Jabs 'Saved Millions', 'Worked Even Better', Studies in The Lancet, BMJ Claim

You thought you'd be done with 'the Pandemic™', but the pandemicists certainly aren't done with you

And now this happened: German-language legacy media is abuzz with more BS about the heavenly wondrous, marvellously effective, and 112% safe modRNA gene therapy injections.

At some point, we may need to invoke the Bill Murray movie ‘Groundhog Day’, specifically, the scenes where his character seeks to escape his ordeal by attempting to commit suicide one way or another.

If, at this point, you still care about whatever ‘the Science™’ produces with respect to the WHO-declared, so-called ‘Pandemic™’, here’s the paper:

Entitled, ‘Excess mortality across countries in the Western World since the COVID-19 pandemic: “Our World in Data” estimates of January 2020 to December 2022’’, it appeared in the once-venerable British Medical Journal, and you could access it here.

As a hilarious aside, it’s filed as ‘original research’, which I find wonderfully ambiguous, both in terms of semantics and in terms of, well it’s originality as the compilation of data has been done by OWID. Since I cannot be bothered to re-read, or make you re-read this kind of BS, I’ll delimit myself to quoting from the ‘methods’ section of the ‘study’s™’ abstract (here and in the following, my emphases):

All-cause mortality reports were abstracted for countries using the ‘Our World in Data’ database. Excess mortality is assessed as a deviation between the reported number of deaths in a country during a certain week or month in 2020 until 2022 and the expected number of deaths in a country for that period under normal conditions. For the baseline of expected deaths, Karlinsky and Kobak’s estimate model was used. This model uses historical death data in a country from 2015 until 2019 and accounts for seasonal variation and year-to-year trends in mortality.

Translated from the academese, this is what the authors have done: looked at the OWID website and ‘performed’ a subtraction of the ‘mortality reports’ from 2020-22 from ‘historical [sic] death data’ from 2015-19. Your tax money was hard at-work here.

And then there’s the ‘study’ that appeared in The Lancet. Bearing the equally impressive title ‘Estimated number of lives directly saved by COVID-19 vaccination programmes in the WHO European Region from December, 2020, to March, 2023: a retrospective surveillance study’ (source, but paywalled), this one, the authors

estimated the number of lives directly saved by age group, vaccine dose, and circulating variant-of-concern (VOC) period, regionally and nationally, using weekly data on COVID-19 mortality and infection, COVID-19 vaccination uptake, and SARS-CoV-2 virus characterisations by lineage downloaded from The European Surveillance System on June 11, 2023, as well as vaccine effectiveness data from the literature.

It, too, suffers from many flaws, most notably the admitted fact that their post-Jan. 2022 data derives from ‘only one country-level study [that] assessed the number of lives saved beyond January, 2022’ (i.e., for about a third of the ‘study’ duration). Needless to say, the authors enquired about ‘relative vaccine effectiveness vs. death’, which, funny enough, increased as Sars-Cov-2 killed fewer people as it (d)evolved. Moreover, since transmission and infections also increased after the emergence of ‘Omicron’, the denominator similarly increased, but the authors aren’t troubled by this.

Since this is very much everything there’s to say about the relative value of the ‘studies’, I shall provide you with a few choice excerpts of what German-language Branch Covidian media outlets gained from this ‘study’, as well as an assessment by Covid realist and former professor of medicine Andreas Sönnichsen, MD, who, for the thoughtcrime of speaking up against the pandemicists’ dastardly doings, was harassed, suffered numerous abuses, and eventually was forced to retire from his position at the Medical University of Vienna because of his blasphemy.

Aa always, all non-English content comes to you in my translation, with emphases added. ‘Enjoy’, if you will.

---

New WHO analysis: Millions of lives saved! Corona vaccinations worked even better than assumed

Via FocusOnline, 13 Aug. 2024 [source]

In Europe, the coronavirus vaccines worked even better than previously assumed [which means we didn’t know]. A new study shows that the lives of around 1.6 million people have been saved. And researchers believe that this figure is even too low [good for their believes, I s’ppose].

