In the very first large study of long-term mortality by vaccination status—assessing the impact of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination among French adults aged 18 to 59—French scientists found there was "no increased risk of 4-year all-cause mortality in individuals aged 18 to 59 years vaccinated against COVID-19, further supporting the safety of the mRNA vaccines that are being widely used worldwide."
Their research with 22.7 million vaccinated individuals and 5.9 million unvaccinated individuals found that "vaccinated individuals had a 74% lower risk of death from severe COVID-19, and no increased risk of all-cause mortality over a median follow-up of 45 months."
This is the largest study of this kind in the world, and the results are significant. (There was a large Japanese study during the Omicron wave, which earlier vaccines had some trouble covering. This did see an increase in mortality in the over-70s which didn't discriminate towards vaccinated or non-vaccinated.).
Blogger with the unfortunate name of Snarky Gherkin summarises the French results:
This study used real-world national health data... not surveys, not estimates, not “my cousin’s friend is a nurse on Rumble", not laminated placards of nocebo hysteria.
They followed 22.7 million vaccinated adults and 5.9 million unvaccinated adults aged 18–59, median follow-up 45 months (nearly 4 years).
They matched the groups on age, sex, region and over 41 health conditions (so it was adjusted for comorbidities).
Then they looked at hard endpoints such as all-cause mortality, COVID-related mortality and long-term mortality trends.
The Findings...What this means... if vaccines were causing secret waves of heart attacks, cancers, turbo-autoimmune-disasters… we would absolutely see it here.
- Vaccinated people had 74% lower risk of death from severe COVID-19.
- 25% lower risk of death from ANY cause.
- No increase in mortality for 4 years after vaccination.
- Results held even after excluding COVID deaths.
Instead, vaccinated people (on average) lived longer.
The authors did note that vaccinated groups had slightly more cardiometabolic issues,
yet still had better outcomes. (That’s the opposite of “healthier people bias.”)
This is one of the strongest long-term safety signals ever conducted and released.
Link here, have a read.
Summary:
mRNA vaccines weren’t the problem.
The virus was.
Feel free to question the summer-upper. And/or read the full research.
6 comments:
Thanks for drawing this to our attention. It was not possible to have a reliable medium-term study until some years had passed, so there was always scope for the "vaccinated people are going to start dropping like flies" argument, even with no plausible biological mechanism. But now there is good evidence, which will separate the genuinely doubtful from the determinedly ignorant.
Here's some additional data: "Total payments made by ACC by 22 July 2025 on these 1,769 accepted claims (for Covid -19 vaccine related treatment injuries) was $14,948,677.00." Just under 15 million NZ dollars. "To date, 5 claims have been accepted by ACC which have related to a fatal injury."
Not sure what this additional data is meant to prove, and you offer no explanation. Health NZ says that 5497 people have died of Covid in NZ; there may be some reason to believe that a proportion of them would have died even without Covid. However, it seems indisputable that Covid killed far more people (some thousands) than the vaccine did (5).
And from the same ACC report that you quote, we learn that more than half (950 out of 1,769) of the claims resulted in settlements of under $500; the most common injuries were clearly minor. There were a small number of big payouts, suggesting serious or even life-threatening injuries. But these few cases are in the context of a programme which vaccinated several million people against a major new disease.
If one person in 10,000 had a seriously bad reaction to the vaccine, that is regrettable; and if we had known how to create a vaccine which avoided the reactions, that would have been better. But we do not live in such an imaginary world.
So, please, tell us your view of what the numbers mean, in context. What policy choice would have been better (even in the crudest sense that your policy preference would have resulted in fewer overall deaths)?
Just rounding out the picture of available data Paul.
I do think it's true that a large proportion of New Zealanders would have died even without Covid. Wasn't the vast majority of deaths among those over eighty and already living with comorbidities?
"The few cases" from the ACC report will be the tip of an iceberg.
"Medsafe and other health authorities acknowledge significant under-reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), estimating that only about 5-10% of actual events are reported, meaning a roughly 20x under-reporting rate (or more) is common"
Also, the threshold or burden of proof that ACC require for these claims to be accepted was and is extremely high. Many claims were initially refused, but later accepted only after successful appeals, but this was after years of fighting.
How many of those who were vaccine injured but turned down, simply gave up? How many with prior bad experiences with ACC didn't even try? And how many who were injured even knew they could apply to ACC in the first place?
The numbers don't mean much, one reason being that there have been no genuine attempts made to acknowledge or find out the extent of covid vaccine induced injuries worldwide.
What policy choice would have been better? Practically, New Zealand following more in Sweden's lead (especially considering we only had the omicron strain to deal with anyway). In a societal sense, how about living up to the idea of informed consent and let's not forget the Nuremburg Code.
Just rounding out the picture of available data Paul.
I do think it's true that a large proportion of New Zealanders would have died even without Covid. Wasn't the vast majority of deaths among those over Eighty and already living with comorbidities?
"The few cases" from the ACC report will be the tip of an iceberg.
"Medsafe and other health authorities acknowledge significant under-reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), estimating that only about 5-10% of actual events are reported, meaning a roughly 20x under-reporting rate (or more) is common"
Also, the threshold or burden of proof that ACC require for these claims to be accepted was and is extremely high. Many claims were initially refused, but later accepted only after successful appeals, but this was after years of fighting.
How many of those who were vaccine injured but turned down, simply gave up? How many with prior bad experiences with ACC didn't even try? And how many injured even knew they could apply to ACC in the first place?
The numbers don't mean much, one reason being that there have been no genuine attempts made to acknowledge or find out the extent of covid vaccine induced injuries worldwide.
What policy choice would have been better? Practically, New Zealand following more in Sweden's lead (especially considering we only had the omicron strain to deal with). In a societal sense, how about living up to the idea of informed consent and let's not forget the Nuremburg Code.
Just rounding out the picture of available data Paul.
I do think it's true that a large proportion of New Zealanders would have died even without Covid. Wasn't the vast majority of deaths among those over Eighty and already living with comorbidities?
"The few cases" from the ACC report will be the tip of an iceberg.
"Medsafe and other health authorities acknowledge significant under-reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), estimating that only about 5-10% of actual events are reported, meaning a roughly 20x under-reporting rate (or more) is common"
Also, the threshold or burden of proof that ACC require for these claims to be accepted was and is extremely high. Many claims were initially refused, but later accepted only after successful appeals, but this was after years of fighting.
How many of those who were vaccine injured but turned down, simply gave up? How many with prior bad experiences with ACC didn't even try? And how many injured even knew they could apply to ACC in the first place?
The numbers don't mean much, one reason being that there have been no genuine attempts made to acknowledge or find out the extent of covid vaccine induced injuries worldwide.
What policy choice would have been better? Practically, New Zealand following more in Sweden's lead (especially considering we only had the omicron strain to deal with). In a societal sense, how about living up to the idea of informed consent and let's not forget the Nuremburg Code.
Post a Comment