WHO COVID-19 vaccine study debunked

The influential medical journal BMJ reported on WHO modelling (not yet published proper, source) purporting that COVID-19 vaccines “saved at least 1.4 million lives” in Europe. Source. Given my published research on the effectiveness and safety of the jabs being exaggerated, of course I would have an issue or two with it. While the BMJ did not, as is typical, grant me the word count for a full ‘Lataster treatment’, they did at least allow me to publish a very short critique of the study as a rapid response. Source. Some of the issues I raised in this little debunking:

• The WHO European Respiratory Surveillance Network (WHOERS) assumed an absurdly low waning of vaccine effectiveness, 0.25% per week, when we all know that the jab’s effectiveness declines extraordinarily quickly, even turning negative (for COVID deaths as well as infections) within a year. Ironically, some of the most recent evidence for COVID-19 vaccine negative effectiveness comes from… the WHO.

• Estimates of expected mortality like IFRs/CFRs aren’t properly explained or justified, with the relevant section of their supplementary material dealing with this containing several instances of “Error! Reference source not found”. You don’t say.

• The WHOERS somehow strongly encourage vaccination, though they only considered the benefits and not the risks of vaccination. Remember how we’re supposed to weigh up risks and benefits? Like a lot of things, that’s apparently on the way out. Reminds me of people gleefully plying kids with hormone pills and encouraging unnecessary surgeries, with nary a care for the potential consequences. I note the increasing research that the risks of the jab are quite substantial (they’re also still not fully known), and almost certainly outweigh the benefits (at least in the young and healthy). Even without this, encouraging these products without even mentioning the risks is beyond irresponsible.

• Of course I reference the JECP4 articles, especially the dodgy definitions of ‘vaccinated’ and ‘unvaccinated’ likely leading to highly exaggerated effectiveness and safety estimates. I note that their supplementary material employs a bunch of studies that use such dodgy definitions.

• While the evidence of COVID-19 vaccine negative effectiveness continues to grow, some of it incredibly supplied by the WHO itself, it’s not factored at all in the WHOERS model.

• Didn’t have the word count to mention that WHO is largely funded by Bill Gates, who profited bigly off of the jabs. Conflict of interest much? If one were so inclined, you could even call them Bill Gates’ WHOERS.

Okay then.

Extra: Recall that I also earlier critiqued the US-focused Kitano et al., published proper, and the Australian-focused Lin et al., which might be published in PLOS One soon as a comment. Been struggling to get my critiques published of another major Australian study, and the big international one that Senator Ron Johnson personally asked me about - stay tuned. And if possible, I’d like to look at the New Zealand study.

Extra: As someone that has critiqued several of these jab-promoting studies now I can inform you that they’re all pretty similar, and that includes the problems. The researchers typically use exaggerated estimates of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and safety; minimise or don’t even attempt to factor in the risks; minimise or don’t even account for rapid waning of vaccine effectiveness (and also negative effectiveness); use questionable data sets and COVID-19 IFRs/CFRs, hyping up the danger COVID poses and thus the potential benefits of the jabs; fail to properly disclose their financial links to the vaccine manufacturers; and for some reason these tend to all be based on models and estimates, when the map is not the territory, and one would hope they had the hard - and accurate - data.