Serious accusation from scientists: does the PEI conceal vaccination risks?

By Susan Bonath

According to a letter available to the author, five German chemistry professors from Leipzig, Tübingen, Bochum, Erlangen and Winterthur have been waiting for nine months in vain for answers from the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI). Accordingly, the responsible institute, which is subordinate to the Federal Ministry of Health, monitors the conditionally approved mRNA vaccines in terms of their safety, apparently completely inadequately. What’s more, the method it wants to use to identify risk signals is obviously so flawed that even tens of thousands of death reports related to the vaccination would be put into perspective.

In their letter, the researchers refer to an interview that PEI President Klaus Cichutek gave in early September Berlin newspaper gave. Although he expressed himself in it to the questions of the scientists. According to them, however, Cichutek only describes “the situation as it should be”, not as it is. This raises even more inconsistencies. The five researchers speak of a “scandal”.

Observed versus expected cases

The methodological error of the PEI that has been denounced runs through all safety reports on the COVID-19 vaccines. The scientists explain the problem in a way that laypeople can understand. It is about the so-called observed-versus-expected analysis, OvE analysis for short.

The PEI is thus looking for risks from the vaccines. According to this method, observed cases (such as heart attacks, strokes or deaths) that occurred in connection with a vaccination are to be compared with statistically expected corresponding incidents (expected) in a similar population group.

Two prerequisites must be met for this: First, valid data must be available on how many people in a similar group suffered from certain diseases or died before the use of the vaccines in the examined time window. Second, all incidents in the vaccinated group must be recorded, regardless of a suspicion of a connection with the vaccination.

PEI does not collect required data

It is only possible to determine whether, for example, more heart attacks or deaths occurred in the vaccination group than expected if both of these variables are validly collected. But this is exactly where the problem lies: The PEI calculates the expected cases from previous surveys by the Federal Statistical Office or foreign statistical authorities, although here too the exact origin of the data and the type of calculation remain unclear.

However, there is no valid data at all for the group of vaccinated people. Because here the PEI refers exclusively to the suspected cases reported by third parties, i.e. doctors, patients or relatives. However, the passive reporting system of the PEI only includes cases in which doctors or those affected explicitly suspect that the vaccination was the trigger. However, the number of deaths or certain diseases that actually occurred in a specific time window after vaccination is completely unknown – and is also not recorded.

In other words: The PEI does not collect the necessary data to be able to compare observed events after vaccination with expected corresponding cases. Rather, it uses passive reports of cases that are rarely investigated and represent only a tiny fraction of the actual cases that have occurred. In addition, it must be assumed that there is a significant underreporting on a scale that has also not been examined.

In the following, the researchers illustrate the criticized error based on the current safety report of the PEI from September 7th. In it, the institute reports that as of June 30, 2022, a total of 1,436 suspected vaccine-related deaths had been reported that occurred within the first 30 days of being injected with the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine Comirnaty.

In a corresponding population group, however, the PEI would have expected a total of 138,077 deaths, regardless of the cause of death. The professors criticize:

“And from the fact that the number of reported suspected deaths of 1,436 is not statistically significantly higher than the number of deaths expected across all causes of death of 138,077, the PEI concludes that there would be no warning signal. That with a In principle, such an OvE analysis cannot produce a warning signal is obvious.”

Dubious comparison that prevents warning signals

In other words: Even if 100,000 deaths suspected of being related to vaccination had been reported to the PEI in the meantime, the Federal Institute would not recognize any risk signal. After all, this number would still be lower than the expected total number of all deaths in such a group. The PEI thus dubiously compares a small subset, which happened to be included in the reporting statistics, with an expected total amount.

In his remarks to the Berlin newspaper However, Cichutek does not go into detail about the detailed criticism of the scientists. His statements remain nebulous and lead to an unverifiable counter-reproach to the scientists who criticize the PEI. The PEI boss explained:

“From the perspective of the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, the group cited in the article does not thoroughly assess the OvE method and its results. Thus, the results show that the conclusion would not change even with significant underreporting.”

The chemists counter this in their letter. Your accusation: The PEI simply disregards the basic scientific literature. The PEI’s OvE analysis is “obviously flawed and in reality does not follow the methodological regulations of the relevant literature”. They warned:

“Fatally, this error means that, for example, even with an extremely high number of reported suspected vaccine-related deaths, there would be no warning signal, and the PEI would falsely claim that the COVID vaccines are safe. Prof. Cichutek’s statements only cover up this fact .”

Even catastrophic damage was ignored

Elsewhere, the researchers substantiate their accusation again:

“As the previous statements show, the requirements for a ‘signal’ from the PEI are set so high due to the OvE analysis used that even with reported vaccination-related suspected deaths in the six-figure range, no signal would be triggered.”

According to the researchers, a PEI representative even explicitly confirmed this at a hearing on soldier vaccination before the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) in June 2022. So he answered the question in the affirmative as to whether the PEI had claimed that the vaccine was safe even with 75,000 reported deaths by July 2021. The PEI representative who was heard then confirmed that the threshold for a warning signal at the time of the hearing was already in the six-digit range for reported deaths. The authors state:

“It is obvious that the warning signal used by the PEI is not even suitable to warn of widespread side effects of catastrophic proportions.”

However, the question asked for the first time in January as to why this dubious practice is not being changed immediately has not yet been answered by the PEI or the Federal Ministry of Health (BMG), which is its superior. The authorities appear to be above any doubt – without clearing it up.

More on the subject – New report: Federal institute is hiding more and more explosive data on vaccination side effects

Source: RT

Disclaimer: If you need to update/edit/remove this news or article then please contact our support team Learn more

J. A. Allen

Author, blogger, freelance writer. Hater of spiders. Drinker of wine. Mother of hellions.

Leave a Reply