A review of efficacy and safety data for the COVID-19 vaccines by three scientists has been published in the peer-reviewed journal Vaccines and comes to the disturbing conclusion that for every three deaths the vaccines prevent, two people die from an adverse reaction, while another four suffer serious side effects. The authors conclude: “This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.”
Here is the abstract:
Background: COVID-19 vaccines have had expedited reviews without sufficient safety data. We wanted to compare risks and benefits.
Method: We calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) from a large Israeli field study to prevent one death. We accessed the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register (lareb.nl) to extract the number of cases reporting severe side effects and the number of cases with fatal side effects.
Result: The NNTV is between 200–700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9,000 and 50,000 (95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11 per 100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination, we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination.
Conclusions: This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.
The authors note this conclusion is based on the reported adverse reactions, whereas the true number of adverse reactions may be considerably more.
Finally, we note that from experience with reporting side effects from other drugs, only a small fraction of side effects is reported to adverse events databases. The median underreporting can be as high as 95%. Given this fact and the high number of serious side effects already reported, the current political trend to vaccinate children who are at very low risk of suffering from COVID-19 in the first place must be reconsidered.
They note that the “risks and benefits” of the vaccines are “on the same order of magnitude” and suggest: “Perhaps it might be necessary to dampen the enthusiasm by sober facts?”
The present assessment raises the question whether it would be necessary to rethink policies and use COVID-19 vaccines more sparingly and with some discretion only in those that are willing to accept the risk because they feel more at risk from the true infection than the mock infection. Perhaps it might be necessary to dampen the enthusiasm by sober facts? In our view, the EMA and national authorities should instigate a safety review into the safety database of COVID-19 vaccines and governments should carefully consider their policies in light of these data. Ideally, independent scientists should carry out thorough case reviews of the very severe cases, so that there can be evidence-based recommendations on who is likely to benefit from a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and who is in danger of suffering from side effects. Currently, our estimates show that we have to accept four fatal and 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations in order to save the lives of 2–11 individuals per 100,000 vaccinations, placing risks and benefits on the same order of magnitude.
The full study can be found here.
UPDATE: The study has been updated. It originally stated that: “For three deaths prevented by vaccination, we have to accept one inflicted by vaccination.” This has been amended to say “we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination”. This article has been updated accordingly.
UPDATE 2: The study has been retracted by the journal. The retraction notice reads:
Serious concerns were brought to the attention of the publisher regarding misinterpretation of data, leading to incorrect and distorted conclusions.
The article was evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief with the support of several Editorial Board Members. They found that the article contained several errors that fundamentally affect the interpretation of the findings.
These include, but are not limited to:
The data from the Lareb report in The Netherlands were used to calculate the number of severe and fatal side effects per 100,000 vaccinations. Unfortunately, in the manuscript by Harald Walach et al. these data were incorrectly interpreted which led to erroneous conclusions. The data was presented as being causally related to adverse events by the authors. This is inaccurate. In The Netherlands, healthcare professionals and patients are invited to report suspicions of adverse events that may be associated with vaccination. For this type of reporting a causal relation between the event and the vaccine is not needed, therefore a reported event that occurred after vaccination is not necessarily attributable to vaccination. Thus, reporting of a death following vaccination does not imply that this is a vaccine-related event. There are several other inaccuracies in the paper by Harald Walach et al. one of which is that fatal cases were certified by medical specialists. It should be known that even this false claim does not imply causation, which the authors imply. Further, the authors have called the events ‘effects’ and ‘reactions’ when this is not established, and until causality is established they are ‘events’ that may or may not be caused by exposure to a vaccine. It does not matter what statistics one may apply, this is incorrect and misleading.
The authors were asked to respond to the claims, but were not able to do so satisfactorily. The authors were notified of the retraction and did not agree.
The focus on the events not being established as reactions appears to miss the point that they are reported because they are suspected of being reactions. It may be a fair criticism that the authors should have been more cautious in how they characterised the events. However, they did acknowledge the issue of causality and address it. They argue that in the Dutch system the fatal adverse events are “certified by a medical specialist”. This is not true in every case, as the editors point out. However, the official guidance the authors quote from in the paper does indicate a system of verification in which doctors are involved in some cases:
All reports received are checked for completeness and possible ambiguities. If necessary, additional information is requested from the reporting party and/or the treating doctor. The report is entered into the database with all the necessary information. Side effects are coded according to the applicable (international) standards. Subsequently an individual assessment of the report is made. The reports are forwarded to the European database (Eudravigilance) and the database of the WHO Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring in Uppsala. The registration holders are informed about the reports concerning their product.
