Varying Methodologies to Assess Relative Risks have Distorted the Covid Debate, Tended to Misinform the Public, and Opened the Door to Mistakes in Public Health Policy.
Methodological Deficiencies in Covid policy
Varying Methodologies to Assess Relative Risks have Distorted the Covid Debate, Tended to Misinform the Public, and Opened the Door to Mistakes in Public Health Policy.
Dear Jacinda
I want to thank you for the great compassion and clarity you have exhibited during your tenure as Prime Minister.
Your promotion of science and scientists in alliance with government has been inspiring. Your capacity to communicate ideas is of the highest order. Your patience is exemplary.
I am a scientist who has worked with statistical analysis of social data including time series analysis and panel regression analysis.
I have also worked in the genetic testing industry. I am therefore well aware that to draw useful conclusions methodologies and data collection criteria have to be at foundation consistent.
Given my data background and my long-term concern for health, over the last few months, I have corresponded with a number of scientists among your extensive advisory team.
I have been able to express my views to them and ask questions. This is a great feature of your inclusive government approach.
I understand very clearly that you have been risk-averse, and for good reasons. Your aim is to protect public health and especially that of the vulnerable.
I clearly understand that Covid poses a unique challenge to immediate and long-term health.
I also realise that our emergency health facilities here in New Zealand will be inadequate to provide services should Covid become widespread in the community.
I support all efforts to prevent this happening including effective vaccination.
Recently I have become puzzled by persistent personal reports of vaccine harm circulating in the public domain that are not reflected in the government reports of adverse reactions to the vaccine.
I have reflected upon this, and communicated with friends and scientists here and overseas.
As a result I am beginning to get a clear picture of a distinct divergence of methodologies which is distorting the presentation of information.
Firstly, overseas there has been a general tendency in countries where there is an adequate reporting system in place, to certify deaths within one month of being actively ill with Covid, as being due solely to Covid.
This has occurred even though it is clear that co-morbidities are determinants of the risk of developing serious Covid.
These comorbidities include (in no particular order):
- uncontrolled hypertension
- obesity
- diabetes
- weakened immune system
- certain medications (of which there are many)
- excessive fatigue
- shift work
- heart conditions
- liver and kidney conditions
- asthma
- smoking
- gender
- ethnicity
- advanced age
- poverty and crowded living conditions
- cancer
- cystic fibrosis
- sickle cell anaemia
- pregnancy
- dementia
- and substance abuse.
The policy of recording Covid on the death certificate irrespective of the co-morbidities can be consistently applied and has its own logic.
However, the method of recording adverse effects of Covid vaccines is applied distinctly differently and in an opposite way.
When a vaccine adverse effect is reported, the policy is to search for possible confounding morbidities, if one can be found then it is judged that the vaccine is not responsible.
It is also not a policy to examine all deaths and adverse events for a whole month after vaccination, thus in addition many possible adverse effects are being omitted.
It is well known that vaccines including Covid vaccines are vectors (or triggers) which can and do exacerbate a large number of comorbidities.
Thus, taking a specific example, Covid vaccines are known to be associated with thrombosis, but this association is dismissed as causative because it predominantly occurs among people who already are known to be at risk of stroke.
For example, a small number of people taking the contraceptive pill are known to be at risk of thrombosis.
Should such a person die after receiving the vaccination as happened recently in New Zealand, the cause of death is ascribed to the contraceptive pill.
This is an excessively conservative and misleading approach.
Since the reporting methodologies of Covid severity and death versus vaccination adverse effects are divergent, conclusions drawn from these two sets of data are unsound.
The distortion these two differing methodologies of reporting produce turns out to be significant in terms of public policy. Apples are being compared to oranges.
Whilst Covid deaths appear inflated, vaccine adverse effects are greatly reduced to the extent that they appear to be virtually non-existent.
This is not the case.
As you are aware from your recent post on your Facebook page about vaccine side effects, which garnered 33,000 comments, vaccine side effects are highly unreported by the government agencies but are not going unnoticed by a significant cohort of the public.
