See also:
Pfizer Whistleblower Confirms Covid Injections are Poisonous Bioweapons
In simplistic terms, suppose I did a study on the mortality risk of eating bacon and found that 1/100 non-bacon eaters died whereas 2/100 bacon eaters died. If we consider the relative risk, it doubled, a 100% increase. However, the absolute risk was increased by 1% (from 1% to 2%). The latter is a lot less impressive. But this what Pharmaceutical companies do- they play on the public’s ignorance between absolute and relative risk & Statistical vs. Clinical Significance. Note that in the Pfizer study pictured above, the Reduction in Infection Risk is 0.862%, but it’s pointed out that it has a 95% efficacy. Not so impressive. In this study, Pfizer stopped the study for the vaccinated subjects within a week but continued to log in non-vaccinated long after. So no, when the talking heads on CNN are telling you the vaccine is effective, they are lying. The whistleblower in the video below explains in more detail (30 minutes, 17 seconds). Moreover, the PCR tests used in the study are invalid- it’s the same scam run by Theranos. These results are hardly worth injecting oneself with a bioweapon.
Video: Pfizer Whistleblower Confirms Covid Injections are Poisonous Bioweapons
Microbiologist Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi Explains COVID Jab Effects
How Effective Are the COVID Shots?
While the COVID injections have been characterized as being somewhere around 95% effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection, this claim is the product of statistical obfuscation. In short, they’ve conflated relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction is actually right around 1% for all currently available COVID shots.1
In “Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials”2 Ron Brown, Ph.D. calculates the absolute risk reduction for Pfizer’s and Moderna’s injections, based on their own clinical trial data, so that they can be compared to the relative risk reduction reported by these companies. Here’s a summary of his findings:
- Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2 — Relative risk reduction: 95.1%. Absolute risk reduction: 0.7%
- Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273 — Relative risk reduction: 94.1%. Absolute risk reduction 1.1%
In a July 1, 2021, commentary in The Lancet Microbe,3 Piero Olliaro, Els Torreele and Michel Vaillant also argue for the use of absolute risk reduction when discussing vaccine efficacy with the public. They too went through the calculations, coming up with the following:
- Pfizer/BioNTech — Relative risk reduction: 95%. Absolute risk reduction: 0.84%
- Moderna — Relative risk reduction: 94%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.2%
- Gamaleya (Sputnic V) — Relative risk reduction: 91%. Absolute risk reduction: 0.93%
- Johnson & Johnson — Relative risk reduction: 67%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.2%
- AstraZeneca/Oxford — Relative risk reduction: 67%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.3%
What Kind of Protection Do the COVID Shots Provide?
Aside from providing insignificant protection in terms of your absolute risk reduction, it’s important to realize that they do not provide immunity. All they can do is reduce the severity of the symptoms of infection. According to Bhakdi, they fail even at this.
“They showed absolutely zero [benefit in the clinical trials],” he says. “This is the ridiculousness. People don’t understand that they’re being fooled and have been fooled all along. Let’s take the one of these Pfizer trials: 20,000 healthy people were vaccinated and another 20,000 people were not vaccinated.
And then they observed, over a period of 12 weeks or so, how many cases they found in the vaccinated group and how many cases they found the non-vaccinated. What they found was that less than 1% of the vaccinated group got COVID-19 and less than 1% in the non-vaccinated group also got COVID-19.
The difference was 0.8 to 0.1%, which is nothing, considering the fact that they were not even looking at severe cases. They were looking at people with a positive PCR test — which as we all now know is worthless — plus one symptom, which could be cough or fever.
That is not a severe case of COVID-19. Any vaccination that is going to get authorized must be shown to protect against severe illness and death, and this has definitely not been shown. So, forget authorization. It can’t be authorized, not by any normal means.
Now [the COVID injections do not have] full authorization, it’s an emergency authorization, which again is absolute bullshit, since we know the infection fatality rate of this disease or virus is not greater than that of seasonal flu. John Ioannidis has published these numbers, which have never been contested by anyone in the world and cannot be contested.
If you are under 70 years of age and have no severe preexisting illness, you can hardly die [from SARS-CoV-2 infection]. So, there is no fatality rate that can be reduced.
And for people who are elderly and have preexisting illness, as we know from Dr. Peter McCullough and his colleagues’ work, there are very good means and medicines to treat this virus so that the fatality rates go down another 70 to 80%, which means there is no ground for emergency use whatsoever.
This means the FDA should be able to be forced to retract this emergency use authorization — unless they are in league with whoever wants to do this.”
I neglected to follow-up on his comment about 40,000 people being equally divided between the injection and no injection groups in the COVID injection trials. A few months ago, they actually abandoned the non-injection arm of the trial, so no there is no control group anymore.
The justification was that the injection was too important to deny it to the control group. It’s just another sneaky way to skirt around reporting all the adverse effects occurring in the injection group.
Save as PDF