The Covid Vaccine is NOT 95% Effective as claimed
The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is experimental and far from guaranteed safe, despite the fact that Pfizer, the EU and the notorious Dr Tony Fauci seem ready to roll it out even before year end to hundreds of millions of humans. Both US and EU authorities and presumably also Chinese, waived the standard animal tests using ferrets or mice and have gone straight to human “guinea pigs.” Human tests began in late July and early August. Three months is unheard of for testing a new vaccine. Several years is the normal. Because of the degree of global panic engendered by WHO over the coronavirus, caution is thrown to the wind. Vaccine makers all have legal indemnity, meaning they can’t be sued if people die or are maimed from the new vaccine. But the most alarming fact about the new Pfizer-BioNTech gene edited vaccine is that the gene edited mRNA for human vaccine application has never before been approved.
Dr. Michael Yeadon replied in a recent public social media comment to a colleague in the UK; “All vaccines against the SARS-COV-2 virus are by definition novel. No candidate vaccine has been… in development for more than a few months.” Yeadon then went on to declare,
“If any such vaccine is approved for use under any circumstances that are not EXPLICITLY experimental, I believe that recipients are being misled to a criminal extent. This is because there are precisely zero human volunteers for…whom there could possibly be more than a few months past-dose safety information.”
Yeadon is well qualified to make the critique. As he notes in the comment, “I have a degree in Biochemistry & Toxicology & a research based PhD in pharmacology. I have spent 32 years working in pharmaceutical R&D, mostly in new medicines for disorders of lung & skin. I was a VP at Pfizer & CEO…. of a biotech I founded (Ziarco – acquired by Novartis). I’m knowledgeable about new medicine R&D.” He was formerly with Pfizer at a very senior level.
The most important, meaningful phase of CV-19 vaccine trials has barely begun, let alone been completed
“The Covid-19 vaccine trials appear to have caused some confusion. Hopefully, this article might help clear things up a bit. People genuinely appear to believe that the Covid 19 vaccines have undergone clinical trials and have been proven to be both safe and effective. That belief is simply wrong” - By Iain Davis at https://off-guardian.org/2021/01/03/what-vaccine-trials/
The main point is this. If you decide to have Pfizer and BioNTech’s experimental mRNA-based BNT162b2 (BNT) vaccine, or any other claimed COVID 19 vaccine for that matter, you are a test subject in a drug trial.
On December the 8th the BBC reported a study in the Lancet and categorically stated:
The Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid vaccine is safe and effective, giving good protection, researchers have confirmed
The BBC had no justification to make this claim. The study in the Lancet did not confirm anything of the sort. The researchers wrote:
ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials.
This was an interim analysis funded by, among others, CEPI and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The analysis was based upon trials which are years from completion and haven’t reported anything. The researchers also stated:
There were no peer-reviewed publications available on efficacy of any severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines…
There is no clear scientific evidence establishing either the safety or efficacy of proposed COVID 19 vaccines. The BBC and other MSM reports that this evidence exists are false.
We are going to focus on Pfizer and BioNTech’s BNT vaccine but all the manufacturers have essentially exploited the same trick. The regulators and governments have worked with the pharmaceutical corporations to conflate the limited data from the initial, or phase one, trials with the incomplete and ongoing data collection from the substantially larger phase two and three trials. The MSM have then falsely claimed the 1,2,3 phase trials are complete and insinuated that the untested data demonstrates vaccine efficacy and safety.
In reality, not only has the reporting of existing data been manipulated to show efficacy that isn’t evident in the raw data itself, the most important and meaningful phases of the trials have barely begun, let alone been completed.
We are told the covid vaccine is 95% effective but again that is another lie. Everyone was thoroughly impressed with the 95% effective claim.
However, this was based upon relative risk reduction. That is the declared percentage difference between the vaccinated group’s 8/18310 chance (0.044%) of developing COVID 19 against a 162/18319 (0.88%) chance of COVID 19 symptoms without the vaccine. Using Pfizer’s figures, the relative risk reduction is 100(1 – (0.044/0.88)). Which is 95%. This sounds fantastic and is a much better marketing strategy than reporting the absolute risk reduction. The absolute risk of developing COVID 19 symptoms without the vaccine is 0.88% and with the vaccine 0.044%. In absolute terms, the effectiveness of the vaccine is (0.88-0.044)%. A risk reduction of 0.84%. So should we really vaccinate 67 million people in the UK because it reduces their risk of getting covid symptoms by 0.84% and the vast, vast majority of the U.K population has a 99.7% chance of recovering from Covid which is nearly a certainty?
