Pfizer Vaccine 90% efficacy. I doubt it.
I got thinking about this. Though this sounds exciting, I really doubt it is so.
We all know that vaccinating, in general, will make the immune system less responsive against novel viruses. We have plenty of data from veterinary medicine. and even some information that Dr Martenson presented on whether to get the flu vaccine.
With this premise, we should assume that the control group of vaccine participants, given the meningitis vaccine as a control, would be expected to have diminished capacity to fight off Covid 19 infection compared to nothing. We could go so far to say that, this control group would likely have higher infections, or more severe infections than compared to a group given saline.
- Control group infections > Saline Group infections
Saline would then have some level of efficacy to reduce infection from the virus. We know this to be false.
All this does not account for other issues with this assumed 90% efficacy. This was purely observational. And lacked control for this specific conclusion. It does not account for risk or behaviors that may increase or decrease ones risk of exposure. Though, this may be random. It is also not out-side that realm, that participants actually know which they received, based on testimony of one of the recipients. Apparently there are enough side-effects, headache, fatigue, arm pain, fever, that one would assume which they received , which could adjust their behaviors. Though, the meningitis vaccine was used so they could have a baseline for side-effects, I do not believe they would be as notable as the Covid Vaccine from our preliminary knowledge. and testimony.
We do know that even at 90% efficacy in their observation, it is apparent that some vaccine recipients did in fact become ill. We know some of the other group did as well , and in fact, more of them did. Which is what we expect if they were given anything compared to saline. So, I am not saying there is zero efficacy, but , I doubt it is 90%. It may actually be significantly less.
Just some thoughts.. regarding the good and bad science to such conclusions.
Evaluating vaccines is way outside of my wheelhouse, and not to hijack your thread but a few days back a reporter asked Fauci to confirm that these new vaccines would get things back to normal and Fauci said that just because people have increased immunity they should not expect that mask wearing and social distancing would automatically end.
I think the goalposts are gonna move even if the vaccines are 100% effective
I agree that there is next to zero chance that efficacy is that high. I think that claim being an outright lie is more likely.
You know how the saying goes: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned les, and statistics.
I’ll leave a few links people can think about:
A) How COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Are Rigged:
B) Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla cashed out 60% of his stock on the same day the company unveiled the results of its COVID-19 vaccine trial (results funded by themselves, no bias of course). Rothschild Asset Management bought Pfizer in June & looks to make a killing. Total pump & dump:
C) Brilliant medical video by Medcram.com which explains how Covid-19 works, how mRNA works (the vaccine is a mRNA vaccine) and it goes into why zinc & zinc-ionophores (such as HCQ, but he uses another example) work against Covid-19.
Watch the video closely from the 2:45 mark onward. I promise it will be worth it. The 2 main take-away points you should take away from this video, are:
1) It’s a good video to show a friend or sceptics to convince them that zinc & zinc-ionophores (such as HCQ or other zinc-ionophores work against Covid-19:
2) an mRNA virus is still an RNA virus (just like Covid-19) and it operates exactly the same. So what exactly is the difference then between the mRNA-vaccine and the RNA-corona-virus Covid19? And why EXACTLY would you want to be vaccinates with THAT? If you have a good answer, I’m all ears, but I think it’s unlikely there is a good answer.
I wrote about this with citations under the death of the Brazilian doctor in the CV trial. Several issues that no one has answered:
1) No animal models so no necropsies to look for organ issues. Additionally, no living vaccinated animals to allow to attempt reproduction, and then study offspring for problems. We have no idea what becomes of children conceived post vaccine if there’s no effect on fertility.
2) Although the trials allegedly total over 33K participants, none are in the high risk groups. In fact, if you analyze the numbers honesty, these selected groups are the most likely >95% to either never contract the disease or have minimal effects. How does this apply to children/ elderly/people w co-morbidities?
3) When someone prints that it’s 90% effective- what does that mean? Did they produce antibodies? How long do they last? Did you actually expose them to CV? Did anyone get sick? Did you actually quantify how much antibody prevents disease?
With animal studies for SARS, they exposed never sick, previously sick/recovered, and vaccinated mice to SARS. Then they necropsied the animals. ONLY the vaccinated animals had huge eosinophil infiltrates in the lungs indicating a hyper immune response. The premise of the vaccine is that no one gets seriously ill who is vaccinated if exposed. Prove it.
Everyday example is USDA approved labeling of 2% milk. What is the general assumption; “This milk contains only 2% fat.” Not so fast. If you review the labels, there’s misleading ads going on.
Whole milk 1 cup Calories 146 Total fat 7.93g or 10% 2% Milk Calories 122 Total fat 4.81g or 6%
From the carton’s label it states 6% fat! If whole milk is 10% fat, then 6% fat is 60% of the fat content of whole milk not 2%. So where’s this 2% nonsense come from? The fat is 2% of the total weight of the carton.
I think the same slight of hand is going on.
Hold the phone jack.. Pfizer is now stating 95% and the numbers do look good for that. but please look at this statement about the study.
In the study involving about 43,000 volunteers, 162 of the 170 who contracted COVID-19 had received a placebo, not the vaccine. Of the 10 participants who had severe COVID-19, only one had received the vaccine.
anyone notice something very damning about the vaccine there?
9:162 with placebo got severe covid
1:8 with vaccine got severe covid..
That is 2x rate of severe covid. It is very statistically significant.
That could amount to a lot of dead people.. even if most people are protected.
Agreed 1:8 is very significant. The information I had read was 33K people. Kinda like Remdesivir gives kidney/organ failure in 25% of recipients, yet it’s FDA approved.
Since the vaccine is mRNA derived and the PCR looks for RNA, can the vaccine itself create a positive test? We already know the WHO’s PCR picks up the same chain as found on the human chromosome 8…how can you tell if someone is positive from the disease, the vaccine, or being human?
How many times did they cycle PCR test in the vaccine trial? CDC said not to cycle over 20, yet labs routinely do 37-40 cycles and report this data through State Health Depts. When during the study did the people become positive? Surely they were screened prior for both the virus and positive contacts so it could be enlightening to know?
What is “severe CV” in their definition? They were hospitalized? on a ventilator? Now totally disabled? Again, where is the straight data?
The fact Fauci said that just because you’re forced to get a vaccine, we’re not ending the Draconian measures, should be a warning.
You might be right Nordicjack. Check out this “Rapid response” (source). According to the author, the NNTV, number needed to vaccinate equals 256.
Very interesting article Dave. There is no doubt some sacrificed people with all vaccination efforts. And there is some ratio of benefit to harm.. It does try to put a calculation to it.