This is an archived CDC document. Unless I missed something, all of the drug companies that produced these clot shots never stated that their poison prevented transmission. That was propaganda manufactured by the media, the CDC, public health officials, and other government entities to fear monger the public and work to shut us down. The drug companies never officially made those claims that I can recall. The data I read had as their research end goals only a reduction in symptoms. That's it. This whole nightmare was pushed because of a claim of about 95% relative risk reduction in severity of symptomology. Nothing in any of the trials that I read said anything about disease prevention. In fact, the studies were unblinded, data collection was stopped on those that were removed from the studies due to side effects, and the controls were lost when the jab was offered to the placebo groups. All indications of a completely failed product trial. The best they could come up with was some subjective reporting of reduction in symptoms and so called increases in antibody levels.
When they started the jab in every arm push I could not understand how the narrative was spun from a reduction in symptoms to prevention of disease. I was not the only one that saw this disconnect and others were also bringing up the point. But as time rolled on and so many other issues manifested in association with this assault on humanity, this fact seems to have fallen by the wayside. So, technically it was the government and the media that pushed the transmission angle. The drug companies allowed the government morons to run with their narrative and made a feeble attempt to have some level of deniability for their own self preservation that in the end will fail. They are still culpable. There was an agenda and it did not matter what the research actually stated. They are still pushing this vax agenda with little to no actual research. Who really is behind this?
This is far bigger than just the drug companies. They have only been one cog in the wheel of a much larger agenda that has been in the works for years and which has ties to the DoD, WEF, and others. The CDC and the FDA are only two of several three letter entities that need to go bye bye.
The CDC website clearly states farther down the page that the 95% effectiveness in infection prevention—which you’re only getting infected if the virus is transmitted to you by someone else—is based on clinical trials. That were hyperlinked to in the sentence stating the claim.
Where the main finding—and what they applied for EUA for—was less cases of COVID19 in the treated group over the controls.
Primary efficacy analysis demonstrates BNT162b2 to be 95% effective against COVID-19 beginning 28 days after the first dose;170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 were evaluated, with 162 observed in the placebo group versus 8 in the vaccine group
I don’t disagree that the data and the studies claiming efficacy were absolute BS. I do disagree that transmission prevention was only pushed by the media.
I don't think "transmission" means what you think it does in this context. It does not refer to getting infected; I believe it refers to passing it along to someone else if you get infected. In other words, if I get the jab, does it make it so that I cannot transmit it to someone else, if I am asymptomatic. (This is a much more complicated and time-consuming test to perform. I suspect the "transmission" claim in the sense I am using it, was added without evidence by the media later)
Studies so far show that COVID-19 vaccination reduces the risk of the vaccinated person spreading COVID-19, by preventing infection in most but not all recipients, and if they test positive, they seem to be less likely to spread infection to their close contacts.
Do not allow yourself to get Mandala Effect-Ed by the PR spin that is occurring.
I will have to go back and pull the original trial data that was part of what was submitted to the FDA for the EUA. The parameters were set around reduction of symptoms and antibody levels. I am not discounting Pfizer's slick slide of hand here. This is not the first time they have manipulated and massaged the data to make it sound like something that it never was. Early on when the trail data first came out, the information was buried in the study. What they claimed as effectiveness for them was the finding of antibodies and symptom reduction. They in turn then speculated that a rise in antibodies levels theoretically equated to a relative reduction in infection risk. It was a joke. Public Health officials then took that data and spun it into whatever they wanted it to be and gave that to the public. I have never had much use for Public Health studies or conclusions. It is not even real science.
It is unethical and illegal to deliberately infect a human test subject to evaluate whether or not a vaxxine is effective in preventing infection. So technically, there is no way Pfizer or any other vaxxine manufacturer can say that a vaxxine is effective in preventing infection on human studies alone. They were not lying when they said that the studies were not done - because those types of studies are only done in animals - and those animal studies were never done - at least no animal studies that were ever made public. Go figure. The results that Pfizer was getting from the human trials was so bad that they unblinded the study and conflated the control group with the test group by offering the jab to the controls. Not only were their test subjects getting sick, they were also suffering from side effects. That data at that point became forever useless.
