Summary for TL;DR types:
- The 95% number is a LIE.
- The REAL difference in "effectiveness" of the vaxx is LESS THAN 1% (0.71% )
- The "effectiveness" claim of even that is another LIE.
- The "effectiveness" claim is based on a subjective standard of a "mild symptom" and a bogus test.
- There was NEVER ANY RESEARCH into whether or not the vaxx would help in preventing (a) GETTING or (b) GIVING of Covid.
- There was NEVER ANY RESEARCH into "ASYMPTOMATIC SPREAD" of any virus.
- They didn't even LOOK INTO whether or not this expriemental drug would do anything OTHER THAN reduce symptoms.
- THEIR OWN RESEARCH showed that their experimental drug produced a LESS THAN 1% EFFECTIVENESS in getting ... a SYMPTOM.
- The Pfizer "research" produced NO OTHER RESULTS.
I saw in another thread that people were asking for sources of info about the vaxx makers' claims that their experimental drugs are "95% effective against Covid" (which is why the sheep were willing to get it in the first place).
Here is an article from MSN.com (apologies for the fake news link, but it really exposes the BS, so it is useful):
To understand what you are reading in that article, you have to understand how the medical industry LIES via statistics.
As Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." The medical industry has taken that concept to new levels. They lie through manipulation of statistics. They often use percentages of percentages (or ratios of ratios, or ratios of results rather than totals).
Let's say you have 200 cars. You put them into 2 groups of 100 each. Group A has 1 blue car. Group B has 3 blue cars. So, Group A has 1% of its cars as blue, and Group B has 3% of its cars as blue. That means Group B has 2% more of all of its cars as blue cars than Group A does (3% - 1% = 2%). But the medical industry will manipulate that and say that Group B has 200% more blue cars than Group A (3 / 1 = 200% more). 2% is the truthful difference, but 200% sounds really impressive.
This is how they lie through statistics. Lipitor (originally created by Pfizer), has been the #1 selling drug over the past 25 years. It has been sold to doctors as a miraculous cholesterol-lowering drug due to its "36% effectiveness." But that number is a lie, based on manipulation of statistics, using a ratio of a ratio. The real number, using test group vs. control group is around 1%. Not so impressive, huh? Yeah, that's why they lie. In reality, the drug is not effective at all, and causes all sorts of health problems, including alzheimers.
With that in mind, the MSN article says about the Covid vaxx ...
What the 95% actually means is that vaccinated people had a 95% lower risk of getting COVID-19 compared with the control group participants, who weren't vaccinated
That number is not valid, which I will explain below. But let's go with it for the moment. This means that the "risk of GETTING Covid" is lower for those who took the vaxx -- according to Pfizer (Moderna also makes this claim).
So, what does "GETTING Covid" mean?
Both Pfizer and Moderna defined a case as having at least one symptom (however mild) and a positive COVID-19 test
So, "GETTING Covid" means a "case," which means (a) having at least one symptom (however mild, such as a headache), and (b) a positive Covid-19 test -- which would mean the bogus PCR test (the only one used at the time). Since the PCR test has a 90%+ false positive (really, it is 100% false postive AND 100% false negative, because the test is NOT A DIAGNOSTIC TOOL), this means that having a headache and taking a bogus test would result in a "case."
There were fewer of these fake "cases" in the group with the vaxx. Were the number of cycles used for the PCR tests the same in both groups? We don't know, because Pfizer has not said, as far as I know.
Since these companies are known to manipulate statistics, it would not be surprising if the number of cycles used in the PCR "test" was different in each group.
Even if the "test" was the same in both groups, what is a headache or other "mild symptoms?" Isn't this a bit subjective? Having a headache or other mild symptom means a "case," which means the drug maker, a known liar, can announce its experimental drug is "95% effecive."
What is missing from this picture?
THERE IS NO MENTION OF SPREADING OF THE CORONA!
There is no mention at all of whether those who "had cases" either (a) got it from someone else (if they "got it" at all), or if (b) they gave it to someone else.
The WHOLE POINT of a vaccine is to reduce the chance of getting it, and to help stop in spreading it.
THIS IS NOT MENTIONED AT ALL.
THE ONLY THING MENTIONED IS GETTING SYMPTOMS.
The ONLY thing they talk about is a "case" which is based on (a) a symptom, and (b) a bogus test -- both of which are built on a foundation of quicksand.
And none of the three vaccine trials looked at all for asymptomatic COVID-19
Whoa! Isn't the MAIN problem (according to some liars out there) this thing called the "asymptomatic" spread of the virus? But these vaxx makers DID NOT EVEN LOOK INTO THAT ... AT ALL.
"All these efficacy numbers are protection from having symptoms, not protection from being infected," Barker said. [Brianne Barker, a virologist at Drew University in New Jersey, referring to the Pfizer vaccine.]
BINGO! There you have it. Protection from getting SYMPTOMS ... and NOT protection from being INFECTED (much less anything having to do with spreading it to others -- they didn't even LOOK INTO that at all)!
... because we don't yet know [about some other stuff] for sure, people "can't throw away their mask" once they're vaccinated, Barker said.
Gee, thanks, Brianne. Now, tell us about how effective the masks are , Miss "Virologist." (Hint: not at all. Not even a little.)
Zero vaccinated people in any of the trials were hospitalized or died of COVID-19 after the vaccines had fully taken effect.
No mention that zero non-vaccinated people ALSO had the same outcome, or how long a period after they are talking about, or that "died of Covid" is yet another lie.
Lies piled on top of lies, piled on top of lies is the standard operating procedure for these people.
Now ...
Let's "circle back" to that earlier claim of:
What the 95% actually means is that vaccinated people had a 95% lower risk of getting COVID-19 compared with the control group participants, who weren't vaccinated
I said that number was not valid (due to manipulation of statistics). Here's the evidence, directly from Pfizer:
There were several questions that were left unanswered in the MSN article. That's because the writer, Anna Nowogrodzki, is not a journalist, but merely a propagandist. She dug up a virologist from an unknown university to interview, but not anyone from Pfizer. She didn't even bother to read the actual press release, probably because she didn't really care about reporting as a journalist.
The good news is that the press release from Pfizer actually does answer some of those questions.
Pfizer claims:
Analysis of the data indicates a vaccine efficacy rate of 95% ... measured from 7 days after the second dose.
So, that tells us when the experimental drug was considered "effective." SEVEN DAYS. Does that sound like a sufficient time to arrive at this conclusion to you? Not to me.
The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19, as specified in the study protocol, of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the [vaxxed] group.
Sounds impressive. Until ...
- You consider that a "case" is nothing more than a mild symptom.
- You consider that a "case" is subjective, not necessarily an objective measure.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of whether or not a person contracted an illness FROM someone else.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of whether or not a person spread an illness TO someone else.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of "asymptomatic" cases.
- You consider that there is no disclosure as to the number of cycles used in the PCR test, or whether the number of cycles was the same in both groups.
- You consider that they STOPPED checking anything after 7 days past the second dose.
But let's look at those numbers again.
- 162 "cases" in the control group, and 8 "cases" in the test group.
- 43,000 participants.
Let's say there was a 50/50 split in the 2 groups: 21,500 in each group. That means:
- 162/21,500 = 0.7534% of the control group had both a (a) symptom and (b) positive PCR "test"
- 8/21,500 = 0.0372% of the test group had both a (a) symptom and (b) positive PCR "test"
The difference is 0.7534% - 0.0372% = 0.7162%.
So, the REAL "effectiveness" is 0.7162% and NOT 95%.
Another way to look at it is:
- Of the 21,500 people in the control group, 21,338 did NOT end up as a "case"
- Of the 21,500 people in the test group, 21,492 did NOT end up as a "case"
- (This assumes the numbers of the two groups were equal, but that information is not disclosed)
So ...
- 21,338/21,500 = 99.25% of the control group did NOT end up as a "case"
- 21,492/21,500 = 99.96% of the test group did NOT end up as a "case"
Which is a difference of ... 0.71% The same as above.
This is the ACTUAL difference in the two groups.
But what happens if you LIE via statistics? What happens if you TAKE A RATIO OF THE "CASES" AND OMIT ANY DATA ABOUT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE STUDY?
What happens, in other words, if you take a RATIO of ... another RATIO?
The math would then look like this:
Differences in the percentages of the cases/totals = 0.7534% / 0.0372% = 20.25.
And what does 20.25 represent? It represents a 20.25 times greater chance of a "case" in the control group over the test group, which if you convert that to percentages, you get ... ABRACADABRA ...
95.06% !!!
So, they took a DIFFERENCE in "cases" (which is totally bogus to begin with) of 0.7%, and MANIPULATED THE NUMBERS THROUGH STATISTICS (standard operating procedure by these liars) to create that fairy tail of "95% effective."
They simply used a ratio of a ratio, rather than comparing the two ratios to each other (like in the blue car example).
Never mind that a "case" is only a mild symptom and a bogus PCR test. They didn't even consider that. In fact, they used that to their advantage.
The vaxx (experimental drug) claims are ENTIRELY based on FRAUD. Good thing Dr. Fraudci is running the clown show!
Summary for TL;DR types:
- The 95% number is a LIE.
- The REAL difference in "effectiveness" of the vaxx is LESS THAN 1% (0.71% )
- The "effectiveness" claim of even that is another LIE.
- The "effectiveness" claim is based on a subjective standard of a "mild symptom" and a bogus test.
- There was NEVER ANY RESEARCH into whether or not the vaxx would help in preventing (a) GETTING or (b) GIVING of Covid.
- There was NEVER ANY RESEARCH into "ASYMPTOMATIC SPREAD" of any virus.
- They didn't even LOOK INTO whether or not this expriemental drug would do anything OTHER THAN reduce symptoms.
- THEIR OWN RESEARCH showed that their experimental drug produced a LESS THAN 1% EFFECTIVENESS in getting ... a SYMPTOM.
- The Pfizer "research" produced NO OTHER RESULTS.
