Negative Efficacy. Why the 90- 95% Jab Efficacy is BS.
Negative efficacy is the reality and the data doesn't lie..
This is my 1st research report on Substack so please take this into consideration. Or don’t. I’m all about “right to choose” except when it comes to your choice of injecting children or immune-compromised or pregnant women or any other groups which were excluded from these “warped-speed” trails. The line I drew in the sand grew exponentially by a substantial factor.
When looking at the data from the UK for Week 42-51, Pfizer’s Claim of 95% efficacy actually demonstrates the complete opposite - negative efficacy.
First the preamble. Sorry about this but it’s important and contains some interesting facts and evidence which is lacking from our alleged un-elected“trusted” health shills.
Based on the Dec 30, 2020 study “Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine” from New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) we were told:
“A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6).” [1]
Here’s a little problem, the study that Pfizer lists as their landmark Phase 3 study enrolled 46,441 with a majority of the participants ranging from age 16-56.Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.”[2]
So what happened to the 2,983 people? It doesn’t look like a huge number but the reports coming out from various whistleblowers have stated that a statistically significant amount of the trial participants had an severe or serious adverse event aka, SAE. Were they excluded from the trials once they had an SAE with ZERO follow up which is a REQUIREMENT for the manufacturer and the manufacturers boast that they do rigorous follow ups. So what happened? Oh yeah, the trials turned out to be a disaster and they had to cover up their shortcomings.
Back to the NEJM “study”. In their conclusions, they later state that:
“A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728 formerly known as C4591001, opens in new tab.)” [3]
Keep in mind that these trials were spread 166 different trial sites around the following countries exclusively to the US (38 states with California 13 , Florida 10, North Carolina 12, Ohio 10, Texas 17 trial sites respectively), Argentina (1), Brazil (2), Germany (6), South Africa (4) and Turkey(9). [4]. Ventavia is still on the list of approved CT sites.. Even after all of the bad pub they got from Brook Jackson [5]
These trials allegedly started recruiting April 30,2020 and the “Recruitment Status” is still set as “Recruiting” as of December 22,2021 [6].. Now I’m no genius or psychic but if they are still recruiting for the same trial which is already in the general populous.
They have 1 trial which has been completed. Allegedly. NCT04816669
“A PHASE 3, RANDOMIZED, OBSERVER-BLIND STUDY TO EVALUATE THE SAFETY, TOLERABILITY, AND IMMUNOGENICITY OF MULTIPLE FORMULATIONS OF THE VACCINE CANDIDATE BNT162B2 AGAINST COVID 19 IN HEALTHY ADULTS 18 THROUGH 55 YEARS OF AGE”
There are a few issues with this study:
1. Phase 3 trials are supposed to include thousands to 10’s of thousands of participants of all walks, shapes and sizes to ensure there are no complications from your Phase 1 (healthy people) or your Phase 2 (older and/or target populations). Instead, they had 629. Their original estimate was 1,100 participants.
2. The previous length of the trials, excluding the USUAL, but blatantly skipped, Animal Trials (4-5 years) should’ve been at least 4 years, this was completed in approximately 8 months (April 1 - Dec 1, 2021). However, you also have to factor in the “recruiting period” which usually takes 2-3 months.
3. “Observer-Blind” is low on the totem pole (6th @ 0.62%) when it comes to clinical trials. Compare that to double blind (77.71% of single blind (9,29%) which can be found on page 25/47. [8]
4. Since the trials were unblinded 2x’s (Vantavia and Pfizer admitting to the FDA 2x’s that they were unblinding the trials last January 2021. The risk of bias is dangerous.
5. It was allegedly “randomized and they had a triple “masking” protocol in place (Participants, Care Provider and Investigator).. Oh boy, lets the germs spread from those useless “ritualistic shame muzzles”.
6. When you look at the trial “Outcome Measures”, they state in their “completed trial" that they are supposed to look for and report local reactions, systemic events, adverse events and serious adverse events for 7 days after both doses and not the 2nd dose, yet the data from what happened within 7 days of either dose is not reported. Why not?
Ok. Enough of the preamble.
If anyone reading this has listened to my bitchute channel recently, you would’ve found a couple of calls to both the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and to the BC Governments Covid-19 “complex questions line asking for the trial data for 5-11 year olds in Canada from trials actually preformed in CANADA. Neither group were able to answer my query or the other queries which I will add in another blog or whatever the hell this substack thingy is. ;)
The “Clinical Trials” info from Pfizer’s documentation show that Pfizer DID NOT PERFORM ANY CLINICAL TRIALS IN CANADA BEFORE THE DEC. 2020 ROLLOUT. This is paramount and also very dangerous for Health Canada and other countries which did not participate in the trials before unleashing these bio-weapons on society. Why? Easy. How can any “Health Agency” be able to prove that they were effective, or safe, or to ensure that sites were up to code (Brook Jackson - Ventavia Whistleblower for the Pfizer trials in Texas says hi), or if any SAE’s happened.
