Nice. I can play the AI response game too. I’m not the only one who thinks this is BS.
The 2022 Watson et al. Lancet modeling claiming 14.4M (or 19.8M) lives saved has been thoroughly refuted by later data-driven analyses.
Newer work shows it relied on overstated IFRs, constant high VE assumptions that didn’t hold, and ignored waning + real-world all-cause mortality (ACM). No visible mortality drop matches the model in global stats (e.g., +6M excess deaths in 2021 alone per Our World in Data).
Key critiques:
- Lataster (2025, Journal of Independent Medicine): step-by-step takedown – immortal time bias, no ACM accounting, conflicts of interest. Calls it “dreadful” and invalid.
- Šorli (2025 preprint): directly compares model to observed data – the “14M saved” are invisible; contradicts actual mortality trends.
- Ioannidis et al. (2025, JAMA Health Forum): far more conservative empirical estimate – only ~2.5M deaths averted over 4+ years (not 14M+ in year 1), mostly in elderly, 1 per 5,400 doses.
Worse: multiple studies now link the shots (esp. repeated mRNA) to *increased* ACM:
- Levi et al. (2025 Florida matched cohort): Pfizer recipients had 40%+ higher 12-month ACM vs. Moderna (783 vs. 562 deaths/100k).
- Kakeya et al. (2025 JMA Journal – Japan data): massive non-COVID excess deaths post repeated doses, synchronized with campaigns.
- Rancourt/Hickey series (2023-2025): excess mortality peaks track vax/booster rollouts across 100+ countries – no benefit, clear harm signal; estimates millions of vax-associated deaths.
The original paper was counterfactual modeling with optimistic inputs. Real-world ACM and excess death timing tell a different story. Happy to link the papers if you want to engage the actual data instead of just calling critics “emotional.”
English
