The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy

Uncategorized 1 Minute

Source: MDPI.

This paper documents a statistical analysis that finds (from the abstract): “For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination.”

You can’t infer Truth with a capital “T” from just one paper, but cautionary studies on the safety of Covid vaccines appear to be multiplying and are worth knowing about.

Here’s the question: If a medication saves three people within a large group while killing two, should employers or schools be allowed to require it? If those are the real conditions, I would say No.

Published by John Todd Roberts

Published

20 thoughts on “The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy”

  2. Hopefully later today I will have time to read the paper in detail, but off the top, 2 things.

    The reported 4 deaths per 100,000 seems very unlikely. If we had had 4000 to 8000 deaths in the US, we would have heard about it by now.

    Second, there is the presumption that only death prevented matters. People who recover from COVID that requires hospitalization still suffer, and likely have their lifespans shortened by about 15 years.

    I’ll come back to this after my granddaughter’s dance recital.

    Like

    Reply

    2. RE: “The reported 4 deaths per 100,000 seems very unlikely. If we had had 4000 to 8000 deaths in the US, we would have heard about it by now.”

      I’m looking forward to your comments after reading the paper. I am particularly interested to understand whether NNTV is a standard metric or just a made-up concept.

      I think we have heard about vaccine-caused deaths. It’s just hard to break through the veil of assumptions and propaganda. We know, for example, there are about 6,000 deaths reported in the CDC’s VAERS database, but there’s been very little public discussion about those reports and their potential impact on public policy.

      Like

      Reply

      1. I see a number of problems.

        The NNTV is context sensitive. For example, they used Israel to calculate NNTV, but Israel was a very aggressive early vaccinator. Thus, because they vaccinated so soon and so aggressively , particularly among the old, there were fewer people who were exposed.

        In calculating risk, the data is very low quality. The European average for reporting serious reactions was 127/100K. but the low was 15/100K in Poland and the high was 701/100K for the Dutch. The researchers used the Dutch value. Why?

        These reactions are self reported. Is every death of a recently vaccinated person to be assumed to be caused by the vaccine. Remember that in most of the civilized world, they vaccinated oldest first, and old people die, vaccinated or not.

        Per CDC “Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 318 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through June 21, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 5,479 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.”

        Note that the deaths include ALL deaths of those who recently received the vaccine. How many people out of 318 million drinking a glass of water die within a month?

        So, the best I can say about the study is that the authors have a great future ahead if they switch over to climate science.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

        1. Thank you for the feedback.

          I don’t agree with all the criticisms you levy. For example, the Israel study was the largest of its kind by number of participants. I’d expect that would mitigate the “context sensitive” problem you mention to some extent.

          The authors also hint at an answer to your question about using the Dutch data. They imply that the Dutch national reporting standards are preferable to those the other European states use.

          At the same time you make a fair point that using the Israeli data (biggest database) to calculate NNTV and the Dutch data (best quality database) to calculate incidence per 100,000 patients may be an arbitrary or biased choice.

          I also agree that raw adverse effect reports cannot be taken at face value. Apart from qualifying each report for accuracy, one must also account for known rates of under reporting.

          I don’t think these factors make the study unreliable. It might be described as a “back of the envelope” analysis, but even back-of-the-envelope work can be valid. If the design (comparing NNTV to incident rates) is valid, I’d want to see the results replicated before believing them.

          Like

          Reply

  3. Good grief! Really? Still looking for “evidence” to rationalize your unwillingness to join the ranks of the vaccinated trying to end this pandemic. Here is a pro tip on critical thinking. When a statistical analysis leads to a conclusion that is contrary to existing evidence, be very, very skeptical.

    If you want to die now then stay unvaccinated. Virtually ALL current American deaths – hundreds per day – are happening to people like you.

    https://abc7news.com/covid-vaccine-coronavirus-deaths-us-covid-19/10827443/

    It is worth noting that even if this ridiculous and nonsensical conclusion (three deaths prevented at a cost of two deaths incurred) is absolutely correct it is still a good bargain.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. RE: “It is worth noting that even if this ridiculous and nonsensical conclusion (three deaths prevented at a cost of two deaths incurred) is absolutely correct it is still a good bargain.”

