"The extent and impact of vaccine status miscategorisation on covid-19 vaccine efficacy studies." By Martin Neil, Norman Fenton and Scott McLachlan

Every single covid vaccine study identified is seriously flawed.

During the “covid era” many studies have been published which make extraordinary claims for vaccine efficacy which are universally at odds with people’s personal experience.

These are also contradicted by high-level data which shows more cases, hospitalisations and deaths after the vaccine rollout than before; for these to be happening mainly to the (relatively) small uninjected population would (arithmetically) require the refuseniks to be suffering hugely by their choice, whereas anyone can see that this is patently not the case.

The reason for this discrepancy between officially reported study outcomes and on-the-ground real-world experience can be partly explained by a number of flavours of a “trick” employed by the authors: miscategorising vaccinated subjects as unvaccinated.

These tricks would - even with a placebo - create the illusion of efficacy with subsequent “waning”.

In any normal times, these would have been spotted by reviewers and the papers would have been rejected.

But we are clearly not in normal times. Scientific publishing now appears to be a marketing outlet for the pharmaceutical industry.

In this analysis, Neil, Fenton and McLachlan systematically review the published papers on covid vaccines and tabulate them according to how many such “tricks” are employed in each paper. Thirty-nine studies were identified.

It is important to emphasise that this is not a cherry-picked list of all the studies they found which employed such tricks. It is an analysis of all covid vaccine studies. As they explain in the paper, they included all studies they could find using the search term:

Here are the various flavours of miscategorisation bias they looked for:

Here are the results:

Astonishingly:

Every single study was subject to serious miscategorisation bias.

Professor Fenton has tweeted about this paper here, including a link to this video which explains “the cheap trick” in an easily digestible way.

Before anyone asks, no this paper is not yet in a “peer-reviewed” journal.

Will the authors struggle to get it accepted? Yes, almost certainly.

Will that be based purely on its merits and importance? Obviously not.