccines Saved Millions of Lives”critically examines the widely asserted claim that COVID-19 vaccines have saved millions of lives. Published in the International Journal of Applied Biology and Pharmaceutical Technology in September 2025, the authors—Yaakov Ophir, Yaffa Shir-Raz, Shay Zakov, Raphael Lataster, and Peter A. McCullough—conduct a detailed analysis to assess the empirical foundation of this claim.

 

 

Summary of Key Findings

Conclusion

The authors conclude that the claim that COVID-19 vaccines saved millions of lives lacks a solid empirical foundation. They emphasize the importance of critically evaluating the benefits and harms of medical interventions and caution against accepting unverified claims without rigorous scientific scrutiny.

 

Mod's Note: This post shortened per the following updated forum rule on the use of AI content in posting:

 

12. AI use is allowed only in small amounts (a short paragraph). Posts must also include your own views. AI-only posts will be removed. Please mark AI use with “AI supported.”

 

 

And then, variously, there has been these accounts that from various sources and in varying ways contradict the garbage claims in the OP:

 

Trump renews praise for Covid vaccines, 'one of the greatest achievements of mankind'

Dec. 23, 2021

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-renews-praise-covid-vaccines-one-greatest-achievements-mankind-n1286551

 

And from the New York Times / May 3, 2024:

 

"The benefits of the Covid vaccines have far outweighed the downsides, according to a voluminous amount of data and scientific studies from around the world. In the U.S. alone, the vaccines have saved at least several hundred thousand lives and perhaps more than one million, studies estimate. Rates of death, hospitalization and serious illness have all been much higher among the unvaccinated than the vaccinated.

 

The overall picture

Here’s my best attempt to summarize the full truth about the Covid vaccines:

They are overwhelmingly safe and effective. They have saved millions of lives and prevented untold misery around the world. They’re so valuable that elderly people and those with underlying health conditions should be vigilant about getting booster shots when they’re eligible. For most children, on the other hand, booster shots seem to have only modest benefits, which is why many countries don’t recommend them.

...

Overall, Covid vaccines are probably the most beneficial medical breakthrough in years, if not decades." [emphasis added]

 

https://archive.ph/HSUsy

 

AND

 

The Impact of the Global COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign on All-Cause Mortality

 

National Bureau of Economic Research

October 2023

 

"The global COVID-19 vaccination campaign is the largest public health campaign in history, with over 2 billion people fully vaccinated within the first 8 months. Nevertheless, the impact of this campaign on all-cause mortality is not well understood. Leveraging the staggered rollout of vaccines, we find that the vaccination campaign across 141 countries averted 2.4 million excess deaths [from January to August 2021], valued at $6.5 trillion."

 

https://www.nber.org/papers/w31812

 

AND

 

Two Years of U.S. COVID-19 Vaccines Have Prevented Millions of Hospitalizations and Deaths

 

"From December 2020 through November 2022, we estimate that the COVID-19 vaccination program in the U.S. prevented more than 18.5 million additional hospitalizations and 3.2 million additional deaths. Without vaccination, there would have been nearly 120 million more COVID-19 infections. The vaccination program also saved the U.S. $1.15 trillion (Credible Interval: $1.10 trillion–$1.19 trillion) (data not shown) in medical costs that would otherwise have been incurred."

 

The Commonwealth Fund

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2022/two-years-covid-vaccines-prevented-millions-deaths-hospitalizations

 

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, TedG said:

The authors conclude that the claim that COVID-19 vaccines saved millions of lives lacks a solid empirical foundation. They emphasize the importance of critically evaluating the benefits and harms of medical interventions and caution against accepting unverified claims without rigorous scientific scrutiny.

 

And the authors making that conclusion include a bunch of folks either with no expertise in the field and/or proven track records of spreading COVID misinformation and/or working for groups that have spread COVID misinformation, including one doctor who was stripped of his board certifications over it.

 

So, their credibility and expertise on the subject is garbage. And no one needs an AI summary of their article, published in a dubious journal, to understand that.

 

Here are papers showing COVID did save lives. 