I worked in medical research for over 10 years. The devil is always in the details of the studies. The language they use is always tricky. The sentence that you quoted never actually states a reduction in transmission. What is meant by "effective against" is left open to interpretation. It is all just BS. They were measuring antibody levels - so what. The OP doc was a CDC document and even the language used makes it sound like both the EUA product and the brand product are identical. This is why they are trying so hard to cover up the data that was actually submitted for authorization and was the basis for the approvals. What they release to the public is unclear and far from forthcoming.
This confusion is just like the language used in the FDA licensing of Comirnaty. It gives the impression that the EUA version of the jab and the licensed product are interchangeable legally. They are not. But the language that Pfizer and the FDA used was deliberately meant to obfuscate. They are still keeping the waters muddy looking at this CDC doc. They are not clear with what they mean to avoid legal liability. That is why it is so hard to sue these bastards. They bend the language to the point of breakage. I got out of research because the entire process made me disgusted.
They were never going to outright claim anything because they can get away with some legalese.
I agree that the animal studies weren’t conducted. I know about the shenanigans with the Comirnaty naming debacle. I know it’s going to take a lot of wrangling for these people to see justice.
But I also have seen multiple studies and multiple sources that claimed reduced transmission could at least be deduced. The Alberta Health Canada clinical review report I linked even asserts this:
Six studies were included in the synthesis regarding household transmission of COVID- 19 – two from the previous update and 4 identified in the current search. Taken together, the evidence shows that Pfizer-BioNTech (PfBNT), Moderna, AstraZeneca (AZ) and Janssen (J&J) vaccines can significantly reduce household transmission of wild-type or the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) COVID-19 strain after 14 days of vaccination by at least 63%.
In most studies of household linked cases, most index cases were unvaccinated. In the small proportion of households with vaccinated index cases, the secondary attack rate was much lower (e.g. 11% versus 31%, a 70% reduction (de Gier). This suggests that that vaccinated individuals who experience breakthrough infections have lower levels of secondary transmission within their household.
The studies were absolute trash. Their conclusions were also trash. But the fact they published these trashy conclusions and sold them to public health officials—who then enacted policies and colluded with big pharma to accomplish their goals—leaves a paper trail that can be challenged. It’ll be like the PhenFen situation, where no one thought justice had a chance in hell until that executive’s emails about “no one caring if fat people have heart attacks” came to light.
When you look at the bigger picture—like the EU Public Prosecutor’s Office investigating how the COVID “vaccines” were procured, with no leaks so far—you can see there are legal maneuvers being made in the background around the world.
Bourla backed out of that hearing. That was absolutely Pfizer trying to save their asses while knowing there is information out there that could absolutely screw them.
Thanks for the reply as well. Always great to connect with you on here.
Thanks again for your detailed response. I agree. No matter their lame efforts at trying to legally protect themselves, all these bastards have enough evidence floating around out there that they should all hang. Truth always manages to find its way to the top. Whether people actually see it for what it is, now that is another matter. Great connecting with you too. This is the only place I post worth the effort. Have a great week!
"Infection" and "transmission" are not the same thing.
Be careful how you word things, because the idiots will try to use it against you.
They lied about effectiveness against infection ("95% effective" was a blatant lie), but never stated anything about transmission in their papers.
They DID claim it in all of their quasi-adverstisments. Note, they never DIRECTLY advertised the vaxx drug. Instead, they "sponsored" ads (and still are today) about getting a coof vaxx IN GENERAL (not specifically THEIR coof vaxx). They have been doing this to avoid the law that requires them to state ALL known adverse events. They seem to think that if they sponsor an ad about taking a coof vaxx in general, and not mention THEIR specific coof vaxx, that they are exempt from the law requiring full disclosure. In THOSE ads, they DO claim it will reduce transmission.
