Thread by @MatanHolzer

The world relies heavily on @IsraelMOH data regarding covid19 vaccine safety and efficiency.

But their data is worth nothing.

In the following I show how their adverse event data collection is facade, resulting in evidently huge under-report seen in numbers the provide ⬇️

First, the motive.

Some of readers may wonder: "why would I care about what Israeli authorities claim? why would I bother to read Hebrew material?"

Point is, @US_FDA relies on Israeli data.
so any manipulation in Israeli data effects your kid's safety!
fda.gov/media/153409/d…

So, Israeli authorities claimed, for example, that there is very few cases of myocarditys after the 'booster' shot. they go with this presentation to FDA advisory committee

A reminder - your children safety is based on those numbers
So, is it reliable?

fda.gov/media/153086/d…

Israeli Drugs Adverse Events Reporting System

Unlike USA's #VAERS and EU's #Eudravigilance, which are public and transparent, Israel had nothing like that. They created a link to fill forms, which, supposedly, will be sent to authorities for monitoring.
gov.il/en/service/cov…

Let's try.

* reference no. is created upon loading the page (check: refresh), not after submission, therefore worth anything
* No need for identifying details. Meaning it can't be verified. Does every report enter the system? If I report 100 deaths, will it show up tomorrow?

Fill up whatever you like, and click Send at the bottom.
You'll get this
No reference number for submission.

After sending, you can click "Save as PDF" in the top left toolbox.
They say it clearly:
"This document is not a confirmation of submitting the form"

(remember - this PDF can be created only AFTER sending)

So, for all practical purposes, this form was never filed.

Me, or any other person, has no way to see it, to follow it, to track it later...

Basically what the system does is:

But let's use Principle of Charity and suppose the file do goes to somewhere and somebody views it.
What can he/she do?
There are no personal data, so no way to validate the report.
And when I provided those, a month ago, nobody called back.

https://twitter.com/MatanHolzer/status/1448978369614434305?s=20

So they definitely don't verify the report, and they don't even pretend to do so (without identifying details).
what can they do?
only decide in some magical way what is true and what is fake, what is related and what is unrelated.
they can take only 1% of them, for example...

(((

A very important word about "related".

Don't be fooled by doctors who "know" something is unrelated. They have no way to track the circle of events.
It just means they didn't hear of increase in prevalence of such events after vaccine, corollary it's likely coincidence.

But as long as you dismissed events because you don't know they are related. you wouldn't see any increase in statistics, and so on
This is circular reasoning that will prevent us from understanding what's going on (unless for some external reason the signal will show up).

for example, before the myocarditis signal was processed (late April), probably all those cases were dismissed as "unrelated". Maybe even some of those "unrelated" severe events in Pfizer's clinical trial, were actually myocarditis
nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…

)))

OK. that the "methods" section. Now the "results".

Remember I claimed that their number are clearly seen to be under-report?

1) COMMON SIDE EFFECTS

At 30.04 @IsraelMOH published a document about safety, based on more than 5M jabs.
common (not severe) side effects. Max is 287/M or ~0.03%...
Compare to Pfizer data, 15%-30%.
Clear under-report by factor of ~100

Slide 11
gov.il/BlobFolder/rep…

Just nobody cared to report and/or nobody cared to collect.
It's not so important, as those effects are not life-threatening and their prevalence is pretty much known from the trial.
But presenting that as collected data is ridiculous.
Unless Israelis got the placebo... 😉

2) SEVERE ADVERSE EVENTS

in similar report @IsraelMOH claims to compare no. of ALL X-type EVENTS within month-after-vaccination to a regular month.

remember - only by comparing number of all events we can know if incidence has changed.
not only those someone think are related

Slide 17
gov.il/BlobFolder/rep…

so they claim that in the month-after-vaccination there were only 0.2/M heart attacks, while in a usual month there are 160?...
did the hospitals get empty and all doctors go to the Maldives?...

Of course not. the comparison is not fair. they list only a very tiny fraction of events, probably only those a doctor decided are "related", and dismissed all the rest (a support for this is "no report". why should be a report? you should compare the raw numbers as is)

slide 18

So, basically they compare doctor-confirmed related events to a usual month, and claim: wow, there are less doctor-confirmed related events compared to the usual number!!!111

but they claim to list all events, regardless whether related.
Just ridiculous.

slide 8, bottom

3) DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR IGNORING REPORTS

on 30.9.21 @IsraelMOH published a post in Facebook, claiming only 19 (yes, nineteen) "significant adverse events"
The post got thousands of replies. out of them hundreds/thousands reporting their own experience

facebook.com/Health.gov.il/…

@IsraelMOH up to 30.9.21, 3.4M "booster" doses were given in Israel, and 2.2M were given a month before. but they know about 19 cases only...
come on, I know one directly, and indirectly more than that...
what a pity Facebook is a public platform, unlike the facade reporting system...

Discussion

identifying signals of adverse events is a very challenging task; identifying myocarditis took few months.
Can't rely on 2 months' data.

On top of that, Israel's data collection is messy, not-transparent and evidently missing.

Israeli data should't be relied upon.

@threadreaderapp unroll please

Then, they compile those numbers into a scientific-paper format, and present it as "science".
But no sophisticated analysis compensates for garbage data...
If the numbers represent nothing, their statistical analysis means nothing, the risk-benefit analysis is worth nothing..