EN
FR
by Nicolas Hulscher, MPH,
In this revealing episode, epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher sits down with Dr. Raphael Lataster to dismantle the widely cited Watson et al study, published in The Lancet, which claimed COVID-19 vaccines saved 14.4 million lives in a single year.
Dr. Lataster presents his rigorous meta-critique published in the Journal of Independent Medicine, exposing the study’s deeply flawed assumptions, hidden conflicts of interest, and misleading methodology:
Key Points
- False Vaccine Effectiveness Claims
Watson et al. used exaggerated estimates of vaccine effectiveness, derived from flawed clinical trial data that ignored adverse events and misclassified cases in “partially vaccinated” individuals—artificially inflating efficacy. - Static Vaccine Assumptions
The study assumed constant vaccine protection (e.g., 90% against disease) over time, despite clear real-world evidence showing rapid waning effectiveness—which turns negative after several months. - Manipulated IFR/CFR Inputs
The paper relied on inflated infection fatality rates (IFRs) and was non-transparent about their sources—likely overestimating the deadliness of COVID-19 to make vaccine impact appear larger. - No Risk-Benefit Analysis
Watson et al completely ignored vaccine risks—including myocarditis, deaths, and subclinical injury—rendering any benefit claims scientifically meaningless. - Garbage In, Garbage Out Modeling
The study was not based on real-world outcomes but on speculative modeling riddled with biased inputs, unrealistic assumptions, and circular logic. - Massive Conflicts of Interest
The lead authors and funding bodies have extensive ties to vaccine manufacturers, the WHO, GAVI, and the Gates Foundation. The team operated under the leadership of Neil Ferguson—infamous for his failed pandemic models and lockdown advocacy. - Excess Deaths Correlate with Vaccination
Dr. Lataster shared findings from his other research showing a correlation between high vaccination rates and increased excess mortality and hospitalizations in multiple countries. 
- The Watson et al study has been used by people like Dr. Peter Hotez to justify dangerous genetic injections, vaccine mandates, suppress dissent, and shield pharmaceutical companies from accountability.Dr. Lataster’s meta-critique of Watson et al reinforces the findings of the study “The Discrepancy Between the Number of Saved Lives with COVID-19 Vaccination and Statistics of Our World in Data,” which used real-world data to show that the claim of millions of lives saved by mRNA injections is mathematically and observationally impossible:
- Both analyses converge on the same conclusion:
- The COVID-19 vaccines did not and could not have saved the millions of lives claimed—those figures are the product of flawed models, inflated assumptions, and statistical manipulation.Source: https://www.thefocalpoints.com
Your Tax Free Donations Are Appreciated and Help Fund our Volunteer Website
Disclaimer: We at Prepare for Change (PFC) bring you information that is not offered by the mainstream news, and therefore may seem controversial. The opinions, views, statements, and/or information we present are not necessarily promoted, endorsed, espoused, or agreed to by Prepare for Change, its leadership Council, members, those who work with PFC, or those who read its content. However, they are hopefully provocative. Please use discernment! Use logical thinking, your own intuition and your own connection with Source, Spirit and Natural Laws to help you determine what is true and what is not. By sharing information and seeding dialogue, it is our goal to raise consciousness and awareness of higher truths to free us from enslavement of the matrix in this material realm.
