More question COVID vaccine success

Following my critiques of influential studies purporting the great successes of COVID-19 vaccines, including the article on Watson et al which got quite a bit of attention, more scholars are realising that these studies are deeply flawed. The latest effort summarises much of the best evidences against the vaccines, and is by an Israeli research group, Ophir et al, with Peter McCullough and I coming on board as co-authors. Source. Highlights:

• The vaccine triumphalist claims typically don’t come from gold-standard clinical trials, but from mere computer models, fraught with problems, as per my critique of Watson et al.

• Narratives around how the vaccines help constant changed. Remember when they straight up lied to us about the vaccines stopping infection?

• The evidence that the jabs help with severe COVID, even death, is very sketchy. Remember from JECP4 that estimates of efficacy/effectiveness and safety are likely exaggerated. Recall also from Fraiman et al and Benn et al that it is far from clear that the jabs reduced overall hospitalisations and deaths. Plus there’s even some evidence of negative effectiveness. Also mentioned is the healthy vaccinee bias, which can have a huge effect on exaggerating the benefits of the jabs.

• The authors then looked at how ‘the science’ could get it so wrong, and how results were misinterpreted. For example, the FDA’s “authorization of the second booster dose for older adults and immunocompromised individuals on March 29, 2022” because of “emerging evidence suggests that a second booster dose... improves protection against severe COVID-19”, but “the only scientific source cited to support this claim was an Israeli study conducted at Sheba Medical Center—a study that did not support the claim”, indeed “this small observational study did not examine severe illness”. It’s a bit like how everyone approved, encouraged, and mandated mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, to save lives, when the clinical trials didn’t actually show that they save lives. And how Australian health authorities now effectively admit that the risks of the jabs outweigh the benefits for healthy children, with their only cited sources being on the severity of COVID on children from several years earlier. Liability much?

• They also discuss how critical voices were suppressed, noting the primary authors’ failed attempts at getting this article published in the big medical journals, and focusing a bit on my own story, not about how I was fired for not submitting to COVID-19 vaccine mandates, but how I was censored in warning that “that the risks of vaccination may outweigh the benefits for young, healthy individuals”, concerns which “are now reflected in evolving public health guidance, as seen in the recent recommendation revision by the Australian Government’s Department of Health”.

• They finally note that “the available evidence suggests that the risk–benefit balance of the COVID-19 vaccines is, in fact, tilted toward the negative end of this fundamental medical equation”.

Okay then.