New paper shows COVID boosters increased mortality in nursing home residents. The effect was highly statistically significant after 4 weeks.

A new paper by Girma and Paton shows a dubious, small, short-lived benefit in initial vaccination on nursing home residents. For boosters, the effect was HARMFUL and HIGHLY statistically significant.

Update

This article has been corrected to reflect that all measures reported in the tables were resident impacts.

Executive summary

A new paper by Girma and Paton showed by using machine learning a small but dubious (and short lived) benefit for nursing home residents in 2 of 3 metrics. In other words, they couldn’t find a definitive benefit for the primary series and they found NO benefit for additional shots.

In fact, for the boosters, they found a highly statistically significant INCREASE in COVID mortality after the boosters were administered.

We should only be giving these shots if there is a clear and significant benefit, not “we aren’t sure” or “there is no benefit.” But when there is a highly statistically significant harm, alarm bells should go off!

The paper says, “Indeed, in the later period, we find some evidence that higher vaccination rates are associated with higher Covid mortality.”

A safe and effective vaccine shouldn’t EVER be even close to causing a conclusion like that.

Additionally, vaccinating the nursing home staff also appeared to have a negative impact on residents! There, the impact on both COVID deaths and all-cause deaths was 100% consistent in all 7 time periods and for each vaccine dose: it always made things worse, and for the primary series where every single one of the 14 measures were highly statistically significant (99% confident). In short, the paper conclusively determined that vaccinating the staff was detrimental for nursing home residents.

This is yet another paper showing continuation of COVID vaccination is nonsensical. But the data doesn’t seem to matter and nobody wants to talk about it.

As usual, expect the mainstream media to ignore this paper as they do for any paper that shows that the health interventions were detrimental.

Conclusions of the paper

Summarized by this excerpt:

Standard panel data regression estimates do not indicate that higher vaccination take-up reduced mortality in elderly care homes. In contrast, using the DDML approach, we are able to identify some evidence that vaccination may have reduced Covid-related mortality to some extent. This finding is, however, somewhat equivocal: it applies only to two of our three mortality measures and even for those two measures, the effect is only found for the period of the first course of Covid-19 vaccination (i.e. up to September 2021).

Even using DDML, we are unable to identify strong evidence that vaccination rates amongst care home staff reduced mortality or that resident vaccination reduced mortality during booster roll out period (from September 2021).

Indeed, in the later period, we find some evidence that higher vaccination rates are associated with higher Covid mortality.

My English translation: “Normal methods didn’t show a benefit, so we applied machine learning and found a small benefit (saving the lives of a few people per 100,000 vaccinated), but only in 2 of the 3 measures we used and ONLY in for the first dose and ONLY for residents. But going forward, it’s really clear there is no benefit whatsoever and it looks like it makes things worse so we are baffled as to why the healthcare authorities would still be pushing this junk.”

Impact of COVID vaccination of staff on residents was NEGATIVE and HIGHLY statistically significant!

Take a look at Table 6a and 6b. A positive number means it made things worse. This is the rate per 1,000 people in the period. The number in parens is the standard error. If the standard error is small with respect to the value, it is statistically significant. The number of asterisks (*) gives you the amount of statistical significance. One star is low (90% confident), two stars means “statistically significant” (95% confident), and 3 stars means very highly statistically significant (99% confident).

See the positive numbers and three asterisks on EVERY SINGLE data point for staff in the red box? That’s a big deal. There was a clear and unambiguous signal the COVID shots for staff made COVID and all-cause mortality WORSE for residents.

All 14 data points for the primary course were all HIGHLY statistically significant (99% confidence): staff vaccination increased COVID deaths and all-cause deaths on residents. This is stunning.

The booster data was similar with every single datapoint being positive, but there were fewer COVID cases and deaths among those who opted to be boosted so fewer values were statistically significant.

The single most devastating result of the study: booster shots made things worse

Starting at 3 weeks, boosters made COVID deaths worse.

At 4 weeks, the effect was statistically significant.

But at 5 weeks and beyond, the effect was highly statistically significant.

Is there a more definitive study showing a benefit using the same or a more reliable dataset? I’m not aware of one.

HUGE PROBLEM!!! For booster shots, after three weeks, the vaccines increased COVID mortality and after 4 weeks the results were highly statistically significant.

Announcement of the paper on X

Summary

Any benefit for residents was very small and only for the first course (and was only in 2 out of 3 measures; if it was a significant effect, all 3 measures should have been triggered).

After the booster, after 2 weeks from the shot, COVID deaths increased.

Going forward, vaccination for staff or residents is nonsensical.

We were assured that vaccination would reduce death, not increase it!

This paper is yet another example that we were lied to.

I have yet to find a single health authority in the world who is willing to have a public dialog on the evidence. I asked for this Wednesday in Santa Clara County and the chief health officer, Sara Cody, completely ignored my appeal to stop the misinformation.