 

Yes, several peer-reviewed studies and reputable health organizations have provided evidence supporting the claim that COVID-19 vaccines have saved millions of lives globally. Here are some key findings:

 

---

📊 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Lives Saved

1. Global Estimates: A study published in JAMA Health Forum in 2025 estimated that COVID-19 vaccination averted over 2.5 million deaths worldwide between 2020 and 2024. The study also estimated that 14.8 million life-years were saved, with the majority of benefits observed in individuals aged 60 and older.  

 

Mod's Note: This post shortened per the following updated forum rule on the use of AI content in posting:

 

12. AI use is allowed only in small amounts (a short paragraph). Posts must also include your own views. AI-only posts will be removed. Please mark AI use with “AI supported.”

1 minute ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

And the authors making that conclusion include a bunch of folks either with no expertise in the field and/or proven track records of spreading COVID misinformation and/or working for groups that have spread COVID misinformation, including one doctor who was stripped of his board certifications over it.

 

So, their credibility and expertise on the subject is garbage. And no one needs an AI summary of their article, published in a dubious journal, to understand that.

 

 

The best tactic is to demolish the paper. 

22 minutes ago, TedG said:

 

The best tactic is to demolish the paper. 

 

In this case, I think I (we?) have both demolished the paper and the authors behind it.

 

But I do find it plainly wrong to give equal "air time" and presumed credibility to patently disreputable people like McCullough in comparison to all the other credible sources who have comparably good track records of credibility. Those folks are nothing like McCullough, who's had multiple of his past journal articles retracted for making unsupported/false claims and who's long been a leading figure in populating the fact checking reviews' reports of COVID misinformation spreaders for years, in addition to being stripped of his medical board certifications (which is a pretty rare thing that only happens in the most extreme, provoking circumstances)..

 

https://science.feedback.org/reviewed-content-author/peter-mccullough/

 

[just a partial list below]

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

Anyone posting on this thread is a dullard. but Red Phoenix keeps trying to push his Anti Vax theories on us yet again. It was only over the weekend he tried again with a different thread. Give it up Red were not interested in your Propaganda nonsense.

I am Sir!

 

Red is doing his best to bring info, that is not normally broadcast/highlighted by the MSM, out for all to see. The members, and visitors, of AN, can then read up, and make more informed choices for themselves and loved ones. TBH, I can't see what objection there could be to that.

 

IMO, discussing whether vaccines are 'safe' and 'effective' is a non-starter for me. Why? Because the whole vaccine concept - can't really call it technology - was/is based on falsehoods. They are poison to the body; plain and simple. They cannot stop something that don't exist.

 

However! Red, has often stated they are unnecessary. Totally agree with that. 

 

24 minutes ago, TedG said:

Here are papers showing COVID did save lives. 

 

 

Yes, several peer-reviewed studies and reputable health organizations have provided evidence supporting the claim that COVID-19 vaccines have saved millions of lives globally. Here are some key findings:

 

---

 

 

📊 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Lives Saved

 

 

1. Global Estimates: A study published in JAMA Health Forum in 2025 estimated that COVID-19 vaccination averted over 2.5 million deaths worldwide between 2020 and 2024. The study also estimated that 14.8 million life-years were saved, with the majority of benefits observed in individuals aged 60 and older.  

2. Global Impact: Another study published in The Lancet Regional Health – Europe in 2024 estimated that COVID-19 vaccines saved approximately 1.6 million lives in the WHO European Region between December 2020 and March 2023.  

3. WHO European Region: The World Health Organization reported in January 2024 that COVID-19 vaccinations had saved more than 1.4 million lives in the European Region, reducing deaths by at least 57%.  

 

 

 

Is that the same Lancet which "estimated" in a fake paper that HCQ didn't work in oder to allow the Emergency Use Authorisation of the mRNA shots?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/04/covid-19-lancet-retracts-paper-that-halted-hydroxychloroquine-trials

Please, give the HDC silliness a break. That's the kind of bogus nonsense that Peter McCullough and his ilk are still pitching, despite the following facts:

 

"Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are anti-malarial medications also used against some auto-immune diseases.^[52] Chloroquine, along with hydroxychloroquine, was an early experimental treatment for COVID-19.^[53] Neither drug has been useful to prevent or treat SARS-CoV-2 infection.^{[54][55][56][57][58][59]} Administration of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine to COVID-19 patients, either as monotherapies or in conjunction with azithromycin, has been associated with deleterious outcomes, such as QT prolongation.^[60][61] Scientific evidence does not substantiate the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine, with or without the addition of azithromycin, in the therapeutic management of COVID-19.^[60][62]

...