I saw in another thread that people were asking for sources of info about the vaxx makers' claims that their experimental drugs are "95% effective against Covid" (which is why the sheep were willing to get it in the first place).
Here is an article from MSN.com (apologies for the fake news link, but it really exposes the BS, so it is useful):
To understand what you are reading in that article, you have to understand how the medical industry LIES via statistics.
As Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." The medical industry has taken that concept to new levels. They lie through manipulation of statistics. They often use percentages of percentages (or ratios of ratios, or ratios of results rather than totals).
Let's say you have 200 cars. You put them into 2 groups of 100 each. Group A has 1 blue car. Group B has 3 blue cars. So, Group A has 1% of its cars as blue, and Group B has 3% of its cars as blue. That means Group B has 2% more of all of its cars as blue cars than Group A does (3% - 1% = 2%). But the medical industry will manipulate that and say that Group B has 200% more blue cars than Group A (3 / 1 = 200% more). 2% is the truthful difference, but 200% sounds really impressive.
This is how they lie through statistics. Lipitor (originally created by Pfizer), has been the #1 selling drug over the past 25 years. It has been sold to doctors as a miraculous cholesterol-lowering drug due to its "36% effectiveness." But that number is a lie, based on manipulation of statistics, using a ratio of a ratio. The real number, using test group vs. control group is around 1%. Not so impressive, huh? Yeah, that's why they lie. In reality, the drug is not effective at all, and causes all sorts of health problems, including alzheimers.
With that in mind, the MSN article says about the Covid vaxx ...
What the 95% actually means is that vaccinated people had a 95% lower risk of getting COVID-19 compared with the control group participants, who weren't vaccinated
That number is not valid, which I will explain below. But let's go with it for the moment. This means that the "risk of GETTING Covid" is lower for those who took the vaxx -- according to Pfizer (Moderna also makes this claim).
So, what does "GETTING Covid" mean?
Both Pfizer and Moderna defined a case as having at least one symptom (however mild) and a positive COVID-19 test
So, "GETTING Covid" means a "case," which means (a) having at least one symptom (however mild, such as a headache), and (b) a positive Covid-19 test -- which would mean the bogus PCR test (the only one used at the time). Since the PCR test has a 90%+ false positive (really, it is 100% false postive AND 100% false negative, because the test is NOT A DIAGNOSTIC TOOL), this means that having a headache and taking a bogus test would result in a "case."
There were fewer of these fake "cases" in the group with the vaxx. Were the number of cycles used for the PCR tests the same in both groups? We don't know, because Pfizer has not said, as far as I know.
Since these companies are known to manipulate statistics, it would not be surprising if the number of cycles used in the PCR "test" was different in each group.
Even if the "test" was the same in both groups, what is a headache or other "mild symptoms?" Isn't this a bit subjective? Having a headache or other mild symptom means a "case," which means the drug maker, a known liar, can announce its experimental drug is "95% effecive."
What is missing from this picture?
THERE IS NO MENTION OF SPREADING OF THE CORONA!
There is no mention at all of whether those who "had cases" either (a) got it from someone else (if they "got it" at all), or if (b) they gave it to someone else.
The WHOLE POINT of a vaccine is to reduce the chance of getting it, and to help stop in spreading it.
THIS IS NOT MENTIONED AT ALL.
THE ONLY THING MENTIONED IS GETTING SYMPTOMS.
The ONLY thing they talk about is a "case" which is based on (a) a symptom, and (b) a bogus test -- both of which are built on a foundation of quicksand.
And none of the three vaccine trials looked at all for asymptomatic COVID-19
Whoa! Isn't the MAIN problem (according to some liars out there) this thing called the "asymptomatic" spread of the virus? But these vaxx makers DID NOT EVEN LOOK INTO THAT ... AT ALL.
"All these efficacy numbers are protection from having symptoms, not protection from being infected," Barker said. [Brianne Barker, a virologist at Drew University in New Jersey, referring to the Pfizer vaccine.]
BINGO! There you have it. Protection from getting SYMPTOMS ... and NOT protection from being infected (much less anything having to do with spreading it to others -- they didn't even LOOK INTO that at all)!
... because we don't yet know [about some other stuff] for sure, people "can't throw away their mask" once they're vaccinated, Barker said.
Gee, thanks, Brianne. Now, tell us about how effective the masks are , Miss "Virologist." (Hint: not at all. Not even a little.)
Zero vaccinated people in any of the trials were hospitalized or died of COVID-19 after the vaccines had fully taken effect.
No mention that zero non-vaccinated people ALSO had the same outcome, or how long a period after they are talking about, or that "died of Covid" is yet another lie.
Lies piled on top of lies, piled on top of lies is the standard operating procedure for these people.
Now ...
Let's "circle back" to that earlier claim of:
What the 95% actually means is that vaccinated people had a 95% lower risk of getting COVID-19 compared with the control group participants, who weren't vaccinated
I said that number was not valid (due to manipulation of statistics). Here's the evidence, directly from Pfizer:
There were several questions that were left unanswered in the MSN article. That's because the writer, Anna Nowogrodzki, is not a journalist, but merely a propagandist. She dug up a virologist from an unknown university to interview, but not anyone from Pfizer. She didn't even bother to read the actual press release, probably because she didn't really care about reporting as a journalist.
The good news is that the press release from Pfizer actually does answer some of those questions.
Pfizer claims:
Analysis of the data indicates a vaccine efficacy rate of 95% ... measured from 7 days after the second dose.
So, that tells us when the experimental drug was considered "effective." SEVEN DAYS. Does that sound like a sufficient time to arrive at this conclusion to you? Not to me.
The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19, as specified in the study protocol, of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the [vaxxed] group.
Sounds impressive. Until ...
- You consider that a "case" is nothing more than a mild symptom.
- You consider that a "case" is subjective, not necessarily an objective measure.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of whether or not a person contracted an illness FROM someone else.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of whether or not a person spread an illness TO someone else.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of "asymptomatic" cases.
- You consider that there is no disclosure as to the number of cycles used in the PCR test, or whether the number of cycles was the same in both groups.
- You consider that they STOPPED checking anything after 7 days past the second dose.
But let's look at those numbers again.
- 162 "cases" in the control group, and 8 "cases" in the test group.
- 43,000 participants.
Let's say there was a 50/50 split in the 2 groups: 21,500 in each group. That means:
- 162/21,500 = 0.7534% of the control group had both a (a) symptom and (b) positive PCR "test"
- 8/21,500 = 0.0372% of the test group had both a (a) symptom and (b) positive PCR "test"
The difference is 0.7534% - 0.0372% = 0.7162%.
So, the REAL "effectiveness" is 0.7162% and NOT 95%.
Another way to look at it is:
- Of the 21,500 people in the control group, 21,338 did NOT end up as a "case"
- Of the 21,500 people in the test group, 21,492 did NOT end up as a "case"
- (This assumes the numbers of the two groups were equal, but that information is not disclosed)
So ...
- 21,338/21,500 = 99.25% of the control group did NOT end up as a "case"
- 21,492/21,500 = 99.96% of the test group did NOT end up as a "case"
Which is a difference of ... 0.71% The same as above.
This is the ACTUAL difference in the two groups.
But what happens if you LIE via statistics? What happens if you TAKE A RATIO OF THE "CASES" AND OMIT ANY DATA ABOUT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE STUDY?
What happens, in other words, if you take a RATIO of ... another RATIO?
The math would then look like this:
Differences in the percentages of the cases/totals = 0.7534% / 0.0372% = 20.25.
And what does 20.25 represent? It represents a 20.25 times greater chance of a "case" in the control group over the test group, which if you convert that to percentages, you get ... ABRACADABRA ...
95.06% !!!
So, they took a DIFFERENCE in "cases" (which is totally bogus to begin with) of 0.7%, and MANIPULATED THE NUMBERS THROUGH STATISTICS (standard operating procedure by these liars) to create that fairy tail of "95% effective."
They simply used a ratio of a ratio, rather than comparing the two ratios to each other (like in the blue car example).
Never mind that a "case" is only a mild symptom and a bogus PCR test. They didn't even consider that. In fact, they used that to their advantage.
The vaxx (experimental drug) claims are ENTIRELY based on FRAUD. Good thing Dr. Fraudci is running the clown show!
Summary for TL;DR types:
- The 95% number is a LIE.
- The REAL difference in "effectiveness" of the vaxx is LESS THAN 1% (0.71% )
- The "effectiveness" claim of even that is another LIE.
- The "effectiveness" claim is based on a subjective standard of a "mild symptom" and a bogus test.
- There was NEVER ANY RESEARCH into whether or not the vaxx would help in preventing (a) GETTING or (b) GIVING of Covid.
- There was NEVER ANY RESEARCH into "ASYMPTOMATIC SPREAD" of any virus.
- They didn't even LOOK INTO whether or not this expriemental drug would do anything OTHER THAN reduce symptoms.
- THEIR OWN RESEARCH showed that their experimental drug produced a LESS THAN 1% EFFECTIVENESS in ... GETTING A SYMPTOM.
- The Pfizer "research" produced NO OTHER RESULTS.
I saw in another thread that people were asking for sources of info about the vaxx makers' claims that their experimental drugs are "95% effective against Covid" (which is why the sheep were willing to get it in the first place).
Here is an article from MSN.com (apologies for the fake news link, but it really exposes the BS, so it is useful):
To understand what you are reading in that article, you have to understand how the medical industry LIES via statistics.
As Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." The medical industry has taken that concept to new levels. They lie through manipulation of statistics. They often use percentages of percentages (or ratios of ratios, or ratios of results rather than totals).
Let's say you have 200 cars. You put them into 2 groups of 100 each. Group A has 1 blue car. Group B has 3 blue cars. So, Group A has 1% of its cars as blue, and Group B has 3% of its cars as blue. That means Group B has 2% more of all of its cars as blue cars than Group A does (3% - 1% = 2%). But the medical industry will manipulate that and say that Group B has 200% more blue cars than Group A (3 / 1 = 200% more). 2% is the truthful difference, but 200% sounds really impressive.
