Center for Evidence-based Medicine in Oxford says modeling study claiming COVID jabs saved millions of lives "implausible"
By ethanh // 2024-12-02
Copy
 
The widespread claim that Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) "vaccines" saved millions of lies is officially debunked. Carl Heneghan, head of the Center for Evidence-based Medicine in Oxford, along with Tom Jefferson wrote a piece for The Spectator (United Kingdom) that outlines the "implausible" findings of the modeling study that is widely referenced as proof that COVID jabs saved upwards of 12 million people. It was the BBC that first made the claim that AstraZeneca and Pfizer had together developed "medicines" that saved the lives of millions of people, citing the findings of a "disease forecasting company" called Airfinity. Similar claims were made here in the United States about Operation Warp Speed. A study out of Imperial College London calculated that COVID jabs saved 20 million lives between December 2020 and December 2021, the assumption – a false one, just to be clear – being that the jabs conferred protection against COVID infection. Heneghan and Jefferson downloaded and evaluated data from GitHub to examine the country-specific estimates procured in order to assess whether or not they are realistic. They looked at figures for the UK, Italy and the United States. It turns out that the figures claimed as evidence that COVID jabs worked are bunk. "Sadly, many journalists don't check their numbers or facts: many of the assumptions in the model are incorrect, and the estimated number of deaths averted by vaccines is implausible," Heneghan and Jefferson write. "This isn't surprising. As in medicine, models do not fit anywhere in the pathway for establishing effectiveness. Regulators don't use them for approval, and decision-makers like the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence use economic models with reliable estimates of effect and credible costs." (Related: Remember when it came out that Oxford's COVID injection sterilizes upwards of 70 percent of all recipients?)

Trials, not models, should be used to create public health interventions

Heneghan and Jefferson are humble with their findings, calling themselves "two old geezers" who simply decided to take a closer look at the data backing the claims. What they found is all too common in today's world: wild assumptions based on flawed science. "Models simply should not be used," they say. "Large, well-designed, well-reported, and data-accessible trials should be used for global public health interventions. So, why are we using models to justify decisions?" This is a good question and one that Dr. Aseem Malhotra echoed on X / Twitter in pointing out these latest revelations. "Classic journalism is dead," wrote someone on social media about all this. "Activism is the new legacy media." Others simply could not fathom how Imperial College London managed to put together a study based on the idea that COVID jabs stop infection and transmission, which they admittedly do not do. "Yet the media keeps parroting this 'saved millions of lives' slogan," one pointed out about the ridiculousness of all this. "Even the assumption that vaccines against respiratory viruses work is wrong and has always been," added another to the conversation. "Sadly, very few doctors know this." "Can anyone send me the evidence of a single life ever having been saved by a vaccine?" asked another. "Go on, just one. It's OK, I know you can't." "The truth always comes out in the end," said someone else about how the truth will also rise to the surface eventually. The latest COVID news can be found at Plague.info. Sources for this article include: X.com Spectator.co.uk NaturalNews.com
Copy