I wanted to do a breakdown of the Canadian data but I trust their “modelling data” as much as I trust a fat kid with a bowl of candy.. Or even Chunky Shoes Henry, Dr Goiter Tam, or any elected health official in this country. They are all corrupt shills and deserve to be sentenced to death without a trial as the taxpayers have footed the bill for too long. This may sound extreme and in no way am I supporting any violence against another human but 1 extreme deserves another. I digress no further.
Based on the data coming out of the UK from weeks 42-51, there is an elephant in the room when it comes to “efficacy”. The correct label should be “negative efficacy” as I will outline below. The CDC uses the term “Vaccine Efficacy” which looks something like this:
Risk among unvaccinated group − risk among vaccinated group —————————————————————————
Risk among unvaccinated group
OR: 1 − risk ratio
[9]. This is also called the “risk difference” or “excess risk”..
Hopefully, many of you have already looked into Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) vs. Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) . What I’ve discovered makes RRR on it’s own look like a disaster especially after you see the results from the UK the RRR is no where close their 95% claim.
Important note. The Current data sets below are over 2000x’s greater than the Vaccine Trial Data. In laymen terms? More people were involved than the trials.
What about the actual case breakdown per age group? I briefly mentioned the 70+ group. Here’s the complete breakdown for all age groups over 18.
So please tell me how on earth Pfizer can claim a 95% efficacy based on the data and evidence above? Short answer? They can not! Remember, in 2020, the jabs were designed for the still yet to be isolated or purified Alpha Variant. Delta allegedly appeared Summer of 2021 and the alleged Omicron Variant appeared December 2021. All of the jabs that people were getting were from 2020 and early 2021 stocks as we don’t have any of the alleged BLA approved experimental bio-weapons contrary to the massive “branding campaign”. The bio weapons were useless against the alleged Delta variant and are even worse than the alleged Omicron variant. LOL.
After reviewing the info above, RRR vs ARR is not worthy of discussion as RRR has imploded in the governments faces globally thanks to the actual data. The fact that immunity significantly wanes shortly after the jab compared to any jab pre-covid is laughable as are “Vaccine Passports”, “Mandatory Vaccination” and anything else they want to con us with. These jabs won’t limit the spread of anything related to SARS-CoV-2 but will assist in the spread of the synthetic self-replicating spike protein in conjunction with all of the crap in the various toxic test kits plus the erosion of your Rights. Once again, Natural Herd Immunity wins 1st place - again!!!!! As does common sense.
My concern from these experimental gene therapy bio weapons are all of the adverse effects which were blatantly ignored during the clinical trials under the guise that you need more shots to “protect” you from an alleged virus with a near 100% recovery rate. Ok, I lied, 2 more:
1. exacerbating existing conditions which have nothing to do with this alleged virus thanks to increased cortisol levels thanks to all of the constant fear porn from the Puppet Media, Puppet Governments and their respective unelected health shills,
2. numerous issues with wearing those useless “Ritualistic Shame Muzzles.”
I will leave you with 1 little bit of info I found in Pfizer’s C45910001 trial. I’ve bolded the various issues.
“2.3. Benefit/Risk Assessment
There is an ongoing global pandemic of COVID-19 with no preventative or therapeutic options available. While there were no data available from clinical trials on the use of BNT162 vaccines in humans at the outset of this study, available nonclinical data with these vaccines, and data from nonclinical studies and clinical trials with the same or related RNA components, or antigens, supported a favorable risk/benefit profile. Anticipated AEs after vaccination were expected to be manageable using routine symptom-driven standard of care as determined by the investigators and, as a result, the profile of these vaccine candidates supported initiation of this Phase 1/2/3 clinical study."[11]
Ok. pretty much the entire paragraph is a complete joke. There are plenty of preventative or therapeutic options [12]available for this alleged virus but there is no money in cheap therapies which have been used for decades. They admitted that there was “no data available prior to the onset of this study”.. blah.. blah blah.. Yet, they blatantly ignored all of the important warning signs but still “support the trials. WTAF?
Now friends, family and other loved ones are getting severely injured or dying as a DIRECT result of these experimental gene therapy BIO WEAPONS.
When will enough be enough and what are YOU going to do about it to be the change?
References
[1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
[2] https://www.pfizer.com/science/coronavirus/vaccine/about-our-landmark-trial
[3] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
[4] https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728
[5] https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635
[6] https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728
[7]https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04816669term=C4591001&recrs=e&draw=2&r1
[8] http://www.biostatistici.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/05_GIACOMO_SIRI.pdf
[9] https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson3/section6.html
[10]https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid19vaccineweeklysurveillancereports
[11] https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/2020-11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020.pdf