Name: Pfizer’s claimed +95% efficacy may actually be -59% when trial withdrawals are counted
Uploaded: 2024-01-19T17:00:00+00:00
Duration: 1 min 36 s
Description: Pfizer claimed in December of 2020 that its jabs had 95% efficacy based on the published results of their clinical trial. The efficacy was not based on reduced deaths or severe disease, but merely on

3 months ago

465

COVID19 vaccine VaxInjury VaxSafety VaccineMandate

Pfizer claimed in December of 2020 that its jabs had 95% efficacy based on the published results of their clinical trial. The efficacy was not based on reduced deaths or severe disease, but merely on ‘cases.’ The latter are defined as participants with flu-like symptoms who also have a positive (hyperoversensitive) COVID PCR test.

Pfizer based their results on a Per Protocol analysis, which is normally never allowed, because it gives the sponsor more leeway to fudge the data in their favor. (Intention To Treat analysis is the norm.) Participants who did not follow Pfizer’s protocol exactly, may be removed from the study’s results due to their ‘protocol deviation.’

For example, the protocol specified that you had to get Pfizer’s approval BEFORE seeking medical treatment. If you had a (vaxx-induced) medical emergency and went straight to the hospital, your adverse effect was (conveniently for Pfizer) excluded from the study analysis, because you didn’t get Pfizer’s approval before seeking medical assistance.

The study’s details show many strange and alarming things. For example, a whopping 5 times as many participants from the ‘vaccine’ group were kicked off the study versus the control group (311 vs 60). I thought and think that a significant proportion of these participants likely had a very bad reaction from the first shot and chose not to get the second shot. By not counting these participants, the jab seems to be much safer than it is.

The participants may also have had ‘COVID’ and Pfizer may have kicked them out because it was inconvenient to their desired outcome. If we assume that the 311-60 = 251 vaxxed participants had ‘COVID,’ the vaxx efficacy drops from +95% to -59%! Said differently, the jab makes you MORE likely to get sick.

This negative efficacy is in line with real world data. After the jab roll-out, positive tests skyrocketed all over the world. The scientific study by the Cleveland Clinic shows clearly that the more jabs you get, the more likely you are to get ‘COVID.’ The COVID jabs cause VAIDS (Vaccine Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome). The jabs don’t just make you more likely to get ‘COVID,’ but also all other ‘infectious’ diseases.

Another thing that became clear from the documents that Pfizer and their co-conspirator FDA wanted to keep hidden for 75 years, is that even though the study was supposed to be double blind, the participants in the ‘vaccine’ arm had a 60% lower probability of getting referred for a test if they reported flu-like symptoms. This is one way to game the numbers. Since a ‘case’ requires a positive test, you can prevent an unwanted case simply by not testing a participant.

It turns out that the manipulation of (medical) trials in favor of the sponsor’s desired outcome is the rule, not the exception. The true name for RCTs should not be RANDOMIZED Controlled Trials, but RESULTS Controlled Trials.

Maria Angell wrote: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”