A new paper by BMJ Editor Dr. Peter Doshi and colleagues has analysed data from the Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccine trials and found that the vaccines are more likely to put you in hospital with a serious adverse event than keep you out by protecting you from Covid.
The pre-print (not yet peer-reviewed) focuses on serious adverse events highlighted in a WHO-endorsed “priority list of potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines”. The authors evaluated these serious adverse events of special interest as observed in “phase III randomised trials of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines”.
A serious adverse event was defined as per the trial protocols as an adverse event that results in any of the following conditions:
- death;
- life-threatening at the time of the event;
- inpatient hospitalisation or prolongation of existing hospitalisation;
- persistent or significant disability/incapacity;
- a congenital anomaly/birth defect;
- medically important event, based on medical judgement.
Dr. Doshi and colleagues found that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 events per 10,000 vaccinated for Pfizer and 15.1 events per 10,000 vaccinated for Moderna (95% CI -0.4 to 20.6 and -3.6 to 33.8, respectively). When combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with a risk increase of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated (95% CI 2.1 to 22.9).
The authors note that this level of increased risk post-vaccine is greater than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalisation in both Pfizer and Moderna trials, which was 2.3 per 10,000 participants for Pfizer and 6.4 per 10,000 for Moderna. This means that on this measure, the Pfizer vaccine results in a net increase in serious adverse events of 7.8 per 10,000 vaccinated and the Moderna vaccine of 8.7 per 10,000 vaccinated.
Addressing the difference between their findings and those of the FDA when it approved the vaccines, the authors note that the FDA’s analysis of serious adverse events “included thousands of additional participants with very little follow-up, of which the large majority had only received one dose”. The FDA also counted ‘people affected’ rather than individual events, despite there being twice as many individuals in the vaccine group than in the placebo group who experienced multiple serious adverse events.
The authors wonder where the U.S. Government’s own studies of adverse events are. They note that in July 2021, the FDA reported detecting four potential adverse events of interest following Pfizer vaccination – pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, immune thrombocytopenia and disseminated intravascular coagulation – and stated it would further investigate the findings. However, no update has yet appeared.
They also note that “while CDC published a protocol in early 2021 for using proportional reporting ratios for signal detection in the VAERS database, the agency has not yet reported such a study”.
The authors point out their results are compatible with a recent pre-print analysis of COVID-19 vaccine trials by Benn et al., which found “no evidence of a reduction in overall mortality in the mRNA vaccine trials”, with 31 deaths in the vaccine arms versus 30 deaths in the placebo arms (a 3% increase; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.71).
Noting their study is limited by the fact that the raw data from COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials are not publicly available, they stress that “given the global public health implications, there is an urgency to make all COVID-19 trial data public, particularly regarding serious adverse events, without any further delay”.
They conclude that there is a need for formal harm-benefit analyses for Covid vaccines, taking into account the different levels of risk of serious Covid and adverse events that exist between demographic groups. Ideally, this would be based on individual participant data, they say, though such data remain frustratingly unavailable.
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.
Given the authors, my initial thoughts were “this is it, this is one MSM can’t ignore”. I then noticed it was published 1st June. It’s a preprint and will stay that way allowing it to be hidden from the dumb masses.
That’s pretty funny. So you think that whether or not information has been properly peer reviewed is the deciding factor for information like this to appear on the MSM?
If Fauci himself peer reviewed the paper and came out in support of the findings, the news wouldn’t be that the jabs do more harm than good. It would be a hit piece on Fauci, probably claiming he was turning senile.
It’s hard to digest, but pretty much every institution is corrupted and lost. There certainly isn’t a shred of integrity left in traditional media. Their only function now particularly with respect to covid and climate change is to promote the dogma.
What’s funny is you appear to be under the impression that I don’t know that. That you, with your superior scepticism, are somehow more enlightened. Of course I know that for f*ks sake, my point is that preprints are easily ignored. Jeez, some people.
Relax. It was a comment about your comment, not about you, or whether you are more less sceptical than me.
Having said that, I see that you’re not shy about elevating yourself over others, unless I’m also completely misunderstanding what “dumb masses” means.
Hey I think we’ve all earned the right to say us sceptics are better. No sense in hiding our light under a bushel.