Note that the guidance also refers to the events as “side effects”, underlining that this is the working assumption of the reporting system. The authors also note that the proportion of reported adverse events is similar in America, and that studies have shown that adverse events are typically under-reported rather than over-reported.
The paper is by no means perfect, and perhaps would benefit from revision to tidy up some unclear or inaccurate claims and incautious language (this is what the peer-review process is supposed to achieve). But retraction feels a little too convenient as a way of burying one of the few peer-reviewed papers that raises questions about the safety profile of the vaccines in light of the unprecedented number of adverse event reports lodged in connection with them.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Nigel Farage’s campaign for financial freedom may be the most important campaign of our generation.
The right to cash
The right to a bank account
No control over transactions
There is no freedom without financial freedom.
https://youtu.be/P7Sd7zerj6Y?si=07DMZhFMLmadQVl6
Latest leaflet to share
The intention to take our property has always been planned. It is part of the theft of the commons as outlined by Iain Davis.
“You will own nothing and be happy.”
Really awesome 50min video here which looks at the movie ‘1984’, as well as China and other totalitarian regimes from history, and relates this to what is happening to us today and the effects on society. Highly recommended.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZOWRbixDPw&ab_channel=IntelligenceSquared
Excellent.
(Posts with links end up with fewer upticks than they should – you have to go out of your way to go back and uptick.)
I’d like to see a new remake of the 1984 movie. Past versions depict a dreary, joyless existence, a sort of brutish, Stalinist world. But that makes it seem too detached from our current reality. I wish they would remake it in our current setting full of comforts, convenience and cool gadgets, to make it clear that the oppressive dystopia of1984 can exist anywhere, not just in a gray, depressing, 1930’s Soviet-like world.
The symptoms for the Pirola strain (first article) are coughing, sneezing, runny eyes, fatigue, etc. So, just a summer cold then? If I wasn’t so sick of all this artificial hyping of everything into panic level (like our current hot and lovely weather) I would find it amusing, but my sense of humour about these things has long deserted me.
…yes..I find it impossible to find this funny anymore, as they have no intention of stopping….
My brother, who works in the care industry, rang me yesterday to tell me he has had his letter urging him to get a Covid and flu vax….he won’t as he’s never had either…but at the end of the letter was an attachment from the NHS saying they want to gain ‘knowledge of attitudes towards vaccination”…and apparently they have a ‘capacity tracker’ to evaluate the information monthly….
…and so it begins…….
“Matt Ridley: The stupidity on display here is off the graph”
If you look at [it’s] face and speech pattern while [it’s] speaking, you’ll see that the pink haired idiot is in a state of total cognitive dissonance about the complete cr*p [it’s] just come out with. Everything about that statement is wrong, [it] knows it’s wrong but says it anyway because someone further up the food chain told [it] to.
Well done that reporter. Never interrupt an idiot making even more of a fool of themselves.
“The U.K. Government wants to control your kitchen fridge or send you to jail”
Have the govt really thought this through? 1) If they criminalise a big chunk of their target audience – as, let’s face it, the majority of home owners are older folk and tend to be small c conservative if not big C types – its not exactly going to endear them to their voting base, is it? 2) It costs an average of £46,696 per annum to keep a prisoner warm, comfy and well-fed – and the new raft of geriatric crims with additional needs will cost more. That’s about 4 times what it currently costs me to live in my home. How’s that saving the national leccy bill then? 3) Thus my suspicion is that this is just a cack-handed way of meeting C40/WEF-mandated land grab targets.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1202172/cost-per-prisoner-england-and-wales/
See Iain Davis – The Theft of the Commons.
Never forget:
Our salvation will not arrive via the ballot box.
It doesn’t matter which one of the LibLabCon people vote for the policy outcomes will be the same.
I hope I’m not repeating something, but in relation to the Eugyppius article yesterday, I saw this….it’s in German, but I could use my translate button…
https://exxpress.at/lauterbach-raeumt-ein-geimpfte-starben-genauso-oft-wie-ungeimpfte/
Vaccination with the BioNTech vaccine “Comirnaty” had no significant influence on the mortality rate. This was the result of a study with 43,448 subjects. The German Ministry of Health is now forced to admit this in a response to the inquiry.