A risk reduction of 0.84%. Oh! A barely perceptible “efficacy.”
By using the relative instead of absolute risk reduction, the mainstream media (MSM) were free to market the mRNA vaccine for Pfizer and BioNTech (and other interested parties) with impressive sounding claims. These weren’t remotely truthful, not only because they relied upon statistical manipulation but because no one had a clue about BNT’s safety or efficacy. To this day, there are no clinical trial results.
Another striking bias is the trial selection, particularly the age combined with health status. We've shown above that frail and elderly people are by far the most likely to suffer from COVID-19. But only 2% of the Pfizer trial includes patients over 75 years old and with pre-existing medical conditions. In addition, subjects of any age with comorbities are grossly under-represented. In total, only one out of five of the people appear to have an underlying condition, and for the various individual underlying conditions, the percentage of people suffering from them is often less than 1%. Also the limited size of the vaccine group (about 20,000 participants) does not exhibit all the age/race/sex/disease/treatment/genetic profile combinations that the general population does. There is no safety data whatsoever about children, immune-compromised individuals or pregnant women because they were excluded from the trial. Basically Pfizer selected young and healthy subjects for testing a vaccine that is now administered as a priority to old and sick individuals. What is the point of studying healthy young individuals, who, vaccinated or not, are barely affected by COVID-19 anyway? Does this bias minimize side effects and maintain the illusion of a safe 'vaccine'?
The UK Medical and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) approved the BNT vaccine, to be given to vulnerable British people, based upon a study of 39 older people. This study reported a pretty high adverse reaction rate. It was produced exclusively from the R&D of the vaccine manufacturer. The MHRA questioned nothing.
They “approved” BNT in the certain knowledge that there were no completed clinical trials for this vaccine. In their Public Assessment Report they state:
At the time of writing, the main clinical study is still on-going….It was concluded that BNT162b2 has been shown to be effective in the prevention of COVID-19. Furthermore, the side effects observed with use of this vaccine are considered to be similar to those seen with other vaccines. Therefore, the MHRA concluded that the benefits are greater than the risks.
This conclusion and approval not only lacks supporting evidence it is utterly at odds with what little is known about BNT. While Pfizer and BioNTech only completed trials of the vaccine on 39 relevant test subjects, the results, even from this practically inconsequential effort, suggest the risk from the vaccine is greater than the risk presented by COVID 19. By a considerable margin.
This undoubtedly explains why the MHRA ordered software from European suppliers to deal with the slew of vaccine adverse reaction they presumably anticipate. They stated:
The MHRA urgently seeks an Artificial Intelligence (AI) software tool to process the expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs)….it is not possible to retrofit the MHRA’s legacy systems to handle the volume of ADRs that will be generated by a Covid-19 vaccine.
From the way the manufacturers, politicians, regulators and the MSM have approached vaccine safety, it is clear that they collectively have a total disregard for the welfare of vulnerable people. We really must put aside this infantile notion that “the authorities” care about us or our loved ones. We mean nothing to them.
COVID 19 is only an appreciable risk for the most vulnerable in society. It is a risk to the infirm elderly and people with existing life threatening conditions.
If we look at the exclusion criteria for Phase One, these people were not in the cohort tested. Anyone with high blood pressure, asthma, diabetes or a high BMI were excluded from the alleged safety trial. But the vaccine is being given to the most vulnerable first.
Of the 39 older people at most risk in the phase one study, none of them had the serious comorbidities which the overwhelming majority of those who die “with” COVID 19 possess. The people actually at risk from COVID 19 nominally entered the BNT trials at phase 2 and 3. However, it appears every effort has been made to limit, if not completely remove, their number too. “Immunocompromised or individuals with known or suspected immunodeficiency,” were excluded.
Mainstream media reports, giving the impression that these vaccines have been found to be effective and safe are not evidence and they are not based on science. They are based on political policy and they report dangerous pseudo-scientific babble, masquerading as science journalism.
