Dude.There is so much horribly wrong with your reasoning in this post that I can't even begin to try to help you.
You might want to start by noting I didn't write the article, and perhaps take it up with the author, Karl Denninger. Offer to 'help him' because that's the best way to engage in productive discussions.
Never mind that it's only 11 patients in the "study," and that's it 11 "healthy" Chinese volunteers at that.
That was a Phase I trial; those always consist of a daring handful of (trusting) volunteers. Phase I finds out if the treatments etc. are too harmful to progress to phase II. Phase 1 uses healthy volunteers because it's actually hoping to make it to phase II and doesn't want potential medication or procedure trials to fail based on 'noise' created by one or more co-morbidities in such a small trial.
It's simply foolhardy to extend any conclusions from such a small and severely homogeneous patient population to the diverse and huge USA, or any group really.
You seem to think this was a phase III trial deciding whether or not a vaccine works. This was a phase I trial exploring the concept of mimicing an illness with a vaccine to create immunity. Phase I is kept very small and uses a healthy volunteers because of the very high risk various treatments could result in fatalities for all involved. In this case, Ac1 remains high so the patients are in a pre-diabetic state. Had they skipped trials I and II they would then be expected to test at minimum 30,000 people with something that would leave them pre-diabetic.
I'll put a screen capture here, and the research writers encapsulate the information they are seeking in their Phase I trial in the first sentence:
But the biggest problem in your analysis,
not mine....
...is that you predicate all your conclusions on the idea of an mRNA vaccine, and not a "real" vaccine--one using attenuated (weakened or inactivated or dead) virus--and you use the data in this "study" for that.
I don't see where you arrived at that assertion. Karl notes that this is a attenuated vaccine.
But this "study" actually uses a "real vaccine," an attenuated vaccine--the Sinopharm "Vero Cell" vaccine (it's in the freaking report, if you read it). So all of your conclusions about how bad mRNA vaccines are, drawn from this "study," are worthless.
I don't believe you understood the study or Denninger's concern about the results.
Denninger: "Vaccination is supposed to trick your immune system into thinking your body is being attacked without producing the bad outcomes that the actual disease can produce. You get the protection, but not the potential bad outcomes from infection itself."
So Denninger is dismayed to see that the vaccinated experienced the same harm (e.g., Ac1) as those who had the illness.
Here's a screen capture from the study that supports his concern:
So why mimic an illness with a vaccine if you end up with the harm caused by the illness?
All this "study" says is that some of those 11 healthy chinese volunteers that got the weakened virus vaccination responded just as if they had been actually infected. So maybe it just means the vaccination worked, or maybe that the weakened virus in the vaccine was less inactivated than they thought.
SMH.
As I said, I don't believe you understood the study or the article.
Karl notes that the vaccination strategy of mimicing an illness with an inactivated virus resulted in causing some of the same significant harm as the illness itself.
Denninger then says vaccinations for Covid should stop until the mRNA and adeno virus vaccines now in use are also tested for these negative impacts. In particular, no one should vaccinate a child with vaccines which mimic Covid until this kind of testing is done to ensure you're not making children pre-diabetic etc.
