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!
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!