This Lancet paper on ‘dangers of undervaccination’ should never have been published

IF THERE were a group of whistleblowers within a government-funded organisation who wanted to subtly tell the world that there is no longer any credible evidence to support the ‘safe and effective’ narrative about the covid vaccines, they might do the following:

1. Use their privileged access to extensive health data to show that all the previous publicly released ONS vaccination data were wrong;
2. Concoct an obviously flawed study which conflates the genuinely unvaccinated with all those who are vaccinated but not ‘fully up to date and boosted’ into a category called ‘undervaccinated’ to ludicrously compare their outcomes with the ‘vaccinated’;
3. Write the conclusions in such a way that the mainstream media will wrongly be able to claim that those vaccinated are less likely to be hospitalised or die from covid;
4. Discredit the results by making clear that all the authors are part of a government-funded organisation with a vested interest in the vaccines;
5. Further discredit the results by stating (in the ‘data sharing’ statement of the paper) that ‘The data that were used in this study are highly sensitive and are not available publicly’;
6. Submit the paper to the most high-profile medical journal that has a known history of publishing bogus research that promotes the benefits of the vaccines.

Of course, it’s also possible that a group who are part of such a government-funded organisation and who still desperately want to convince the world that the vaccines really are safe and effective might also do the above (because these people are not too bright but are very highly incentivised).

Well, whatever the motive (good or bad), this is exactly what the HRD-UK (Health Data Research UK), authors of the paper just published in the Lancet have done.

As reported by the Naked Emperor, the supplemental data shows that the authors did not separate the unvaccinated data from the undervaccinated data anywhere and the Naked Emperor notes that:

‘Their hidden data shows that being unvaccinated (not under-vaccinated) was associated with a LOWER hazard ratio for severe COVID-19 outcomes compared with the vaccinated (with a vaccine deficit of at least one dose).’

So, the study actually confirms that the unvaccinated have less severe covid outcomes than the ‘undervaccinated’.

Inevitably, the paper has had plenty of positive media coverage with the BBC leading its story about it with the statement: ‘More than 7,000 Covid-related hospital admissions could have been prevented in the UK in the summer of 2022 if the population had received the full number of jabs recommended.’

But this is not a serious paper, and it should never have been published.

This article is co-authored by Martin Neil. It appeared in Where are the numbers? on January 18, 2024, and is republished by kind permission.