The press inquiry I just sent to HHS re: COVID vaccine net all-cause mortality benefitThis may rank as the most detailed press inquiry ever sent to HHS. They won't ignore it. It's an opportunity for the CDC to acknowledge they made some very serious mistakes.
Executive summaryI just sent a press inquiry to HHS. It’s an opportunity for the CDC to acknowledge its errors. This could be game changing. About the recipientAndrew Nixon is the HHS Communications Director. We’ve spoken by email. Unlike previous people in his position, he will take this press inquiry seriously and get an answer. I can’t wait. The emailHi Andrew, As noted earlier, I’m a journalist who has written over 1,700 articles on the COVID vaccines and I have 1M readers worldwide. I’m also friends with several of the ACIP committee members and RFK Jr. I have some important questions that my readers as well as I believe the ACIP members would be interested in the answers to. I’m sure RFK Jr. would love to know the answers to these questions as well. I will share the response I get with them. I’ve highlighted my 8 questions in blue and numbered them.
The study shown at the recent ACIP meeting was not credible. It was too short a time period, it was well in the 21-day dynamic HVE period (which depresses mortality), and it used VAERS data which is under-reported. The study didn’t adjust for the VAERS URF which a recent study by OpenVAERS found to be at least 26X. I am familiar with: 1. Xu (2024) Mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination: A self-controlled case series study. Vaccine. 2024 Feb 22;42(7):1731–1737. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.02.032 2. Xu (2021) COVID-19 Vaccination and Non–COVID-19 Mortality Risk — Seven Integrated Health Care Organizations, United States, December 14, 2020–July 31, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm 3. Scobie (2021) Monitoring Incidence of COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalizations, and Deaths, by Vaccination Status — 13 U.S. Jurisdictions, April 4–July 17, 2021 | MMWR which was NOT ACM, but cited an 11X lower COVID deaths in the unvaccinated.
None of these studies adequately controlled for Healthy Vaccinee Effect (HVE) and Non-Proportional Hazards (NPH) which are both very significant effects. Indeed, there appear to be no COVID VEdeath studies ever done that incorporated both static HVE and NPH effects in their analysis. Static HVE means that the non-COVID mortality rate of the unvaccinated is significantly higher than the vaccinated. For example, this paper just published, analyzing Czech data showed there is a 5X mortality difference between the vaxxed vs. unvaxxed cohorts simply based on their decision to vaccinate or not. The paper notes: "As presented above, the risk of death from non-COVID causes was up to five times lower among vaccinated individuals during periods with negligible COVID-19 mortality. This implies a risk ratio (entirely attributable to the HVE) close to 0.2, corresponding to an apparent vaccine effectiveness of approximately 80% against non-COVID mortality." Static HVE is a well known effect and is found in the UK ONS data and the Arbel study cited below. [ Note: there is also a dynamic HVE which is caused by the fact we don’t vaccinate people who are about to die but that effect is short lived and is mostly gone by 21 days post shot. I’m not aware of any time series plots that contradict that. For the purposes of this email, the dynamic HVE is irrelevant.] Non-proportional hazards (NPH) refers to the fact that frail people of the same age are disproportionately more likely to die of COVID because COVID is a non-proportional hazard as noted in this meta analysis.
See Figure 3 showing a 100X difference in baseline mortality has a
1000X difference in COVID mortality). The meta analysis comprised 27
studies over 34 geographic regions. There isn’t a more definitive paper
than that one. The Czech paper cited above didn’t consider NPH. When you add the NPH effect, a 5X HVE becomes 5^1.5=11.18X, which is the same COVID mortality benefit found in the Scobie paper above published in MMWR. In other words, even an 11X vaccine benefit against COVID death can be caused by a combination of HVE + NPH. A placebo shot would produce the same effect that was observed in any study that did not adjust properly for both these effects. In particular, Cox Proportional Hazards, as used in Arbel, is inadequate. The authors failed to realize that and Hoeg et al. failed to point it out.
In short, it appears to me that the CDC relied on flawed studies that didn’t take into account HVE and NPH and that had these studies been done correctly, they would have found no effect, similar to what was noted in NEJM when Hoeg et al. dismantled the Arbel study claiming 90% VE against death. Note, in his response to Hoeg, that Arbel ducked the raw data question and instead resorted to using modelled data which is based on Cox PH which is flawed since COVID isn’t a proportional hazard. I wrote to Arbel to find out why he didn’t confirm the raw data and he declined to answer. These are important questions and the implications are enormous. I think the data is clear that the CDC made a huge error in claiming the COVID vaccines had a mortality benefit. The HVE effect can be confirmed in the Arbel study, the UK ONS data, the Czech record level data, and the Czech HVE study cited above. The NPH effect is similarly well known. None of the studies the CDC relied on accounted for both of these effects.
My press inquiry is an opportunity for the CDC to restore trust by admitting that they made a huge mistake in asserting to the American public the COVID vaccines were beneficial.
-steve How you can help keep them accountableIf you like the work I’m doing, please consider becoming a paid subscriber so I can continue to do this full time and support other VSRF staff members. Thanks! It’s just $5/mo or $50/year. You're currently a free subscriber to Steve Kirsch's newsletter. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment