Censorship is one of the main strategies that the government and health officials have used to keep people from finding out the truth about many COVID-related issues, including vaccines. Scientific commentary and debate have been prohibited for most of the last two years, and almost all forms of communication have been subject to censorship, including medical journals. There are signs that this is starting to change.
On June 24 2021, three authors published a risk/benefit analysis of COVID-19 vaccines in a medical journal. The authors acknowledged that data on which the analysis was based was limited, but at that time there was only one study that allowed for an estimate of the absolute risk reduction (ARR) in mortality that could be attributed to the vaccines. This was a large study of the BioNTech vaccine in Israel which included data from a short period of observation – only four weeks from the first dose.
The authors concluded that it was likely that for every three deaths prevented by COVID-19 vaccines, two people would die as a result of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. They further determined that 16,000 people had to be vaccinated in order to prevent one death, and stated that due to the short observation period, this estimate might have been conservative.
The editors of the journal threatened to withdraw the article and subsequently did withdraw it. This is not surprising, as many articles including data showing that the vaccines are not effective or safe have been withdrawn from journals. But in a surprising turnaround and after a thorough re-review of the data, the article was reinstated.
The same authors decided to review the risk/benefit ratio of COVID vaccines again after data from a 6-month BioNTech regulatory clinical trial became available. Here is what they reported:
- there were 14 deaths are reported in the placebo group
- there were 15 deaths in the vaccination group
- two deaths in the placebo-group were attributed to COVID-19
- one in the vaccination group was attributed to COVID-19 pneumonia
Analysis showed that 21,916 people have to be vaccinated in order to prevent one death from COVID-19. The authors were correct in the first analysis when they predicted that their original estimate was conservative.
Safety data covering all side effects reported between December 2020 and November 30 2021 from the Paul Erlich Institute, a German federal agency and research institution for vaccines and biomedicines, showed two deaths per 100,000 people vaccinated. A Dutch data base showed four deaths per 100,000 people vaccinated. An analysis of these and other data bases led the authors to conclude that if 100,000 people are vaccinated, 5 lives might be saved and between 2 and 4 people might die.
The authors caution that “passive pharmacovigilance data” is different from data obtained from trials and is “…notorious for underestimating casualties and side effects.”
The authors also express concern about severe side effects, such as myocarditis in young males. They reference a recent study showing a 13.6-fold increased risk of myocarditis following vaccination in this cohort.
They recommend an improved monitoring system for documenting the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in Europe, and also encourage “…a rational public debate about the risk-benefit ratio of these novel vaccines.”
Improved monitoring and public discussion are not likely to happen anytime soon. But accurate information like the data presented in this article is gradually leaking out. The criminals in charge of the COVID debacle are having increasing difficulty keeping a growing number of independent thinkers from communicating with the world.
Walach H, Klment RJ, Aukema W. Letter to the Editor: “The risk-benefit ratio of COVID-19 vaccines: Publication policy by retraction does nothing to improve it.” J Clin Trans Disc 2022 Febhttps://doi.org/10.1002/ctd2.35