Dr. Philp McMillan,  John McMillan

“COVID Vaccines Save 14.4 Million Lives in First Year!” This headline was ubiquitous in 2022, presented as definitive proof that aggressive vaccination campaigns had triumphed over the pandemic. Major health organizations and media outlets touted COVID-19 vaccines as having saved 14.4 million lives in their first year alone. Questioning these numbers jeopardized reputations, social media accounts, and, in some cases, even medical licenses.

Today, those triumphant headlines appear at best premature and at worst misleading. A comprehensive Stanford analysis now estimates that COVID vaccines saved 2.5 million lives globally, not in one year but over four years, from 2020 to 2024. This isn’t a rounding error or a minor revision; it’s a dramatic collapse of the original narrative, demanding hard questions about how medical science became entangled with political messaging.

A Revision in the Numbers

Dr. Philip McMillan, a physician and researcher who faced heavy censorship for questioning vaccine policies, doesn’t mince words about the discrepancy: “In one year, you had 14.4 million deaths averted. And in four years, you have 2.5 million deaths averted. That’s very strange, isn’t it?” Strange indeed. The original estimate emerged from Imperial College London, backed by the WHO, GAVI, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and other organizations with significant stakes in vaccine deployment. The newer Stanford study, funded by a simple gift to the university, operated without such institutional pressures.

Minimal Benefits for the Young

But the real scandal isn’t just inflated numbers; it’s what those numbers obscured. Hidden within the Stanford data is the projection that only 300 young people under age 20 were saved globally by vaccines, just 0.01% of the total benefit. Meanwhile, 90% of lives saved were among those over 60. Despite this, some universities still maintain vaccine mandates, and young athletes continue to face requirements to compete. Children, who are barely at risk, were pushed to take vaccines that offered them virtually no benefit. This represents a catastrophic failure of risk assessment. Medicine’s cardinal rule (tailor treatment to individual risk) was abandoned for a one-size-fits-all approach that defied both logic and evidence.

The Flawed Science of Mathematical Modeling

Even the revised figure of 2.5 million may be generous, as neither study accounted for deaths from adverse events. The Stanford researchers estimated that one death was prevented for every 5,400 vaccine doses administered. However, what if even one or two serious adverse events, such as myocarditis or blood clots, occurred within that same group? The net benefit could shrink dramatically or even disappear entirely.

What accounts for this staggering discrepancy? Mathematical models, as any honest scientist will acknowledge, are only as reliable as their underlying assumptions. The Imperial College model made sweeping assumptions about infection risks and vaccine effectiveness that may have been overly optimistic. More troubling, neither study considered adverse events. Additionally, the studies failed to account for natural immunity. Many individuals possessed resistance due to prior coronavirus exposure or genetic factors. Others, particularly the elderly and frail, could not mount the strong immune response that leads to severe COVID (the dreaded cytokine storm). These populations might have avoided severe disease regardless of their vaccination status.

Targeted vaccination of genuinely high-risk individuals, combined with early treatment protocols successfully pioneered by some physicians, could have achieved similar or better outcomes. Instead, authorities focused on maximizing vaccination rates, dismissing alternative approaches as dangerous misinformation. The cost? Public trust is in ruins. Parents who complied with COVID vaccine recommendations now question routine childhood immunizations. By overselling vaccines and silencing legitimate questions, public health authorities have inadvertently fueled skepticism about all vaccines. This is a predictable response to a public feeling misled.

Trust Evaporates

Where does this leave us? Trust in public health institutions is evaporating, and rebuilding it will require more than just time. A fundamental shift in how medical science communicates uncertainty and acknowledges errors is necessary. When people are told that vaccines are perfectly safe while witnessing friends suffer unexplained health problems, when spectacular benefits are claimed that later prove illusory, and when doctors are censored for raising valid concerns, trust dissipates.

Another cause for concern is that the Stanford study examines only direct COVID mortality, neglecting the long-term effects of repeated spike protein exposure from endless boosters. As populations face constant reinfection despite vaccination, one wonders whether we’ve created more problems than we’ve solved. Some researchers warned about this early on, questioning the wisdom of vaccinating during a pandemic with non-sterilizing vaccines. They raised concerns about original antigenic sin and immune imprinting, suggesting a focus on early treatment and protecting vulnerable populations while allowing low-risk groups to develop robust natural immunity. For their troubles, these brave individuals faced deplatforming, professional attacks, and media ridicule. Now, their warnings seem prescient.

Many lives might have been saved if research hadn’t been actively suppressed. How much better might population immunity have been if we hadn’t interfered with natural processes in low-risk groups? Future pandemic preparedness strategies must avoid repeating these mistakes. Early treatment options that show promise deserve serious consideration rather than dismissal. Most importantly, scientific discourse must remain open, allowing for challenges without censorship or penalties. As more data emerges and long-term effects become apparent, the narrative surrounding COVID vaccines will likely continue to evolve. While the vaccines may have provided some benefit for certain populations, does this benefit justify the costs — both measured and unmeasured — especially if better approaches existed?

The revision from 14.4 million to 2.5 million lives saved is a reminder that science advances through curious observation, not certainty. Medicine works best with humility, acknowledging uncertainty and respecting individual circumstances. The pandemic years abandoned these principles for hubris and uniformity. Those who raised concerns early, facing ridicule and censorship, deserve recognition for their courage. Their skepticism, far from being “anti-science,” embodies science at its best: the relentless pursuit of truth, regardless of the consequences.

Reference:
Global Estimates of Lives and Life-Years Saved by COVID-19 Vaccination During 2020-2024