Everyone debating the merits of the COVID-19 vaccines needs to take these four journal articles into account. The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice’s hugely important series of articles on exaggerated COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and safety claims, involving BMJ Editor Peter Doshi and myself, has now concluded. The initial Fung, Jones, and Doshi paper outlines statistical biases, such as the ‘case counting window’ bias, that likely lead to the Covid vaccines’ effectiveness being exaggerated in observational studies. The subsequent paper by Lataster (that’s me) then explained the situation is worse, as the case counting window bias is often accompanied by a definitional bias, and noted that this could exaggerate vaccine safety as well. Doshi and Fung then returned with a further paper indicating that numerous cases in the vaccinated were overlooked in the clinical trials, likely leading to exaggerated effectiveness estimates. The fourth and final article in this ‘series’, again by myself, notes that this also appears to apply to safety estimates in the clinical trials, whilst also confirming my earlier concerns about safety estimates in observational studies, and noting that the myocarditis issue alone could mean that the jabs are not worth the risk in the young and healthy. Highlights of the open access article (thanks again to the wonderful University of Sydney):
- Safety estimates appeared to be exaggerated in a recent observational study championing the use of the jabs in the Omicron era, which readers if my Substack Okay Then News readers will already know all about.
- Counting windows for adverse effects in the clinical trials were incredibly short, going against long-established norms, especially with the treatment and placebo groups quickly merged, and reliant on unsolicited reporting, as well as the opinions of researchers paid by BioNTech and Pfizer (like cardiovascular deaths being written off as unrelated to the jab when we now know the jab does cause cardiovascular deaths). I note the concerning “large number of trial participants lost to follow-up” and that “deceased trial participants will not be contacting the researchers to describe their issues”. Wrap your head around that one. You’re in the vaccinated group. You die, thanks to the jab. As a result, you don’t report this to Pfizer. Your death is not included in the data, as with the potentially many other jab-caused deaths. With relatively few adverse reports the jab is declared safe. It’s a bit like how we can’t refer to many of the adverse event reports as they’re perpetually unverified.
- Couldn’t avoid again referring to the Fraiman et al. and Benn et al. articles indicating that, with the data as unreliable as they are, the trials indicated an excess of deaths and “serious adverse events of special interest” in the vaccinated groups, relative to the unvaccinated groups.
- I note that increasing research on myocarditis alone appears to indicate that the risks of the jabs outweigh the benefits in the young and healthy, the topic of my BMJ rapid response.
- I reveal that Pfizer acknowledges myocarditis risks and limitations of its study. And that Pfizer is currently running a trial, again plagued by counting window issues, to “determine if Comirnaty is safe and effective, and if there is a myocarditis/pericarditis association that should be noted”. Would this information have been handy before you got jabbed, and before the jabs were universally declared “safe and effective”, and before people were fired for not submitting?
- I conclude that there is more than enough here to “nullify the claim that the benefits of the vaccines still outweigh the risks in all populations”.
Just remember that the claims about these COVID-19 vaccines being safe and effective were, at best, based on these clinical trials and observational studies.
Dr. Raphael Lataster is an Associate Lecturer at the University of Sydney, specialised in misinformation, and a former pharmacist. This article was first published in Lataster’s Substack newsletter, Okay Then News. Read more on his research and legal actions, including his recent win against the healthcare vaccine mandate in New South Wales.
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.
There does not appear to be much evidence to support the claim that such as thing as a “Covid vaccine” exists. It certainly doesn’t seem to do what vaccines are generally understood to do. It’s hard to fathom how you could measure a “vaccine” against “covid” when “covid” itself seems rather hard to define. A test applied inconsistently and a set of symptoms as long as your arm.
I am not sure the “trials” were trials in the normally understood sense of the word. They sound like an exercise designed to tick a box called “trials” to cover those interested in bringing a “vaccine” to market (Pharma firms and world governments).
