Real Autism Awareness - The Great Poisoning
Would You Rather

Large Spanish study finds higher rate of pneumonia in vaccinated group (Pfizer's Prevnar 13)

image from www.pharmandorraonline.comThis  study is based on data from middle aged and elderly people echoes the finding of Mawson et al in their pilot study of health outcomes in children (vaccinated vs. unvaccinated) which found "The vaccinated were less likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with chickenpox and pertussis, but more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia, otitis media, allergies and NDD".

Evaluating clinical effectiveness of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccination against pneumonia among middle-aged and older adults in Catalonia: results from the EPIVAC cohort study

  • Angel Vila-Corcoles
  • Olga Ochoa-Gondar
  • Cinta de Diego,
  • Eva Satue,
  • María Aragón,
  • Angel Vila-Rovira,
  • Frederic Gomez-Bertomeu,
  • Ramon Magarolas,
  • Enric Figuerola-Massana,
  • Xavier Raga,
  • Mar O. Perez and
  • Frederic Ballester
BMC Infectious Diseases201818:196

Received: 18 December 2017

Accepted: 16 April 2018

Published: 27 April 2018



Benefits using the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) in adults are controversial. This study investigated clinical effectiveness of PCV13 vaccination in preventing hospitalisation from pneumonia among middle-aged and older adults.


Population-based cohort study involving 2,025,730 individuals ≥50 years in Catalonia, Spain, who were prospectively followed from 01/01/2015 to 31/12/2015. Primary outcomes were hospitalisation for pneumococcal or all-cause pneumonia and death from any cause. Cox regression models were used to evaluate the association between PCV13 vaccination and the risk of each outcome, adjusting for age, sex and major comorbidities/underlying risk conditions.


Cohort members were observed for a total of 1,990,701 person-years, of which 6912 person-years were PCV13 vaccinated. Overall, crude incidence rates (per 100,000 person-years) were 82.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 77.7–88.1) for pneumococcal pneumonia, 637.9 (95% CI: 599.0–678.7) for all-cause pneumonia and 2367.2 (95% CI: 2222.8–2518.7) for all-cause death. After multivariable adjustments we found that the PCV13 vaccination did not alter significantly the risk of pneumococcal pneumonia (multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio [mHR]: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.75–1.83; p = 0.493) and all-cause death (mHR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.97–1.18; p = 0.190), although it remained significantly associated with an increased risk of all-cause pneumonia (mHR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.48–1.94; p < 0.001). In stratified analyses focused on middle-aged or elderly persons and immunocompromised or immunocompetent subjects, PCV13 vaccination did not appear effective either.


Our data does not support clinical benefits of PCV13 vaccination against pneumonia among adults in Catalonia. It must be closely monitored in future studies involving more vaccinated person-time at-observation.






"I'll counter that one with this one:"



PS: Mr Stone

When one takes a left at the rabbit hole
no one cares if it's 14 or 13


Thom Hartmann is currently 'walking around" with "walking pneumonia".
Wonder if he got the Prevnar14 ?


Pneumonia vaccines are doomed to fail and cause far more harm than theoretical good, but it is unlikely they will be stopped, just ‘improved’, like the annual flu jab.

Pneumonia Vaccine Shown to Actually Increase Bacterial Infections It Is Supposed to Prevent

Angus Files

Lettuce sea..

The Dr probably asked her if she has ever read a Dr Wakefield article..and or


Pharma For Prison



I was sitting a hospital waiting room a few weeks back, and overheard a doctor telling an elderly lady that she had pneumonia.

To which she quickly, and rather tersely responded " What do you mean I have pneumonia, I had my shot for pneumonia this past fall??!!"

I didn't actually hear the doctor respond to her question... surprise surprise. But the sad thought which occurred to me at the time, is that this lady's generation was so thoroughly brainwashed by the polio vaccine scam, that she'll probable be back for another polio vaccine this coming fall.

