Abstract:

In this third and final part of the metacritique, I evaluate four influential studies focused on Europe and Oceania: the European study by Meslé et al., Liu et al., and Lin et al. from Australia, and Datta et al. from New Zealand. These regional studies have significantly shaped public health messaging and vaccine policy. As in Parts 1 and 2, I identify recurring issues that call their conclusions into question — namely, problematic counting windows, inadequate accounting for adverse events, assumptions that exaggerate vaccine effectiveness, and potential conflicts of interest. Several studies also overlook waning or negative effectiveness and exclude safety signals, such as myocarditis. Collectively, these issues raise serious concerns about the reliability of models used to justify mass vaccination policies. A brief synthesis of all six studies is included to assess whether the prevailing narrative of universal COVID-19 vaccine benefit holds up under critical scrutiny.

Keywords: COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccines, counting windows, risk-benefit analysis, negative effectiveness