Did the vaccine save 20 million lives?
Hypothetical models with wrong assumptions cannot prove any causality.
Eric Feigl-Ding, and others, spreads vaccine propaganda with supposedly scientific models. I explain why this is clearly unscientific.
![Twitter avatar for @DrEricDing](https://substackcdn.com/image/twitter_name/w_96/DrEricDing.jpg)
![Image](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_600,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.substack.com%2Fmedia%2FFWRGUETWIAEUybd.jpg)
In less than an hour and with a few lines of R code, I recreated a similar model - which is based on false assumptions.
So how does it work? Quite simple, it is based on the - never scientifically proven - assumption that vaccination protects ~90% from death. This allows us to create a model that calculates the case fatality rate (CFR) with no assumed vaccine effect.
Here I used a Vaccine Efficacy (VE) against death of 90%. CDC, currently, lists 94% on their website.
With this modeled CFR, we can now calculate how many people - supposedly - would have died without vaccination. We can see, that the model predicted 3.9M deaths without vaccination for the US. That implies, that vaccination saved almost 3.1M lives. Of course, it's a MODEL, and cannot predict or prove what would’ve really happened.
In summary:
The claim that vaccination protects against death has never been scientifically proven.
How the pandemic would have developed without vaccines remains unclear.
Only a comparison of all-cause mortality between vaccinated/unvaccinated could prove an effect.
The case numbers do not rely on a statistically representative sample. These are clearly influenced by the number of tests, who was tested and other factors...
Prof. Norman Fenton @profnfenton, also explains well, why these models are obviously flawed:
Lol, that graph is perfect.
The "experts" have been bullshitting for profit and power all along. No doubt they were also motivated by fear of funding loss and excommunication.
Good stuff, Ben!