      I don’t think so. The scientists who wrote the paper don’t think so, either.

      Like

      Reply

      1. You don’t think so? For any rational reason?

        You would not trade two deaths for three meaning 1 less death?
        You would not trade 200,000 deaths for 300,000 meaning 100,000 fewer deaths?

        Of course, this a nonsense discussion because the premise is nonsense.

        By the way, those VAERS reported deaths are deaths AFTER taking the vaccine but not CAUSED by the vaccine. The CDC follows up those reports diligently.

        https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

      2. RE: “You would not trade two deaths for three meaning 1 less death?”

        No, I wouldn’t. I find it odd that you would.

        RE: “By the way, those VAERS reported deaths are deaths AFTER taking the vaccine but not CAUSED by the vaccine.”

        That’s technically incorrect. Deaths following vaccination may indeed be caused by the vaccine. One unconfirmed estimate, attributed to anonymous VAERS analysts working for the CDC, is that 28,500 vaccine-caused deaths have occurred in the U.S. It would be helpful to know if that number is valid without having to trust the secretive bureaucracy or the opinions of uninformed laymen like you.

        Like

        Reply

        1. “That is technically incorrect.”
          Uh, no it isn’t.
          VAERS reporting is based purely on timing, not causation.

          You put more weight on a ridiculous number coming from an unconfirmed estimate attributed to an anonymous analyst than you do on the CDC. There is ZERO evidence that the CDC is cooking the books and covering up 28,500 deaths. None. And no reason to think that they would. As of Monday VAERS received 5,479 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. It is hard understand how this “anonymous VAERS analyst” could find 28,500 deaths hidden in that number. But you are waiting “to know if that number is valid.”

          No wonder you are constantly posting incoherent babble.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

        2. RE: “VAERS reporting is based purely on timing, not causation.”

          You said deaths reported in VAERS were deaths NOT caused by the vaccine. That’s what you got wrong.

          RE: “You put more weight on a ridiculous number coming from an unconfirmed estimate attributed to an anonymous analyst than you do on the CDC.”

          I put no weight on it all all. I merely noted the existence of the estimate. Were it confirmed, we should certainly want to know why it was concealed.

          I have no idea what you hope to accomplish here. If you have a problem with the peer-reviewed paper I shared, you’d be better off addressing it instead of attacking straw men.

          Like

          Reply

          1. “You said deaths reported in VAERS were deaths NOT caused by the vaccine. That’s what you got wrong.”

            Well Dr Semantics strikes again. My meaning was clear. Deaths get reported in VAERS on the basis of timing not on the basis of having been caused by the vaccine. And, however you want quibble about my wording, it is highly relevant that CDC actively investigates these deaths and reports that “review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.”

            You don’t know what my objective is? Easy. It is to push back on dangerous nonsense.

            This paper was published on an open source journal where just about anybody who cannto get into an established journal can publish. Two of the three “peers” reviewing it are anonymous. The one person who used her name is neither a virologist nor an epidemiologist.

            But leaving all the hooey aside the conclusion they come to is obvious nonsense. These fellows claim that the vaccines are 2/3 as deadly as the virus. Do some math and think for yourself.
            1. To-date 34 million cases of Covid-19
            2. To-date 603 thousand deaths
            3. To-date death rate = 1.8% of cases
            4. Claimed vaccine death rate – 2/3 of virus death rate = 1.2%
            5. Doses administered = 318 million
            6. Assume EVERY dose was part of a two dose regimen = 159 million people
            7. Deaths expected among the vaccinated (4) times (6) = 1.9 million deaths.

            Where are the nearly 2 million victims of the vaccinations? CDC can only find a handful. If any.

            Now do you understand how laugable the conclusion they reach is?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “Now do you understand how laugable the conclusion they reach is?”

            I understand that you can’t do math.

            Like

          3. It seems to me you just don’t want to believe the factual facts ( as opposed to your truthiness) UNLESS they support your view.

            PITIFUL.

            Like

Leave a comment