Their use was withdrawn as a possible treatment for COVID-19 infection when it proved to have no benefit for hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 illness in the international Solidarity trial and UK RECOVERY Trial.^[69][70] On 15 June 2020, the FDA revoked its emergency use authorization, stating that it was "no longer reasonable to believe" that the drug was effective against COVID-19 or that its benefits outweighed "known and potential risks".^[71][72][73] In fall of 2020, the National Institutes of Health issued treatment guidelines recommending against the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 except as part of a clinical trial. [emphasis added]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine

 

 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Please, give the HDC silliness a break. That's the kind of bogus nonsense that Peter McCullough and his ilk are still pitching, despite the following facts:

 

"Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are anti-malarial medications also used against some auto-immune diseases.^[52] Chloroquine, along with hydroxychloroquine, was an early experimental treatment for COVID-19.^[53] Neither drug has been useful to prevent or treat SARS-CoV-2 infection.^{[54][55][56][57][58][59]} Administration of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine to COVID-19 patients, either as monotherapies or in conjunction with azithromycin, has been associated with deleterious outcomes, such as QT prolongation.^[60][61] Scientific evidence does not substantiate the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine, with or without the addition of azithromycin, in the therapeutic management of COVID-19.^[60][62]

...

Their use was withdrawn as a possible treatment for COVID-19 infection when it proved to have no benefit for hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 illness in the international Solidarity trial and UK RECOVERY Trial.^[69][70] On 15 June 2020, the FDA revoked its emergency use authorization, stating that it was "no longer reasonable to believe" that the drug was effective against COVID-19 or that its benefits outweighed "known and potential risks".^[71][72][73] In fall of 2020, the National Institutes of Health issued treatment guidelines recommending against the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 except as part of a clinical trial. [emphasis added]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did The Lancet lie about it or not?

 

Off you go on Grok, I'll check back in 15 minutes.

23 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Is that the same Lancet which "estimated" in a fake paper that HCQ didn't work in oder to allow the Emergency Use Authorisation of the mRNA shots?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/04/covid-19-lancet-retracts-paper-that-halted-hydroxychloroquine-trials

If couse it's an estimate.  There is no way anyone can get an exact number.   Do you think the population of the earth is known to the exact number?    

20 minutes ago, TedG said:

If couse it's an estimate.  There is no way anyone can get an exact number.   Do you think the population of the earth is known to the exact number?    

 

"Estimate" is just a fancy term for "guess"… and the chosen guess always happens to be the one which perpetuates the multi-billion industry.

 

But as long as the plebs do as they are told, then where is the problem? By all means ignore the glaring questions such as The Lancet one asked in my previous post.

1 hour ago, johng said:

Yes  but what you posted was a jumbled up assortment of English words that make no sense to me.

 

TT what is that ?

 

There certainly was and still is a lot of nonsense and propaganda

pumped out.

 

 

 

 

 

You have had over 19,000 posts yet you dont understand what TT stood for ? it was called Thaiger Talk befor it was took over.

Your wasting your time and effort posting on here it means nothing to these Anti vackers posting here all they will do is feed you crap from the darkside they read.

32 minutes ago, TedG said:

If course it's an estimate.  There is no way anyone can get an exact number.   Do you think the population of the earth is known to the exact number?    

I can give you some exact numbers Sir. And a couple of 'don't knows'.

 

How any people died of covid? None.

How any people died with covid? None.

How many people did the vaccine save? None.

How many were/are injured by the vaccine? Don't know.

How many were/are killed by the vaccine? Don't know.

 

The answers to the last two questions are well into the millions for sure. We will never know the true numbers.

1 hour ago, BarraMarra said:

You have had over 19,000 posts yet you dont understand what TT stood for ? it was called Thaiger Talk befor it was took over.

 

It is still called Thaiger Talk.

1 hour ago, TedG said:

Do you think the population of the earth is known to the exact number?    

 

The population of the Earth is a tangible notion. How many people would have died in an imagined alternative reality is an intangible notion. Abstraction in its purest form.

"If another reality existed instead of this one, this is what would happen". It is fascinating that so many people readily parrot categorical slogans based on such infantile abstractions, without giving it a second thought.

