Do Data from England Show Negative Overall Vaccine Efficacy?


Since November, there have been discussions about the actual efficacy of the GM drugs from BioNTech/Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson&Johnson. Pfizer had launched a PR campaign in November 2020 to prove unusually high efficacy.

Side Effects and Death Traps Are Higher in Vaccinated Individuals

Doubts had already emerged in the review, which are confirmed by real-world experience. Recent data from England now show that over 30 years, the probability of infection is higher in vaccinated individuals, and for hospitalizations and deaths, the relative risk rate including side effects and death traps before reaching day 14 after dose 2 is over 40% higher than in unvaccinated individuals.

The bar for vaccine efficacy was set very high with Pfizer’s November 18, 2020 press release claiming, “Primary efficacy analysis shows BNT162b2 is 95% effective against COVID-19.”

However, in an article in the prestigious British Medical Journal, co-editor Peter Doshi complains, as reported, about the lack of important data and a number of ambiguities and contradictions. He discovered some 4000 cases of subjects who were prematurely excluded from the study. He notes:

“A rough estimate of the vaccine’s efficacy against the development of covid 19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, would be a relative risk reduction of 19% – well below the 50% efficacy threshold set by regulators for approval. Even after subtracting cases that occurred within 7 days of vaccination (409 with Pfizer vaccine vs. 287 with placebo), which should include the majority of symptoms due to short-term vaccine reactogenicity, vaccine efficacy remains low: 29%.”

19 to 29 percent is somewhat less than claimed and only slightly more useful as a vaccine. Since then, many more studies have appeared from the manufacturers and from government agencies (e.g., AGES or UKHSA) claiming efficacy in the neighborhood of 80 to 95 percent.

 

Efficacy from the Point of View of the Vaccinated Person

The trick is that the efficacy is calculated only from a fixed point in time, namely 14 days after the second dose. And the trick is further that the initial claim that the vaccination protects against infection is no longer maintained. But against severe courses and death the effectiveness is supposed to be still very high.

From the point of view of the vaccinated person, however, an overall view is relevant. It is of little use to me if I am hospitalized or even die because of side effects before day 14 after the second vaccination. If I am to decide for or against a vaccination, it makes sense to take an overall view of the effectiveness from the first sting. Side effects increase the relative risk rate. In the Pfizer study, vaccination was shown to weaken the immune system by reducing the number of lymphocytes, thereby increasing the risk of infections with a severe course.

All this can be seen in the latest edition of the “COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report” from week 42 of the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) where Covid-19 cases were recorded by vaccination status for weeks 38 to 41. (See Attachment at End)

In this regard, I have already reported that the data show a negative risk reduction against infection for all ages 30 and older, i.e., vaccinated people are more likely to be infected than unvaccinated people. Here to see how that translates into relative risk reduction (RRR) and absolute risk reduction (ARR) for vaccinated:

Table 3 of the UKHSA Report shows the number of hospital admissions. The two right columns show the cases per 100,000 vaccinated and unvaccinated, respectively:

From this, the RRR can be calculated again:

The mean value was weighted by the respective number of persons in the age group according to ONS.

But from the point of view of the vaccinated person, the influence of side effects on the risk rate must also be taken into account. The side effects and deaths identified in the study by Prof. Harald Walach, Rainer Klement and Dutch data analyst Wouter Aukema are included below.

 

The number of cases in which adverse reactions occurred was determined in the study to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations, of which 16 were severe, and the number of fatal adverse reactions was 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. Since almost everyone vaccinated, with the exception of Johnson&Johnson which was only marginally applied, was vaccinated twice, these rates should be doubled. Here first is the overall RRR for hospitalizations including adverse events:

I have not considered here the reduction in efficacy due to the cases of hospitalization after 1st sting and before dose 2 plus 14 days. Nevertheless, there is already a worsening of the overall risk compared with the unvaccinated, so that vaccination actually increases the risk of hospitalization.

Table 4 below shows the number of deaths depending on vaccination status. The two right columns show the cases per 100,000 vaccinated and unvaccinated, respectively:

From this, the RRR are again calculated as follows:

The column Before D2+14 contains the deaths after dose 1 from Table 4.

In the real risk for the vaccinated versus not vaccinating, the risk of side effects and deaths from Covid in the period from the 1st sting to 14 days after the second must be included. And especially last is quite significant, as shown by the data. In the sum of all age groups, this is a considerable 88 cases in the weeks to 38 to 41.

Vaccinated 750,794 persons with the first dose and 630,825 persons with the second dose in the period from Sept. 20 (start of week 38) and Oct. 17 (end of week 41), for a total of 1,381,619 vaccinations. So per 100,000 vaccinations, there were 6.4 deaths per 100,000 vaccinees between the 1st sting and dose 2 plus 14 days (88/1,381,619*100,000).

And in this combination, there is also an increase in risk for vaccinated persons:

So, the bottom line is that we have a negative efficacy not only in infections, but also in hospitalizations and deaths.

Limitations

These considerations and calculations are based on the evaluation of the database of the Netherlands for the side effects. There was criticism of this when the study was withdrawn after initial publication, because the data were only suspected cases but not confirmed. The Dutch database was used because it had the highest number of cases of any EU country. However, there is massive underreporting in these databases, which the Austrian pharmaceutical association Pharmig estimated at 6% in a news release.

In a recent evaluation by guest author Dr. Andreas Hoppe (member of dieBasis) the figures of the Walach/Klement/Aukema study are confirmed, in some cases we even see considerably higher figures.

The conditions in England will hardly differ from those in the European Economic Area.

The formation of the mean value over the age groups was necessary because no breakdown to these age groups is available for the side effects. I am not aware of any age distribution for the side effects. Incidentally, this is exactly the reverse of that for deaths – younger people are more affected than older people.

Attachment

 COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report Week 42