For over two years (since the start of the covid vaccine roll-out) we have been reporting on the fact that all the observational studies claiming to show vaccine effectiveness suffered from systematic flaws. The most recent summary was here:
But, for the record, and at the risk of repeating ourselves, examples of our earlier articles which provide details and explanations can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Of course, despite continually raising these issues, any attempts to get our concerns published were always rejected. In particular (and it did not just happen to us) the major journals went to extreme lengths to avoid publishing responses to their articles with obviously flawed observational studies; our experience with Lancet in this respect is especially revealing:
So we were pleased to see that a paper has now been published that addresses the issue we have been raising for over two years.
What is rather ironic about the article is this statement:
We are aware of only one article that addresses methodological concerns in non-randomised studies of covid-19 vaccines.
(The ‘one article’ is this by John Ioannidis which actually manages to miss the main elephant in the room, namely that people infected within 2 weeks of vaccination are classified as unvaccinated, and also gets the ‘testing’ bias the wrong way round - he suggests the vaccinated are more likely to get tested whereas in the biggest study the unvaccinated were 6 times more likely to be tested than the vaccinated).
Joel Smalley has also written about this new study:
What this shows is that, by censoring us from the mainstream academic literature, others can claim originality and novelty in their research when we have been writing about it for nearly three years now. Even more dangerous is the prospect that if it doesn’t appear in the mainstream academic journals, it doesn’t actually exist as valid evidence, hence creating a closed-loop feedback system.
After Toby Rogers here on substack recommended it, I read Official Stories by Liam Scheff. He discussed Pasteur and his anthrax vaccines. It turns out that the 15 days window goes all the way back to some of the first vaccines! Scheff cites “These Cults” by Annie Riley Hale:
“The National Anti-Vivisection Society of England collected from the official returns of Paster Institutes a list of 1,220 deaths after treatment between 1885 and 1901. Concerning these figures, Dr. George Wilson says: ‘Pasteur carefully screened his statistics, after some untoward deaths occurred during and immediately after treatment, by ruling that all deaths which occurred either during treatment or within 15 days of the last injection - should be excluded from the statistical returns. Because of this extraordinary ruling, the death rates in all Pasteur Institutes were kept at a low figure.’”
The most effective vaccine then was one in which it immediately induced the disease and killed the animal during the exclusionary window!! So the trick goes way back. I think it is fair to question whether any vaccine is justified given that their history is rife with fraud and misrepresentations like changing the definition of polio paralysis to be far, far more strict as the vaccines get mass distributed or taking credit for declines in disease mortality at the same time as diseases with no vaccine saw similar declines in mortality.
Perhaps the whole theory of vaccines is deeply flawed.
I find it very unfortunate that as I respond to this post that there are only 26 likes. There should be hundreds.