Corona vaccinations have saved more lives than previously assumed. This is the conclusion of a new survey by the World Health Organisation (WHO), which has now been published in the journal The Lancet [let’s talk about foxes assessing the safety and efficacy of henhouses].

Corona vaccinations saved the lives of millions of people

According to the study, 1.6 million people over the age of 25 in Europe alone were saved directly by the coronavirus vaccination between December 2020 and March 2023. The majority of them since Omicron has been on the rise in Europe.

The authors mainly sourced data from Europe, from 54 countries in total. In 34 of these countries, the number of deaths was reduced by 59%. Of the people saved, 96 per cent were

• 96 per cent were over 60 years old and

• 52 per cent were over 80 years old.

Possibly even more lives were saved for two reasons:

‘This remarkable figure underlines not only the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing Covid-19-related deaths, but also the central role of organised campaigns in ensuring access to and uptake of vaccines’, researchers Oliver Watson and Alexandra Hogan from Imperial College London, who were not involved in the study, assess the data in an editorial [which I’ve skimmed; it’s the expectable boilerplate BS] .

1. The Herd Effect [remember: these injections don’t prevent transmission]

‘This [Lancet] study does not take into account the additional herd effects of the Covid-19 vaccination’, the two emphasise [of course not, because there are none]. These indirectly [how?] led to a reduction in transmission at population level and thus also to a reduction in deaths in the unvaccinated population [that’s a doubly stupid assessment because it’s a double hypothetical assumption, but then again, I’m no Imperial College Wizard].

2. The Underestimation of Cases [what’s a ‘case’? Right, a ‘positive PCR test’, which is a fraud]

Secondly, the study’s data was based on the Covid mortality rates reported by individual countries. And these are ‘known to underestimate the true burden of Covid-19’. [so, you’re telling us that the underlying official data is bad but are asking us to ‘follow the Science™’ nonetheless? Do you guys proof-read your BS?]

It is likely that not all Covid deaths are included in the reported data [of course not, health services are hiding them by putting loads of people into ‘unknown cause(s) of death’ categories]. This means that the effect of the vaccine may also be underestimated in certain regions [nope, it means f-r-a-u-d].

WHO Alarmed by ‘Miserable’ Vaccination Rates

The coronavirus is still rampant. The data now published emphasises the importance of vaccination [does it? to prevent transmission?]. In view of the increasing coronavirus infections, the WHO is calling for vaccination campaigns for risk groups. Vaccination rates for older people and healthcare workers have fallen alarmingly and have reached a miserable level, said WHO expert Maria Van Kerkhove in Geneva. ‘We urgently need a turnaround here.’

---

Why the Vaccines Have Not Saved Millions of Lives

By Prof. Andreas Sönnichsen, MD, TKP, 24 April 2023 [source]

The good news spreading through all media that COVID vaccinations in the WHO Europe region saved over one million lives between December 2020 and March 2023. The authors of the ‘study’ even gave the exact figure of ‘at least 1,004,927’ lives in their summary. According to the study, 95% of those saved were over 60 years old. 64% owed their salvation to the booster vaccination, while 57% were saved during the coronavirus pandemic.

Information on the scientific methodology used by the authors to arrive at these figures was sparse. Somehow it was calculated from the number of registered COVID deaths, vaccination rates, and vaccination effectiveness. It is not clear from the report exactly how this calculation was made and what basic assumptions were used for vaccine effectiveness, for example.

However, it is worth taking a closer look at the list of authors, as the names are not unknown. Meslè, Brown, Mook, Smallwood, and Pebody, they are all employees of the WHO, and they already published a very similar paper in November 2021 in the journal Eurosurveillance, published by the ECDC (European Centre for Prevention and Disease Control), which announced that 500,000 lives were saved by the COVID vaccination between December 2020 and November 2021. It can therefore be assumed that both articles are based on a largely similar methodology.

However, if you take a closer look at this methodology, you quickly realise that it is not a real comparison between the number of deaths of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, but a model calculation based on completely abstruse basic assumptions.

