Covid Vaccines and Mortality: The RCT Review
DEBATES ON COVID - VACCINES, 15 May 2023
Swiss Policy Research - TRANSCEND Media Service
Did COVID vaccines really reduce all-cause mortality?
May 2023 – A new Danish study, published in iScience, re-analyzed the original covid vaccine clinical trials and concludes that adenovector covid vaccines (AstraZeneca and Janssen), but not mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna), may reduce non-covid mortality and all-cause mortality.
This new study has again baffled both vaccine promoters and vaccine skeptics, since adenovector vaccines had a worse safety profile and lower effectiveness than mRNA vaccines. In many countries, adenovector vaccines weren’t even approved or were quickly removed from the market.
But the new study was already debunked one year ago, when it first appeared as a preprint. The supposedly positive effect was significant in only one trial, the Janssen trial, and the effect was due to incomplete data and a miscategorization of deaths by the study authors.
In reality, none of the clinical trials showed a significant effect concerning all-cause mortality, covid mortality, or non-covid mortality. This was to be expected since none of the trials were designed and powered to measure such a mortality effect: they were only about “cases”.
From this, many vaccine skeptics concluded that covid vaccines didn’t reduce covid mortality or all-cause mortality. In reality, covid vaccines strongly reduced covid mortality (initially by a factor of 10 to 20), reduced all-cause mortality and restored life expectancy in many countries (see chart above).
Unfortunately, barely one year after the start of vaccination, the likely synthetic omicron variant showed up and greatly reduced vaccine protection. Vaccine manufacturers produced updated “bivalent omicron vaccines”, but due to immune imprinting, these were hardly more effective.
Without omicron, both covid lethality and vaccine protection would have remained much higher.
The real scandal is that covid vaccine manufacturers appear to have suppressed or excluded some serious and even deadly vaccine adverse events during their clinical trials. If these adverse events had been acknowledged, covid vaccines would have received emergency use authorizations only for high-risk groups and would likely never have received full market authorization.
This would have been the rational decision anyway, but it would have destroyed both the pre-announced global vaccine passport agenda and billions of dollars in profits for Big Pharma.
The even bigger scandal, of course, is that the novel coronavirus is a synthetic virus – engineered almost certainly in the US, not in China – that was released either accidentally or deliberately.
- Randomized clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines: Do adenovirus-vector vaccines have beneficial non-specific effects? (Benn et al., iScience, 2023)
Swiss Policy Research, founded in 2016, is an independent, nonpartisan and nonprofit research group investigating geopolitical propaganda in Swiss and international media. SPR is composed of independent academics that for personal and professional reasons prefer to protect their identities, and receives no external funding; there are no financial sponsors or backers. Our articles have been published or shared by numerous independent media outlets and journalists, among them Julian Assange, and have been translated into more than two dozen languages.
Tags: COVID-19, Coronavirus, Long Covid, Pandemic, Vaccines
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Join the discussion!
We welcome debate and dissent, but personal — ad hominem — attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), abuse and defamatory language will not be tolerated. Nor will we tolerate attempts to deliberately disrupt discussions. We aim to maintain an inviting space to focus on intelligent interactions and debates.
Click here to go to the current weekly digest or pick another article:
DEBATES ON COVID - VACCINES: