I am currently working on a data analysis that finds a way around all of the AE database sampling to estimate deaths. Hopefully I'll be able to write up first results this week.
The guys from Vaccines used it. Then all the board of editors resigned. They are found that Netherlands have OK reporting. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693/htm The best analysis I have seen so far published.
The Editorial Board retracted the article you linked to:
"The data from the Lareb report (https://www.lareb.nl/coronameldingen) in The Netherlands were used to calculate the number of severe and fatal side effects per 100,000 vaccinations. Unfortunately, in the manuscript by Harald Walach et al. these data were incorrectly interpreted which led to erroneous conclusions. The data was presented as being causally related to adverse events by the authors. This is inaccurate. In The Netherlands, healthcare professionals and patients are invited to report suspicions of adverse events that may be associated with vaccination. For this type of reporting a causal relation between the event and the vaccine is not needed, therefore a reported event that occurred after vaccination is not necessarily attributable to vaccination. Thus, reporting of a death following vaccination does not imply that this is a vaccine-related event. There are several other inaccuracies in the paper by Harald Walach et al. one of which is that fatal cases were certified by medical specialists. It should be known that even this false claim does not imply causation, which the authors imply. Further, the authors have called the events ‘effects’ and ‘reactions’ when this is not established, and until causality is established they are ‘events’ that may or may not be caused by exposure to a vaccine. It does not matter what statistics one may apply, this is incorrect and misleading.
"The authors were asked to respond to the claims, but were not able to do so satisfactorily. The authors were notified of the retraction and did not agree."
Yeah...this was a hit job. One of the authors went on vacation, so the other got the notice that that needed to be responded to in 24 hours, if I understand the story correctly. Ultimately, all of science should always be viewed as debatable. It is inappropriate for a health agency to push weight into a publication arena and declare their interpretation both of data and of the author's use of that data, neither of which may be correct. Science is never a process of authoritarian dictate.
From the 6-month Pfizer study: “During the blinded, controlled period, 15 BNT162b2 and 14 placebo recipients died; during the open-label period, 3 BNT162b2 and 2 original placebo recipients who received BNT162b2 after unblinding died. “
And it seems that the figures for the adverse events are missing. Can anyone find them? I don’t see how they can judge the safety of the vax without weighing serious adverse events against serious covid cases in the placebo group.
Not sure if you saw the interview of Karen Kingston Pfizer x employee who explained the 193 page patent application does not have to list "trade secrets" when application for patent. COVID19 vaccine re graphene oxide which was the "trade secret" so not list in the patent application when listing ingredients.
The problem I see is that according to Pfizer's data, 0.7% of the vaccinated group had SAE, but 0.5% of the placebo group also had SAE. So, I agree with Konstantin that straight forward death estimates (taking VAERS data and multiplying by the under-reporting factor derived from Pfizer's data) maybe probably too simplistic.
A real question for me why would the placebo group have such high SAE? The reported placebo is saline....
It is definitely an interesting question as to why the placebo group had high SAEs. Placebo connections to treatments can be mysterious. In this case, there are researchers even questioning whether the vaccinated "shed" spike.
In this SF Chronicle article, a Stanford Law professor describes the reluctance she and hospital workers felt to report her husband's adverse event (a stroke) to VAERS:
"Maybe we should report it to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the database that tracks events possibly related to vaccines, I said. The hospital care team shifted uncomfortably.
As a health policy professor who works on vaccination issues, I knew why: Anti-vaccination groups are combing those reports looking for tidbits to support their claims that the vaccines are unsafe. They’re wildly misconstruing the data, leaping to unfounded conclusions about causality — and the Tucker Carlsons of the world are helping them."
She does eventually report the stroke, citing her virtuous "worship of the church of big data." However, one can imagine how often such incidents aren't reported by those not graced with this professor's virtue and courage.
The remainder of the article documents the professor's continued struggle with cognitive dissonance and political biases, to which she ultimately succumbs--her husband's vaccine-induced hospitalization compels her to vaccinate her young son. Fortunately, the author's decision does not result in any harm to her son's health or her own sense of self-virtue.
I cannot make sense of the Y axis for the deaths reported to VAERS graph. Does that say there were 140 million vaccinations in April? That seems impossible. Should that be scaled by ten thousand instead of 100,000?