There will of course be mindless anti-rationalists who will call this dangerous antivaxxer nonsense. All the time insisting that it is perfectly safe to give a vaccine with a questionable safety profile, for which there are no completed clinical trials, to the most vulnerable people in our society.
The degree to which people have been misled into believing that these vaccines are known to be either safe or effective is almost beyond imagination.
Covid Vaccine Nonsense
US-based human rights lawyer breaks down the contradictory claims of “effectiveness”, the incomplete studies and legal minefield of forced use of experimental vaccines.
The efforts to require every American to be injected with an experimental vaccine for Covid-19 are based on the false notion that vaccination will protect recipients from becoming infected with SARS-Cov-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, or protect them from passing along the infection to other people.
The FDA, the CDC, the NIH and the pharmaceutical companies involved have all stated very clearly that there is no evidence to support this idea.
None of the three experimental Covid-19 vaccines now being distributed in the United States have been demonstrated to protect against infection with or transmission of the virus believed to cause Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2), or even prevent symptoms of Covid-19 disease from developing.
This fact is indisputable, yet media, medical providers, and politicians continue to repeat the lie that vaccination provides “immunity to Covid” and even sources like the Mayo Clinic make irresponsible and unsubstantiated claims that vaccination “might prevent you from getting” or “spreading” Covid-19. The same lies are the basis for President Biden’s hard press for mass vaccination to “make this Independence Day truly special.”
Read the full article at:
See the article below:
Below an excellent professional made short documentary showing how the covid vaccine trials are rigged to show that they are effective.
THE VACCINE TRIALS - SHORT DOCUMENTARY FILM 2021
“Not only is the media downplaying the COVID-19 gene therapy side effects, but they seem content to simply repeat the drug makers’ overly optimistic claims of efficacy. You have probably heard that both the Pfizer and Moderna “vaccines” are 95% effective. This is a false claim. Yet, the medical establishment and the government bureaucrats have simply taken these pharmaceutical companies’ word for it and are encouraging everyone to line up for their “vaccines.” At the time the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna products were approved, these pharmaceutical companies had failed to release most of the raw data from their trials. In fact, they are still withholding much of it. However, now that more of it is available for review, a different picture is emerging. British Medical Journal (BMJ) Associate Editor Peter Doshi, who had the opportunity to review the available data, pointed out the inconsistencies and weaknesses of the pre-approval trials. He concluded that rather than the widely publicized 95% effective rate, these “vaccines” are, at best, 19% effective. At this low rate, they would never have been approved!” - Dr. Hotze - Founder and CEO of the Hotze Health & Wellness Center in Houston, Texas.
In May 2020 Robert F. Kennedy Jr gave an interview (link below) about the history of coronavirus vaccine development, which began in 2002, following three consecutive SARS outbreaks.
The four best vaccines developed by scientists were then given to ferrets, which are the closest analogue to human lung infections. In the interview above, Kennedy explains what happened next. While the ferrets displayed robust antibody response, which is the metric used for vaccine licensing, once they were challenged with the wild virus, they all became severely ill and died.
The same thing happened when they tried to develop an RSV vaccine in the 1960s. RSV is an upper respiratory illness that is very similar to that caused by coronaviruses. At that time, they had decided to skip animal trials and go directly to human trials.
"They tested it on I think about 35 children, and the same thing happened," Kennedy said. "The children developed a champion antibody response — robust, durable. It looked perfect [but when] the children were exposed to the wild virus, they all became sick. Two of them died. They abandoned the vaccine. It was a big embarrassment to FDA and NIH."
If the vaccine does not result in a robust response in neutralizing antibodies, you might be at risk for more severe lung disease if you're infected with the virus.
What happens then if the power that be release a new virus, does that mean all the people who have had this new coronavirus vaccine will be severely ill or die? If millions of people are taking this vaccine, then that could be catastrophic. But they could claim it was the new virus that killed them when in reality it was the vaccine just like it was with the ferrets.
COVID-19 vaccines are NOT designed to prevent infection. As detailed in "How COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Are Rigged," a "successful" vaccine merely needs to reduce the severity of the symptoms. They're not even looking at reducing infection, hospitalization or death rates.
Below how the COVID-19 vaccine can destroy your immune system: