2 out of 3 ain’t bad

I doubt you’ll be hearing this on the news.  A like-minded and most cherished colleague of mine brought this to my attention.  A paper in Vaccines (1) was retracted (2,3) by the Journal today after they’d accepted the June 2nd submission on June 21st.  The authors did not agree (4). Three docs from Poland, Germany and the Netherlands had the audacity to crunch numbers on efficacy and side effects of COVID vaccination.  They didn’t do any research of their own, relying on numbers from published studies and national databases.  They did tip their hand from the beginning, citing the flimsy safety consideration on which these vaccines were launched.  So, they stepped up to do a little of their own post-market surveillance.  Step one was to see how wide a net we actually needed to cast.  A standard vaccinology stat is “number needed to vaccinate” (NNTV) determined from a ratio of bad outcomes in the “treated” (vaccinated) group compared to those not treated (unvaccinated).  Numbers exist for all that, particularly from a million strong group in Israel.  Determining vaccination effects was challenging, as so few of the control group got infected (<3% after 6 weeks).  The NNTV 486 2-3 weeks after the first dose and 117 after the second dose.  Death was very uncommon, 0.2% among vaccinated, 0.5% among unvaccinated.  The NNTV to prevent one death was calculated as 16,667.

What about the flip side?  The authors tapped adverse event reports databases.  The chose to focus on the Dutch side effects register.  As you can see in the bar graph of individual safety case reports (ISCR) in various European countries, Dutch reports far outstripped the rest of the EU.  

The Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb identifies risks associated with the use of medicines in daily practice and is the Knowledge Centre for adverse drugs reactions (ADRs).

Lareb collects 20.000 to 25.000 reports of adverse drug reactions yearly.  Analysis of reports lead to signals about adverse drug reactions. These signals are reported to and reviewed by the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB).  Lareb has been in place for decades, is well known among patients and physicians alike.  One commentator on the Vaccines paper chided that an adverse event or death occurring after a vaccination is no proof the vaccination caused the event or death.  But wasn’t that just what we the unwashed were saying about all those “COVID deaths” by gunshot, cancer, heart attack, etc.?  Regardless, our authors found that there were about 16 cases of adverse reactions after 100,000 vaccinations, with 4 deaths.  Now crunch ‘em, Danno.  Assuming NNTV of 16,000, vaccinating 100,000 prevents 6 deaths from COVID.  However, after 100,000 vaccinations, 4 die, and not from COVID.  Which leads to their incendiary conclusion, for very 3 deaths from COVID we prevent by vaccination, we incur 2 deaths as a consequence.  They go on to state that with smaller NNTVs, the risk benefit ratio expands to as much as 1:8, although they then say (without cited numbers for backup), that “real life data also support ratios as high as 2:1, i.e., twice as high a risk of death from the vaccination compared to COVID, within 95% confidence limit.

Their discussion includes a paragraph describing several other molecular horror stories from vaccines.  An article my missus just found probe this subject in depth (4).

Where’s Nancy Reagan when we need her?

But don’t worry, vaxxers.  Meatloaf has a theme song all ready for you.


1.         Walach, H.; Klement, R.J.; Aukema, W. The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy. Vaccines 2021, 9, 693. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9070693. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693/htm

2.         Office, V.E. Expression of Concern: Walach et al. The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy. Vaccines 2021, 9, 693. Vaccines 20219, 705. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9070705

3.         Vaccines Editorial Office. Retraction: Walach et al. The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy. Vaccines 2021, 9, 693. Vaccines 20219, 729. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9070729

4.         https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Response-to-Expression-of-concern_3.docx.pdf

5.         Seneff S, Nigh G. Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19. Vaccine Theory Prac & Res 2021, 2, 38-79. https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/23

Published by rike52

I retired from the Rheumatology division of Michigan Medicine end of June '19 after 36 years there. Upon hitting Ann Arbor for the second time (I went to school here) it took me almost 8 months to meet Kathy, 17 months to buy her a house (on Harbal, where we still live), and 37 months to marry her. Kids never came, but we've been blessed with a crowd of colleagues, friends, neighbors and family that continues to grow. Lots of them are going to show up in this log eventually. Stay tuned.

2 thoughts on “2 out of 3 ain’t bad

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: