Risk-Benefit Analysis of COVID-19 Vaccines Factsheet

Need | Alternative Treatment | Efficacy | Safety

Have you done a risk-benefit analysis by NATES?

PDF Version

Need: Are you at risk from COVID-19?

Survival Rate: Infection Fatality Rate (IFR)

Prof. John Ioannidis — professor of medicine, epidemiology and population health, and statistics, and co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford University. He is among the top ten scientists worldwide who are most commonly cited in both Clinical Medicine and in Social Sciences. His systematic review of 338 studies covering 50 countries show the following ratios of infections to fatalities:

Risk Profile: Old Age & Co-Morbidities

Meta-analysis conducted by Spanish scientists surveying data from the worst hit nations — namely, China, Italy, Spain, UK, and the US — from a sample of 611,583 subjects, plus a joint study by the University of Oxford and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, which conducted the largest ever study on the risk factors related to COVID-19, reveal the following risk-profiles to COVID-19:

  • Highest risk = >80-year-olds at 60% higher risk of death than 70–79 year olds.
  • >80-year-olds have 12-fold increased risk compared to 50–59 years.
  • Highest increase in mortality risk between age groups = between the 50s and 60s age groups.
  • <50 year olds comprise less than 1.1% of mortality.
  • Having at least one medical condition significantly increases risk.

Alternative Treatment: Is there alternative effective treatment?

Treatment Protocols

Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute Life-Saving Early Treatment Protocol, Recommended by the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons:

  • The protocol used antivirals (zinc, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin), antibiotics (azithromycin, doxycycline, ceftriaxone), inhaled budesonide and/or intramuscular dexamethasone for 320 and 549 high-risk patients.

Results

  • Hospitalization = 6 of 320 and 14 of 549 = 87.6% Reduction.
  • Mortality = 1 of 320 and 1 of 549 = 74.9% Reduction.

Dr Vladimir Zelenko, Nobel Prize Nominee for Life-Saving Early Treatment Protocol:

  • The protocol used zinc sulphate, hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin, for 5 days on 141 high-risk patients.

Results

  • 1 patient died (0.7%) compared to 13 out of 377 patients (3.4%) in untreated group.
  • 4 patients hospitalized (2.8%) compared to 58 out of 377 patients (15.4%) in untreated group.
  • Reduced hospitalization and mortality by 84%.

Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Protocols for Home Prevention, Outpatient, and Hospital Treatment:

Results

  • Conclusion: ‘It is no longer ethically acceptable to limit management to ‘supportive care’ alone, in the face of effective, safe, and inexpensive medications that can effectively treat this disease and thereby reduce the risk of complications and death’.

Ivermectin

Royal Melbourne Hospital and Monash University Joint Lab Study of Ivermectin That Showed Complete Elimination of SARS-CoV-2 in 48hrs:

  • Total eradication of virus within 48hrs.

World’s First Cochrane-Standard Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Ivermectin in the Treatment and Prevention of COVID-19:

  • Reviewed 3,406 patients in 24 trials.
  • Infection reduction = 86%.

23 Randomized Clinical Trials:

  • Mortality reduction = 96% average.

Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development group (BIRD) and the Health Advisory and Recovery Team (HART) in the U.K. are recommending ivermectin to health ministers all around the world:

Vitamin D

U.S. Peer-Reviewed Paper of 14 Observational Studies:

Optimal Nutrition for a Well-Functioning Immune System Against COVID-19

Joint Study by University Hospital Southampton NHS (UK), University of Otago (NZ), Oregan State University (USA), and University Medical Center Groningen (Netherlands):

Nutrients Used

  • Vitamins — A, B6, B12, C, D, E, and folate;
  • Trace elements — including zinc, iron, selenium, magnesium, and copper;
  • Omega-3 fatty acids — eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid.

Results

  • ‘Promotes optimal immune function’.
  • ‘Helps to control the impact of infections’.
  • Could ‘help limit the emergence of novel, more virulent strains of pathogenic viruses’.
  • In the context of ‘SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe outcomes of COVID-19’, ‘we, therefore, strongly encourage public health officials to also include nutritional strategies in their arsenal to improve public health and to limit the impact of seasonal and emerging viral infections.’

