SIDE EFFECTS ARE NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN RESEARCHING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CORONAVIRUS VACCINES
Four Finnish medical doctors discovered this while evaluating doctoral student Eero Poukka’s doctoral dissertation “COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness in Finland During the Pandemic” (University of Helsinki, December 13, 2025)
Eero Poukka has not considered the adverse effects of vaccines in his doctoral dissertation. This is dangerous because the research is used to support political decision-making. The doctoral candidate said in the public debate that he was aware of the harms but stated that the research focuses solely on the positive effects of vaccines.
A significant weakness of the research design of the dissertation was that there had been no clear group of unvaccinated and vaccinated people in the study. All those who had had two weeks since their first vaccination and one week since their second vaccination had been classified as unvaccinated. Therefore, morbidity had not been compared truthfully between unvaccinated and vaccinated subjects.
Studying effectiveness with biased research design and ignoring harms tells nothing about the real effects of corona vaccines on human health!
The opponent did not respond to the criticisms made by Finnish doctors against the dissertation.
It was suggested to the opponent via email that the scientific errors in the dissertation be corrected before its final approval (Appendix 1). At the same time, clarification was also requested regarding any potential conflicts of interest and disqualifications in accordance with Section 28, Paragraph 7 of the Finnish Administrative Procedure Act, as the work had been funded by the pharmaceutical industry. The opponent had not taken a position on these matters but proposed that the dissertation be approved (Appendix 2).
The financial ties of this thesis to the EMA, WHO, other health authorities, pharmaceutical companies, and investors seem blatantly obvious.
Grants awarded for doctoral dissertation work can be found in the publications included in the dissertation. EMA was one of the grant providers but did not consider it problematic when asked (Appendix 3).
This academic work was done in collaboration with highly educated and globally influential Finnish vaccinologist Professor Hanna Nohynek. She has held significant positions in WHO organizations evaluating vaccine effectiveness since 1998. More information about her remarkable career can be found here.
The opponent, Professor Preben Aavitsland, has also had an interesting career. He is one of the few experts in Norway who has been granted a professional title without a doctorate (PhD) based on his extensive publication list.
This highly biased academic research is being blatantly used to convince people of the “safe and effective” claims made by health authorities about Covid-19 vaccines.
As it is stated in the section 6.1 on page 65 of the dissertation, the motivation for this research was “to support policymaking”.
But medical practice should always be based on an assessment of the balance of benefits and risks. The study did not consider the overall mortality and morbidity between unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals. Thousands of serious adverse reactions reported to FIMEA (Finnish Medicines Agency) and described in detail in peer-reviewed medical publications confirm that COVID-19 vaccines are not safe. To omit risk from the analysis is an ethical breach as it presents a “half-truth” which may mislead policymakers and the public.
Since the dissertation did not address harms, exhibits weakness in research design and is strongly biased its results and conclusions should not be used to support decision-making.
APPENDICES
- Email message sent to the opponent Professor Preben Aavitsland on 16.12.2025
- Opponent’s statement on 18.12.2025
- Correspondence with EMA in January 2026 regarding potential conflicts of interest