This is how they lie through statistics. Lipitor (originally created by Pfizer), has been the #1 selling drug over the past 25 years. It has been sold to doctors as a miraculous cholesterol-lowering drug due to its "36% effectiveness." But that number is a lie, based on manipulation of statistics, using a ratio of a ratio. The real number, using test group vs. control group is around 1%. Not so impressive, huh? Yeah, that's why they lie. In reality, the drug is not effective at all, and causes all sorts of health problems, including alzheimers.
With that in mind, the MSN article says about the Covid vaxx ...
What the 95% actually means is that vaccinated people had a 95% lower risk of getting COVID-19 compared with the control group participants, who weren't vaccinated
That number is not valid, which I will explain below. But let's go with it for the moment. This means that the "risk of GETTING Covid" is lower for those who took the vaxx -- according to Pfizer (Moderna also makes this claim).
So, what does "GETTING Covid" mean?
Both Pfizer and Moderna defined a case as having at least one symptom (however mild) and a positive COVID-19 test
So, "GETTING Covid" means a "case," which means (a) having at least one symptom (however mild, such as a headache), and (b) a positive Covid-19 test -- which would mean the bogus PCR test (the only one used at the time). Since the PCR test has a 90%+ false positive (really, it is 100% false postive AND 100% false negative, because the test is NOT A DIAGNOSTIC TOOL), this means that having a headache and taking a bogus test would result in a "case."
There were fewer of these fake "cases" in the group with the vaxx. Were the number of cycles used for the PCR tests the same in both groups? We don't know, because Pfizer has not said, as far as I know.
Since these companies are known to manipulate statistics, it would not be surprising if the number of cycles used in the PCR "test" was different in each group.
Even if the "test" was the same in both groups, what is a headache or other "mild symptoms?" Isn't this a bit subjective? Having a headache or other mild symptom means a "case," which means the drug maker, a known liar, can announce its experimental drug is "95% effecive."
What is missing from this picture?
THERE IS NO MENTION OF SPREADING OF THE CORONA!
There is no mention at all of whether those who "had cases" either (a) got it from someone else (if they "got it" at all), or if (b) they gave it to someone else.
The WHOLE POINT of a vaccine is to reduce the chance of getting it, and to help stop in spreading it.
THIS IS NOT MENTIONED AT ALL.
THE ONLY THING MENTIONED IS GETTING SYMPTOMS.
The ONLY thing they talk about is a "case" which is based on (a) a symptom, and (b) a bogus test -- both of which are built on a foundation of quicksand.
And none of the three vaccine trials looked at all for asymptomatic COVID-19
Whoa! Isn't the MAIN problem (according to some liars out there) this thing called the "asymptomatic" spread of the virus? But these vaxx makers DID NOT EVEN LOOK INTO THAT ... AT ALL.
"All these efficacy numbers are protection from having symptoms, not protection from being infected," Barker said. [Brianne Barker, a virologist at Drew University in New Jersey, referring to the Pfizer vaccine.]
BINGO! There you have it. Protection from getting SYMPTOMS ... and NOT protection from being infected (much less anything having to do with spreading it to others -- they didn't even LOOK INTO that at all)!
... because we don't yet know [about some other stuff] for sure, people "can't throw away their mask" once they're vaccinated, Barker said.
Gee, thanks, Brianne. Now, tell us about how effective the masks are , Miss "Virologist." (Hint: not at all. Not even a little.)
Zero vaccinated people in any of the trials were hospitalized or died of COVID-19 after the vaccines had fully taken effect.
No mention that zero non-vaccinated people ALSO had the same outcome, or how long a period after they are talking about, or that "died of Covid" is yet another lie.
Lies piled on top of lies, piled on top of lies is the standard operating procedure for these people.
Now ...
Let's "circle back" to that earlier claim of:
What the 95% actually means is that vaccinated people had a 95% lower risk of getting COVID-19 compared with the control group participants, who weren't vaccinated
I said that number was not valid (due to manipulation of statistics). Here's the evidence, directly from Pfizer:
There were several questions that were left unanswered in the MSN article. That's because the writer, Anna Nowogrodzki, is not a journalist, but merely a propagandist. She dug up a virologist from an unknown university to interview, but not anyone from Pfizer. She didn't even bother to read the actual press release, probably because she didn't really care about reporting as a journalist.
The good news is that the press release from Pfizer actually does answer some of those questions.
Pfizer claims:
Analysis of the data indicates a vaccine efficacy rate of 95% ... measured from 7 days after the second dose.
So, that tells us when the experimental drug was considered "effective." SEVEN DAYS. Does that sound like a sufficient time to arrive at this conclusion to you? Not to me.
The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19, as specified in the study protocol, of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the [vaxxed] group.
Sounds impressive. Until ...
- You consider that a "case" is nothing more than a mild symptom.
- You consider that a "case" is subjective, not necessarily an objective measure.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of whether or not a person contracted an illness FROM someone else.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of whether or not a person spread an illness TO someone else.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of "asymptomatic" cases.
- You consider that there is no disclosure as to the number of cycles used in the PCR test, or whether the number of cycles was the same in both groups.
- You consider that they STOPPED checking anything after 7 days past the second dose.
But let's look at those numbers again.
- 162 "cases" in the control group, and 8 "cases" in the test group.
- 43,000 participants.
Let's say there was a 50/50 split in the 2 groups: 21,500 in each group. That means:
- 162/21,500 = 0.7534% of the control group had both a (a) symptom and (b) positive PCR "test"
- 8/21,500 = 0.0372% of the test group had both a (a) symptom and (b) positive PCR "test"
The difference is 0.7534% - 0.0372% = 0.7162%.
So, the REAL "effectiveness" is 0.7162% and NOT 95%.
Another way to look at it is:
- Of the 21,500 people in the control group, 21,338 did NOT end up as a "case"
- Of the 21,500 people in the test group, 21,492 did NOT end up as a "case"
- (This assumes the numbers of the two groups were equal, but that information is not disclosed)
So ...
- 21,338/21,500 = 99.25% of the control group did NOT end up as a "case"
- 21,492/21,500 = 99.96% of the test group did NOT end up as a "case"
Which is a difference of ... 0.71% The same as above.
This is the ACTUAL difference in the two groups.
But what happens if you LIE via statistics? What happens if you TAKE A RATIO OF THE "CASES" AND OMIT ANY DATA ABOUT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE STUDY?
What happens, in other words, if you take a RATIO of ... another RATIO?
The math would then look like this:
Differences in the percentages of the cases/totals = 0.7534% / 0.0372% = 20.25.
And what does 20.25 represent? It represents a 20.25 times greater chance of a "case" in the control group over the test group, which if you convert that to percentages, you get ... ABRACADABRA ...
95.06% !!!
So, they took a DIFFERENCE in "cases" (which is totally bogus to begin with) of 0.7%, and MANIPULATED THE NUMBERS THROUGH STATISTICS (standard operating procedure by these liars) to create that fairy tail of "95% effective."
They simply used a ratio of a ratio, rather than comparing the two ratios to each other (like in the blue car example).
Never mind that a "case" is only a mild symptom and a bogus PCR test. They didn't even consider that. In fact, they used that to their advantage.
The vaxx (experimental drug) claims are ENTIRELY based on FRAUD. Good thing Dr. Fraudci is running the clown show!
Summary for TL;DR types:
- The 95% number is a LIE.
- The REAL difference in "effectiveness" of the vaxx is LESS THAN 1% (0.71% )
- The "effectiveness" claim of even that is another LIE.
- The "effectiveness" claim is based on a subjective standard of a "mild symptom" and a bogus test.
- There was NEVER ANY RESEARCH into whether or not the vaxx would help in preventing (a) GETTING or (b) GIVING of Covid. They didn't even LOOK into it.
- There was NEVER ANY RESEARCH into "ASYMPTOMATIC SPREAD" of any virus.
- They didn't even LOOK INTO whether or not this expriemental drug would do anything OTHER THAN reduce symptoms.
- THEIR OWN RESEARCH showed that their experimental drug produced a LESS THAN 1% EFFECTIVENESS in ... GETTING A SYMPTOM.
- The Pfizer "research" produced NO OTHER RESULTS.
I saw in another thread that people were asking for sources of info about the vaxx makers' claims that their experimental drugs are "95% effective against Covid" (which is why the sheep were willing to get it in the first place).
Here is an article from MSN.com (apologies for the fake news link, but it really exposes the BS, so it is useful):
To understand what you are reading in that article, you have to understand how the medical industry LIES via statistics.
As Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." The medical industry has taken that concept to new levels. They lie through manipulation of statistics. They often use percentages of percentages (or ratios of ratios, or ratios of results rather than totals).
Let's say you have 200 cars. You put them into 2 groups of 100 each. Group A has 1 blue car. Group B has 3 blue cars. So, Group A has 1% of its cars as blue, and Group B has 3% of its cars as blue. That means Group B has 2% more of all of its cars as blue cars than Group A does (3% - 1% = 2%). But the medical industry will manipulate that and say that Group B has 200% more blue cars than Group A (3 / 1 = 200% more). 2% is the truthful difference, but 200% sounds really impressive.
This is how they lie through statistics. Lipitor (originally created by Pfizer), has been the #1 selling drug over the past 25 years. It has been sold to doctors as a miraculous cholesterol-lowering drug due to its "36% effectiveness." But that number is a lie, based on manipulation of statistics, using a ratio of a ratio. The real number, using test group vs. control group is around 1%. Not so impressive, huh? Yeah, that's why they lie. In reality, the drug is not effective at all, and causes all sorts of health problems, including alzheimers.
With that in mind, the MSN article says about the Covid vaxx ...
What the 95% actually means is that vaccinated people had a 95% lower risk of getting COVID-19 compared with the control group participants, who weren't vaccinated
That number is not valid, which I will explain below. But let's go with it for the moment. This means that the "risk of GETTING Covid" is lower for those who took the vaxx -- according to Pfizer (Moderna also makes this claim).