This is the slippery slope. Multiply VAERS by 30 could not be straight forward justified and used in calculations because no one knows. COVID death impossible to distinguish from COVID multiple cause (where is probably vaccine) and from Natural cause (R squared 0.98) for both. So CDC could with one colon in reporting procedures regulate the COVID death 3 fold. I just thinking to check when it gonna be fifth wave if it's real or just in reports. There is the Unclassified death which was stable 650 a week for whole 2020. Now it's ~ 4K a week. The only thing is changed is the vaccines. And we are could believe those are healthy people, because otherwise why it's Unclassified. So assumption that CDC killed at least 40K healthy Americans to date. We are do not know how many they are killed within the covid category or let say heart decease category. But we are have one category which is could be predicted with just linear model from amount of weekly doses administered.
The recent Kostoff paper came up with 100x, but the 30x should have been noted to be a floor since both is measured a short time span and used a very health cohort (10% of expected heart attacks versus general population) with very few elderly.
I have a general question that relates to many of your more recent analyses re vaccine injury or death... Are there a medical codes that clinicians are to use to report observed adverse events to the covid vaccines? Specific codes for specific categories, including death?
Some have said (oh no, heard it on the internet!) that there is no code for vaccine death for covid ---for other vaccines but not covid19. Electronic record coding analysis could be another (yet imperfect) way to dive into the data, as one might assume these codes, however specific, are available for doctors et al to report in a patient's file. Seems they have a mind numbing number of codes these days that cover absolutely every situation, but not this?
Mathew
Have you considered using the Eurpean Medicines Agency EudraVigilance database (https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/research-development/pharmacovigilance/eudravigilance) as a source of data on the vaccines?
Click on this link https://www.adrreports.eu/en/search_subst.html#, select C and scroll down to 'Covid'. Information for Moderna, Pfizer, Astrazeneca and Janssen vaccines are provided.
(Hats off to Sand_Puppy Comment 76 on Chris Martenson's Peak Prosperity site -https://www.peakprosperity.com/confused-that-means-youve-been-paying-attention. For the Moderna Vaccine there have been 1773 reported deaths, Pfizer 1217, Astrazeneca 593 and Jansen 144. )
Richard
Thanks for the pointer.
Yes, we have also looked at European data a bit.
I am currently working on a data analysis that finds a way around all of the AE database sampling to estimate deaths. Hopefully I'll be able to write up first results this week.
The guys from Vaccines used it. Then all the board of editors resigned. They are found that Netherlands have OK reporting. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693/htm The best analysis I have seen so far published.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/729/htm
The Editorial Board retracted the article you linked to:
"The data from the Lareb report (https://www.lareb.nl/coronameldingen) in The Netherlands were used to calculate the number of severe and fatal side effects per 100,000 vaccinations. Unfortunately, in the manuscript by Harald Walach et al. these data were incorrectly interpreted which led to erroneous conclusions. The data was presented as being causally related to adverse events by the authors. This is inaccurate. In The Netherlands, healthcare professionals and patients are invited to report suspicions of adverse events that may be associated with vaccination. For this type of reporting a causal relation between the event and the vaccine is not needed, therefore a reported event that occurred after vaccination is not necessarily attributable to vaccination. Thus, reporting of a death following vaccination does not imply that this is a vaccine-related event. There are several other inaccuracies in the paper by Harald Walach et al. one of which is that fatal cases were certified by medical specialists. It should be known that even this false claim does not imply causation, which the authors imply. Further, the authors have called the events ‘effects’ and ‘reactions’ when this is not established, and until causality is established they are ‘events’ that may or may not be caused by exposure to a vaccine. It does not matter what statistics one may apply, this is incorrect and misleading.
"The authors were asked to respond to the claims, but were not able to do so satisfactorily. The authors were notified of the retraction and did not agree."
Yeah...this was a hit job. One of the authors went on vacation, so the other got the notice that that needed to be responded to in 24 hours, if I understand the story correctly. Ultimately, all of science should always be viewed as debatable. It is inappropriate for a health agency to push weight into a publication arena and declare their interpretation both of data and of the author's use of that data, neither of which may be correct. Science is never a process of authoritarian dictate.
