top of page

Evaluating claim in "peer reviewed" Toxicology Reports article vaccines kill 5 for every 1 save

There a paper published in Toxicology Reports that included an analysis purporting to estimate causal vaccine deaths in the US claiming between 227,792 and 1,381,429 have died "from" the vaccine in the USA within 31 days of inoculation, suggesting the vaccines killed 5 for every 1 saved, and that this was just the tip of the iceberg.


Here is the paper. Note that the senior author of the paper is the editor-in-chief of the journal, and listed as the editor who handled the peer review of this paper. This is unusual. Later they said he was mistakenly listed as the handling editor and it wasn't really him. Oops.

Like Kirsch's VAERs analysis critiqued in a previous blog post, their conclusions are completely driven by the assumptions they make on the background death rates and underreporting rate. However, their assumptions as detailed in his appendix are even more extreme than Kirsch's.


Implicitly assuming reporting rates to VAERs are constant as a function of the number of days since inoculation, the authors posit that the background rate of reported VAERs deaths not caused by vaccine can be estimated from the typical daily VAERs death reports >31 days after inoculation, and then assume that any reported deaths in the first 31 days above this number must have been caused by vaccine.


They subsequently double down on this assumption by using it to justify very high underreporting rates between ~125x and ~500x from which they extrapolate these numbers up to his enormous projected numbers. If events are more likely to be reported closer to vaccination, e.g. a death occurring the day after vaccination much more likely to be reported to VAERs than one occurring 2 months later, then this methodology will produce extremely biased estimates of purported vaccine-caused deaths.


It is especially strange they make this assumption given that elsewhere in the paper they acknowledge that deaths right after inoculation are far more likely to be reported than those much later in making a different point (see page 1675:)

Furthermore, they emphasize that these 225k to 1.4m deaths they concluded were caused by vaccines within 31 days of inoculation are only the tip of the iceberg, claiming many more deaths will happen months and years after inoculation. In fact, most of the paper focuses on these deaths they speculate will happen much later, laying out their concerns, but not providing any evidence that these things are actually occurring.


To my eyes, the paper read more like a commentary, filled with oft-repeated talking points from people who think that COVID-19 is not dangerous but that the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are deadly so, than a research paper.


Also, like Kirsch, they never assess the plausibility of their assertions. If 225k-1.4m deaths were caused by vaccines within 31 days of inoculation, were is the evidence of this and how would it go unnoticed? Here are the excess deaths in the USA from ourworldindata


The majority of USA vaccinated residents were vaccinated between March 1 and July 31, a time during which excess death counts lower than any time since the beginning of the pandemic. How could this be if their claims were true? Tracking the excess deaths over time, we see they have spiked precisely at the times of high levels of confirmed COVID-19 cases and COVID-attributed deaths, including the April 2020 spikes and summer 2020 pre-vaccination spikes, and the winter 2020 spike that started pre-vaccination but was ongoing when the public vaccination commenced.


Could the winter 2020 spike be caused by misattributed vaccine deaths as they might claim? Well, this spike in excess deaths started increasing precipitously in November 2020 and reached its peak in early January, when vaccinations had just started, and then sharply declined in January and February as vaccinations of seniors and other vulnerable members of society were ramping up. And then this lull of the lowest weekly excess death numbers of the pandemic kicked in from March through July, the time period during which most vaccinated USA residents received their inoculations, before increasing again in late July and early August as the Delta surge kicked in (also a time with very low daily inoculation rates).


Where would all these hundreds of thousands or millions of purported vaccine-induced deaths be hiding?


To further illuminate this point consider that @hmatejx plotted excess deaths vs. vaccinations and covid cases over time for 100 countries in the world. Here is the USA.

The black line is all cause excess deaths, the blue line vaccinations, and red lines confirmed cases, rescaled to fit on the same plot.

It is clear that that the excess deaths have tracked closely with confirmed case counts, so in spite of imperfections in SARS-CoV-2 testing and reporting, and in COVID-19 death attribution, the order of magnitude seems right.


It is also clear that it is not possible that the vaccines have caused a substantial number of deaths, and highlights the cartoonish nature of Kirsch and Kostoff, et al.'s projections, and their clear implausibility.

5,948 views128 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Explanation of "Healthy Vaccinee Effect" and Confounding

Healthy vaccinee effect (HVE) has become frequent topic of discussion these days. I am glad to see this, as I have been talking about this phenomenon for the past 2.5 years, and for a long time no one

128 Comments


Michael Andreas
Michael Andreas
Oct 23, 2021

"During December 2020–July 2021, COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower rates of non–COVID-19 mortality than did unvaccinated persons after adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, and study site." https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm?s_cid=mm7043e2_w


Like
Replying to

For this vaccine safety study people were considered "vaccinated" from the moment they received their first shot. Prior to and outside of that they were "unvaccinated".