The Most Serious Errors

The first incorrect basic assumption for the calculation of lives saved is the use of the ‘official’ number of COVID deaths from the various countries. It has been known since the first analyses from Italy in spring 2020 that COVID deaths included all deceased persons who had a positive PCR test within 30 days before death. In some countries, even clinical suspicion was enough to pass as a ‘COVID death’. Exemplary health authorities such as that of the city of Halle an der Saale differentiated in their COVID statistics between people who died ‘from’ and ‘with’ COVID. The city of Halle therefore explicitly states in its official statistics that during the first four coronavirus waves from spring 2020 to the end of December 2021, only 44% of coronavirus test-positive people actually died ‘from’ coronavirus, while the rest died from other pre-existing conditions. Since the start of the coronavirus wave, this figure has fallen to just 35%. From the very beginning, therefore, the majority of so-called COVID deaths have died of natural causes due to other diseases.

The second and most serious misassumption for the model calculation is that the authors assume a vaccination effectiveness of 60% for the first and 95% for the second vaccination [in the above-referred Lancet ‘study’, VE decreases vs. Omicron to 70-84% for ‘boosted’ people]. In other words, they simply take the vaccine effectiveness for preventing COVID infection from the Pfizer approval study. As is well known, this study is characterised by several serious methodological errors in addition to the fact that data was probably falsified in two locations. It is certainly not possible to simply transfer the effectiveness of vaccination in preventing infection to the effectiveness in preventing deaths. This has not yet been proven in a single randomised controlled trial. On the contrary, the number of deaths in the last evaluation of the Pfizer study was the same, with 14 deaths in the placebo group and 15 in the vaccinated group. In the period after the unblinding and the control group was vaccinated, even significantly more vaccinated people died.

All subsequent observational studies on vaccine effectiveness are not usable with regard to mortality in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated people due to these serious methodological errors. For example, the overall mortality was consistently omitted and only the ‘COVID mortality’ was reported, and this was not adjusted for ‘on’ and ‘with’ COVID.

The authors’ third false basic assumption is that the registered COVID deaths were supposedly (almost) all unvaccinated, given the vaccine effectiveness of 95%. In fact, there are no reliable figures available in Europe (or anywhere else) on the vaccination status of people who died from COVID.

Model Calculations Based on False Assumptions

The calculation can therefore be simplified as follows:

Assume that in a population of 500 million people (roughly Europe), of which 50% (approximate average vaccination rate in Europe in the period 12/20-3/23, less at the beginning of course, more at the end of the period) are vaccinated, one million (approximate number of COVID deaths in Europe according to the WHO in this period) people died of COVID in the observation period 2021-2023. This means that 0.4% (1 million) of the 250 million unvaccinated people died from COVID during the observation period. If the vaccinated had not been protected, 0.4% of 95% of the vaccinated would also have died, i.e., 950,000 people. These people were saved from death by the vaccination. We are ignoring the fact that 0.4 per cent of 5 per cent of those vaccinated also died (50,000), which is hardly significant here. These can of course be taken into account in the mathematical model calculation. However, this changes the result only insignificantly.

This example shows how propaganda headlines are generated by modelling calculations based on false assumptions. It is astonishing that the authors of the Eurosurveillance article state that they have no conflicts of interest. However, all five authors of both the old and the new study are paid employees of the WHO, which, as is well known, is mainly financed by money from the pharmaceutical industry.

In fact, not a single human life has probably been saved by the vaccination. The excess mortality that we have observed in Europe since the beginning of 2021 cannot be explained by COVID deaths. On the contrary, there is a high degree of suspicion that the vaccination, among other things, has led to excess mortality.

---

Bottom Lines

It all happened before—literally speaking—and it is happening again.

Vaccine cultists will get jabbed time and again, and it’s so strange that in the past few days, I’ve been told by two people that they caught Covid yet again this summer.

If you read German (or use a machine translator), you could also venture over to Oliver Lerch’s website who’s showing essentially the same fraudulent ‘claims’ to be, well, based on model estimates of vaccine efficacy.

It’s Groundhog Day for the jab cultists, and there’s seemingly nothing that will stop legacy media from peddling this BS.

I suppose this will not stop anytime soon.

In the meantime, have a good laugh, ask recently ‘vaccinated’ people ‘why?’, and blithely ignore this BS.