Abstract:

Despite a dearth of critical evaluations of major COVID-19 vaccine studies, this review analyzes Kitano et al., a highly cited US-based modeling study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, which claims that the benefits of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines outweigh the risks across all demographic groups. This paper builds on issues raised in Part 1 of this series and identifies several methodological flaws that undermine those conclusions. These include biased counting windows, exclusion of early adverse events, assumptions about vaccine safety and effectiveness that ignore waning and negative effectiveness, and unsupported estimates of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Additional concerns include reliance on speculative data, failure to account for long-term harms, and potential conflicts of interest. These limitations alongside emerging evidence of vaccine-associated harms, particularly in low-risk populations cast serious doubt on the claimed net benefit of mRNA vaccination.

Keywords: COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccines, counting windows, risk-benefit analysis, negative effectiveness, quality-adjusted life years