Pfizer trial pre EUA – 8 weeks; they stated 95% efficacy but failed to disclose that was RRR – ARR was barely 1%; US FDA minimum efficacy for EUA is 50% unless I misread that. Pfizer then allowed the crash test dummies to be jabbed thus destroying any chance of long term safety data. Pfizer drug that gained EUA was NOT the drug they subsequently marketed.
Pfizer did not do trials to test effect on transmission; they confirmed it did not stop infection and therefore hospitalisation. They did NO pharmakinetic tests; they did no trials – pre EUA – on pregnant women, people with comorbidities, people who were CV recovered and not on people with a history of Anaphylaxis. Subsequent trials involving pregnant women produced horrendous evidence of huge side effects.
They have yet to demonstrate the positive effect on life expectancy; the use of the LNP was known to be toxic to human bodies almost a decade before; why did they choose to base their jab ( as with other pharmacies ) on the spike protein, a substance foreign to the human body such it induces an inflammatory response that is akin to Anaphylaxis?
“”Vaccines” cannot be “gene editing”” – except that is exactly what studies have shown; SV40 …….spike protein penetration everywhere..
Never ever again.
I struggle with alot of the science because I am extremely non- tecchie minded but as I understand it the “vaccines” were actually licensed in the USA as bio-weapons and so testing protocols were not required. This had wider implications. Informed consent was not required because these concoctions were not medicines. The actual manufacturing processes did not have to be divulged and nor the ingredient list. Hardly surprising that drug companies received worldwide liability protection from respective governments – governments knew what was going on and therefore had to collude.
The “trials” were conducted using entirely different products to those that were licensed although licensing as such was pure pantomime. These concoctions were bio-weapons authorised for use by the United States Department of Defence and so licensing was not even required.
The UK MHRA simply used the cover story provided by the Americans in order to present the fiction of a properly trialled, manufactured and licensed
poisondrug.Their official stories bore not even a smidgen of association with the truth. This was pure propoganda for the plebs. Senior politicians if not whole executives at the time these products were rolled out knew exactly what the intended outcomes would be and as such should be facing charges of murder. As should all the replacements who followed.
Excellent work Dr Latasta, thank goodness people like you and your colleagues are bringing about the inevitable truth that all will see in time
We’ve already seen the truth. But I will be dead before the truth is publicly acknowledged in any meaningful way, and so will the guilty men and women.
I’ve never before wished ill on anyone, but the last 4 years has changed my mind somewhat.
As regards the first part of your last sentence I hope you’re wrong- and for us both! – but as for the last part, well, let us hope hell awaits them.
“All the guilty men and women”. Christ, where to start….
I seem to be unable to believe in hell, or heaven for that matter.
It might happen sooner, but for now aside perhaps from elements of the US Republican party there are very few powerful bodies or individuals who were not involved in the covid scam so very little incentive to drag this out into the open.
https://vigilantnews.com/post/here-we-go-again-wef-hosts-upcoming-meeting-to-prepare-for-disease-x/
And here is more info on the next one. This is Disease X which nobody has found but which will be twenty times more deadly than the C1984 and for which a “vaccine” is already in production. Even though this disease has not been located.
I think Billy and his world-leading authority on infectious diseases, that’s Melinda, are spinning one!
Presenting an unknown disease as “twenty times more deadly” seems like the output from a focus group. 0-1 not scary, 10 not scary enough, 30 not believable.
We’ve already been told that “the next pandemic” will be particularly lethal to children. Obviously they don’t think enough parents were sufficiently scared to get their children jabbed with the last fertility-destroying concoction.
Vaccination of not at risk people with a novel technology product without any long term safety data was and is reckless.
These products need to be removed from the market pronto!
We need Nuremberg-style trials of senior personnel in Pfizer, ModeRNA, the MHRA and Ministers.
The likes of Dr Mikowits, Dr Cahill et al, told us ALL about the dangers of this right from the offset when all the politicians aided & abetted by MSM were ALL Lying about it. & NOW, They’re all walking Free with impunity & Richer.