Research

Covid-19 Vaccinations Do More Harm Than Good

by

Now We Have It in Black And White

In July, Mörl, Günther and Rockenfeller published a high-profile paper in the peer-reviewed online journal Frontiers in Medicine [1]. They compared the number of adverse events in the five pivotal trials of the Covid-19 vaccine with the number of adverse events in the control groups, as well as the number of severe Covid-19 cases in both groups, and calculated a harm-benefit ratio. If this is less than 1, then the vaccines do more good than harm. If it is greater than 1, they do more harm than good. Only two studies had a harm-benefit ratio smaller than 1, but very close to 1 (0.9 and 0.6). The authors point out that it would probably be reasonable to expect a harm-benefit ratio much smaller than 0.1, that is, ten more severe courses among control cases than among vaccinated people.

Clearly, this is not the case. In the BioNTech study, the ratio is actually very large at 25. This means that 25 times more serious side effects are registered in the vaccination group than in the control group. In the Moderna study, the ratio of 1.1 is about the same, but also far from favourable. They do not interpret the Sputnik pivotal study because the ratio there is negative, which is hardly credible.

Read more

Why People in Germany Get Vaccinated

by

Our vaccination motivation study is now published in BMJ Open

On January 6th, 2022, I had referred to the preprint of our study “Why do people consent to receiving SARS-CoV2 vaccinations – A representative survey in Germany” and discussed it in detail there [1].

Now it has been published in British Medical Journal Open (BMJ Open) [2]. The content has not changed from the preprint, so I won’t go into detail about the study again now. Only one additional analysis was added at the request of a reviewer.

Read more

Meta-Review: The Backbone of Evidence Based Medicine Is Weak

by

Only about 6 percent of all interventions used in medicine have sufficiently good data and are effective

Our new meta-review shows: The backbone of Evidence Based Medicine is weak

Regular readers of my texts know that I am very sceptical about the postmodern redemption narrative of modern medicine that proclaims: We live so long and do so well because modern medicine has made such tremendous advances. Therefore, everything that modern pharmacology brings us is good, welcome and worthy of support (and should be funded by the public).

Even the legendary social physician Thomas McKeown from Birmingham pointed out in the 1970s that this widespread popular opinion is most likely wrong and said in the introduction to his still very readable work “The Role of Medicine: Dream, Mirage, or Nemesis?” [1,2]: If he were St. Peter, he would only allow two types of doctors into heaven, namely trauma surgeons and dentists. Because those would be the only ones who really contributed to a reduction of suffering. The real progress and thus the extension of life span and the improvement of quality of life would not be due to medicine, but to socio-political progress, better nutrition, hygiene and living conditions without constant fear of hardship and death.

Well, that was in the 70s. Maybe it’s different today? We did a very large meta-study to answer the question of how good the data is for medical interventions in general. It has now been published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology [3]. I discuss the study and its findings in a little more detail in this blog. For those in a hurry: the data has not changed much. A maximum of 6 percent of all interventions used in medicine, no matter where, are covered by good data.

Only for a limited time (until 08-22-2022) the meta-review is freely accessible at: https://authors.elsevier.com/c/1fIHz3BcJQAobl

Read more

Homeopathy Works for Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

by

…and is helpful within limits in healing wounds.

Homeopathy and the results of two meta-analyses

A few years ago, the leader of the German Green Party, Robert Habeck, proclaimed in the heart of conviction, that homeopathy is no more than placebo. Many politicians and medical administrators dutifully agreed. Our health blabbermouth, Health Minister Lauterbach, wants to pour this into a set of rules and remove homeopathy completely from all medical books. Since then, it has become politically incorrect to be pro-homeopathy.

I still think homeopathy is good and have done for a long time, thus I have also been politically incorrect for a long time. Because I am less interested in the opinions of people who have only a very limited idea of the matter and certainly not in the arguments that proceed from unreflected theoretical presuppositions. What I am chiefly interested in, is the data. Because I am politically incorrect, a foundation that supports homeopathy a while ago removed me from my role as a blogger, where I used to comment on new data and studies on the blog Homöopathie.info. 

Nevertheless, I like homeopathy and engage with it when the opportunity arises, or I am asked. I take the publication of our new meta-analysis on the efficacy of homeopathy in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children [1] and our somewhat older meta-analysis on Arnica in wound healing [2], published last year in Frontiers in Surgery, as an opportunity to draw attention to homeopathy.

I would also like to take this opportunity to pass on some methodological knowledge on the subject of meta-analyses in my newest chapter of my methodology blog.

I will start with a small political preface to help understand the general situation, then for those who do not yet know much about it, a few words about homeopathy in general.

Read more

Face Masks Lead to Dangerously High Levels of Carbon Dioxide in Children’s Inhaled Air

by

The long version of our mask study has been republished

A workshop report and some thoughts on it

Our mask study measured carbon dioxide levels in the inhaled air of 45 children wearing face masks. It found that the inhaled air under children’s face masks contained unacceptably high levels of carbon dioxide, about 1.3% to 1.4% by volume, or 13,000 to 14,000 parts per million. Normal outdoor carbon dioxide levels are 400 ppm or 0.04% by volume. The Federal Environment Agency and various protective regulations have determined that 2,000 ppm or 0.2 vol.-% is the upper limit above which damage to health cannot be ruled out. For children, such high values, as we measured after only 3 minutes, are absolutely unacceptable. Especially against the background that children are neither at high risk of corona infections and Sars-CoV2 nor are they important spreaders of infections.

Read more