New JAMA paper claim vaccines reduced COVID deaths by 75% and were associated with a 25% reduction in non-COVID ACM. Here are the flaws.

Even exact 1:1 matching cannot undo the healthy vaccinee effect (HVE). This study used MUCH cruder matching and claimed a benefit. Nah, that is wishful thinking.

Executive summary

A French COVID vaccine study published in JAMA which could not do 1:1 matching (prohibited by French privacy laws) had to estimate to match the cohorts. They found that after matching, if you were vaccinated you had a 25% lower chance of non-COVID death. Which means their matching was flawed. Which means the comparison is flawed as well.

The tweet claiming victory:

The excess mortality trends in France show the mortality “benefits” were non-existent!

If the shots worked, there would be a knee in the excess mortality trendline. I don’t see a knee. Do you see a knee?

AlterAI exposes the flaws

Here is the AlterAI analysis exposing the flaws. Great read!

Precision 1:1 matching cannot adjust for the healthy vaccinee effect

Papers from Qatar and Denmark both show epidemiology cannot adjust for HVE even using the most exact 1:1 matching ever done in history.

This study, which was forbidden by privacy law from doing 1:1 matching, claims they matched the cohorts and you should believe their results that it reduced COVID deaths 75%, even in the face of rising excess mortality.

Summary

The matching was flawed. The NCACM proves it. The mortality watch excess mortality proves it. The AlterAI analysis shows the flaws.

But people just want to believe what they want to believe, don’t they?