So, what does "GETTING Covid" mean?
Both Pfizer and Moderna defined a case as having at least one symptom (however mild) and a positive COVID-19 test
So, "GETTING Covid" means a "case," which means (a) having at least one symptom (however mild, such as a headache), and (b) a positive Covid-19 test -- which would mean the bogus PCR test (the only one used at the time). Since the PCR test has a 90%+ false positive (really, it is 100% false postive AND 100% false negative, because the test is NOT A DIAGNOSTIC TOOL), this means that having a headache and taking a bogus test would result in a "case."
There were fewer of these fake "cases" in the group with the vaxx. Were the number of cycles used for the PCR tests the same in both groups? We don't know, because Pfizer has not said, as far as I know.
Since these companies are known to manipulate statistics, it would not be surprising if the number of cycles used in the PCR "test" was different in each group.
Even if the "test" was the same in both groups, what is a headache or other "mild symptoms?" Isn't this a bit subjective? Having a headache or other mild symptom means a "case," which means the drug maker, a known liar, can announce its experimental drug is "95% effecive."
What is missing from this picture?
THERE IS NO MENTION OF SPREADING OF THE CORONA!
There is no mention at all of whether those who "had cases" either (a) got it from someone else (if they "got it" at all), or if (b) they gave it to someone else.
The WHOLE POINT of a vaccine is to reduce the chance of getting it, and to help stop in spreading it.
THIS IS NOT MENTIONED AT ALL.
THE ONLY THING MENTIONED IS GETTING SYMPTOMS.
The ONLY thing they talk about is a "case" which is based on (a) a symptom, and (b) a bogus test -- both of which are built on a foundation of quicksand.
And none of the three vaccine trials looked at all for asymptomatic COVID-19
Whoa! Isn't the MAIN problem (according to some liars out there) this thing called the "asymptomatic" spread of the virus? But these vaxx makers DID NOT EVEN LOOK INTO THAT ... AT ALL.
"All these efficacy numbers are protection from having symptoms, not protection from being infected," Barker said. [Brianne Barker, a virologist at Drew University in New Jersey, referring to the Pfizer vaccine.]
BINGO! There you have it. Protection from getting SYMPTOMS ... and NOT protection from being infected (much less anything having to do with spreading it to others -- they didn't even LOOK INTO that at all)!
... because we don't yet know [about some other stuff] for sure, people "can't throw away their mask" once they're vaccinated, Barker said.
Gee, thanks, Brianne. Now, tell us about how effective the masks are , Miss "Virologist." (Hint: not at all. Not even a little.)
Zero vaccinated people in any of the trials were hospitalized or died of COVID-19 after the vaccines had fully taken effect.
No mention that zero non-vaccinated people ALSO had the same outcome, or how long a period after they are talking about, or that "died of Covid" is yet another lie.
Lies piled on top of lies, piled on top of lies is the standard operating procedure for these people.
Now ...
Let's "circle back" to that earlier claim of:
What the 95% actually means is that vaccinated people had a 95% lower risk of getting COVID-19 compared with the control group participants, who weren't vaccinated
I said that number was not valid (due to manipulation of statistics). Here's the evidence, directly from Pfizer:
There were several questions that were left unanswered in the MSN article. That's because the writer, Anna Nowogrodzki, is not a journalist, but merely a propagandist. She dug up a virologist from an unknown university to interview, but not anyone from Pfizer. She didn't even bother to read the actual press release, probably because she didn't really care about reporting as a journalist.
The good news is that the press release from Pfizer actually does answer some of those questions.
Pfizer claims:
Analysis of the data indicates a vaccine efficacy rate of 95% ... measured from 7 days after the second dose.
So, that tells us when the experimental drug was considered "effective." SEVEN DAYS. Does that sound like a sufficient time to arrive at this conclusion to you? Not to me.
The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19, as specified in the study protocol, of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the [vaxxed] group.
Sounds impressive. Until ...
- You consider that a "case" is nothing more than a mild symptom.
- You consider that a "case" is subjective, not necessarily an objective measure.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of whether or not a person contracted an illness FROM someone else.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of whether or not a person spread an illness TO someone else.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of "asymptomatic" cases.
- You consider that there is no disclosure as to the number of cycles used in the PCR test, or whether the number of cycles was the same in both groups.
- You consider that they STOPPED checking anything after 7 days past the second dose.
But let's look at those numbers again.
- 162 "cases" in the control group, and 8 "cases" in the test group.
- 43,000 participants.
Let's say there was a 50/50 split in the 2 groups: 21,500 in each group. That means:
- 162/21,500 = 0.7534% of the control group had both a (a) symptom and (b) positive PCR "test"
- 8/21,500 = 0.0372% of the test group had both a (a) symptom and (b) positive PCR "test"
The difference is 0.7534% - 0.0372% = 0.7162%.
So, the REAL "effectiveness" is 0.7162% and NOT 95%.
Another way to look at it is:
- Of the 21,500 people in the control group, 21,338 did NOT end up as a "case"
- Of the 21,500 people in the test group, 21,492 did NOT end up as a "case"
- (This assumes the numbers of the two groups were equal, but that information is not disclosed)
So ...
- 21,338/21,500 = 99.25% of the control group did NOT end up as a "case"
- 21,492/21,500 = 99.96% of the test group did NOT end up as a "case"
Which is a difference of ... 0.71% The same as above.
This is the ACTUAL difference in the two groups.
But what happens if you LIE via statistics? What happens if you TAKE A RATIO OF THE "CASES" AND OMIT ANY DATA ABOUT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE STUDY?
What happens, in other words, if you take a RATIO of ... another RATIO?
The math would then look like this:
Differences in the percentages of the cases/totals = 0.7534% / 0.0372% = 20.25.
And what does 20.25 represent? It represents a 20.25 times greater chance of a "case" in the control group over the test group, which if you convert that to percentages, you get ... ABRACADABRA ...
95.06% !!!
So, they took a DIFFERENCE in "cases" (which is totally bogus to begin with) of 0.7%, and MANIPULATED THE NUMBERS THROUGH STATISTICS (standard operating procedure by these liars) to create that fairy tail of "95% effective."
They simply used a ratio of a ratio, rather than comparing the two ratios to each other (like in the blue car example).
Never mind that a "case" is only a mild symptom and a bogus PCR test. They didn't even consider that. In fact, they used that to their advantage.
The vaxx (experimental drug) claims are ENTIRELY based on FRAUD. Good thing Dr. Fraudci is running the clown show!
Summary for TL;DR types:
- The 95% number is a LIE.
- The REAL difference in "effectiveness" of the vaxx is LESS THAN 1% (0.71% )
- The "effectiveness" claim of even that is another LIE.
- The "effectiveness" claim is based on a subjective standard of a "mild symptom" and a bogus test.
- There was NEVER ANY RESEARCH into whether or not the vaxx would help in PREVENTING GETTING OR GIVING of any virus
- There was NEVER ANY RESEARCH into "ASYMPTOMATIC SPREAD" of any virus.
- They didn't even LOOK INTO whether or not this expriemental drug would do anything OTHER THAN reduce symptoms.
- THEIR OWN RESEARCH showed that their experimental drug produced a LESS THAN 1% EFFECTIVENESS in ... GETTING A SYMPTOM.
- The Pfizer "research" produced NO OTHER RESULTS.
I saw in another thread that people were asking for sources of info about the vaxx makers' claims that their experimental drugs are "95% effective against Covid" (which is why the sheep were willing to get it in the first place).
Here is an article from MSN.com (apologies for the fake news link, but it really exposes the BS, so it is useful):
To understand what you are reading in that article, you have to understand how the medical industry LIES via statistics.
As Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." The medical industry has taken that concept to new levels. They lie through manipulation of statistics. They often use percentages of percentages (or ratios of ratios, or ratios of results rather than totals).
Let's say you have 200 cars. You put them into 2 groups of 100 each. Group A has 1 blue car. Group B has 3 blue cars. So, Group A has 1% of its cars as blue, and Group B has 3% of its cars as blue. That means Group B has 2% more of all of its cars as blue cars than Group A does (3% - 1% = 2%). But the medical industry will manipulate that and say that Group B has 200% more blue cars than Group A (3 / 1 = 200% more). 2% is the truthful difference, but 200% sounds really impressive.
This is how they lie through statistics. Lipitor (originally created by Pfizer), has been the #1 selling drug over the past 25 years. It has been sold to doctors as a miraculous cholesterol-lowering drug due to its "36% effectiveness." But that number is a lie, based on manipulation of statistics, using a ratio of a ratio. The real number, using test group vs. control group is around 1%. Not so impressive, huh? Yeah, that's why they lie. In reality, the drug is not effective at all, and causes all sorts of health problems, including alzheimers.
With that in mind, the MSN article says about the Covid vaxx ...
What the 95% actually means is that vaccinated people had a 95% lower risk of getting COVID-19 compared with the control group participants, who weren't vaccinated
That number is not valid, which I will explain below. But let's go with it for the moment. This means that the "risk of GETTING Covid" is lower for those who took the vaxx -- according to Pfizer (Moderna also makes this claim).
So, what does "GETTING Covid" mean?
Both Pfizer and Moderna defined a case as having at least one symptom (however mild) and a positive COVID-19 test
So, "GETTING Covid" means a "case," which means (a) having at least one symptom (however mild, such as a headache), and (b) a positive Covid-19 test -- which would mean the bogus PCR test (the only one used at the time). Since the PCR test has a 90%+ false positive (really, it is 100% false postive AND 100% false negative, because the test is NOT A DIAGNOSTIC TOOL), this means that having a headache and taking a bogus test would result in a "case."
There were fewer of these fake "cases" in the group with the vaxx. Were the number of cycles used for the PCR tests the same in both groups? We don't know, because Pfizer has not said, as far as I know.
Since these companies are known to manipulate statistics, it would not be surprising if the number of cycles used in the PCR "test" was different in each group.
Even if the "test" was the same in both groups, what is a headache or other "mild symptoms?" Isn't this a bit subjective? Having a headache or other mild symptom means a "case," which means the drug maker, a known liar, can announce its experimental drug is "95% effecive."
What is missing from this picture?
THERE IS NO MENTION OF SPREADING OF THE CORONA!
There is no mention at all of whether those who "had cases" either (a) got it from someone else (if they "got it" at all), or if (b) they gave it to someone else.
The WHOLE POINT of a vaccine is to reduce the chance of getting it, and to help stop in spreading it.
THIS IS NOT MENTIONED AT ALL.
THE ONLY THING MENTIONED IS GETTING SYMPTOMS.
The ONLY thing they talk about is a "case" which is based on (a) a symptom, and (b) a bogus test -- both of which are built on a foundation of quicksand.
And none of the three vaccine trials looked at all for asymptomatic COVID-19
Whoa! Isn't the MAIN problem (according to some liars out there) this thing called the "asymptomatic" spread of the virus? But these vaxx makers DID NOT EVEN LOOK INTO THAT ... AT ALL.
"All these efficacy numbers are protection from having symptoms, not protection from being infected," Barker said. [Brianne Barker, a virologist at Drew University in New Jersey, referring to the Pfizer vaccine.]
BINGO! There you have it. Protection from getting SYMPTOMS ... and NOT protection from being infected (much less anything having to do with spreading it to others -- they didn't even LOOK INTO that at all)!
... because we don't yet know [about some other stuff] for sure, people "can't throw away their mask" once they're vaccinated, Barker said.
Gee, thanks, Brianne. Now, tell us about how effective the masks are , Miss "Virologist." (Hint: not at all. Not even a little.)
Zero vaccinated people in any of the trials were hospitalized or died of COVID-19 after the vaccines had fully taken effect.
No mention that zero non-vaccinated people ALSO had the same outcome, or how long a period after they are talking about, or that "died of Covid" is yet another lie.
Lies piled on top of lies, piled on top of lies is the standard operating procedure for these people.
Now ...
Let's "circle back" to that earlier claim of:
What the 95% actually means is that vaccinated people had a 95% lower risk of getting COVID-19 compared with the control group participants, who weren't vaccinated
I said that number was not valid (due to manipulation of statistics). Here's the evidence, directly from Pfizer:
There were several questions that were left unanswered in the MSN article. That's because the writer, Anna Nowogrodzki, is not a journalist, but merely a propagandist. She dug up a virologist from an unknown university to interview, but not anyone from Pfizer. She didn't even bother to read the actual press release, probably because she didn't really care about reporting as a journalist.
The good news is that the press release from Pfizer actually does answer some of those questions.
Pfizer claims:
Analysis of the data indicates a vaccine efficacy rate of 95% ... measured from 7 days after the second dose.
So, that tells us when the experimental drug was considered "effective." SEVEN DAYS. Does that sound like a sufficient time to arrive at this conclusion to you? Not to me.
The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19, as specified in the study protocol, of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the [vaxxed] group.
Sounds impressive. Until ...
- You consider that a "case" is nothing more than a mild symptom.
- You consider that a "case" is subjective, not necessarily an objective measure.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of whether or not a person contracted an illness FROM someone else.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of whether or not a person spread an illness TO someone else.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of "asymptomatic" cases.
- You consider that there is no disclosure as to the number of cycles used in the PCR test, or whether the number of cycles was the same in both groups.
- You consider that they STOPPED checking anything after 7 days past the second dose.
But let's look at those numbers again.
- 162 "cases" in the control group, and 8 "cases" in the test group.
- 43,000 participants.
Let's say there was a 50/50 split in the 2 groups: 21,500 in each group. That means:
- 162/21,500 = 0.7534% of the control group had both a (a) symptom and (b) positive PCR "test"
- 8/21,500 = 0.0372% of the test group had both a (a) symptom and (b) positive PCR "test"
The difference is 0.7534% - 0.0372% = 0.7162%.
So, the REAL "effectiveness" is 0.7162% and NOT 95%.
Another way to look at it is:
- Of the 21,500 people in the control group, 21,338 did NOT end up as a "case"
- Of the 21,500 people in the test group, 21,492 did NOT end up as a "case"
- (This assumes the numbers of the two groups were equal, but that information is not disclosed)
So ...
- 21,338/21,500 = 99.25% of the control group did NOT end up as a "case"
- 21,492/21,500 = 99.96% of the test group did NOT end up as a "case"
Which is a difference of ... 0.71% The same as above.
This is the ACTUAL difference in the two groups.
But what happens if you LIE via statistics? What happens if you TAKE A RATIO OF THE "CASES" AND OMIT ANY DATA ABOUT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE STUDY?
What happens, in other words, if you take a RATIO of ... another RATIO?
The math would then look like this:
Differences in the percentages of the cases/totals = 0.7534% / 0.0372% = 20.25.
And what does 20.25 represent? It represents a 20.25 times greater chance of a "case" in the control group over the test group, which if you convert that to percentages, you get ... ABRACADABRA ...
95.06% !!!
So, they took a DIFFERENCE in "cases" (which is totally bogus to begin with) of 0.7%, and MANIPULATED THE NUMBERS THROUGH STATISTICS (standard operating procedure by these liars) to create that fairy tail of "95% effective."
They simply used a ratio of a ratio, rather than comparing the two ratios to each other (like in the blue car example).
Never mind that a "case" is only a mild symptom and a bogus PCR test. They didn't even consider that. In fact, they used that to their advantage.
The vaxx (experimental drug) claims are ENTIRELY based on FRAUD. Good thing Dr. Fraudci is running the clown show!
[NOTE: I couldn't write this any shorter. It must be explained with some detail. Read it, and you will understand the lie being told.]
I saw in another thread that people were asking for sources of info about the vaxx makers' claims that their experimental drugs are "95% effective against Covid" (which is why the sheep were willing to get it in the first place).
Here is an article from MSN.com (apologies for the fake news link, but it really exposes the BS, so it is useful):
To understand what you are reading in that article, you have to understand how the medical industry LIES via statistics.
As Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." The medical industry has taken that concept to new levels. They lie through manipulation of statistics. They often use percentages of percentages (or ratios of ratios, or ratios of results rather than totals).
Let's say you have 200 cars. You put them into 2 groups of 100 each. Group A has 1 blue car. Group B has 3 blue cars. So, Group A has 1% of its cars as blue, and Group B has 3% of its cars as blue. That means Group B has 2% more of all of its cars as blue cars than Group A does (3% - 1% = 2%). But the medical industry will manipulate that and say that Group B has 200% more blue cars than Group A (3 / 1 = 200% more). 2% is the truthful difference, but 200% sounds really impressive.
This is how they lie through statistics. Lipitor (originally created by Pfizer), has been the #1 selling drug over the past 25 years. It has been sold to doctors as a miraculous cholesterol-lowering drug due to its "36% effectiveness." But that number is a lie, based on manipulation of statistics, using a ratio of a ratio. The real number, using test group vs. control group is around 1%. Not so impressive, huh? Yeah, that's why they lie. In reality, the drug is not effective at all, and causes all sorts of health problems, including alzheimers.
With that in mind, the MSN article says about the Covid vaxx ...
What the 95% actually means is that vaccinated people had a 95% lower risk of getting COVID-19 compared with the control group participants, who weren't vaccinated
That number is not valid, which I will explain below. But let's go with it for the moment. This means that the "risk of GETTING Covid" is lower for those who took the vaxx -- according to Pfizer (Moderna also makes this claim).
So, what does "GETTING Covid" mean?
Both Pfizer and Moderna defined a case as having at least one symptom (however mild) and a positive COVID-19 test
So, "GETTING Covid" means a "case," which means (a) having at least one symptom (however mild, such as a headache), and (b) a positive Covid-19 test -- which would mean the bogus PCR test (the only one used at the time). Since the PCR test has a 90%+ false positive (really, it is 100% false postive AND 100% false negative, because the test is NOT A DIAGNOSTIC TOOL), this means that having a headache and taking a bogus test would result in a "case."
There were fewer of these fake "cases" in the group with the vaxx. Were the number of cycles used for the PCR tests the same in both groups? We don't know, because Pfizer has not said, as far as I know.
Since these companies are known to manipulate statistics, it would not be surprising if the number of cycles used in the PCR "test" was different in each group.
Even if the "test" was the same in both groups, what is a headache or other "mild symptoms?" Isn't this a bit subjective? Having a headache or other mild symptom means a "case," which means the drug maker, a known liar, can announce its experimental drug is "95% effecive."
What is missing from this picture?
THERE IS NO MENTION OF SPREADING OF THE CORONA!
There is no mention at all of whether those who "had cases" either (a) got it from someone else (if they "got it" at all), or if (b) they gave it to someone else.
The WHOLE POINT of a vaccine is to reduce the chance of getting it, and to help stop in spreading it.
THIS IS NOT MENTIONED AT ALL.
THE ONLY THING MENTIONED IS GETTING SYMPTOMS.
The ONLY thing they talk about is a "case" which is based on (a) a symptom, and (b) a bogus test -- both of which are built on a foundation of quicksand.
And none of the three vaccine trials looked at all for asymptomatic COVID-19
Whoa! Isn't the MAIN problem (according to some liars out there) this thing called the "asymptomatic" spread of the virus? But these vaxx makers DID NOT EVEN LOOK INTO THAT ... AT ALL.
"All these efficacy numbers are protection from having symptoms, not protection from being infected," Barker said. [Brianne Barker, a virologist at Drew University in New Jersey, referring to the Pfizer vaccine.]
BINGO! There you have it. Protection from getting SYMPTOMS ... and NOT protection from being infected (much less anything having to do with spreading it to others -- they didn't even LOOK INTO that at all)!
... because we don't yet know [about some other stuff] for sure, people "can't throw away their mask" once they're vaccinated, Barker said.