Efficacy: How does mRNA vaccine efficacy compare with natural immunity?

Improbability of Unprecedented Vaccines Passing Clinical Trials

Peer-Reviewed Paper Quoting a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Sponsored Study:

  • ‘Unprecedented vaccines are expected to take 12.5 years to develop’.
  • ‘An unprecedented vaccine was predicted to have a 2% probability of success at the stage of a Phase III clinical trial’.
  • Premature claims of 95% efficacy should be approached with a degree of caution, if not suspicion.

Pfizer and Moderna Clinical Trial Claims Reveal Misleading Efficacy

Dr Robert B. Brown, University of Waterloo, Canada:

  • Pfizer/BioNTech’s absolute risk reduction compared to natural immunity = 0.7%
  • Moderna’s absolute risk reduction compared to natural immunity = 1.1%
  • ‘The manufacturers failed to report absolute risk reduction measures [which is ‘the most useful way of presenting research results’] in publicly released documents.. Such examples of outcome reporting bias mislead and distort the public’s interpretation of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine efficacy and violate the ethical and legal obligations of informed consent.’

Dr Peter Doshi, Associate Editor, British Medical Journal:

  • ‘First, a relative risk reduction is being reported, not absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%.
  • ‘Second, these results refer to the trials’ primary endpoint of covid-19 of essentially any severity [such as mild disease], and importantly not the vaccine’s ability to save lives, nor the ability to prevent infection, nor the efficacy in important subgroups (e.g. frail elderly).
  • ‘Third, these results reflect a time point relatively soon after vaccination, and we know nothing about vaccine performance at 3, 6, or 12 months, so cannot compare these efficacy numbers against other vaccines like influenza vaccines (which are judged over a season).
  • ‘Fourth, children, adolescents, and immunocompromised individuals were largely excluded from the trials, so we still lack any data on these important populations.’

Vaccinated Patients Have Inferior Re-infection Protection to COVID-19 Recovered Patients

Joint study by Israel Institute of Technology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the Gertner Institute for Epidemiology & Health Policy Research at the Sheba Medical Center reveal the following results:

  • Our results question the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals’.
  • Results demonstrate the superiority of natural immunity over vaccination.

COVID-19 Recovered Patients: 100% Immune from Symptomatic Re-infection

Newcastle University study sponsored by the Department of Health, Medical Research Council, and Wellcome Trust on COVID-recovered patients and symptomatic re-infection (note that an asymptomatic positive case is evidence of immunity not infectiousness, according to former Consultant Histopathologist, Clinical Professor of Pathology, and Director of Publications for the Royal College of Pathologists, Dr John A. Lee):

  • 100% immunity from symptomatic re-infection — no subjects got symptomatically re-infected out of 1000+ healthcare workers with past infection.

COVID-19 Vaccines Unable to Prevent Infection

Imperial College study on effectiveness against Delta variant in England from May to July 2021:

  • ‘We estimated adjusted vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection of 59%.’

The Health & Advisory Recovery Team, a group of 42 highly qualified senior UK doctors, scientists, economists, psychologists and other academic experts:

U.K. Government’s Guidelines:

Safety: How can we know that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe?

Spike Protein Toxicity

The Salk Institute Study of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein — the institute boasts recipients of the Nobel Prize, the Breakthrough Prize, the Lasker Awards (the “American Nobel”), the Gruber Genetics Prize, and the National Medal of Science bestowed by the U.S. President:

Findings (Summary Article and Research Paper)

Profuse Biodistribution

Pfizer’s Biodistribution Study:

  • ‘The radioactivity concentration was the highest at the administration site… Other than the site of administration, it was highest in the liver, followed by the spleen, adrenal glands and ovaries.’