But then never in the history of mankind has it been so easy to be right.
And yet be so difficult to get the masses to agree. Weird time to be alive.
“That’s pretty funny. So you think that whether or not information has been properly peer reviewed is the deciding factor for information like this to appear on the MSM?”. Well, that sure as hell looks aimed at me personally.
“It’s hard to digest, but pretty much every institution is corrupted and lost.”. That’s incredibly patronising. Who do you think on this side of the argument doesn’t know that?
“Having said that, I see that you’re not shy about elevating yourself over others, unless I’m also completely misunderstanding what “dumb masses” means.”. Also a personal comment. But, yes, I do believe this side of the argument have not bought into brainless, dangerous groupthink and that does make us less stupid/gullible than the majority. I’m surprised you don’t tbh.
Look, we are in the minority, but what we have that the majority don’t is unity and truth. When you make a reply with disdain and then include obvious and patronising points (perhaps you thought you were replying to a Guardian reader?), it’s not going to help with unity. Let’s stick together here, not find pleasure in trying to pull apart other peoples posts for the sake of it. If we start to go against each other, that’s the start of the end and I’ll bow out of the comments at that stage.
Believe me, no disdain intended. The comment genuinely made me smile,. The idea that the only thing holding the news back from MSM coverage was the lack of peer review amused me.
It was really just a comment on your comment. I guess not everything comes across as intended.
The last part, btw, regarding the corruption of everything is something that I find difficult to digest myself. I’m not preaching. It’s a very scary thought and one that I find myself constantly resisting all the time. The existence of this paper and the knowledge that it would see the light of day, peer reviewed or otherwise, is one of those constant reminders. And it’s so goddam depressing.
The slow march through the institutions started in the 1960’s is now completed.
With thanks to Peter Hitchens, who was mocked for highlighting the infiltration of education, the arts, culture, policing, health, civil service, the media etc, etc by activist agenda driven types.
Come on girls stop squabbling retract your claws and put your handbags down.
Given that it’s the BMJ and Peter Doshi, do you think it feasible it could stay in preprint?
Unless they fire him, I don’t see how? he’ll probably get fired.
…it will just be ignored Sophie, like everything else. I said this the other day and it’s still true, we are in a parallel universe, where the evidence shows one thing, but the ‘world’ just goes along with the crazy. I still know lots of people who will get they 5th jab and who still firmly believe the vaccines have saved millions…..I’m bewildered…as usual.
Peter’s been causing trouble, bless him, from the early Covid days.
I’m sure Whitty, Vallance et al will demand the opportunity to hold a Covid Briefing with Johnson ….. so they can update the public with this important scientific news.
Follow the science …..
There ARE mainstream journalists reading the DS. Surely this is an interesting story? No, it’s not peer-reviewed but nor had a lot of the ‘science’ been that was used to justify restrictions in 20/21, and the paper has been written by the editor of the BMJ!
A of “The Science” used to justify restrictions & diktats in 20/21 wasn’t even awaiting peer review, it hadn’t been trialled!
Peer-review nowadays basically means that it’s been approved by the global pharma bought shills to further their agenda.
There may even be Times muppets reading the btl comments…
Great to see sceptic Peter Doshi emboldened to publish this. We really are in the Twilight Zone. Big coverage given in The BBC this morning on the first UK vaccine death payout. Will this open the floodgates? Where does it stop? What a great way to sink governments, if you wanted to install a supranational dictatorship.
Thanks for taking one for the team. I haven’t dared to consume BBC content for years…
I look every morning – I regard this as reconnaissance.
That made me smile.
COVID tipped me over the edge. Removed the app and bookmarks middle of the pandemic. They’ve managed to turn me in a license sceptic as well.
I’ve read that, too, although not via BBC. The mainly interesting bit was how tenaciously true (politically left-leaning) believers stick to asserting their right-mindedness even when confronted with facts which directly fly into the face of the etablishment stance.
Paraphrase: I’m devastated that my healthy, long-term boy-friend (should rather have been a man-friend at 48 years) suddenly died of an injection supposed to protect him from something which never posed a risk to him, but I’m pro vaccine!
Just done a Google search on “Peter Doshi” over the past week in news – nothing!