Gee, thanks, Brianne. Now, tell us about how effective the masks are , Miss "Virologist." (Hint: not at all. Not even a little.)
Zero vaccinated people in any of the trials were hospitalized or died of COVID-19 after the vaccines had fully taken effect.
No mention that zero non-vaccinated people ALSO had the same outcome, or how long a period after they are talking about, or that "died of Covid" is yet another lie.
Lies piled on top of lies, piled on top of lies is the standard operating procedure for these people.
Now ...
Let's "circle back" to that earlier claim of:
What the 95% actually means is that vaccinated people had a 95% lower risk of getting COVID-19 compared with the control group participants, who weren't vaccinated
I said that number was not valid (due to manipulation of statistics). Here's the evidence, directly from Pfizer:
There were several questions that were left unanswered in the MSN article. That's because the writer, Anna Nowogrodzki, is not a journalist, but merely a propagandist. She dug up a virologist from an unknown university to interview, but not anyone from Pfizer. She didn't even bother to read the actual press release, probably because she didn't really care about reporting as a journalist.
The good news is that the press release from Pfizer actually does answer some of those questions.
Pfizer claims:
Analysis of the data indicates a vaccine efficacy rate of 95% ... measured from 7 days after the second dose.
So, that tells us when the experimental drug was considered "effective." SEVEN DAYS. Does that sound like a sufficient time to arrive at this conclusion to you? Not to me.
The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19, as specified in the study protocol, of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the [vaxxed] group.
Sounds impressive. Until ...
- You consider that a "case" is nothing more than a mild symptom.
- You consider that a "case" is subjective, not necessarily an objective measure.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of whether or not a person contracted an illness FROM someone else.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of whether or not a person spread an illness TO someone else.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of "asymptomatic" cases.
- You consider that there is no disclosure as to the number of cycles used in the PCR test, or whether the number of cycles was the same in both groups.
- You consider that they STOPPED checking anything after 7 days past the second dose.
But let's look at those numbers again.
- 162 "cases" in the control group, and 8 "cases" in the test group.
- 43,000 participants.
Let's say there was a 50/50 split in the 2 groups: 21,500 in each group. That means:
- 162/21,500 = 0.7534% of the control group had both a (a) symptom and (b) positive PCR "test"
- 8/21,500 = 0.0372% of the test group had both a (a) symptom and (b) positive PCR "test"
The difference is 0.7534% - 0.0372% = 0.7162%.
So, the REAL "effectiveness" is 0.7162% and NOT 95%.
Another way to look at it is:
- Of the 21,500 people in the control group, 21,338 did NOT end up as a "case"
- Of the 21,500 people in the test group, 21,492 did NOT end up as a "case"
- (This assumes the numbers of the two groups were equal, but that information is not disclosed)
So ...
- 21,338/21,500 = 99.25% of the control group did NOT end up as a "case"
- 21,492/21,500 = 99.96% of the test group did NOT end up as a "case"
Which is a difference of ... 0.71% The same as above.
This is the ACTUAL difference in the two groups.
But what happens if you LIE via statistics? What happens if you TAKE A RATIO OF THE "CASES" AND OMIT ANY DATA ABOUT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE STUDY?
What happens, in other words, if you take a RATIO of ... another RATIO?
The math would then look like this:
Differences in the percentages of the cases/totals = 0.7534% / 0.0372% = 20.25.
And what does 20.25 represent? It represents a 20.25 times greater chance of a "case" in the control group over the test group, which if you convert that to percentages, you get ... ABRACADABRA ...
95.06% !!!
So, they took a DIFFERENCE in "cases" (which is totally bogus to begin with) of 0.7%, and MANIPULATED THE NUMBERS THROUGH STATISTICS (standard operating procedure by these liars) to create that fairy tail of "95% effective."
They simply used a ratio of a ratio, rather than comparing the two ratios to each other (like in the blue car example).
Never mind that a "case" is only a mild symptom and a bogus PCR test. They didn't even consider that. In fact, they used that to their advantage.
Summary:
- The 95% number is a LIE.
- The REAL difference in "effectiveness" of the vaxx is LESS THAN 1% (0.71% )
- The "effectiveness" claim of even that is another LIE.
- The "effectiveness" claim is based on a subjective standard of a "mild symptom" and a bogus test.
- There was NEVER ANY RESEARCH into whether or not the vaxx would help in PREVENTING GETTING OR GIVING of any virus
- There was NEVER ANY RESEARCH into "ASYMPTOMATIC SPREAD" of any virus.
- They didn't even LOOK INTO whether or not this expriemental drug would do anything OTHER THAN reduce symptoms.
- THEIR OWN RESEARCH showed that their experimental drug produced a LESS THAN 1% EFFECTIVENESS in ... GETTING A SYMPTOM.
- The Pfizer "research" produced NO OTHER RESULTS.
The vaxx (experimental drug) claims are ENTIRELY based on FRAUD. Good thing Dr. Fraudci is running the clown show!
[NOTE: I couldn't write this any shorter. It must be explained with some detail. Read it, and you will understand the lie being told.]
I saw in another thread that people were asking for sources of info about the vaxx makers' claims that their experimental drugs are "95% effective against Covid" (which is why the sheep were willing to get it in the first place).
Here is an article from MSN.com (apologies for the fake news link, but it really exposes the BS, so it is useful):
To understand what you are reading in that article, you have to understand how the medical industry LIES via statistics.
As Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." The medical industry has taken that concept to new levels. They lie through manipulation of statistics. They often use percentages of percentages (or ratios of ratios, or ratios of results rather than totals).
Let's say you have 200 cars. You put them into 2 groups of 100 each. Group A has 1 blue car. Group B has 3 blue cars. So, Group A has 1% of its cars as blue, and Group B has 3% of its cars as blue. That means Group B has 2% more of all of its cars as blue cars than Group A does (3% - 1% = 2%). But the medical industry will manipulate that and say that Group B has 200% more blue cars than Group A (3 / 1 = 200% more). 2% is the truthful difference, but 200% sounds really impressive.
This is how they lie through statistics. Lipitor (originally created by Pfizer), has been the #1 selling drug over the past 25 years. It has been sold to doctors as a miraculous cholesterol-lowering drug due to its "36% effectiveness." But that number is a lie, based on manipulation of statistics, using a ratio of a ratio. The real number, using test group vs. control group is around 1%. Not so impressive, huh? Yeah, that's why they lie. In reality, the drug is not effective at all, and causes all sorts of health problems, including alzheimers.
With that in mind, the MSN article says about the Covid vaxx ...
What the 95% actually means is that vaccinated people had a 95% lower risk of getting COVID-19 compared with the control group participants, who weren't vaccinated
That number is not valid, which I will explain below. But let's go with it for the moment. This means that the "risk of GETTING Covid" is lower for those who took the vaxx -- according to Pfizer (Moderna also makes this claim).
So, what does "GETTING Covid" mean?
Both Pfizer and Moderna defined a case as having at least one symptom (however mild) and a positive COVID-19 test
So, "GETTING Covid" means a "case," which means (a) having at least one symptom (however mild, such as a headache), and (b) a positive Covid-19 test -- which would mean the bogus PCR test (the only one used at the time). Since the PCR test has a 90%+ false positive (really, it is 100% false postive AND 100% false negative, because the test is NOT A DIAGNOSTIC TOOL), this means that having a headache and taking a bogus test would result in a "case."
There were fewer of these fake "cases" in the group with the vaxx. Were the number of cycles used for the PCR tests the same in both groups? We don't know, because Pfizer has not said, as far as I know.
Since these companies are known to manipulate statistics, it would not be surprising if the number of cycles used in the PCR "test" was different in each group.
Even if the "test" was the same in both groups, what is a headache or other "mild symptoms?" Isn't this a bit subjective? Having a headache or other mild symptom means a "case," which means the drug maker, a known liar, can announce its experimental drug is "95% effecive."
What is missing from this picture?
THERE IS NO MENTION OF SPREADING OF THE CORONA!
There is no mention at all of whether those who "had cases" either (a) got it from someone else (if they "got it" at all), or if (b) they gave it to someone else.
The WHOLE POINT of a vaccine is to reduce the chance of getting it, and to help stop in spreading it.
THIS IS NOT MENTIONED AT ALL.
THE ONLY THING MENTIONED IS GETTING SYMPTOMS.
The ONLY thing they talk about is a "case" which is based on (a) a symptom, and (b) a bogus test -- both of which are built on a foundation of quicksand.
And none of the three vaccine trials looked at all for asymptomatic COVID-19
Whoa! Isn't the MAIN problem (according to some liars out there) this thing called the "asymptomatic" spread of the virus? But these vaxx makers DID NOT EVEN LOOK INTO THAT ... AT ALL.
"All these efficacy numbers are protection from having symptoms, not protection from being infected," Barker said. [Brianne Barker, a virologist at Drew University in New Jersey, referring to the Pfizer vaccine.]
BINGO! There you have it. Protection from getting SYMPTOMS ... and NOT protection from being infected (much less anything having to do with spreading it to others -- they didn't even LOOK INTO that at all)!
... because we don't yet know [about some other stuff] for sure, people "can't throw away their mask" once they're vaccinated, Barker said.
Gee, thanks, Brianne. Now, tell us about how effective the masks are , Miss "Virologist." (Hint: not at all. Not even a little.)
Zero vaccinated people in any of the trials were hospitalized or died of COVID-19 after the vaccines had fully taken effect.
No mention that zero non-vaccinated people ALSO had the same outcome, or how long a period after they are talking about, or that "died of Covid" is yet another lie.
Lies piled on top of lies, piled on top of lies is the standard operating procedure for these people.
Now ...
Let's "circle back" to that earlier claim of:
What the 95% actually means is that vaccinated people had a 95% lower risk of getting COVID-19 compared with the control group participants, who weren't vaccinated
I said that number was not valid (due to manipulation of statistics). Here's the evidence, directly from Pfizer:
There were several questions that were left unanswered in the MSN article. That's because the writer, Anna Nowogrodzki, is not a journalist, but merely a propagandist. She dug up a virologist from an unknown university to interview, but not anyone from Pfizer. She didn't even bother to read the actual press release, probably because she didn't really care about reporting as a journalist.