Lack of Clear Benefit

Joint German-Polish-Dutch Research Paper:

  • For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination. This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.’
  • The peer reviewed paper generated huge controversy due to its conclusion. It was subsequently retracted. However, the authors charge that the reasons given were invalid for retraction, as per the retraction guidelines. They also note the ‘conflicts of interest of the editors’. This ‘is a great example’, comments the inventor of mRNA vaccines, of the ‘self-appointed academic thought police’ which ‘has become a major problem throughout the whole sector’.

Adverse Reactions Compared to Earlier Precedents

Mortality Comparison with Earlier Precedent and Alternative Treatment

Conclusions of the Experts

Dr Robert Malone

Dr Malone is the inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology, and has extensive research and development experience in the areas of pre-clinical discovery research, clinical trials, vaccines, gene therapy, bio-defense, and immunology. He has served as chairperson at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Department of Defense, with close ties to the CDC, HHS, BARDA and the FDA. Dr. Malone has close to 100 peer-reviewed publications and has over 11,477 citations, with a Google Scholar ranking of “outstanding”. He is also an expert in bioethics. There is no better expert to speak on the mRNA vaccines than him. He argues:

‘Those coagulation problems are now being seen more with the RNA vaccines, and there’s an odd spectrum of symptoms. The governments across the world have largely denied that there are any safety concerns with the RNA vaccines. Now, that’s not so tenable.

‘We had the CDC come out last week, talking about the Pericarditis and other Cardiomyopathies that are showing up in the pediatric population, up to the age of 18. That is a significant safety risk… We are data mining to identify adverse events that are associated with the RNA vaccines. These include Thrombocytopenia, (low blood platelets) and that can be associated with bleeding or other problems. Clearly, there is a signal relating to blood clotting abnormalities, again, as with the adenovirus vectored vaccines, there is cerebral venous thrombosis… — blood clots in the veins draining your brain… It’s kind of related to stroke.

‘… So there’s things going on there with the vaccines. The problem is we don’t know how severe they are in general… And the answer is because the FDA elected during this phase of emergency use authorization to not require that the drug manufacturers rigorously capture adverse events and efficacy signals.

‘… We’re not providing full disclosure of risk… And we are enticing, compelling, coercing, and otherwise not respecting the rights of the individual to choose what happens to their body. And in my mind, that bedrock is all we have in Western society, the right to chooseI argue that we’ve crossed a line. It’s a bioethical line. It may actually be Federal Law that we’ve crossed.’

Dr Tess Lawrie

Dr Lawrie is the director of the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy and is among ResearchGate’s top 5% of researchers. She has written to Dr June Raine, Chief Executive of the Medicines and Health products Regulatory Agency (UK), to discontinue mass vaccination. She strongly advises:

‘The nature and variety of ADRs reported to the Yellow Card System are consistent with the potential pathologies described in this paper and supported by other recent scientific papers on vaccine-induced harms, which are mediated through the vaccine spike protein product. It is now apparent that these products in the blood stream are toxic to humans. An immediate halt to the vaccination programme is required whilst a full and independent safety analysis is undertaken to investigate the full extent of the harms, which the UK Yellow Card data suggest include thromboembolism, multisystem inflammatory disease, immune suppression, autoimmunity and anaphylaxis, as well as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE)

…In addition, urgent independent expert evaluation and discussion is required to assess whether the novel vaccines may be causing gene mutations among recipients, as suggested by the occurrence of usually extremely rare genetic disorders, such as Paroxysmal Extreme Pain Disorder (PEPD)… Are these ADRs occurring in babies of vaccinated pregnant women, or spuriously among vaccinated adults? This question needs urgent attention.’

‘The existing Yellow Card data covering just under a five-month period indicate that the extent of morbidity and mortality associated with the COVID-19 vaccines is unprecedented… The MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow Card system to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans.’

Dr Peter McCullough

Dr McCullough is a professor of medicine at Texas A&M College, practicing Internal Medicine and Cardiology, Editor of Reviews on Cardiology and Medicine, Editor of Cardio Renal Medicine, Senior Associate Editor of American Journal of Cardiology, President of the Cardio Renal Society, and in his field of heart and kidney connections, he is the most published person in world history. He has developed an extensive experience in treating COVID-19, having published the two major treatment papers on COVID-19, and having led the early treatment initiative in the U.S. His authority on COVID-19 treatment and research is arguably greater than anybody in the world, including among public health agencies. His warning is ominous:

There are over 4,000 dead Americans, there’s over 10,000 dead people in Europe, that die on days 1, 2 and 3 after the vaccine… The word “vaccine” ought to be the most disturbing word that they have seen… The limit to shut down a program is about 25–50 deaths. Swine flu, 1976, 25 deaths, they shut down the programs…

This is far and away the most lethal, toxic, biologic agent ever injected into a human body in American history.’

‘And it’s going strong. With no mention of safety by our officials. With wild enthusiasm by our hospitals and hospital administrators. With doctors supporting it. Doctors are saying now, they won’t see patients in their waiting room without the vaccine… Why are we pushing this in a way where people’s jobs and their education and their livelihood decide on a decision that’s potentially fatal?’

Health Advisory & Recovery Team (HART)

HART is a group of 42 highly qualified and senior directors, chairs, chief medical officers, doctors, scientists, economists, psychologists and other academic experts, at some of the most prestigious institutions in the world, including Cambridge University, Oxford University, Edinburgh University, Queen Mary University, Imperial College, British Society for Ecological Medicine, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Genomes Project, and the WHO. They have written an open letter with 62 signatories to Dr June Raine, Chief Executive of the MHRA, not to vaccinate children. They insist:

‘We have been deeply disturbed to hear several Government and SAGE representatives calling in the media for the COVID-19 vaccine rollout to be “turning to children as fast as we can”’

‘All Phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trials are ongoing and not due to conclude until late 2022/early 2023. The vaccines are, therefore, currently experimental with only limited short-term and no long-term adult safety data available. In addition, many are using a completely new mRNA vaccine technology, which has never previously been approved for use in humans. The mRNA is effectively a pro-drug and it is not known how much spike protein any individual will produce. Potential late-onset effects can take months or years to become apparent. The limited children’s trials undertaken to date are totally underpowered to rule out uncommon but severe side effects.

Children have a lifetime ahead of them, and their immunological and neurological systems are still in development, making them potentially more vulnerable to adverse effects than adults. A number of specific concerns have been raised already, including autoimmune disease and possible effects on placentation and fertility. A recently published paper raised the possibility that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines could trigger prion-based, neurodegenerative disease.

‘… There is important wisdom in the Hippocratic Oath which states, “First do no harm”. All medical interventions carry a risk of harm, so we have a duty to act with caution and proportionality. This is particularly the case when considering mass intervention in a healthy population, in which situation there must be firm evidence of benefits far greater than harms. The current, available evidence clearly shows that the risk versus benefit calculation does NOT support administering rushed and experimental COVID-19 vaccines to children, who have virtually no risk from COVID-19, yet face known and unknown risks from the vaccines. The Declaration of the Rights of the Child states that, “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection”. As adults we have a duty of care to protect children from unnecessary and foreseeable harm.

We conclude that it is irresponsible, unethical and indeed, unnecessary, to include children under 18 years in the national COVID-19 vaccine rollout.’

The Public Emergency Council for the COVID-19 Crisis (PECCC)

The PECCC is an independent consortium made up of 23 of Israel’s leading experts who are chiefs, chairs, directors, heads, presidents, and global leaders in cardiology, epidemiology, ethics, health systems, immunology and infectious disease, molecular biology, medical lab sciences, medicine, emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, neonatology, pediatrics, social work, and national emergency management preparedness. Collectively they boast a wealth of experience in the academies, healthcare centers, medical laboratories, and the Ministry of Health, and comprise laureates of the Nobel Prize, the Lasker Award (dubbed “America’s Nobel”), Killam Prize (Canada’s most prestigious award in research), the Israel Prize (Israel’s most prestigious award for excellence), and the EMET Prize (dubbed “Israel’s Nobel”). They warn:

