CITIZENS NEWS

INSIDIOUS World Health Organization credits mRNA jabs for saving “millions” of lives during their PLANDEMIC, but the numbers are vastly inflated

By sdwells // 2025-07-30

A new Stanford-led vaccine-shilling study has significantly challenged previous global estimates of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness, concluding that the vaccines supposedly saved a couple million lives worldwide between 2020 and 2024— which is actually far fewer than the outrageous 20 million lives claimed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and other early studies. Published in the JAMA Health Forum, the peer-reviewed research analyzed comprehensive global data and found that nearly 90% of lives saved were among individuals aged 60 and older, with minimal impact on younger populations. There is actually ZERO proof the mRNA jabs, which do NOT qualify as vaccines anyhow, saved any lives at all, but we do know they are responsible for an untold number of horrific injuries to people’s hearts, brains and fetuses. Here’s the rundown:

• A Stanford-led global study published in JAMA Health Forum estimates that COVID-19 vaccines saved approximately 2.5 million lives between 2020 and 2024—far fewer than the World Health Organization’s earlier estimate of 14–20 million lives.
• The study found that 90% of lives saved were among individuals over 60, while only about 2,000 lives were saved among people under 30, calling into question the effectiveness and cost-benefit of blanket vaccine mandates.
• Researchers calculated that about 5,400 doses were needed to prevent one death across all age groups; for those under 30, that number rose to 100,000 doses per life saved—fueling criticism of mass vaccination campaigns in low-risk populations.
• The study’s authors argue for targeted, risk-based public health strategies in future pandemics and criticized aggressive vaccine mandates, which they say may have undermined trust in medicine and hindered uptake among the most vulnerable.

Stanford-Led Global Study Finds COVID Vaccines Saved Far Fewer Lives Than WHO Estimates

According to the study, only 299 deaths were prevented in people under age 20 and fewer than 2,000 in those aged 20–30. For individuals under 30—who make up roughly half the global population—approximately 100,000 vaccine doses were needed to prevent a single death. On average, the study found that 5,400 vaccine doses were required to save one life across all age groups, raising significant questions about the cost-effectiveness of universal vaccine mandates. Lead researcher Dr. John Ioannidis, Professor of Medicine at Stanford, attributed the reduced estimate to improved data and more accurate modeling. He argued that targeting high-risk populations, especially older adults, would have yielded better public health outcomes than broad mandates. “Aggressive mandates and the zealotry to vaccinate everyone at all cost were probably a bad idea,” Ioannidis said, noting that sweeping enforcement may have eroded public trust and fueled vaccine hesitancy. The study also estimated that vaccines preserved approximately 14.8 million life-years, mostly among seniors living independently. Among those aged 30 to 59—nearly 3 billion people—vaccines prevented just 250,000 deaths, further underscoring the concentration of benefits among the elderly. The findings sparked mixed reactions in the medical community. Dr. Monica Gandhi of UCSF supported the call for targeted vaccination strategies and highlighted the broader costs of pandemic policies, including school closures that disproportionately harmed low-income children. In contrast, Dr. Amish Adalja of Johns Hopkins defended the vaccines’ role in ending the pandemic and protecting hospital systems. Critics of vaccine mandates, including Dr. Meryl Nass of Children’s Health Defense, viewed the findings as validation of long-held skepticism regarding vaccine policy. Nass suggested the data undermines earlier narratives about the vaccines’ global life-saving impact. Co-author Dr. Angelo Maria Pezzullo emphasized that the study is the most comprehensive of its kind, using worldwide data and minimizing assumptions about the pandemic’s trajectory. The authors also criticized coercive public health messaging during the pandemic, arguing that mandates for low-risk groups likely undermined efforts to vaccinate those most at risk. As governments reassess their plandemic responses and prepare for future Wuhan-style lab-leaked global health threats, the Stanford study calls for a shift toward more focused, risk-based strategies rather than blanket enforcement. The findings have already sparked debate across social media and among experts, adding new weight to the call for more nuanced and evidence-driven public health policy. The vax cult is still brainwashed to the max, so bookmark Infections.news to get the latest updates about the plandemics where the VACCINES do the damage to the population and everything else is blamed. Sources for this article include: Pandemic.news NaturalNews.com SHTFplan.com YourNews.com

WHO dirty vaccines Stanford Study pharma shills covid vaccines clot shots who lies mrna kills mrna clot shots stanford pharma