If you want safety data from sources without an interest in hiding vaccine risks then you should want data from an HMO like Kaiser. They are responsible for the work and cost of treating any vaccine morbidity. They also have all the health data on their members pre and post vaccine.

Your attempt to discredit this study involved switching to describe author conflicts of a completely different study?! The study we are actually looking at here has 15 authors and 12 including the lead author have no pharma conflicts.

Like

Michael Froger
Michael Froger
Oct 21, 2021

I wonder if it might be better to look at the data of Australia and New Zealand. Both are nearing the end stages of their vaccine push and so we would expect that if the vaccine (Pfizer only being used in NZ) were causing deaths we would see it in the last few months excess death data. My thoughts being that both NZ and Australian 2020/21 excess death data doesn't include Covid related confounding problems as both achieved elimination for the first 18 months of the pandemic. Surprise, surprise both countries currently show negative excess deaths of around 6-10%. So the vaccine clearly isn't killing people as per these ridiculous papers suggest. I think one death linked to vaccine (sti…

Like
Jeffrey Morris
Jeffrey Morris
Oct 28, 2021
Replying to

Not true -- that is not the definition of the system. By definition the system requires reporting of ALL events within a certain period of time after vaccination WHETHER THOUGHT TO BE CAUSALLY RELATED TO VACCINE OR NOT.


From: https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html


Like

There seems to be some confusion as to risk with this pandemic.


I've stated that this a disease primarily of the elderly and their institutions. This cannot be disputed, as I will illustrate.


So called case counts (many of which are not cases in a medical sense but by PCR test result only) do not matter if they not life-threatening.


What matters is the risk of death from the infection. Infections that do not cause death but instead confer natural immunity present no more risk than any prior viral episode that has been experienced year after year across the world. This has not changed.


So let's look at the risk of death per age group in the United States since…



Like
Replying to

"Also, the PHE sero monitoring data is from blood donors so it doesn't appear to have a vaccinated/unvaccinated bias. The N protein prevalence went from ~10% at the beginning of 2021 and is now at ~ 20%. That's 6 million infections which closely matches official infection data."


Thanks - That's quite interesting - I missed that the data comes from blood donors.


I'm not against gene/rna based vaccinations as long as they get it right (and they will eventually). I've seen recently that there are individuals who may have a genetic immunity to SARS-COV-2. There is a global hunt underway to track them down, it appears This, to me, is a more promising approach if genetic therapies are to…


Like

Prof Morris


Hindsight is 20/20, but isn't it time to look at the blunders that have been made with respect to the development and rollout of these new technologies in the fog of war that was early 2020?


For example, for future pandemics (this is a certainty) would it not be better to determine a stratified risk by detailed study of the age categories, then carry out trials of new products ONLY for the most at-risk age group?


This does tie into one of the criticisms of Kostoff et al; his critique of the age structure of the vaccine trials.

Like
Jeffrey Morris
Jeffrey Morris
Oct 13, 2021
Replying to

The USA trials for all the vaccines followed a template that was decided upon by a scientific group at the beginning of the pandemic And as I emphasized above, the representation of >55 in the trials was fine — even slightly more than the population. And it is not a pandemic of the old. As is always the case with viral infections the oldest are at highest risk of death but when it comes to infections and transmission the young people are actually driving it more — and remember these are vaccines not treatments so prevention and reduction of transmission at the societal level were and still are key considerations.

Like

Michael Andreas
Michael Andreas
Oct 11, 2021

Yet another turd in the "paper":

"In Fig. 1, approximately 58 % of the deaths occurred in the age range 75+, whereas 4.4 % of the participants in the Pfizer clinical trial were 75 + . Thus, the age range most impacted by COVID-19 deaths was minimally represented in the Pfizer clinical trials, and the age range least impacted by COVID-19 deaths was maximally represented in the Pfizer clinical trials. This skewed sampling has major implications for predicting the expected numbers of deaths for the target population from the clinical trials."


I believe that the trial population was chosen to mirror the general population so that safety data could be obtained. If the trial population had been chosen to mirr…

Like
Jeffrey Morris
Jeffrey Morris
Oct 13, 2021
Replying to

Pvalues are fine and have value when interpreted properly and not treated as a mindless litmus test. It would have been impossible to design a study based on ARR given the uncertainty about infection rates over time and many other things. RRR was clearly the right choice for the phase 3 study

Like
Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page