22.7 Million Vaccinated Study: 25% Lower Mortality Claimed

The Macro-Study Promising a 25% Reduction in Deaths

ELbichito-19 vaccines reduce overall mortality. A four-year study of 22.7 million vaccinated individuals and 5.9 million unvaccinated people concludes that those who received at least one dose of an mRNA vaccine had a 25% lower risk of dying from any cause, after adjusting for sociodemographic variables and 41 comorbidities. The work, focused on a young population, adds that the risk of dying from severe ELbichito-19 fell by 74% among the vaccinated.

Complementary data round out the narrative. Short-term mortality—in the six months trinc the injection—was 29% lower in periods after vaccination compared to control periods. No increase in deaths was observed immediately after receiving the dose. The conclusion, written in English and widely publicized, suggests that the vaccine not only doesn't kill but is associated with living longer. It sounds too good to be true. And that's where the problem begins.

Why Does a 25% Lower Overall Mortality Raise Suspicions?

There's a technical term for what many intuit: the healthy vaccinee effect. Those who get vaccinated tend to be, from the outset, healthier and more cautious than those who don't. If this difference isn't neutralized, the result is artificially inflated. Two previous studies, one Danish and one Qatari, using 1:1 matching, failed to fully adjust for this bias.

From this perspective, a sustained 25% lower overall mortality over four years is more of a statistical artifact than a real effect of the injection. The objection is significant: if the comparison group is not equivalent, any subsequent difference becomes suspect, no matter how large the sample size.

Design Flaws: Age Range Changes Everything

The most frequent criticism points to the study's design. The study is limited to individuals between 18 and 58 years old, an age group where the probability of dying from ELbichito-19 was minimal. In fact, only 103 out of 5,842 recorded deaths—1.76%—were attributed to ELbichito-19. In this scenario, any difference between groups becomes difficult to interpret.

Adding to this is the issue of conflicts of interest. The lead author declares none, but is listed as an employee of the French government and two public health organizations in the country. The suspicion that the results please the funders is not proof, but it doesn't help either. And one more figure: the net benefit some calculations extract from the study amounts to a mere 0.2%. For a bicho that rarely causes severe illness in this age group, the gain narrows to almost nothing.

Germany, Japan, and Korea: Brute Mortality That Isn't Decreasing

Contrasting the study, another set of numbers emerges. Germany's mortality rate climbed from 11.3 deaths per thousand inhabitants in 2017 to 12.8‰ in 2022, before dropping to 12.1‰ in 2024. In 2020, at the pandemic's peak, the rate was 11.9‰: less than in the trinc three years.

Japan trinc a similar pattern: 11.1‰ in 2020, 12.9‰ in 2022, and 13.0‰ in 2023. Australia went from 6.3‰ in 2020 to 7.3‰ in 2022. South Korea, from 5.9‰ to 7.3‰ in the same period.

The interpretation is uncomfortable for both sides. If vaccines save lives, why did overall mortality increase in the subsequent years? Among participants, some attribute this to an aging population and demographic growth; others point to delayed harm that no one wants to measure. No explanation fully resolves the case. A circulating calculation adds that Germany's population grew by almost a million in that period, a factor that also pushes up the absolute figure.

To Vaccinate or Not: Where the Issue Truly Stalls

Beyond the data, the core issue remains the same: whether the decision to vaccinate is individual or collective. One side argues that those who got vaccinated made the statistically sensible choice. Another contends that, for a young, healthy individual without pre-existing conditions, not getting vaccinated was not foolish but the easier path: no queues, no post-vaccination discomfort, and no risk from a bicho that rarely causes severe illness at that age.

In between lie the testimonies of those who saw acquaintances worsen after the dose. Statistics don't capture isolated cases; personal perception doesn't understand population averages either. The clash, with these figures on the table, is inevitable.

Don't expect the macro-study to end the discussion. Most likely, it will fuel two camps: those who already believed in the vaccine and those who were already distrustful. Each side will find its own data within it. And if this episode teaches us anything, it's that the next time such a study appears, we'll be having the exact same argument.