Is There an Error in CDC MMWR study?

Debunking the CDC? Oh blasphemy!

This article critically looks at the CDC’s MMWR report (see link below) and I find inconsistencies that can only be explained by a mathematical error.

These inconsistencies completely invalidate its conclusion and actually lead to disturbing issues surfacing.

Disclaimer

Despite two separate degrees in computer science and business, I am NOT a scientist and it is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT MY REASONING CONTAINS MISTAKES. I will be grateful if someone could point them out.

I simply looked at the CDC’s MMWR report, saw things that did not make sense, and tried to see why they make no sense.

So please, if you find major mistakes in my calculations, let me know ASAP.

What is it about

CDC released an article it it’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm

This article looks at all-cause mortality in some cohorts of vaccine recipients, and compares them with “similar” cohorts of non-vaccine recipients.

It publishes, with a straight face, an amazing finding that adjusted Relative Risk (aRR) of the vaccinated cohorts is approximately 3 times LOWER than of the unvaccinated cohorts.

Here’s the summary of their data:

Let me explain what these numbers mean (and please correct me if I am mistaken): aRR of 34% means that for every 100 deaths in the same size comparison groups (unvaccinated), only 34 vaccinated persons would die in the same size intervention group, over a similar number of person-days.

So, it appears, that the vaccine is almost an immortality cocktail, preventing car crashes, ongoing cancer, violence, heart attacks, and giving people a 3 times survival advantage. That is so outlandish and crazy that even study authors go on to say that, perhaps, this is explained by the fact that the vaccinated are healthier, calling it a “healthy vaccinee effect’’, and also noting that the study was observational.

Oh, Really?

It is fairly obvious that adjusted relative risk numbers make no sense at all. I suspect a mathematical error or a data error. Specifically, I believe that they did not correctly calculate person-years. I will show a table explaining this.

Let’s look at three groups:

• The Moderna group — 2,604,066 persons

• The Pfizer group — 3,452,126 persons

• The Comparison Group (persons who chose to remain unvaxxed) — 3,243,112 persons

Let’s put these numbers in a neat table just so that we can make apples to apples comparison.

So now, what do we have? Mortality (not adjusted for person-days, which I do not have) in the Moderna group is 216 per 100,000, in the Pfizer group it is 182 per 100,000, and in the control group, it is 205 per 100,000.

This makes a lot of sense and now, the mortality in these groups is somewhat similar. There is not one group with 31% rate of mortality compared to the “comparison” group — they all roughly contain similar rates.

Right? The aRRs in these groups should be roughly similar.

So how could authors arrive at nonsensical 31-34% aRR? They could arrive at it if they used incorrect person-year denominators. Since I have no access to their calculations, I cannot verify that, so it remains a guess. I hope that they will clarify it or someone will correct me.

With the great majority of adults vaccinated, such fantastical threefold declines in mortality in the vaccinated, would certainly be noticed on overall mortality statistics, but alas, no such decrease in overall mortality is observed. In fact, we are facing an increase in non-Covid-19 mortality.