Ioannidis “Covid vaccines? They censored me” / “We need a transparency law. Children …”

Although three years have passed since Covid pandemic, there are still many unanswered questions. Some relate to infection coronavirus, which vaccines have not been able to stop. The epidemiologist talks about it John Ioannidis, one of the most important scientists in the world. “In December 2020, I wrote an article showing, based on mathematical models, that as people began to increase their exposures again, vaccines with modest effectiveness in stopping transmission would likely lose all of their effectiveness for this outcome“. The Stanford scientist revealed in this regard a sensational background to the microphones Vinay Prasad about sensible medicine. “MedRxiv refused to publish my article as a preprint, claiming it was a sensitive public health issue“.

This is the response that Ioannidis received: “Our moderators have determined that your article is not of sufficient interest to be included in the arXiv. The moderators rejected his article after reviewing it, determining that it does not contain sufficient original or substantial scientific research“. Professor John Ioannidis he sent an appeal and received an even more surprising reply: “ArXiv, a preprint server, offered to publish my article as a preprint only AFTER it was published by a conventional peer-reviewed journal! I submitted the article to SSRN and it was published in npj Vaccines, Nature’s vaccine journal, several months later.“.


In the meantime, however, public health authorities in several countries had begun to convey the message that vaccinated people would not transmit coronavirus and that I vaccines would have been enough to stop the epidemic waves. “The consequences were serious. In most developed countries, the number of deaths despite vaccination in 2021 was higher in 2021 than in 2020“, have explained John Ioannidis. The epidemiologist pointed out that this message was used to justifycompulsory vaccination. “Commitments may have modestly increased adherence in some circumstances, but have harmed public health efforts more broadly and may leave a poor legacy“. Regarding the vaccination of children, the American epidemiologist said that he was in favor, but did not consider the obligation appropriate, since “both benefits and risks in children are very small“. Therefore, he believes that the parents themselves can decide, except for the weak, for whom vaccination is essential. Also interesting is its attitude to masks for children: «I think the masks are generally effective, although in the real world their effectiveness is often drastically reduced and can draw towards zero. The benefit is probably proportional to the risk of serious disease for the risk of exposure. For children, the risk of serious illness is minimal, even more so now that virtually all children have already been infected“. Skeptical instead of the usefulness of Paxlovid: «I am not convinced that Paxlovid will save many lives“.


Recently John Ioannidis has published an article about long Covid in children. When we talk about the evidence, he considers it “very weak, we have extremely little evidence“. More generally, therefore also for adults,”we need very careful and well-controlled studies to understand how frequent and how serious these consequences are“. Regarding the conflicts of interest during the pandemic, the epidemiologist said “much for a COVID-19 Transparency Act. It should include other types of financial arrangements than those contemplated in the case of Big Pharma in the Sunshine Act“. In the interview, he was also asked to express an opinion about the closure of schools during the emergency: “It’s a bad decision. I think few people fail to recognize that this was a mistake. The constant Chinese closures worry me a lot“.


Leave a Comment