I view this limited release study as somewhat of a containment effort. It allows people to believe that jab benefits outweigh the risk, while no longer fully denying the obvious.
The Daily Mail has published a piece on the study, (which could have been written by Pharma interests,) justaposing the selected adverse event lists from 8 small countries to the "estimated" worldwide "benefits" of the jabs. And they seem to have a multilayered mechanism for preventing comments.
There is an elephant in the room in this study: the virus.
Adverse events (AESI) before the pandemic were compared with AESI during the pandemic, but the infection history of those who were vaccinated (and eventually had AESI) is ignored. As if vaccines were not there because of the virus. And yet, as pointed by the authors, "... multiple studies demonstrated higher risk of developing the events under study, such as GBS, myocarditis, or ADEM, following SARS-CoV-2 infection than vaccination."
Viral infections are known to promote GBS and peri-myocarditis to mention just two AESI and, as time went by, in 2021-2023 everybody got infected, because 4 to 5 months after day-0, vaccines were not avoiding infections (humoral immunity dropped and the virus evolved). So how can we ignore the infection history of those with an AESI?
What I would have welcomed was a comparison of AESI between period jan-dec/2020 (a virus around, no vaccine) with period jan/2021-dec/2023 (a virus around, vaccine around).
Mind you that the AESI studied are very rare events. So an O/E ratio compares very rare events. We can easily get a figure above 2 or 3 and yet the absolute value of O (AESI observed) is very very low. So values O/E >1 do NOT by themselves convey the message that taking a vaccine is risky. Plus, these values are to be compared with the risk of a viral infection (ignored in this study). In this regard, just to mentions death, a recent WHO study, for example, estimated that 1.4M lives were saved by the vaccines in the European Region alone https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.01.12.24301206v1
In Portugal, in january 2021 alone, 5800 people died of COVID, and that was the greater public health disaster of the past 100 years in the country, caused by a single pathogen.
What i found surprising in this study was the large majority of ratios O/E (observed/expected AESI) being <1 (check the amount of green in Table 3 and 4). How is this possible when there is a coronavirus around infecting everybody?
That is all that is left, accountability, the damage whatever it is now and in the future has been done. What a completely reckless endeavour.
Evil and reckless.
Correction: "Doing so would be considered malfeasance.." should be "Not doing so would be considered malfeasance.."
Thanks for the correction! The sentence was changed.
Glad I could help. Keep up your good works!
I view this limited release study as somewhat of a containment effort. It allows people to believe that jab benefits outweigh the risk, while no longer fully denying the obvious.
The Daily Mail has published a piece on the study, (which could have been written by Pharma interests,) justaposing the selected adverse event lists from 8 small countries to the "estimated" worldwide "benefits" of the jabs. And they seem to have a multilayered mechanism for preventing comments.
Excellent! Glad you did this because I saw a brief abstract of it and didn't know if it was worth the time to read or just another clickbait. Thx!
There is an elephant in the room in this study: the virus.
Adverse events (AESI) before the pandemic were compared with AESI during the pandemic, but the infection history of those who were vaccinated (and eventually had AESI) is ignored. As if vaccines were not there because of the virus. And yet, as pointed by the authors, "... multiple studies demonstrated higher risk of developing the events under study, such as GBS, myocarditis, or ADEM, following SARS-CoV-2 infection than vaccination."
Viral infections are known to promote GBS and peri-myocarditis to mention just two AESI and, as time went by, in 2021-2023 everybody got infected, because 4 to 5 months after day-0, vaccines were not avoiding infections (humoral immunity dropped and the virus evolved). So how can we ignore the infection history of those with an AESI?
What I would have welcomed was a comparison of AESI between period jan-dec/2020 (a virus around, no vaccine) with period jan/2021-dec/2023 (a virus around, vaccine around).
Mind you that the AESI studied are very rare events. So an O/E ratio compares very rare events. We can easily get a figure above 2 or 3 and yet the absolute value of O (AESI observed) is very very low. So values O/E >1 do NOT by themselves convey the message that taking a vaccine is risky. Plus, these values are to be compared with the risk of a viral infection (ignored in this study). In this regard, just to mentions death, a recent WHO study, for example, estimated that 1.4M lives were saved by the vaccines in the European Region alone https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.01.12.24301206v1
In Portugal, in january 2021 alone, 5800 people died of COVID, and that was the greater public health disaster of the past 100 years in the country, caused by a single pathogen.
What i found surprising in this study was the large majority of ratios O/E (observed/expected AESI) being <1 (check the amount of green in Table 3 and 4). How is this possible when there is a coronavirus around infecting everybody?
manuel
What I found most surprising in this