Scientists who conducted the study are begging governments "to rethink their vaccination policy" because of "this lack of clear benefit."
The report, published Thursday in the peer-reviewed journal Vaccines, notes that "COVID-19 vaccines have had expedited reviews without sufficient safety data" and "many of the new vaccines use completely new technologies that have never been used in humans before."
The publication comes a day after the pro-vaccine Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an op-ed by two leading professors of medicine and epidemiology warning that "the large clustering of certain adverse events immediately after vaccination is concerning."
"The silence around these potential signals of harm reflects the politics surrounding COVID-19 vaccines," WSJ opined, noting that "authorities are making a mistake" and "risking the public's trust" by not being truthful about the harmful vaccine side effects.
Scientists in the Vaccines study — from Germany, Poland and the Netherlands — used an Israeli field study involving approximately one million persons in addition to the most prominent trial data from regulatory phase 3 trials.
The study also checked the Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and data from the Dutch national register to gauge the number of severe and fatal side effects per 100,000 vaccinations.
While concluding that the experimental vaccines are "immunologically effective" and can "prevent infections, morbidity and mortality" associated with COVID-19, the researchers documented "comparatively high rates of side effects and fatalities" plus economic costs.
The research shows four fatalities and 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations in order to save the lives of 2–11 individuals per 100,000 vaccinations, with risks and benefits placed on the same order of magnitude.
"Simply put: As we prevent three deaths by vaccinating, we incur two deaths," the study concludes, asking health regulators to "dampen the enthusiasm by sober facts" and instigate safety reviews into COVID-19 jabs.
Meanwhile, the WSJ is predicting that a "reversal in thinking may be imminent" on the jabs. Stigmatizing safety concerns is "bad for scientific integrity and could harm patients," write UCLA professor of medicine Dr. Joseph Ladapo and Professor Harvey Risch, a Yale epidemiologist.
Ladapo and Risch document four serious adverse events, using data from the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS): "low platelets (thrombocytopenia); noninfectious myocarditis, or heart inflammation, especially for those under 30; deep-vein thrombosis; and death."
The researchers acknowledge how "only a fraction of adverse events is reported" to VAERS, "so the true number of cases is almost certainly higher."
Both U.S. government health agencies — the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are "surely aware of these data patterns, yet neither agency has acknowledged the trend," the experts lament.
Ladapo and Risch elaborate:
And while you would never know it from listening to public health officials, not a single published study has demonstrated that patients with a prior infection benefit from COVID-19 vaccination. That this isn't readily acknowledged by the CDC or Anthony Fauci is an indication of how deeply entangled pandemic politics is in science.
But these authors were not the first to sound an alarm.
Earlier in June, clinicians, scientists and patient advocates lodged a formal "Citizen Petition" with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), asking the agency to delay consideration of a "full approval" of any COVID-19 vaccine.
The petitioners state their case in the prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ), "outlining the many remaining unknowns about safety and effectiveness" and demand that trials by vaccine manufacturers "should be completed before they are evaluated for full approval."
The petition asks the FDA "to require a more thorough assessment of spike proteins produced in situ by the body following vaccination — including studies on their full biodistribution, pharmacokinetics and tissue-specific toxicities."
The scientists call for a "thorough investigation of all serious adverse events reported to pharmacovigilance systems" to be carried out by "independent, impartial individuals and for safety data from individuals receiving more than two vaccine doses, in consideration of plans for future booster shots."
"Given the nature of the novel vaccine platforms, our petition asks for experts in gene therapy to be included among the external committee advising the FDA" write the 27 petitioners, stressing: "Staying silent is not the responsible option."