Plus, all their co-conpsirators in media and government have been claiming reduced transmission. So, there is a clear intent to promote the non-transmission lie, but the initial research papers did not make that claim. Just to be clear.
They go out of their way to mention it contains no ivermectin. A bit obvious
This is an archived CDC document. Unless I missed something, all of the drug companies that produced these clot shots never stated that their poison prevented transmission. That was propaganda manufactured by the media, the CDC, public health officials, and other government entities to fear monger the public and work to shut us down. The drug companies never officially made those claims that I can recall. The data I read had as their research end goals only a reduction in symptoms. That's it. This whole nightmare was pushed because of a claim of about 95% relative risk reduction in severity of symptomology. Nothing in any of the trials that I read said anything about disease prevention. In fact, the studies were unblinded, data collection was stopped on those that were removed from the studies due to side effects, and the controls were lost when the jab was offered to the placebo groups. All indications of a completely failed product trial. The best they could come up with was some subjective reporting of reduction in symptoms and so called increases in antibody levels.
When they started the jab in every arm push I could not understand how the narrative was spun from a reduction in symptoms to prevention of disease. I was not the only one that saw this disconnect and others were also bringing up the point. But as time rolled on and so many other issues manifested in association with this assault on humanity, this fact seems to have fallen by the wayside. So, technically it was the government and the media that pushed the transmission angle. The drug companies allowed the government morons to run with their narrative and made a feeble attempt to have some level of deniability for their own self preservation that in the end will fail. They are still culpable. There was an agenda and it did not matter what the research actually stated. They are still pushing this vax agenda with little to no actual research. Who really is behind this?
This is far bigger than just the drug companies. They have only been one cog in the wheel of a much larger agenda that has been in the works for years and which has ties to the DoD, WEF, and others. The CDC and the FDA are only two of several three letter entities that need to go bye bye.
The CDC website clearly states farther down the page that the 95% effectiveness in infection prevention—which you’re only getting infected if the virus is transmitted to you by someone else—is based on clinical trials. That were hyperlinked to in the sentence stating the claim.
But if you don’t believe me, you can take it from a Pfizer press release itself.
Where the main finding—and what they applied for EUA for—was less cases of COVID19 in the treated group over the controls.
I don’t disagree that the data and the studies claiming efficacy were absolute BS. I do disagree that transmission prevention was only pushed by the media.
I don't think "transmission" means what you think it does in this context. It does not refer to getting infected; I believe it refers to passing it along to someone else if you get infected. In other words, if I get the jab, does it make it so that I cannot transmit it to someone else, if I am asymptomatic. (This is a much more complicated and time-consuming test to perform. I suspect the "transmission" claim in the sense I am using it, was added without evidence by the media later)
That’s fair if you want to be pedantic.
But you need to consider that many places, like Alberta Health Canada, concluded the following all the way back in 2021.
Do not allow yourself to get Mandala Effect-Ed by the PR spin that is occurring.
I will have to go back and pull the original trial data that was part of what was submitted to the FDA for the EUA. The parameters were set around reduction of symptoms and antibody levels. I am not discounting Pfizer's slick slide of hand here. This is not the first time they have manipulated and massaged the data to make it sound like something that it never was. Early on when the trail data first came out, the information was buried in the study. What they claimed as effectiveness for them was the finding of antibodies and symptom reduction. They in turn then speculated that a rise in antibodies levels theoretically equated to a relative reduction in infection risk. It was a joke. Public Health officials then took that data and spun it into whatever they wanted it to be and gave that to the public. I have never had much use for Public Health studies or conclusions. It is not even real science.
It is unethical and illegal to deliberately infect a human test subject to evaluate whether or not a vaxxine is effective in preventing infection. So technically, there is no way Pfizer or any other vaxxine manufacturer can say that a vaxxine is effective in preventing infection on human studies alone. They were not lying when they said that the studies were not done - because those types of studies are only done in animals - and those animal studies were never done - at least no animal studies that were ever made public. Go figure. The results that Pfizer was getting from the human trials was so bad that they unblinded the study and conflated the control group with the test group by offering the jab to the controls. Not only were their test subjects getting sick, they were also suffering from side effects. That data at that point became forever useless.
