Two years after the declared end of the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers have published a critical analysis challenging the widespread assertion that mass vaccination “saved millions of lives”.
Prompted by the claim made during a May 2025 U.S. Senate hearing—where it was stated as an uncontested fact—the team examined the empirical foundations behind this narrative.
The investigation, authored by Yaffa Shir-Raz, Shay Zakov, and Peter A. McCullough, now published as a preprint, found that the “millions saved” figure is based largely on hypothetical models built on unvalidated or flawed assumptions, particularly the idea that vaccines offered lasting protection against infection and transmission. These assumptions, the authors argue, were quickly disproven by real-world data showing waning immunity and breakthrough infections.
The researchers also reviewed randomised trials and observational studies used to support vaccine efficacy and found no clear evidence of sustained protection against severe illness or death.
Pfizer’s pivotal trial, which formed the basis of Emergency Use Authorization in the U.S. and throughout the world, showed no mortality benefit, and its six-month follow-up data revealed more deaths in the vaccine group than the placebo.
They also pointed to methodological flaws such as short follow-up periods, early efficacy signals that defy biological plausibility, and biased observational data. The authors conclude that the dominant vaccine narrative lacks robust empirical backing and may obscure the true risk–benefit profile of repeated COVID-19 vaccination, especially in low-risk groups like children.
Image credit: Getty Images