What are the principal effects of this and other known facts on public policy?
1. Members of the public who have significant comorbidities likely to be triggered by the Covid vaccine are not being informed of the potential risks, quite the reverse.
They are being encouraged and even pressured to take the vaccine with the impression that it is scientifically proven to be harmless.
Thus they are being denied informed consent, and should they suffer adverse effects denied redress or acknowledgement.
The imposition of vaccine mandates in certain professions confounds this further. The present discussion of possible vaccine passports will also do so.
2. The overriding importance of tackling co-morbidities is masked—prior ill health is actually the main cause of death from Covid.
Thus government policy is not doing enough to favour healthy diets and lifestyles.
It could be doing more than it is, such as abolishing GST on fresh fruit and vegetables, imposing a sugar tax, introducing closer assessment, information, and control of additives, ultra processed foods, and known harmful pesticides, as well as maintaining clean air (including reducing off gassing in building materials and household goods).
In this regard, a huge opportunity is going missing. Approximately 75% of people recover from Covid without suffering serious illness or long-term effects.
Where is the funding for research to be done to determine what it is about their lifestyle, diet, environment, etc., which is supporting their health?
3. The vaccination of minors is a scandalous side effect of this misinformation.
Research is yet incomplete, but an initial indication from the USA is that the Covid vaccine is four times more dangerous for males under 18 than Covid itself.
Moreover, other research shows that the natural immune protection developed after recovery from Covid is 13 times more powerful than the temporary protection offered by the vaccine.
Since the vaccine does not stem transmission of Covid, the purpose of vaccinating 12-17-year-olds (not to speak of 5-12-year-olds) is obscure and risky. It flies in the face of your caring stance.
4. It is not being publicised that the vaccine has been approved on an emergency basis.
Its long-term effects, which would normally be assessed before general use, have yet to be researched.
Thus youth in particular and the whole population, in general, are being exposed to some unquantified risks.
How did it come about that you have been advised that the policies being followed are soundly based on science, whereas there is a fundamental methodological flaw being applied?
The answer lies in historical policies which in their day might have been useful or expedient, and in the fragmentation, inconsistency in thinking, and lack of alertness among the busy scientific and health professionals formulating advice.
Also in a certain willingness to accept at face value the consistency of data and conclusions sourced from different bodies, countries, and commercial interests.
Vaccine developers and manufacturers are commercial bodies. At the heart of their endeavour is not just a desire to benefit health but also a push to secure profits in a highly competitive market.
Over 117 vaccines have or are being developed worldwide.
The failure to address statistically and publicly the interactions of vaccines with comorbidities is not just a matter of history but also a matter of marketing.
Despite the fact that vaccine companies have been granted immunity from prosecution, they are still sensitive to public acceptance.
Covid is a new disease that emerged rapidly and spread globally.
Whilst Covid is very obviously greatly affected by co-morbidities, vaccine side effect assessments have continued to follow protocols established for illnesses where comorbidities were of less importance.
This needs to be urgently corrected.
I trust that you will continue to take account of the science and be bold in adjusting your message accordingly.
At present, an erroneous impression might have been created that vaccinated individuals can be allowed free movement without a downside, whilst the vaccine-hesitant are blameworthy.
On a positive note, it appears that new treatments for Covid are emerging (as indeed they did for AIDS). These are promising to lessen the impact and mortality rate of the disease.
If these gather pace, your policy of elimination will be vindicated. In this light, extension of elimination strategies may prove within a short time frame to result in a long-term benefit.
As you know, vaccination alone is proving insufficient to control the disease around the world, even in developed countries.
Therefore it is unlikely to do so here. New treatments may hold one answer. No doubt your government is closely monitoring these and proposing to adopt them.
If there is one clear lesson of the pandemic it is this:—maintenance of personal health through access to diet, exercise, cleanliness, and adequate rest is still the most vital determinant of public health and should be the priority of government health policy.
