The author is an associate lecturer at the University of Sydney.
"Introduction
Several influential studies have claimed that COVID-19 vaccines saved millions of lives worldwide. Despite their influence on public health policies and perception, these studies have received limited critical scrutiny in the peer-reviewed literature.
This three-part metacritique addresses that gap by closely analyzing six prominent and widely cited studies on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness. Each part highlights methodological flaws, unexamined assumptions, overlooked risks, and potential conflicts of interest...
Part 1 focuses exclusively on Watson et al, the most high-profile and globally cited study, which claimed that over 14 million lives were saved by COVID-19 vaccines...
Watson et al - International
... One major problem appears in the appendix, concerning the assumed effectiveness of the vaccines. First, the effectiveness estimates used for the Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca vaccines do not come from 'gold-standard' randomized controlled trials...
Another issue is the implicit assumption of static vaccine effectiveness estimates by Watson et al... [T]he authors disclose in the appendix... that, when addressing the Delta variant's immune escape in their model, they 'assume a constant vaccine efficacy of 60% against infection and 90% against disease,' to 'simplify the model parameterisation.' While simplicity is often appreciated, one point of agreement among both proponents and critics of COVID-19 vaccination is that its effectiveness is short-lived. Numerous articles and datasets indicate that vaccine effectiveness—whether for infections or death—declines rapidly, sometimes reaching 0% within months, and may even become negative. If this were not the case, there would be no need for frequent and continuous booster shots...
Apart from the assumed effectiveness of the vaccines, the most important assumptions in the model relate to infection fatality rates (IFRs)...
Watson et al unfortunately do not explain why they used the IFR values they did, nor do they specify what those values were. It is difficult to believe that this study passed peer review, was published, and remains published, given that such critical information was left undisclosed...
Furthermore, a proper risk-benefit analysis is not possible without factoring in the deaths and injuries caused by the vaccines, which are still not fully understood due to the lack of long-term data...
There are yet more problems. With some high-profile article retractions recently, partly due to concerns about unscholarly sources, it is problematic that some key assumptions in Watson et al come from a nonacademic magazine: 'Estimates of excess mortality are sourced from The Economist excess mortality model'...
Finally, there are also several concerns regarding financial conflicts of interest... The last listed author, typically the senior or supervisory researcher, has worked for pharmaceutical companies, including prominent COVID-19 vaccine manufacturer Moderna. Several other authors have worked for the World Health Organization (WHO). More directly, the study was financially supported by the WHO and Gavi, both of which receive substantial donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), and the latter was itself a funder..."
A review of this article can be found at: https://okaythennews.substack.com/cp/163199441
© Copyright 2024. Independent Medical Alliance (IMA), formerly FLCCC Alliance. All Rights Reserved.
Terms and Conditions
https://imahealth.org/about/terms-and-conditions/
As an educational 501(c)(3) organization, IMA disseminates information sheets for public distribution.
IMA publishes content under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.