In December 2021, I received the Pfizer COVID-19 booster while pre-symptomatic with Covid. These events culminated in chronic heart issues consistent with inflammation of the heart (non-ischaemic myocarditis). So I was interested to see that Baroness Hallet, Chair of the Covid Inquiry, has “directed that an expert team of pharmaco-epidemiologists led by Professor Prieto-Alhambra… to consider the main serious adverse events that were observed during the vaccine rollout”. Prieto-Alhambra, a pharmacoepidemiologist at the University of Oxford, presented his findings to the inquiry on January 22nd, alongside Professor Evans, a pharmacoepidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Only approved questions were allowed and Baroness Hallet got very upset when Anna Morris KC “asked questions for which I didn’t give permission” on behalf of the vaccine injured. Prieto-Alhambra was not asked about the limitations of the methods used to measure vaccine effectiveness and harm. Perhaps these were not allowed? The risk-benefit analysis of vaccination was briefly discussed when lead consul to the inquiry, Hugo Keith KC, observed that regulators must weigh up the number of deaths prevented against the “very rare” possibility of side effects. Prieto-Alhambra’s response was emphatic: “There is very strong data that the vaccines still worked in severe outcomes like hospitalisation or death.” It is, therefore, perhaps useful to consider one of Prieto-Alhambra studies on vaccine effectiveness against death.
On August 18th 2021, Prieto-Alhambra was a co-author of a cohort study published in the BMJ that claimed that two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine were 97% effective (Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02-0.04) at preventing COVID-19 deaths in nursing home residents in Catalonia.
Four months later, on December 8th 2021, a cohort study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine by Arbel et al. The paper claimed that the Pfizer booster was 90% effective (HR 0.10, CI 0.07-0.14) at preventing COVID-19 deaths in older age groups in Israel. On July 19th 2023 the Arbel et al. were forced to disclose that the rate of non-Covid mortality in the boosted group was 77% lower than the unboosted group (HR 0.23, CI 0.20-0.26) – a common issue in vaccine studies known as ‘healthy vaccinee’ bias.
It is notable that Arbel et al. did not disclose the non-Covid mortality rates in their original paper which would, inevitably, have cast doubt on the 90% effectiveness claim attributed to the booster. The difference in non-Covid mortality rates is indicative that the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups differ in underlying health and that this difference may have a major effect on the reported vaccine effectiveness.
Like Arbel et al., Prieto-Alhambra’s Catalan study, which used a similar cohort methodology, did not disclose the non-Covid mortality rates, thus leaving out the same crucial context that could indicate the presence of healthy vaccinee bias.
During the COVID-19 vaccination rollout in England, all-cause mortality rates, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), “were lower in the first three weeks after a vaccine dose than in subsequent weeks after that dose”. The ONS acknowledges that this could be due to the healthy vaccinee effect which, as per the ONS, is “where people who are ill (either due to COVID-19 or another relevant illness) are likely to delay vaccination. Therefore, the people who have been recently vaccinated are, in the short term, in better health than the general population”. The incredible results reported by Arbel et al. were probably due to the healthy vaccinee effect.
The interpretation of Prieto-Alhambra’s Catalan study, which claimed that vaccination was 97% effective against COVID-19 deaths in nursing home residents, depends on how much consideration is given to unmeasured biases such as the healthy vaccinee effect. If potential study limitations are ignored, vaccination was 97% effective against death. If potential study limitations are considered, particularly in the context of Arbel et al., did the study overestimate vaccine effectiveness?
In his evidence to the COVID-19 inquiry and as evidenced by the results of his Catalan study, it seems that Prieto-Alhambra places a high degree of trust in cohort studies. However, Arbel et al. serves as an important reminder of the pitfalls of accepting the results of cohort studies at face value. As Evans made clear during his evidence to the inquiry, observational studies are less reliable than randomised clinical trials. The results of cohort studies are less certain because the groups being studied may differ in ways which are not measured by the study. Therefore, a single study can be interpreted in different ways depending on how much consideration is given to unmeasured differences between the groups.
In this context, perhaps Baroness Hallet should not have chosen an epidemiologist from a university that received £143 million in royalties from its COVID-19 vaccine research – more than all other British Universities earned from intellectual property in the same period.
Particularly, when the royalties were generated from the sale of one of the vaccines being investigated.
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.
Off-topic incoming, but it’s important. This is what the chicken-shit, evil child-killer got, and he was too much of a coward to even be in the room for sentencing;
”Rudakubana sentenced to 52 years in jail after receiving 13 life sentences
Southport killer Axel Rudakubana will serve a minimum of 52 years in jail after receiving 13 sentences of custody for life.
Delivering the sentencing in Rudakubana’s absence, Mr Justice Goose said it was unlikely he would ever be released from prison.”
https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882465846771016148
”For the murders of Bebe, Alice and Elsie, the judge announces: “For the offence of murder, the sentence must be custody for life.
“The minimum term before parole is 27 years. Should he be released, and it is likely he will never be, he will remain on licence for the rest of his life.”
I notice from the illustrations of the court case in the news that he is wearing a face nappy, as he was in the cab on the way to where he committed his evil acts.
I hope he has an unfortunate fatal accident in the next few months …. and it’s as painful as it possibly could be.
There is very strong data that the vaccines still worked in severe outcomes like hospitalisation or death.”
What?
It resurrected the dead?
TheScience™ is the Lord
And the Lord is TheScience™
Praise TheScience™
Key passage in case any normies you speak to think this inquiry is anything other than a theatrical event:
“Only approved questions were allowed and Baroness Hallet got very upset when Anna Morris KC “asked questions for which I didn’t give permission” on behalf of the vaccine injured. Prieto-Alhambra was not asked about the limitations of the methods used to measure vaccine effectiveness and harm. Perhaps these were not allowed? The risk-benefit analysis of vaccination was briefly discussed when lead consul to the inquiry, Hugo Keith KC, observed that regulators must weigh up the number of deaths prevented against the “very rare” possibility of side effects.”