The German Ministry of Health under Karl Lauterbach (SPD) has admitted in a response to a parliamentary question by AfD member Roger Beckamp: There is no “significant difference in all-cause mortality” between those vaccinated and unvaccinated against corona. Vaccination with the BioNTech vaccine “Comirnaty” therefore has no significant influence on the mortality rate.
The study served as an essential approval study for Comirnaty. 43,448 subjects participated in it, one half (21,720 subjects) received the vaccination, the other half (21,728) was treated with placebo.
Roger Beckamp from the AfD commented to the JF: The federal government must now admit “black on white” what has actually been known for a long time. He added that all subsequent studies to which the Federal Government refers do not meet the same scientific standards and therefore do not have the same significance.
Seems like big news to me..but??
It would appear that Germany isn’t the only country where regulators failed to regulate and have no idea…….and I suspect every country in Europe, including our own, are in a very similar boat!?
https://news.rebekahbarnett.com.au/p/australias-drug-regulator-admits
Australia’s drug regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), has no idea how many of the adverse events reported to its database are actually caused by the Covid vaccines.
Despite refusing to answer straightforward questions about how many reports it has assessed for causality, the TGA has confirmed that they do not have the information required to properly assess all adverse events (AEs) reported to its safety surveillance database, the DAEN (Database of Adverse Event Notifications).
Yet, there is a widespread perception that the TGA assesses all reports, particularly of serious AEs, for causality.
Worth a read….
This Australian vote – it looks to me a lot like they are trying to set up an equivalent to Europe’s ECHR by the back door. It will be used to block anything even vaguely against the interests of the global elites from being enacted. Essentially giving the globalists a veto over the democratically elected Government, because let’s be honest here – the ‘citizens panel’ or whatever they are calling it, will be stuffed full of their handpicked acolytes.
Absolutely stunning substack from Aussie 17….
Pharmafiles News September 7, 2023 Pfizer Whistleblower Exposes Massive Financial Deals with Government Officials…
Former Pfizer’s Director of Global Compliance Analytics, Frank Han is throwing some serious shade at Pfizer, alleging that they have been up to no good. It’s a spicy story with allegations of massive financial transfers involving government officials and Pfizer’s corporate antics.
Specifically, Pfizer spent a staggering $168 million in China, $12 million in the US, $11 million in Canada, $7.5 million in Russia, and $7.1 million in the UK during this period……I mean, they’re dropping over $200 million just for five countries! And get this, it’s only for the period from Q2 2019 through Q3 2021. Can you imagine what would happen if we looked at a whole decade? I wouldn’t be shocked if it skyrocketed into the billions!
Worth a read…..
Oops!
https://www.aussie17.com/p/pharmafiles-news-september-7-2023
Re:
https://twitter.com/mattwridley/status/1699349497074090277?s=48
and the quality of air / emissions.
I received the latest disinformation article from gov.uk this morning.
Another piece of scaremongering junk!
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/air-pollution-link-with-covid-19-infection-and-adverse-outcomes
Summary: ‘…We conclude that, in the context of evidence for the effect of air pollution on lung infections more generally, long-term air pollution may be a contributory factor in worsening the symptoms of COVID-19.’
No doubt this ‘timely’ publication will be used to push the ULEZ propaganda and use of masks again, sigh.
Summary: ‘…We conclude that, in the context of evidence for the effect of air pollution on lung infections more generally, long-term air pollution may be a contributory factor in worsening the symptoms of COVID-19.’
This is not just a statement of absolutely nothing but a badly written statement about nothing.
Let’s try : repeated injections with the C1984 jabs may be a contributory factor in worsening the symptoms of COVID-19.’
Or: repeated erosion of basic human rights may be a contributory factor in worsening the symptoms of Covid 19.
Sorted.
“Why BA.2.86 Covid strain is just another ‘scariant’” – The new Covid variant Pirola may be less infectious and deadly than previously feared, says the Mail.
Oh what a surprise! It’s not like that’s ever happened before, is it? How many times does this have to happen before they give up? But no, the next one will STILL be the most infectious and deadly one yet.
This WEF spokeswoman said she wasn´t a scientist.
But she spouts such crazy non-sequiturs that one must wonder if any sort of science at all is taught in schools.
Her display suggests that whatever she was taught, it was completely wasted.