John Stone


Yes, they should call for a halt.

bob moffit

@ John

"I don’t think it matters about the wording - and you cannot deduce anything about the motives of the authors from it. They produced a study which was published despite highly inconvenient findings."

Perhaps I was a little too sarcastic in my comment .. what I meant to say was that I have heard that exact same "conclusion" .. "it must be closely monitored in FUTURE STUDIES" .. on just about every vaccine studied .. for the last 14 years.

Maybe I expect too much from the scientific community .... such as .. a truly DEFINITIVE CONCLUSION that determined the risks associated with PCV13 far outweigh any potential benefits .. therefore .. to protect the health of the general public .. should immediately be taken off the market.

I think the standard should be ... DO NO HARM .. by allowing a vaccine's production and administration to continue injuring innocent victims as FURTHER STUDIES ARE MONITORED.

But .. that's probably just silly old me again.

Angus Files


"I'll counter that one with this one:"

Hurray! Proof! (not) .Just another paid study from the teachings of fast Eddy Jenner..

Pharma For Prison


Gary Ogden

Master Frederick: I suggest you read published work carefully before posting. Your Pfizer-sponsored trial found Pfizer-manufactured Prevnar 13 to be "not [effective] in preventing community-acquired pneumonia from any cause." Hardly a ringing endorsement, except in the sub-group of hermits. Although published in a prestigious journal, this strikes me as akin to a tobacco company sponsoring research into its products.



The placebo contained 5.0 mM succinate buffer, 0.85% sodium chloride, 0.02% polysorbate 80, and 0.125 mg of aluminum as aluminum phosphate per 0.5-ml dose. It was identical in appearance to PCV13.

Disclosure: Supported by Pfizer.

PCV13 is a Pfizer vaccine of course. This was a Pfizer trial with good old fashioned double-blind vaccine science.

John Stone


Very nice but compare disclosures (have you ever heard the expression "He who pays the piper calls the tune?):


This work is supported, in part, by a grant from the “Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria” (FIS) of the “Instituto de Salud Carlos III” (call 2015) for the “Acción Estratégica en Salud 2013-2016 del Programa Estatal de Investigación Orientado a los Retos de la Sociedad”, framing in the “Plan Estatal de Investigación Científica y Técnica y de Innovación 2013-2016”; code file PI15/01230, cofinanced by the European Union through the “Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional” (FEDER). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or write up of the manuscript.

Availability of data and materials
These data have been obtained from the Catalonian Health Institute Information System for the Development of Research in Primary Care (SIDIAP). The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.


Supported by Pfizer.

Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at

Drs. Bonten and van Werkhoven and Ms. McDonough report receiving consulting fees from Pfizer; Dr. Webber, Dr. Patterson, Ms. Gault, Mr. Patton, Ms. Moradoghli-Haftvani, Ms. Smith, Ms. Mellelieu, Dr. Pride, Dr. Crowther, Dr. Schmoele-Thoma, Dr. Scott, Dr. Jansen, Dr. Emini, and Dr. Gruber, being employees of and owning stock in Pfizer; Dr. Sanders, receiving grant support through her institution and fees for serving on independent data and safety monitoring committees from Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline; and Dr. Grobbee, receiving speaking and consulting fees, honoraria, and research funding from and serving as an investigator for Pfizer, and receiving grant support from Roche Pharmaceuticals and Novartis. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Frederic Chopin

I'll counter that one with this one:

John Stone


I don’t think it matters about the wording - and you cannot deduce anything about the motives of the authors from it. They produced a study which was published despite highly inconvenient findings.

bob moffit

"Our data does not support clinical benefits of PCV13 vaccination against pneumonia among adults in Catalonia. It must be closely monitored in future studies involving more vaccinated person-time at-observation."

Okay .. good luck with those "close monitoring in the future studies"

I am sure it is just me .. but .. this study like all the rest has fulfilled its purpose .. now let's move on so


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)