Study: mRNA COVID Shots Caused More Deaths Than They Saved

Via Mercola

Story at-a-glance

• A now-retracted narrative review published in the journal Cureus calls for a global moratorium on mRNA COVID-19 shots
• The review cited significant increases in serious adverse events among those who received the injections, along with an “unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio”
• When factoring in absolute risk and the “number needed to vaccinate” (NNV), the review found “for every life saved, there were nearly 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections”
• The study’s lead author suspected the paper would be retracted almost as soon as it was published because “our evidence-informed paper was an all-out indictment of the COVID-19 vaccine enterprise”
• Board-certified internist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, another of the paper’s authors, called the retraction a “stunning act of scientific censorship”

A now-retracted narrative review published in the journal Cureus calls for a global moratorium on mRNA COVID-19 shots.¹ The review cited significant increases in serious adverse events among those who received the injections, along with an “unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio.”²

When factoring in absolute risk and the “number needed to vaccinate” (NNV), a metric used to quantify how many people need to be vaccinated to prevent one additional case of a specific disease, the review found “for every life saved, there were nearly 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections.”³

As for why the paper was retracted, study author Steve Kirsch said, “It’s about supporting the narrative.”⁴ Board-certified internist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, another of the paper’s authors, called the retraction a “stunning act of scientific censorship.”⁵

COVID Shot Trials Omitted Absolute Risk Reduction

In a review of the initial phase 3 trials for Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID-19 mRNA shots, the study criticized their exclusive focus on relative risk (RR) while omitting absolute risk (AR) reduction:⁶

“The latter measure gives a better indication of a drug’s clinical utility than the former relative measure since it is scaled by the sample size. RR is the ratio of COVID-19 symptom rates in the vaccine versus placebo groups, which was reported as 95% and 94.5% for the Pfizer and Moderna products, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively.

Absolute risk refers to the probability of an outcome (in this case, symptoms of clinical infection), based on the number of people experiencing the outcome in relation to the population at large. It is typically calculated as the number of events that occurred in a study population divided by the number of people in that population.

Both types of risk estimation are required to avoid reporting bias and to provide a more comprehensive perspective on vaccine efficacy.”

In other words, there are two ways to understand how effective the shots are at preventing COVID-19. Relative risk shows how much the shot lowers the risk of getting COVID-19 compared to not getting the vaccine at all. The Pfizer and Moderna shots were found to be 95% and 94.5% effective, respectively, which sounds impressive.

However, absolute risk reduction gives a clearer picture of the shots’ real-world impact. This measure shows how much the vaccine lowers the chance of getting sick in the entire population. For the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, this reduction was only about 0.7% and 1.1%, much lower than the relative risk figures suggest.

In fact, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Pfizer, alleging the Big Pharma giant lied about the effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine.⁷ The suit begins by stating how Pfizer “broadcast to the world” that its COVID-19 shot was 95% effective. As a result, Americans were led to believe that this was the panacea to end the pandemic, prompting them to receive the experimental product. But not only did Pfizer’s shot not end the pandemic, the pandemic worsened.⁸

Pfizer’s representation of its shot being 95% effective was deceptive, the suit claims, because Pfizer used relative risk reduction. Meanwhile, “An absolute risk reduction of approximately 1% for the COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations meant that a substantial number of individuals would need to be injected in order to prevent a single mild-to-moderate case of COVID-19,” the study points out.⁹

They calculated the “number needed to vaccinate” (NNV), which reveals how many people need to get injected to prevent one case of COVID-19. For the Pfizer vaccine, the NNV is 142, and for Moderna, it’s 88. This means 142 people would need to get Pfizer’s shot or 88 people Moderna’s shot to prevent one case of COVID-19.

This raises questions about the balance between the shots’ benefits and risks. Using conservative estimates, including an NNV of 119 and an infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.23%, the study found about 52,000 vaccinations would be needed to prevent one death from COVID-19.

With the Pfizer COVID shot, the review suggested it might save two lives for every 100,000 doses given. But, since the shot causes serious side effects, the harm greatly outweighs the benefits, with nearly 14 times more deaths caused by the shot for every life saved.¹⁰

Calls for COVID Shot To Be Immediately Removed From Childhood Schedule

In addition to calling for a global moratorium on mRNA COVID-19 shots, the authors of the paper — M. Nathaniel Mead, Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., Russ Wolfinger, Ph.D., Jessica Rose, Ph.D. Kris Denhaerynck, Ph.D., Kirsch and McCullough — said the shots should be immediately removed from the childhood vaccine schedule. Boosters should also be suspended.

“It is unethical and unconscionable to administer an experimental vaccine to a child who has a near-zero risk of dying from COVID-19 but a well-established 2.2 percent risk of permanent heart damage based on the best prospective data available,” the paper notes.¹¹

READ MORE HERE