Any chance of you reposting this without the fancy wording such as Intangible, Abstractions, Tangible. can you not make it simpler.

4 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I can give you some exact numbers Sir. And a couple of 'don't knows'.

 

How any people died of covid? None.

How any people died with covid? None.

How many people did the vaccine save? None.

How many were/are injured by the vaccine? Don't know.

How many were/are killed by the vaccine? Don't know.

 

The answers to the last two questions are well into the millions for sure. We will never know the true numbers.

This is the most foolish post I have seen on this site as of today.

 

I'll wager you believe the Earth is flat, the moon is made of cheese, and 9/11 was an inside job.

8 hours ago, chawbdurian said:

Anyone who thinks that the vax was anything but a money grab by big pharma is a dullard 

They initiated COVID for financial gain.  Right?

1 hour ago, Fact said:

This is the most foolish post I have seen on this site as of today.

 

I'll wager you believe the Earth is flat, the moon is made of cheese, and 9/11 was an inside job.

 

Oh for Fact's sake, 9/11 is a foregone conclusion, even Tucker is on board now.

 

 

10 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Debunking the claim that anyone should believe one word out of Peter McCullough's mouth relating to COVID. The OP article is a bunch of typical non-credible anti-vaxer nonsense from disreputable sources.

 

Co-author Peter McCullough is a mass COVID misinformer, disgraced doctor who was stripped of his medical board certifications because of his rampant COVID misinfo peddling, author of multiple published journal articles that have been retracted by the involved journals after they found his work was non-credible, etc etc.

ABIM Revokes Certification of Another Doctor Who Made Controversial COVID Claims

— It's not clear exactly when credentials for Peter McCullough, MD, MPH, were revoked

January 2, 2025 

 

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) revoked the board certification of Peter McCullough, MD, MPH, a cardiologist who promoted controversial views about COVID-19.

 

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/113624

 

------------------------------------------------

 

Paper claiming ‘extensive’ harms of COVID-19 vaccines to be retracted

 

February 19, 2024

 

A journal is retracting a paper on the purported harms of vaccines against COVID-19 written in part by authors who have had similar work retracted before.

...

The senior author on the work was Peter McCullough, a cardiologist at the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge who lost his board certification after the American Board of Internal Medicine found he had “provided false or inaccurate medical information to the public.”

 

Indeed, McCullough had already lost one paper, in Current Problems in Cardiology, from Elsevier, when he and his colleagues submitted their latest opus to Cureus. And SSRN, which hosts preprints for The Lancet, another Elsevier journal, had removed work by him and colleagues claiming large numbers of deaths from COVID-19 vaccines.  

 

https://retractionwatch.com/2024/02/19/paper-claiming-extensive-harms-of-covid-19-vaccines-to-be-retracted/

 

------------------------------------------------

 

Peter McCullough makes multiple false, misleading, and unsupported claims about COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy in viral podcast

 

03 May 2023

 

"Incorrect: COVID-19 vaccines haven’t been shown to be toxic. “Detox” practices are unnecessary and their alleged effectiveness isn’t supported by scientific evidence.

Factually inaccurate: Large-scale trials show that COVID-19 vaccines don’t increase the risk of negative pregnancy outcomes and instead reduce pregnancy complications due to COVID-19.

Inadequate support: No evidence suggests a link between COVID-19 vaccines and a rise in deaths and medical conditions. Robust clinical trials showed no benefit of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin treatment in COVID-19 patients.

 

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/peter-mccullough-makes-multiple-false-misleading-claims-covid19-vaccine-safety-efficacy-podcast/

 

------------------------------------------------

 

There's LOTS more of the same off-the-ranch nonsense from McCullough, but to recount it all, I'd be posting here all night and beyond!

 

\

Thanks. Doesn't the OP ever do any study about who he is quoting?

26 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Oh for Fact's sake, 9/11 is a foregone conclusion, even Tucker is on board now.

 

 

 

26 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Oh for Fact's sake, 9/11 is a foregone conclusion, even Tucker is on board now.

 

 

Oh yea, they named names. 

 

 

9 hours ago, TedG said:

All you are doing is attacking the source.  It's better to attack the substance of the paper. 

Better still to consider the content and then discuss the issues.  

8 hours ago, TedG said:

Here is a ChatGPT summary of the article. 

