We know the social atmosphere surrounding the inception of COVID-19 “vaccines.” Now that vaccine mandates have been introduced around the world, it’s important to analyze a few points that surround SARS-CoV-2 shots to identify if you should be hesitant to get the COVID-19 vaccine. The last post dealt with vaccine safety and we are now exploring COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness.
In order to explore COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness, let’s learn about Pfizer clinical trials, people involved in the trials, what does non-pharma research say, and if COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness should cause hesitancy.
Every media outlet tells us that COVID-19 “vaccines” are effective. Simultaneously, the pharmaceutical companies tell us that these vaccines have “favorable safety profiles and are highly efficacious in preventing COVID-19.” Let’s look into Pfizer clinical trials to examine COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness.
Generally, vaccines and other pharmaceutical products have to go through different phases of clinical trials. They, also, have to engage in animal testing prior to human testing. This process takes between 8 to 15 years. This is the average time that takes before pharmaceutical products are deemed safe and effective and can be FDA approved.
Phase 1 clinical trials are supposed to test safety, dosages, and confirm stimulation of the immune system. In phase 2 and phase 3 trials, scientists give the vaccine to thousands of people to see how many become infected, compared with volunteers who received a placebo (no experimental drug). Then, it is determined if that pharmaceutical product protects against the virus tested and its efficacy rate is determined.
These “vaccines” went through phase 1 clinical trials. Pfizer clinical trial phase 1 enrolled 45 participants who were subdivided into two experimental groups. The BNT162b1 group received an experimental biologic that generated a great number of adverse events and was thus discontinued. The BNT162b2 group had a dose of 100 micrograms which was discontinued after concerns were raised as well. It was concluded that during the next phase of trials participants would receive a smaller dosage of BNT162b2, making it a 30 microgram dose.
Pfizer’s clinical trial phases 2/3 are still ongoing and are supposed to last 2 years. According to their documents, there were 44,165 participants over age 15 and 2,264 participants between the ages 12 to 15, and an “adverse event” document reported 42,086 case reports of adverse events. All participants enrolled in this trial received injections [the experimental group received the mRNA (BNT162b2 with 30 μg per dose)].
The results showed that 9,839 participants exhibited reactogenicity (“expected” adverse reactions, including fever and sore arm at the injection site) and that that there were “adverse events (30% vs 14%), related adverse events(24% vs 6%), and severe adverse events (1.2% vs 0.7%) between BNT162b2 and placebo groups”.
There was no further reporting or concrete measurement of serious adverse events in participants, except after Pfizer was mandated to submit in-depth reports. Then, they submitted a “cumulative analysis of post-authorization adverse event report.” This shows that 1,223 participants died, 11,361 experienced adverse reactions from which they haven’t recovered, 520 recovered with sequela, 19,582 are still recovering, and that the information of 9,400 participants after they reported adverse events is unknown.
Pfizer reported that in participants with evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, there was no difference in COVID-19 cases between vaccine and placebo recipients. “COVID-19 was less frequent among placebo recipients with positive N-binding antibodies at study entry than among those without evidence of infection at study entry, indicating ~72.6% protection by previous infection,” not due to vaccination. Despite the results, it was concluded that “the data in this report demonstrate that BNT162b2 prevents COVID-19 effectively for up to 6 months post-dose 2 across diverse populations.”
Problems with Clinical Trials
Based on the information on Pfizer’s clinical trials, we can evaluate their assertions about COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness. By looking at the pharmaceutical company’ methodology and assertions, it is evident that there are numerous problems with the data produced from these clinical trials:
🛑 Pfizer and BioNTech, a collaborating company, were responsible for manufacturing BNT162b2, designing, and conducting the trial. They were involved in data collection, data analysis, interpretation, and the conclusions for the report.
➡️ According to the FDA, “FDA officials perform inspections of clinical trial study sites and anyone involved in the research to help protect the rights and welfare of volunteers and verify the quality and integrity of data submitted for review.” During these trials, there was no independent analysis conducted to verify the accuracy, objectivity, and integrity of their data. The lack of outside regulation by unbiased sources is unethical. It presents a conflict of interest since pharma companies have financial interests in presenting positive results to gain approval of their experiment.
🛑 The clinical trials offered no environmental controls. Most testing locations didn’t offer pre-screening for IgM and IgG antibodies or PCR testing for viral loads prior to giving the injection.
➡️ Since there was no systematic testing of participants previously to clinical trials, we don’t know if participants were exposed to the virus previously or if they already had antibodies prior to starting the experiment. Efficacy can’t be determined since we don’t know if participants started with a clean slate or not.
If participants were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 previously, they already had antibodies and had low chances of reinfection. We, also, don’t know what methods were used to test infection or transmission post-administration of the shot. Only phase 1 trial tested antibody production resulting from their drug, which means that they are claiming efficacy from less than 45 participants – this is an insignificant sample size that’s not generalizable.
🛑 According to Pfizer, they felt the “ethical and practical need to immunize eligible initial placebo recipients under EUA and according to public health authority recommendations.”