‘There is a noticeably increasing number of significant testimonies linking the vaccine and the incidence of myocarditis and data from the committee set up by the Ministry of Health indicates that the link is real and causal. Occurrence of 90% of cases after the second vaccination, with a median time of a few days, and an incidence up to 20 times higher in the younger age group supports the premise that there is a causal rather than an incidental link

‘It is also clear to you that this is a clinical disorder that carries life-threatening potential (certainly by several orders of magnitude greater than the risk of COVID-19 in children), which can cause arrhythmias, future heart damage to the point of cardiomyopathy, and even death

The chance of hospitalization due to a significant medical condition resulting from COVID-19 under the age of 30 is negligible… In light of the lowest risk data from COVID-19 (even lower than winter viruses at this stage), and considering the concerning data emerging about the vaccine’s side effects, notably myocarditis, there must be an immediate suspension of the vaccination campaign for all individuals up to the age of 30 (including of course the children aged 12 to 15 who appear to be at even greater risk)

‘In the name of the legacy of Hippocrates, Maimonides, and Asaph the Physician, we call upon you to prevent unnecessary risk — “first do no harm”: Suspend the vaccination of young and healthy children who are not at risk from COVID-19.’

Doctors for Covid Ethics (DCE)

DCE is a group of over 200 senior and eminent doctors, scientists, and allied disciplines from all corners of the globe who have written to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) executive director, the President of the Council of Europe, and to the President of the European Commission. Their indictment of the EMA is damning:

‘We are dismayed that you choose to respond to our request for crucially important information in a dismissive and unscientific manner. Such a cavalier approach to vaccine safety creates the unwelcome impression that the EMA is serving the interests of the very pharmaceutical companies whose products it is your pledged duty to evaluate… Given the potential for adverse effects, potentially fatal ones, it is completely inappropriate and unacceptable that EMA permits these products, which hold only emergency use authorisations, to be administered to younger (<60y) people who are healthy, as they are at unmeasurable risks from SARS-CoV-2.

‘…Of equal importance, you are bound by duty to investigate whether reasons exist for the waves of deaths that have occurred following “vaccination” of elderly residents in care and senior homes. Or are you asserting that dangers of “vaccine”-derived thrombotic events are limited to younger individuals? If not, restricting their use solely in one age group — as decided upon in Germany — equates with nothing less than monstrous, condoned genocide of the other.

‘In closing, failure to inform “vaccine” recipients of the risks and negligible benefits outlined here represents serious violations of medical ethics and citizens’ medical rights. Those violations are especially grave as all the risks we describe can be expected to increase with each re-vaccination, and each intervening coronavirus exposure.

‘…Either the EMA lacks the subject-matter expertise to appreciate the molecular science of this reality, or it lacks the medical ethics to act accordingly.

‘…Misleading populations into accepting investigational agents such as the gene-based COVID-19 “vaccines”, or coercing them through “vaccine passports”, constitutes clear and egregious violations of the Nuremberg Code. The Nuremberg Code mandates voluntary informed consentwithout the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit [or] duress”. We remind the EMA that Nuremberg violations constitute crimes against humanity under the Geneva Convention. Crimes against humanity are deemed “the worst atrocities known to mankind”, and are prosecuted under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Given the hundreds of millions and eventually billions of people who may be coerced into accepting these agents, the EMA, in persistently shrinking from open debate and the truth, will be seen by lawyers and historians as having actively assisted in crimes against humanity, with the full weight of the implications to all involved.

‘…Your responsibility to those citizens includes ensuring that they are informed of the adverse event risks of every such treatment. To date you have failed to do so, and have instead misled the public on the reality of the “vaccines’” risk-benefit profile. ‘If you continue to conceal the truth, efforts will be made to bring this to light and to see that justice is done. For the sake of the injured and the dead, and to protect further lives from similar fates.’

Asking the Big Picture Questions on Mind, Belief, Science, and Society