How do they know how many people were hospitalised in the study? We know that that all of Maddie de Garay’s adverse events were simply reported as “abdominal pain”, despite having been in and out of hospital ever since her vaccination.
And Augusto Roux? his case was incorrectly recorded too.
And those are just the 2 we know about.
I just think the whole thing is a catastrophic giant clusterfuck and there is increasing evidence with these giant protein (not blood) clots forming, SADS and random cases of CJD, that the spike proteins lead to uncontrollable build up of amyloid protein around the body in random places and at random times and now everyone who took them has to be aware that they could just suddenly find their body has been terminally compromised and die. Not to say all will, as biology is nothing but extremely variable. But we don’t know yet if some are slow burn build up or there is another factor that becomes a final straw on the back of a vaccine derived predisposition.
I think there are several things that play a role in whether this stuff does a slow burn or not.
a) What you say about biology – people are all different, how their body took in, produced and expelled the poison;
b) What batch they had – did you see the June 20 article on the leaked EMA emails on Trial Site News? For those who have not read it, I recommend you do and then spread it far and wide. I have thought for a long time that a variation in production (and possible lack of quality control) of what has been said to be a very fragile product will have had a lot to do with why some people have such extreme reactions and others none at all;
c) Whether people keep on taking this junk. I find this latter point quite important, that despite all the warning signals they are still planning continuing injections. The authorisation for jabbing babies is also quite disturbing – more than anything I’m afraid they will simply give babies saline or something – great for the babies of course, but this would then send the message that it is perfectly safe after all, if even little babies show no adverse effects – something they will never be able to hide if they gave babies the actual poison.
how their body took in, produced and expelled the poison
That’s what makes this so terrifying isn’t it – the ‘vaccines’ are an instruction, not a dose; some people’s biology could mean they’ve made enormous amounts of the protein and continued to produce it. I’ve tried and tried to reject the idea that this is about depopulation because it seems so outlandish, but I’m running out of alternatives.
Did you read the leaked EMA e-mails? If they are real, they show absolute knowledge that there was great doubt about this garbage and that there was significant political pressure to ram it into people regardless. Sometimes things do take on a life of their own – let’s face it, plenty of people in the medical profession believed and quite a few no doubt still do believe that this junk was really ‘safe and effective’. Once that dam breaks, I wouldn’t want to be in its path. It will inevitably break, but if you’re one of the people who broke it, I can see why you’d be desperate to hold back the deluge for as long as absolutely possible while you try to get to your underground bunker in Timbuktu.
There certainly was a lot of blind groupthink going on. I know a few doctors and all of them were utterly unaware of the nature, mechanism and dangers of the injections. I was kind of gaslighted for bringing it up in the early days based on what I was reading and watching at the time. Everything I learned early in the rollout has since been confirmed in studies. That joke about the difference between conspiracy theories and facts being about six months has been absolutely correct. I can’t even comprehend it, I don’t think I’ll ever get over the last few years. Like a protracted horror film.
Do you happen to have a link for those leaked emails?
There is no further evidence required to confirm the depopulation agenda than the decisions to vaccinate babies and pregnant persons – have I got that right
?
You’d certainly think so. And they’re not even bothering to particularly justify it in the US. The dishonesty and impunity being shown by the FDA is just mind bending. I can only assume that someone somewhere knows that when this is over, the population will be too traumatised to seek revenge.
Yes you have it right. I wonder what problems those that have been jabbed will pass onto the next generation and the one after that.
Bloody scary and I am glad I won’t be around to see it.
You make an intriguing point about the jabs given to babies and children. We all know these children have no real risk from Covid … so they could give them all saline solutions – and nobody would know. It would be much better for the drug makers as no adverse events and deaths would emerge. They’d still get paid billions.
Of course, one would think someone might test the concoctions to see if they really are saline or not … and if that was proven to the be the case – that the drug companies were knowingly producing and selling saline vaccines – then it would be game over for them and the ruse … so I actually don’t think this is likely to happen.
Final point: Then again, we have no watchdog press or skeptical doctors … so it’s possible nobody would ever doing any large-scale random lab tests to see what was actually in different batches of “vaccines.”
is it really starting to unfold?
https://expose-news.com/2022/06/23/w-h-o-study-risks-outweigh-benefits-covid-vaccination/