I worked in medical research for over 10 years. The devil is always in the details of the studies. The language they use is always tricky. The sentence that you quoted never actually states a reduction in transmission. What is meant by "effective against" is left open to interpretation. It is all just BS. They were measuring antibody levels - so what. The OP doc was a CDC document and even the language used makes it sound like both the EUA product and the brand product are identical. This is why they are trying so hard to cover up the data that was actually submitted for authorization and was the basis for the approvals. What they release to the public is unclear and far from forthcoming.
This confusion is just like the language used in the FDA licensing of Comirnaty. It gives the impression that the EUA version of the jab and the licensed product are interchangeable legally. They are not. But the language that Pfizer and the FDA used was deliberately meant to obfuscate. They are still keeping the waters muddy looking at this CDC doc. They are not clear with what they mean to avoid legal liability. That is why it is so hard to sue these bastards. They bend the language to the point of breakage. I got out of research because the entire process made me disgusted.
Thanks for your reply.
They were never going to outright claim anything because they can get away with some legalese.
I agree that the animal studies weren’t conducted. I know about the shenanigans with the Comirnaty naming debacle. I know it’s going to take a lot of wrangling for these people to see justice.
But I also have seen multiple studies and multiple sources that claimed reduced transmission could at least be deduced. The Alberta Health Canada clinical review report I linked even asserts this:
The studies were absolute trash. Their conclusions were also trash. But the fact they published these trashy conclusions and sold them to public health officials—who then enacted policies and colluded with big pharma to accomplish their goals—leaves a paper trail that can be challenged. It’ll be like the PhenFen situation, where no one thought justice had a chance in hell until that executive’s emails about “no one caring if fat people have heart attacks” came to light.
When you look at the bigger picture—like the EU Public Prosecutor’s Office investigating how the COVID “vaccines” were procured, with no leaks so far—you can see there are legal maneuvers being made in the background around the world.
Bourla backed out of that hearing. That was absolutely Pfizer trying to save their asses while knowing there is information out there that could absolutely screw them.
Thanks for the reply as well. Always great to connect with you on here.
Thanks again for your detailed response. I agree. No matter their lame efforts at trying to legally protect themselves, all these bastards have enough evidence floating around out there that they should all hang. Truth always manages to find its way to the top. Whether people actually see it for what it is, now that is another matter. Great connecting with you too. This is the only place I post worth the effort. Have a great week!
It really does add meaning to archive everything, archive it offline too
"Infection" and "transmission" are not the same thing.
Be careful how you word things, because the idiots will try to use it against you.
They lied about effectiveness against infection ("95% effective" was a blatant lie), but never stated anything about transmission in their papers.
They DID claim it in all of their quasi-adverstisments. Note, they never DIRECTLY advertised the vaxx drug. Instead, they "sponsored" ads (and still are today) about getting a coof vaxx IN GENERAL (not specifically THEIR coof vaxx). They have been doing this to avoid the law that requires them to state ALL known adverse events. They seem to think that if they sponsor an ad about taking a coof vaxx in general, and not mention THEIR specific coof vaxx, that they are exempt from the law requiring full disclosure. In THOSE ads, they DO claim it will reduce transmission.
Plus, all their co-conpsirators in media and government have been claiming reduced transmission. So, there is a clear intent to promote the non-transmission lie, but the initial research papers did not make that claim. Just to be clear.
This is not entirely true.
This press release on their phase 3 trial clearly states they were basing the 95% efficacy rate off of how many people in their (poorly designed) study got COVID after getting their shot compared to controls.
Then why even take it?! The virus is mild and has an over 99% survival rate!
Vaxtards are so stupid. Enjoy that myocarditis or sudden death!
Well done, I intend to stuff this into some delusional people's faces. Lying bastards