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.
3 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)?
Post a Comment