Conducted by mortality researchers Denis Rancourt, PhD, and Joseph Hickey, PhD, the study looked specifically at the claims made by The Lancet at the onset of the launch of Operation Warp Speed in a paper that was cited more than 100 times – The Lancet study was also financially backed by none other than the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Former President Donald Trump also routinely cites the The Lancet's claims when bragging about his belief that his COVID shots – Trump still calls himself "father of the vaccine" – saved millions of people that otherwise would be buried or cremated had they not taken 'his' injections.
(Related: Did you catch Megyn Kelly's recent interview with Trump in which he still falsely claimed credit for saving "millions of lives" with his Operation Warp Speed injections?)
According to Rancourt and Hickey's re-analysis, the mortality rates that were seen during the "pandemic" would have been the same without the shots. In other words, excess deaths would have been about the same either way.
In their conclusion, Rancourt and Hickey stated that Watson et al., the authors of The Lancet study, made "fantastic claims of millions of lives saved" that are "highly improbable" and have "no connection to actual mortality." Instead, they write, The Lancet paper makes "wild" assumptions in promotions of the jabs.
The "peer review" process failed once again
Rancourt and Hickey's discovery casts another huge shadow of doubt over the legitimacy of the so-called "peer review" process that was used in The Lancet study to supposedly verify its claims.
The fact that peer reviewers got things so wrong, in this instance, just goes to show that "science" as we have come to know it is highly unreliable at best, and certifiably false at worst.
In a statement to Children's Health Defense staff scientist J. Jay Couey, PhD, on a recent episode of Couey's Gigaohm Biological livestream, Rancourt spoke about how the Nobel Prize, which was used to "validate" The Lancet study's claims, is a powerful political instrument for "the establishment of propaganda to convince people of what things they need to consider to be absolutely true, absolute advancements of human knowledge."
"It impacts not only the general public but also scientists themselves" in terms of the things they believe and what they choose to research, Rancourt went on to state.
It was at the time when the 2023 Nobel Prize winners were first announced, which is when the legacy media made universal claims about tens of millions of lives being saved by the jabs, that Rancourt and Hickey decided to take a closer look at the claims of the Watson et al. paper, which was published in 2022.
What they found is that said paper represents "the opposite of good science," not because the mathematical calculations were wrong but rather because Watson et al. made no attempt whatsoever to examine whether the assumptions behind said model were even logical, nor whether their predictions were "reasonable and realistic" – meaning can they actually occur in the real world?
"How did this get through peer review?" Rancourt told Couey about the "stunning" findings that he and Hickey uncovered.
"Who were these reviewers? How could they be so blind and incompetent and unquestioning of what some authors are doing, which is completely novel and completely fabricated? ... Are they not able to see it?"
COVID jabs are unsafe and ineffective at saving lives. Learn more at Genocide.news.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