The good news is that the press release from Pfizer actually does answer some of those questions.
Pfizer claims:
Analysis of the data indicates a vaccine efficacy rate of 95% ... measured from 7 days after the second dose.
So, that tells us when the experimental drug was considered "effective." SEVEN DAYS. Does that sound like a sufficient time to arrive at this conclusion to you? Not to me.
The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19, as specified in the study protocol, of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the [vaxxed] group.
Sounds impressive. Until ...
- You consider that a "case" is nothing more than a mild symptom.
- You consider that a "case" is subjective, not necessarily an objective measure.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of whether or not a person contracted an illness FROM someone else.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of whether or not a person spread an illness TO someone else.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of "asymptomatic" cases.
- You consider that there is no disclosure as to the number of cycles used in the PCR test, or whether the number of cycles was the same in both groups.
- You consider that they STOPPED checking anything after 7 days past the second dose.
But let's look at those numbers again.
- 162 "cases" in the control group, and 8 "cases" in the test group.
- 43,000 participants.
Let's say there was a 50/50 split in the 2 groups: 21,500 in each group. That means:
- 162/21,500 = 0.7534% of the control group had both a (a) symptom and (b) positive PCR "test"
- 8/21,500 = 0.0372% of the test group had both a (a) symptom and (b) positive PCR "test"
The difference is 0.7534% - 0.0372% = 0.7162%.
So, the REAL "effectiveness" is 0.7162% and NOT 95%.
Another way to look at it is:
- Of the 21,500 people in the control group, 21,338 did NOT end up as a "case"
- Of the 21,500 people in the test group, 21,492 did NOT end up as a "case"
- (This assumes the numbers of the two groups were equal, but that information is not disclosed)
So ...
- 21,338/21,500 = 99.25% of the control group did NOT end up as a "case"
- 21,492/21,500 = 99.96% of the test group did NOT end up as a "case"
Which is a difference of ... 0.71% The same as above.
This is the ACTUAL difference in the two groups.
But what happens if you LIE via statistics? What happens if you TAKE A RATIO OF THE "CASES" AND OMIT ANY DATA ABOUT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE STUDY?
What happens, in other words, if you take a RATIO of a ... RATIO?
The math would then look like this:
Differences in the percentages of the cases/totals = 0.7534% / 0.0372% = 20.25.
And what does 20.25 represent? It represents a 20.25 times greater chance of a "case" in the control group over the test group, which if you convert that to percentages, you get ... ABRACADABRA ...
95.06% !!!
So, they took a DIFFERENCE in "cases" (which is totally bogus to begin with) of 0.7%, and MANIPULATED THE NUMBERS THROUGH STATISTICS (standard operating procedure by these liars) to create that fairy tail of "95% effective."
They simply used a ratio of a ratio, rather than comparing the two ratios to each other (like in the blue car example).
Never mind that a "case" is only a mild symptom and a bogus PCR test. They didn't even consider that. In fact, they used that to their advantage.
The vaxx (experimental drug) claims are ENTIRELY based on FRAUD. Good thing Dr. Fraudci is running the clown show!
[NOTE: I couldn't write this any shorter. It must be explained with some detail. Read it, and you will understand the lie being told.]
I saw in another thread that people were asking for sources of info about the vaxx makers' claims that their experimental drugs are "95% effective against Covid" (which is why the sheep were willing to get it in the first place).
Here is an article from MSN.com (apologies for the fake news link, but it really exposes the BS, so it is useful):
To understand what you are reading in that article, you have to understand how the medical industry LIES via statistics.
As Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." The medical industry has taken that concept to new levels. They lie through manipulation of statistics. They often use percentages of percentages (or ratios of ratios, or ratios of results rather than totals).
Let's say you have 200 cars. You put them into 2 groups of 100 each. Group A has 1 blue car. Group B has 3 blue cars. So, Group A has 1% of its cars as blue, and Group B has 3% of its cars as blue. That means Group B has 2% more of all of its cars as blue cars than Group A does (3% - 1% = 2%). But the medical industry will manipulate that and say that Group B has 200% more blue cars than Group A (3 / 1 = 200% more). 2% is the truthful difference, but 200% sounds really impressive.
This is how they lie through statistics. Lipitor (originally created by Pfizer), has been the #1 selling drug over the past 25 years. It has been sold to doctors as a miraculous cholesterol-lowering drug due to its "36% effectiveness." But that number is a lie, based on manipulation of statistics, using a ratio of a ratio. The real number, using test group vs. control group is around 1%. Not so impressive, huh? Yeah, that's why they lie. In reality, the drug is not effective at all, and causes all sorts of health problems, including alzheimers.
With that in mind, the MSN article says about the Covid vaxx ...
What the 95% actually means is that vaccinated people had a 95% lower risk of getting COVID-19 compared with the control group participants, who weren't vaccinated
That number is not valid, which I will explain below. But let's go with it for the moment. This means that the "risk of GETTING Covid" is lower for those who took the vaxx -- according to Pfizer (Moderna also makes this claim).
So, what does "GETTING Covid" mean?
Both Pfizer and Moderna defined a case as having at least one symptom (however mild) and a positive COVID-19 test
So, "GETTING Covid" means a "case," which means (a) having at least one symptom (however mild, such as a headache), and (b) a positive Covid-19 test -- which would mean the bogus PCR test (the only one used at the time). Since the PCR test has a 90%+ false positive (really, it is 100% false postive AND 100% false negative, because the test is NOT A DIAGNOSTIC TOOL), this means that having a headache and taking a bogus test would result in a "case."
There were fewer of these fake "cases" in the group with the vaxx. Were the number of cycles used for the PCR tests the same in both groups? We don't know, because Pfizer has not said, as far as I know.
Since these companies are known to manipulate statistics, it would not be surprising if the number of cycles used in the PCR "test" was different in each group.
Even if the "test" was the same in both groups, what is a headache or other "mild symptoms?" Isn't this a bit subjective? Having a headache or other mild symptom means a "case," which means the drug maker, a known liar, can announce its experimental drug is "95% effecive."
What is missing from this picture?
THERE IS NO MENTION OF SPREADING OF THE CORONA!
There is no mention at all of whether those who "had cases" either (a) got it from someone else (if they "got it" at all), or if (b) they gave it to someone else.
The WHOLE POINT of a vaccine is to reduce the chance of getting it, and to help stop in spreading it.
THIS IS NOT MENTIONED AT ALL.
THE ONLY THING MENTIONED IS GETTING SYMPTOMS.
The ONLY thing they talk about is a "case" which is based on (a) a symptom, and (b) a bogus test -- both of which are built on a foundation of quicksand.
And none of the three vaccine trials looked at all for asymptomatic COVID-19
Whoa! Isn't the MAIN problem (according to some liars out there) this thing called the "asymptomatic" spread of the virus? But these vaxx makers DID NOT EVEN LOOK INTO THAT ... AT ALL.
"All these efficacy numbers are protection from having symptoms, not protection from being infected," Barker said. [Brianne Barker, a virologist at Drew University in New Jersey, referring to the Pfizer vaccine.]
BINGO! There you have it. Protection from getting SYMPTOMS ... and NOT protection from being infected (much less anything having to do with spreading it to others -- they didn't even LOOK INTO that at all)!
... because we don't yet know [about some other stuff] for sure, people "can't throw away their mask" once they're vaccinated, Barker said.
Gee, thanks, Brianne. Now, tell us about how effective the masks are , Miss "Virologist." (Hint: not at all. Not even a little.)
Zero vaccinated people in any of the trials were hospitalized or died of COVID-19 after the vaccines had fully taken effect.
No mention that zero non-vaccinated people ALSO had the same outcome, or how long a period after they are talking about, or that "died of Covid" is yet another lie.
Lies piled on top of lies, piled on top of lies is the standard operating procedure for these people.
Now ...
Let's "circle back" to that earlier claim of:
What the 95% actually means is that vaccinated people had a 95% lower risk of getting COVID-19 compared with the control group participants, who weren't vaccinated
I said that number was not valid (due to manipulation of statistics). Here's the evidence, directly from Pfizer:
There were several questions that were left unanswered in the MSN article. That's because the writer, Anna Nowogrodzki, is not a journalist, but merely a propagandist. She dug up a virologist from an unknown university to interview, but not anyone from Pfizer. She didn't even bother to read the actual press release, probably because she didn't really car about reporting as a journalist.
The good news is that the press release from Pfizer actually does answer some of those questions.
Pfizer claims:
Analysis of the data indicates a vaccine efficacy rate of 95% ... measured from 7 days after the second dose.
So, that tells us when the experimental drug was considered "effective." SEVEN DAYS. Does that sound like a sufficient time to arrive at this conclusion to you? Not to me.
The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19, as specified in the study protocol, of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the [vaxxed] group.
Sounds impressive. Until ...
- You consider that a "case" is nothing more than a mild symptom.
- You consider that a "case" is subjective, not necessarily an objective measure.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of whether or not a person contracted an illness FROM someone else.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of whether or not a person spread an illness TO someone else.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of "asymptomatic" cases.
- You consider that there is no disclosure as to the number of cycles used in the PCR test, or whether the number of cycles was the same in both groups.
- You consider that they STOPPED checking anything after 7 days past the second dose.
But let's look at those numbers again.
- 162 "cases" in the control group, and 8 "cases" in the test group.
- 43,000 participants.
Let's say there was a 50/50 split in the 2 groups: 21,500 in each group. That means:
- 162/21,500 = 0.7534% of the control group had both a (a) symptom and (b) positive PCR "test"
- 8/21,500 = 0.0372% of the test group had both a (a) symptom and (b) positive PCR "test"
The difference is 0.7534% - 0.0372% = 0.7162%.
So, the REAL "effectiveness" is 0.7162% and NOT 95%.
