DEBUNKED! European & Oceanian COVID vaccine studies torn to shreds

The 3rd and final part of my metacritique of influential COVID-19 vaccine modelling studies, focused on the European study (Meslé et al) and several from Oceania (Liu et al, Lin et al, and Datta et al), has now been published. Source. This will seem similar to my critiques of the international-focused Watson et al and the American-focused Kitano et al because, surprise, surprise, they all have similar issues concerning evidence and logic, or lack thereof, and conflicts of interest. You can do what I’ve done with pretty much all the modelling studies, even Ioannidis et al, which already was a huge improvement, though still quite flawed. Highlights:

• The bit on the European study conducted by the World Health Organization and the European Respiratory Surveillance Network, Meslé et al, is an updated version of the rapid response I had published in the BMJ, before their article was proper published. Lots of issues: waning vaccine effectiveness assumed to be 0.25% per week, which is absurdly low, when we know that the jab’s effectiveness declines very quickly, even turning negative (for COVID deaths as well as infections) within a year (and some of the best evidence for this comes from… the WHO!); encouraging vaccination when the risks aren’t considered; financial and political conflicts of interest, with WHO being partly funded by noted vaccine investor Bill Gates; exaggerated effectiveness and safety estimates as per JECP4; failure to address such criticisms made of their earlier draft.

• Next up is the Australian Liu et al, which I have also used in my argument that if we are to consider that COVID-19 could be causing cancer, as the famous Nature journal wants us to do, we should also be considering that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer, for the exact same reasons. And note that the top Australasian medical journals weren’t keen on publishing my critiques (of this and the next few studies). We find: exaggerated effectiveness and safety estimates; question marks over the fate of the ‘not fully vaccinated’; universally positive conclusions being drawn when their own figures show “several vaccinated groups appear to have higher mortality rates than unvaccinated groups” (e.g., “one triple-dosed group shows a mortality rate of 1.139, compared with 0.929 for the unvaccinated, yet a moderately high VE of 63.4% is reported”); their own VE confidence intervals including negative values (negative effectiveness, again); various groups, “particularly those who received two doses”, appear to be more likely to die from all causes, yeah you heard me, more likely; not properly factoring in the healthy vaccinee effect, which seems likely to play a role where the jab appears to somehow be preventing non-COVID deaths; seemingly relevant data being overlooked, such as with those who received a 5th dose. Best of all, there are several concerning disclosed and undisclosed financial and political conflicts of interest, one being quite personal to me. One of the authors works for the very organisation that fired me (and many others) for not submitting to the jab mandates. Reckon that’s a bit of an issue, or nah? And I would really like to know why “the data for the partially vaccinated have not been released, since it is plausible that some of them may have died due to the vaccine, which would explain why significant numbers of Australians stopped at one dose, when two doses would grant “full protection” and all the associated freedoms” (more on this issue in an upcoming OTN post). But yeah, I’m not really sure that this study helps the cause for the vaccine. It would be great if they could explain “why their data indicate that some groups of double-dosed vaccinees could be dying at a greater rate than the unvaccinated from cardiovascular disease, dementia, respiratory disease, cancer, and even COVID-19”.

• We then tackle another Australian study, Lin et al, which was published in a major journal and became very influential. Over a year later, despite promises to me by the journal, my critique hasn’t been published there. Joke’s on them, it’s peer-reviewed now. Some of the issues: the same exaggerated effectiveness and safety estimates we always see; a focus on older people as if we don’t care about whether the jab is worthwhile for those under 50 (now even ATAGI seems to think it isn’t worth it for healthy children); a VE decline of 0.5% per week, better than for the European study, but still ridiculously low; not properly accounting for the healthy vaccinee effect; an astonishingly high CFR figure is used, 4.45%; despite initially looking like a rare example of having no conflicts, there are several ties to government, and our old pal, Bill Gates; they promote the jab whilst not mentioning vaccine-related injuries or deaths, and whilst not conducting a risk-benefit analysis. Returning to the healthy vaccinee effect, I actually use this study as evidence for it, because they note that “a higher proportion of unvaccinated people . . . about 7% and 9% of aged care residents in NSW and VIC, respectively, had not received any vaccine, compared with only 1.4% of people aged 70+ in NSW”. Why would that be? Well, there is obviously little benefit in people close to death becoming vaccinated, especially as the vaccine could end up killing them (due to physiological stress, not the typical adverse effects). The cynic in me also wonders if some vaccine proponents are quite happy with this, as it prevents vaccine deaths and boosts unvaccinated COVID-19 death stats…

• Finally, Datta et al, from New Zealand. Similar issues: the typical exaggerated effectiveness and safety estimates; inappropriate accounting for VE waning; ignoring confounding variables; overestimating the deadliness of COVID-19; overlooking vaccine injuries and deaths, rendering a risk-benefit analysis impossible; funding provided by the New Zealand government, which approved, encouraged, and even mandated COVID-19 vaccines - and just as with some of the other studies, we find at least one person who was “involved in enforcing lockdowns and facilitating access to COVID-19 vaccines”. One startling admission made by the authors: “Relative differences among scenarios in the number of infections were smaller (25% above baseline in all scenarios). This shows that, over the 18-month time period considered, the primary benefit of vaccination in the model was to reduce the risk of severe disease and death rather than to prevent transmission.” Cool.

Hang on, weren’t the vaccine mandates necessary to stop the spread? We wouldn’t want selfish old Raph infecting grandma, after all… So you mean I and many others had our lives ruined for nothing?

Okay then.

Extra: Although that concludes the 3-part series I will no doubt be critiquing other studies. For example, I’ve already debunked the modelling studies cited in that US government report which agreed with most of ‘our’ thoughts on COVID-19 and the vaccines, it’s just a case of finding a journal happy to publish it.