 

The article titled “A Step-by-Step Evaluation of the Claim That COVID-19 Vaccines Saved Millions of Lives”critically examines the widely asserted claim that COVID-19 vaccines have saved millions of lives. Published in the International Journal of Applied Biology and Pharmaceutical Technology in September 2025, the authors—Yaakov Ophir, Yaffa Shir-Raz, Shay Zakov, Raphael Lataster, and Peter A. McCullough—conduct a detailed analysis to assess the empirical foundation of this claim.

Summary of Key Findings:

1. Questioning Mathematical Models:

   The article scrutinizes the mathematical models that have been used to estimate the number of lives saved by COVID-19 vaccines. The authors argue that these models are based on a series of assumptions, many of which are weak, unvalidated, or demonstrably false, casting doubt on their reliability.

2. Efficacy Against Infection and Transmission:

   Initially, vaccines were promoted as effective in preventing infection and transmission. However, the authors note that this narrative collapsed as evidence emerged showing that vaccines did not significantly prevent infection or transmission, undermining the initial justification for mass vaccination campaigns.

3. Revised Justification: Protection Against Severe Illness:

   In response to the challenges to vaccine efficacy, the justification shifted to the claim that vaccines protect against severe illness and death. The authors examine data from randomized trials, observational studies, and public health dashboards, concluding that there is insufficient evidence to support the assertion that vaccines provided sustained protection against severe outcomes.

4. Methodological Flaws and Suppression of Dissent:

   The article identifies several factors contributing to the persistence of the “millions saved” narrative, including methodological flaws in studies, misrepresentation and misinterpretation of findings, and the suppression of dissenting voices. These elements, according to the authors, allowed a fragile assertion to solidify into a widely accepted belief that influenced global health policy.

Conclusion:

The authors conclude that the claim that COVID-19 vaccines saved millions of lives lacks a solid empirical foundation. They emphasize the importance of critically evaluating the benefits and harms of medical interventions and caution against accepting unverified claims without rigorous scientific scrutiny.

 

 

Thanks @TedG

That's a fair and correct summary of the article, and a good intro for those that do not have the time or interest to delve in the rather lengthy article that contains all the details on which the author's conclusions are based.  

> https://cdn.fortunejournals.com/articles/a-step-by-step-evaluation-of-the-claim-that-covid-19-vaccines-saved-millions-of-lives-6254.pdf

I get that you do not agree with the conclusion of the authors, but those four main points are a good starting point to discuss the content of the article.  

 

8 hours ago, TedG said:

Here are papers showing COVID did save lives. 

 

Yes, several peer-reviewed studies and reputable health organizations have provided evidence supporting the claim that COVID-19 vaccines have saved millions of lives globally. Here are some key findings:

 

---

📊 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Lives Saved

1. Global Estimates: A study published in JAMA Health Forum in 2025 estimated that COVID-19 vaccination averted over 2.5 million deaths worldwide between 2020 and 2024. The study also estimated that 14.8 million life-years were saved, with the majority of benefits observed in individuals aged 60 and older.  

2. Global Impact: Another study published in The Lancet Regional Health – Europe in 2024 estimated that COVID-19 vaccines saved approximately 1.6 million lives in the WHO European Region between December 2020 and March 2023.  

3. WHO European Region: The World Health Organization reported in January 2024 that COVID-19 vaccinations had saved more than 1.4 million lives in the European Region, reducing deaths by at least 57%.  

 

So the figure of +17 million deaths prevented has now been 'tuned down' to 2.5 million.  

The assumptions which led to that initial estimated 17m figure were thus flawed, which is also what the authors of the article are stating. 

And note that the new 2.5 million prevented deaths number is still a model-based estimate, and will undoubtedly have to be further tuned down as the authors of the article come to a different conclusion when conducting a thorough analysis of the data.   

 

11 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Here's an example of propaganda.

 

 

 

In hindsight alot of this was shameful. But mentally we were all done with the virus that we became desperate.

 

There was i remember at the time a genuine fear that those who didn't take the vaccine would catch it then continue to spread it around. But then they started to taper down and say you could still catch it even with the vaccine, but it reduced your illness - so at that point it made no sense to mandate people to get it. 

 

I had to get it for travel and to get into Thailand. 

 

Of course many countries wanted tourists to have the vaccine because they did not want to burden their health system incase anyone became ill.