An inquiry where the questions are scripted in advance, and where counsel apparently just KNOWS that the possibility of side effects is “very rare” (whatever the hell that means).
Your heading begs the answer “No” – which I am happy to give. Commiseration to your situation, though. Back in 2021, when the product was on offer along with the promotional leaflets etc, I took the view that it was too early to accept it.
This is what I wrote to the relevant organisation:
“ To whom it may concern:
Today I received a letter (of 23/2/2021) encouraging me to book an appointment for a pair of Covid-19 vaccinations, along with the ‘guide for older adults’ leaflet. W.r.t the latter, I’m not really within the list on pages 4 & 5; I suppose it’s out of date. Although email is not secure for any detailed records, I think it’s reasonable for this note.
Notwithstanding the potential clash between the letter & the leaflet, thanks for the offer, and no doubt it is up to me to balance the risks of consenting to it, or not. You should have a fair amount of historical records on file, beyond those that are on display in my ‘account’, including older vaccinations that were done via yourselves, so I’m not against the idea in principle. That said, the way this issue has been handled in general is inimical to a rational discussion, in particular the disgraceful propaganda, under specific OFCOM guidelines, that has been used to manipulate the general public. We’re in a sorely censored state, in which confidence is waning among some.
Some might say that we are discussing a political, or ‘unicorn’ jab, compared with automatic built-in functionality. After all, no-one knows if I’m already immune in the first place, or not. As far as my current lifestyle is concerned, it appears to me that there is a pretty low risk re. the infection under consideration, on the one hand, but limited evidence relating to risks associated with the product on offer.
The way things are now, the stronger the recommendation is, the less likely I am to accept it, until the facts become well known. My hunch is that the emerging risks associated with it do not justify the proposed benefit to me. Thus I do not accept the offer for the time being. Maybe in the future, if an established product is offered in tandem with typical Autumn anti-flu ones, I’ll change my mind; we’ll see.”
The net effect was a quick reply from the surgery, from which I did not receive any more input. Needless to say, perhaps, is that the more I learn about it, the less I approve of it.
My letters were a lot more brief, something along the lines of:
There is no pandemic.
It’s not a vaccine.
Wise letter.
I didn’t get too much hassle, although I did get phoned up once after I had ignored the regular texts. I said I would ‘consider it’ (fingers were crossed) when it had passed all stages of regular trials, not just an Emergency Use order. I knew that was years away. Anyway, they must have thought it was a reasonable answer as I never heard from anyone again!
I ignored the letter. When the NHS phoned me to tell me that “my vaccine” was ready I put the phone down on them and I blocked the text messages I was getting “reminding me.” I telephoned my GP’s surgery and told them I wasn’t going to have it so don’t bother contacting me.
And that was that.
Straight out of the IPCC casebook of insider scientific trading and homework assessment.
Meanwhile Her Ladyship spaffs ackers straight out of the courtroom into QCs’ pockets for not asking “questions for which I didn’t give permission”.
Save Face, Save Arse, Save the NHS.
The general public were very misled by the “90% effective” claims. 90% effective sounds very effective, but that’s the absolute risk reduction, and I don’t even know what that means, I may have known a few years ago, but I’ve forgotten because it’s irrelevant to individuals, it’s not important in weighing up the costs versus benefits of getting the vaccine.
What matters to individuals is the relative risk reduction, which even according to the dodgy official figures was about 1% – give or take about 1%, depending on circumstances such as age and general health – not 90%. In other words, according to the official figures, if you got the Covid vaccine, your risk of hospitalisation or death was reduced by about a mere 1% compared to if you didn’t get vaccinated. If you were under 50 years of age and in reasonable good health, your risk was reduced by about 0.1% or even 0.01%, in other words by a very tiny, almost zero amount. But we were misled. We were told the vaccines were 90% effective by people who knew the general public would be misled. The government and medical establishment and the BBC, etc, did not want people to know this.
I’m no expert but I think you have absolute and relative the wrong way round. Absolute is usually a better yardstick as it is much easier to relate to.
I looked at how much more likely people in my age group were to die in 2020 compared to previous years and the difference was a rounding error so I concluded that the “vaccine” was not worth it, especially as it had not undergone much testing and was being introduced as part of the biggest scam in history.
Yes, I think you’re right. Thanks, I always like to be corrected. It’s just as well I didn’t pretend to be an expert! The important thing is that the risk reduction is minuscule for an individual in reasonable health, even if the official figures are to be believed.
Indeed- and any risk reduction needs to be weighed against the likely risk increase from known and unknown current and future side effects
I think it’s the other way round.
Yes
I salute the author’s courage and humility in writing like this, having at first been fooled.
For this alone, serious respect to you from me, Mark Walker.
From being safe and effective we ended up as ”preventing hospitalisation and death”, which because of all the possible confounding factors is impossible to measure. And the AZ vaccine was withdrawn because if did exactly the opposite. What a con/farce
The last two paragraphs alone point out the absolute farce that is taking place in the guise of an independent enquiry that is costing millions!
Isn’t it strange how Professor Bhakdi was able to inform us precisely what the heart/stroke/blood clots side effects of the gunk would be almost as soon as they were rolled out.
I guess he wasn’t paid to provide “the $cience.”
I will be eternally grateful to him, Mike Yeardon and a few others for doing their best to warn the public in circumstances which the WHO and Western Governments made as difficult as they possibly could.
Unjabbed; never getting jabbed with anything, ever again.
same here confirmed antivaxxer for any a nd all vaccines now