Another way to look at it is:
- Of the 21,500 people in the control group, 21,338 did NOT end up as a "case"
- Of the 21,500 people in the test group, 21,492 did NOT end up as a "case"
- (This assumes the numbers of the two groups were equal, but that information is not disclosed)
So ...
- 21,338/21,500 = 99.25% of the control group did NOT end up as a "case"
- 21,492/21,500 = 99.96% of the test group did NOT end up as a "case"
Which is a difference of ... 0.71% The same as above.
This is the ACTUAL difference in the two groups.
But what happens if you LIE via statistics? What happens if you TAKE A RATIO OF THE "CASES" AND OMIT ANY DATA ABOUT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE STUDY?
What happens, in other words, if you take a RATIO of a ... RATIO?
The math would then look like this:
Differences in the percentages of the cases/totals = 0.7534% / 0.0372% = 20.25.
And what does 20.25 represent? It represents a 20.25 times greater chance of a "case" in the control group over the test group, which if you convert that to percentages, you get ... ABRACADABRA ...
95.06% !!!
So, they took a DIFFERENCE in "cases" (which is totally bogus to begin with) of 0.7%, and MANIPULATED THE NUMBERS THROUGH STATISTICS (standard operating procedure by these liars) to create that fairy tail of "95% effective."
They simply used a ratio of a ratio, rather than comparing the two ratios to each other (like in the blue car example).
Never mind that a "case" is only a mild symptom and a bogus PCR test. They didn't even consider that. In fact, they used that to their advantage.
The vaxx (experimental drug) claims are ENTIRELY based on FRAUD. Good thing Dr. Fraudci is running the clown show!
[NOTE: I couldn't write this any shorter. It must be explained with some detail. Read it, and you will understand the lie being told.]
I saw in another thread that people were asking for sources of info about the vaxx makers' claims that their experimental drugs are "95% effective against Covid" (which is why the sheep were willing to get it in the first place).
Here is an article from MSN.com (apologies for the fake news link, but it really exposes the BS, so it is useful):
To understand what you are reading in that article, you have to understand how the medical industry LIES via statistics.
As Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." The medical industry has taken that concept to new levels. They lie through manipulation of statistics. They often use percentages of percentages (or ratios of ratios, or ratios of results rather than totals).
Let's say you have 200 cars. You put them into 2 groups of 100 each. Group A has 1 blue car. Group B has 3 blue cars. So, Group A has 1% of its cars as blue, and Group B has 3% of its cars as blue. That means Group B has 2% more of all of its cars as blue cars than Group A does (3% - 1% = 2%). But the medical industry will manipulate that and say that Group B has 200% more blue cars than Group A (3 / 1 = 200% more). 2% is the truthful difference, but 200% sounds really impressive.
This is how they lie through statistics. Lipitor (originally created by Pfizer), has been the #1 selling drug over the past 25 years. It has been sold to doctors as a miraculous cholesterol-lowering drug due to its "36% effectiveness." But that number is a lie, based on manipulation of statistics, using a ratio of a ratio. The real number, using test group vs. control group is around 1%. Not so impressive, huh? Yeah, that's why they lie. In reality, the drug is not effective at all, and causes all sorts of health problems, including alzheimers.
With that in mind, the MSN article says about the Covid vaxx ...
What the 95% actually means is that vaccinated people had a 95% lower risk of getting COVID-19 compared with the control group participants, who weren't vaccinated
That number is not valid, which I will explain below. But let's go with it for the moment. This means that the "risk of GETTING Covid" is lower for those who took the vaxx -- according to Pfizer (Moderna also makes this claim).
So, what does "GETTING Covid" mean?
Both Pfizer and Moderna defined a case as having at least one symptom (however mild) and a positive COVID-19 test
So, "GETTING Covid" means a "case," which means (a) having at least one symptom (however mild, such as a headache), and (b) a positive Covid-19 test -- which would mean the bogus PCR test (the only one used at the time). Since the PCR test has a 90%+ false positive (really, it is 100% false postive AND 100% false negative, because the test is NOT A DIAGNOSTIC TOOL), this means that having a headache can taking a bogus test would result in a "case."
There were fewer of these fake "cases" in the group with the vaxx. Were the number of cycles used for the PCR tests the same in both groups? We don't know, because Pfizer has not said, as far as I know.
Since these companies are known to manipulate statistics, it would not be surprising if the number of cycles used in the PCR "test" was different in each group.
Even if the "test" was the same in both groups, what is a headache or other "mild symptoms?" Isn't this a bit subjective? Having a headache or other mild symptom means a "case," which means the drug maker, a known liar, can announce its experimental drug is "95% effecive."
What is missing from this picture?
THERE IS NO MENTION OF SPREADING OF THE CORONA!
There is no mention at all of whether those who "had cases" either (a) got it from someone else (if they "got it" at all), or if (b) they gave it to someone else.
The WHOLE POINT of a vaccine is to reduce the chance of getting it, and to help stop in spreading it.
THIS IS NOT MENTIONED AT ALL.
THE ONLY THING MENTIONED IS GETTING SYMPTOMS.
The ONLY thing they talk about is a "case" which is based on (a) a symptom, and (b) a bogus test -- both of which are built on a foundation of quicksand.
And none of the three vaccine trials looked at all for asymptomatic COVID-19
Whoa! Isn't the MAIN problem (according to some liars out there) this thing called the "asymptomatic" spread of the virus? But these vaxx makers DID NOT EVEN LOOK INTO THAT ... AT ALL.
"All these efficacy numbers are protection from having symptoms, not protection from being infected," Barker said. [Brianne Barker, a virologist at Drew University in New Jersey, referring to the Pfizer vaccine.]
BINGO! There you have it. Protection from getting SYMPTOMS ... and NOT protection from being infected (much less anything having to do with spreading it to others -- they didn't even LOOK INTO that at all)!
... because we don't yet know [about some other stuff] for sure, people "can't throw away their mask" once they're vaccinated, Barker said.
Gee, thanks, Brianne. Now, tell us about how effective the masks are , Miss "Virologist." (Hint: not at all. Not even a little.)
Zero vaccinated people in any of the trials were hospitalized or died of COVID-19 after the vaccines had fully taken effect.
No mention that zero non-vaccinated people ALSO had the same outcome, or how long a period after they are talking about, or that "died of Covid" is yet another lie.
Lies piled on top of lies, piled on top of lies is the standard operating procedure for these people.
Now ...
Let's "circle back" to that earlier claim of:
What the 95% actually means is that vaccinated people had a 95% lower risk of getting COVID-19 compared with the control group participants, who weren't vaccinated
I said that number was not valid (due to manipulation of statistics). Here's the evidence, directly from Pfizer:
There were several questions that were left unanswered in the MSN article. That's because the writer, Anna Nowogrodzki, is not a journalist, but merely a propagandist. She dug up a virologist from an unknown university to interview, but not anyone from Pfizer. She didn't even bother to read the actual press release, probably because she didn't really car about reporting as a journalist.
The good news is that the press release from Pfizer actually does answer some of those questions.
Pfizer claims:
Analysis of the data indicates a vaccine efficacy rate of 95% ... measured from 7 days after the second dose.
So, that tells us when the experimental drug was considered "effective." SEVEN DAYS. Does that sound like a sufficient time to arrive at this conclusion to you? Not to me.
The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19, as specified in the study protocol, of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the [vaxxed] group.
Sounds impressive. Until ...
- You consider that a "case" is nothing more than a mild symptom.
- You consider that a "case" is subjective, not necessarily an objective measure.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of whether or not a person contracted an illness FROM someone else.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of whether or not a person spread an illness TO someone else.
- You consider that there is NO evaluation of "asymptomatic" cases.
- You consider that there is no disclosure as to the number of cycles used in the PCR test, or whether the number of cycles was the same in both groups.
- You consider that they STOPPED checking anything after 7 days past the second dose.
But let's look at those numbers again.
- 162 "cases" in the control group, and 8 "cases" in the test group.
- 43,000 participants.
Let's say there was a 50/50 split in the 2 groups: 21,500 in each group. That means:
- 162/21,500 = 0.7534% of the control group had both a (a) symptom and (b) positive PCR "test"
- 8/21,500 = 0.0372% of the test group had both a (a) symptom and (b) positive PCR "test"
The difference is 0.7534% - 0.0372% = 0.7162%.
So, the REAL "effectiveness" is 0.7162% and NOT 95%.
Another way to look at it is:
- Of the 21,500 people in the control group, 21,338 did NOT end up as a "case"
- Of the 21,500 people in the test group, 21,492 did NOT end up as a "case"
- (This assumes the numbers of the two groups were equal, but that information is not disclosed)
So ...
- 21,338/21,500 = 99.25% of the control group did NOT end up as a "case"
- 21,492/21,500 = 99.96% of the test group did NOT end up as a "case"
Which is a difference of ... 0.71% The same as above.
This is the ACTUAL difference in the two groups.
But what happens if you LIE via statistics? What happens if you TAKE A RATIO OF THE "CASES" AND OMIT ANY DATA ABOUT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE STUDY?
What happens, in other words, if you take a RATIO of a ... RATIO?
The math would then look like this:
Differences in the percentages of the cases/totals = 0.7534% / 0.0372% = 20.25.
And what does 20.25 represent? It represents a 20.25 times greater chance of a "case" in the control group over the test group, which if you convert that to percentages, you get ... ABRACADABRA ...
95.06% !!!
So, they took a DIFFERENCE in "cases" (which is totally bogus to begin with) of 0.7%, and MANIPULATED THE NUMBERS THROUGH STATISTICS (standard operating procedure by these liars) to create that fairy tail of "95% effective."
They simply used a ratio of a ratio, rather than comparing the two ratios to each other (like in the blue car example).
Never mind that a "case" is only a mild symptom and a bogus PCR test. They didn't even consider that. In fact, they used that to their advantage.
The vaxx (experimental drug) claims are ENTIRELY based on FRAUD. Good thing Dr. Fraudci is running the clown show!