IOPList.Org

What Is COVID Injection Fatality Rate?


BY TESSA LENA
APRIL 23, 2022


A great ‘Perspectives on the Pandemic’ interview with Dr. Spiro Pantazatos.
Dr. Pantazatos is not shy at all about sharing his analysis, and he is also
tremendously graceful and humble when presenting it.







Story at-a-glance


This story is about a very brave researcher at Columbia University who co-authored a paper
on risks associated with COVID vaccination (“vaccine-induced fatality rate”), in October 2021.

The researcher’s name is Spiro Pantazatos, Ph.D. He is an Assistant Professor of
Clinical Neurobiology (Psychiatry) at Columbia University. He is also Research Scientist at the
New York State Psychiatric Institute. The title of his paper (a preprint) is “COVID vaccination
and age-stratified all-cause mortality risk”:

“Accurate estimates of COVID vaccine-induced severe adverse event and death rates are critical
for risk-benefit ratio analyses of vaccination and boosters against SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus in
different age groups. However, existing surveillance studies are not designed to reliably estimate
life-threatening event or vaccine-induced fatality rates (VFR).

Here, regional variation in vaccination rates was used to predict all-cause mortality and
non-COVID deaths in subsequent time periods using two independent, publicly available
datasets from the US and Europe (month-and week-level resolutions, respectively).”


Currently Dr. Pantazatos is trying to fund a home for this paper but all journals where
he submitted it have declined so far.

Dr. Pantazatos was interviewed for the “Perspectives on the Pandemic” series, and in my
opinion, the interview came out stunning (with a disclaimer that the topic is gruesome,
so it’s a stunning interview about a horrible thing). Dr. Pantazatos’ presentation is so
graceful and even-headed that it could be “the” video to send to your friends who have
been calling you crazy all this time!


Dr. Pantazatos’ Initial COVID Position Was 100% “Mainstream”

Early in the pandemic, Dr. Pantazatos was very moved by the vivid images that the media
was feeding us — and, as a result, he became terrified of the virus. His initial plan was to
lockdown inside his house until the vaccines came out.



What Compelled Him to Get More Skeptical

But then he started looking at data presented by scientists like John Ioannidis, for example,
and he quickly realized that the situation was different from the one painted by the media.

Then Dr. Pantazatos’ co-author on this paper, Herve Seligmann, came up with an analysis
of European data showing a consistent trend where a vaccination campaign seemed to be
accompanied by an increase in all-cause mortality during the month following the
vaccination campaign.

Dr. Pantazatos didn’t like that conclusion very much as it implied the unthinkable, and so
he decided to do his own analysis based on the U.S. data (vaccinations and all-cause mortality),
published by the CDC. And when he did his analysis using the U.S. data, it showed the same
trend. His analysis of the CDC data showed that following a vaccination campaign in a given
locality, there was an increase in all-cause mortality during the following month, followed
by a decrease.

In Dr. Pantazatos’ opinion, the risk associated with COVID injections is comparable to the
risk associated with getting COVID — if the risk associated with COVID is assessed at the
high, early-in-the-pandemic level. And given that the two risks are comparable, and the
injection risks seem to increase with each subsequent does — and the pharma companies
are pushing for boosters from here into the horizon — he believes that we really need
to discuss the VFR.

Why Rejection From the Journals Then?



Interestingly, Dr. Pantazatos mentioned in the interview that even before 2020, he was well
aware of the fact that the process of getting scientific works published in prestigious journals
was tainted. He referred to the 2005 article in “PLOS Medicine” called, “Medical Journals
Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies” that talked about
how exactly the journals are incentivized by pharma companies.

Furthermore, scientists themselves have developed a habit of trading total integrity of research
for the prestige and benefits of having their works published — and so even before 2020,
it was not uncommon for researchers to “massage” the angle etc. in order to fit in. From
myself, I would like to add the following quote from the Lancet:

“Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies
with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of
interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance,
science has taken a turn towards darkness,” wrote Richard Horton, the Editor-in-Chief
of The Lancet in 2015.

Incidentally, I wrote an article about corruption in the medical establishment last year,
in case you are curious.


The Importance of Speaking Out

Dr. Pantazatos is not shy at all about sharing his analysis, and he is also tremendously graceful
and humble when presenting it. Personally, I am very impressed by Dr. Pantazatos’ scientific
integrity and his ability to actually “follow the science” — as well as by the grace with which
he presents this rather ugly topic.

He believes the issue is important, and speaking out is crucial. His message for other scientists
is to find their voice and stop being silent.

Full transcript of the interview.



About the Author



To find more of Tessa Lena’s work,
be sure to check out her bio,
Tessa Fights Robots.

Originally published
April 23, 2022 on Mercola.com

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author
and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.