From the 6-month Pfizer study: “During the blinded, controlled period, 15 BNT162b2 and 14 placebo recipients died; during the open-label period, 3 BNT162b2 and 2 original placebo recipients who received BNT162b2 after unblinding died. “
And it seems that the figures for the adverse events are missing. Can anyone find them? I don’t see how they can judge the safety of the vax without weighing serious adverse events against serious covid cases in the placebo group.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full-text
Not sure if you saw the interview of Karen Kingston Pfizer x employee who explained the 193 page patent application does not have to list "trade secrets" when application for patent. COVID19 vaccine re graphene oxide which was the "trade secret" so not list in the patent application when listing ingredients.
The problem I see is that according to Pfizer's data, 0.7% of the vaccinated group had SAE, but 0.5% of the placebo group also had SAE. So, I agree with Konstantin that straight forward death estimates (taking VAERS data and multiplying by the under-reporting factor derived from Pfizer's data) maybe probably too simplistic.
A real question for me why would the placebo group have such high SAE? The reported placebo is saline....
It is definitely an interesting question as to why the placebo group had high SAEs. Placebo connections to treatments can be mysterious. In this case, there are researchers even questioning whether the vaccinated "shed" spike.
https://archive.is/HpdDN
In this SF Chronicle article, a Stanford Law professor describes the reluctance she and hospital workers felt to report her husband's adverse event (a stroke) to VAERS:
"Maybe we should report it to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the database that tracks events possibly related to vaccines, I said. The hospital care team shifted uncomfortably.
As a health policy professor who works on vaccination issues, I knew why: Anti-vaccination groups are combing those reports looking for tidbits to support their claims that the vaccines are unsafe. They’re wildly misconstruing the data, leaping to unfounded conclusions about causality — and the Tucker Carlsons of the world are helping them."
She does eventually report the stroke, citing her virtuous "worship of the church of big data." However, one can imagine how often such incidents aren't reported by those not graced with this professor's virtue and courage.
The remainder of the article documents the professor's continued struggle with cognitive dissonance and political biases, to which she ultimately succumbs--her husband's vaccine-induced hospitalization compels her to vaccinate her young son. Fortunately, the author's decision does not result in any harm to her son's health or her own sense of self-virtue.
I cannot make sense of the Y axis for the deaths reported to VAERS graph. Does that say there were 140 million vaccinations in April? That seems impossible. Should that be scaled by ten thousand instead of 100,000?
This is the slippery slope. Multiply VAERS by 30 could not be straight forward justified and used in calculations because no one knows. COVID death impossible to distinguish from COVID multiple cause (where is probably vaccine) and from Natural cause (R squared 0.98) for both. So CDC could with one colon in reporting procedures regulate the COVID death 3 fold. I just thinking to check when it gonna be fifth wave if it's real or just in reports. There is the Unclassified death which was stable 650 a week for whole 2020. Now it's ~ 4K a week. The only thing is changed is the vaccines. And we are could believe those are healthy people, because otherwise why it's Unclassified. So assumption that CDC killed at least 40K healthy Americans to date. We are do not know how many they are killed within the covid category or let say heart decease category. But we are have one category which is could be predicted with just linear model from amount of weekly doses administered.
This doesn't change the bigger picture that much but, could you take me through your math on how you got to 2.4m expected SAEs?
- You say: 0.7% of trial Pfizer vaccine recipients suffered SAEs.
- 50.3% (165m pp) of Americans are fully vaccinated https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/
- Let's say 100m of those are Pfizer (it's a very rough ballpark guess, I don't know the nr). 0.7% of that would be 700,000 expected SAEs from Pfizer
- Or say Moderna has similar rate of SAEs, we get 0.7% of 165m => 1.155m.
.... which in turn would suggest (very roughly) an under-reporting of around 9x to 15x in VAERS
The recent Kostoff paper came up with 100x, but the 30x should have been noted to be a floor since both is measured a short time span and used a very health cohort (10% of expected heart attacks versus general population) with very few elderly.
I have a general question that relates to many of your more recent analyses re vaccine injury or death... Are there a medical codes that clinicians are to use to report observed adverse events to the covid vaccines? Specific codes for specific categories, including death?
Some have said (oh no, heard it on the internet!) that there is no code for vaccine death for covid ---for other vaccines but not covid19. Electronic record coding analysis could be another (yet imperfect) way to dive into the data, as one might assume these codes, however specific, are available for doctors et al to report in a patient's file. Seems they have a mind numbing number of codes these days that cover absolutely every situation, but not this?