➡️ The purpose of clinical trials is to study a treatment/variable (in this case the SARS-CoV-2 shot) by comparing its effect in two groups with a similar number of participants, an experimental group and a control group (participants receiving placebo). Once the effects of the variable on the experimental group are seen, conclusions can be drawn. The control group provides a basis for comparison to assess the effects of the tested treatment.
In these clinical trials, we don’t know the exact number of participants in the control group since the placebo recipients also received the shot at some point. Where is the control group? When did the control group become part of the experimental group? How can we draw real conclusions about effectiveness if most people received the vaccine?
🛑 This was not a double-blinded study. This is when participants and researchers have no knowledge of which treatment or intervention participants are receiving until the clinical trial is over.
➡️ Researchers knew who belonged in the placebo group and later vaccinated them. Double-blindness is necessary to avoid bias in data collection, analysis, or interpretation. Having a double-blinded study avoids any placebo effects as well – this is when participants perceive an effect according to the group that they are assigned to.
🛑 The results reported that the chances of COVID infection were very similar for both groups.
➡️ If the rates of infection are similar between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, then the shot is null. There was no specific data showing a reduction of COVID-19 infections, transmission to others, reduced hospitalizations, or reduced deaths compared to the placebo group. There is no scientific evidence to say that the vaccine is “highly efficacious in preventing COVID-19.”
🛑 There was missing data. The data of 9,400 enrolled participants is missing from the clinical trials and there was no accompanying information to explain.
➡️ 9,400 is a significant number of participants. What happened to them and their data? Were these participants removed? If so, why? Did they withdraw from the study? If so, why? Why is there no information related to the missing data?
As if all these red flags were not enough, whistleblowers have come forward and reported data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trials, which puts into question COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness. A regional director, who was fired for reporting concerns, along with others working at Pfizer’s vaccine testing sites reported witnessing unethical procedures that compromised the study.
The following are some of the issues reported: participants were placed in hallways after the injection without being monitored, deviations from protocol were not reported, vaccines were not properly stored, laboratory specimens were mislabeled, participants only had a limited number of symptoms to choose from in relation to any adverse events, some of those who experienced adverse events did not receive therapeutic follow up a timely manner, and staff who reported problems were harassed and targeted. All these missteps are alarming and can nullify the results of their clinical trials.
Additionally, we are hearing very concerning feedback from some of the participants from the clinical trials. We have the case of Maddie, a healthy twelve-year-old who volunteered for the shot and within 24 hours of the second dose suffered devastating life-altering injuries and now she can’t walk. When she and her mother reported her side effects to doctors, they said that it was all in “her head.”
There is Kyle, a professional mountain biker, who developed pericarditis (inflammation of the outer lining of the heart) and reactive arthritis. When he went to doctors for his heart symptoms, he was told that he was having a “psychotic episode;” now his career is over. Unfortunately, many stories from participants and people experiencing severe side effects are not being heard since they are being censored on social media and most news channels refuse to air their stories.
What Does Non-Pharma Sponsored Research Say?
Reading data from pharmaceutical companies doesn’t give the full picture related to COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness. Getting all your data from companies that develop the products they promote is problematic since it’s not objective, which is why it’s necessary to read studies from scientists with no conflicts of interest. It’s important to read research from different sources, not sponsored by pharma.
We now have numerous studies on vaccine efficacy disputing claims (with scientific evidence) about the shot’s effectiveness. Results show “no significant difference in cycle threshold values between vaccinated and unvaccinated, asymptomatic and symptomatic groups infected with SARS-CoV-2 Delta”. Also, when comparing unvaccinated individuals to “those who have vaccine breakthrough infections (got the virus post-vaccine), no significant difference in viral loads are seen. However, those vaccinated “frequently test positive with viral loads consistent with the ability to shed infectious viruses.” On the same note, studies show that vaccination can enhance the rise of virulent pathogens.
At the same time, numerous studies show that natural immunity confers longer-lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease, and hospitalization caused by SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.
Additionally, studying 68 countries and 2,947 American counties allowed us to see that locations with high rates of vaccinated people have higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection. “Countries with over 75% of their population fully vaccinated (such as Israel) have more COVID-19 cases per 1 million people than countries such as Vietnam and South Africa that have around 10% of their population fully vaccinated.”
The top 3 counties in the US [Chattahoochee (Georgia), McKinley (New Mexico), and Arecibo (Puerto Rico)] with the highest “percentage of fully vaccinated people (99.9–84.3%) are high transmission counties. Conversely, of the 57 counties that have been classified as low transmission counties by the CDC, 26.3% have only vaccinated percentage less than 20% of the population.”
So Are You Hesitant to Get COVID-19 “Vaccines”?
If you are hesitant to take the COVID-19 “vaccine” or boosters, you have the right to be. Despite the pharmaceutical companies’ declarations about COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness, clinical trials are still ongoing and over a year of data still needs to be collected. Thus, efficacy can’t be realistically determined, much less when the data from previous trials has been compromised and is sketchy.
On the other hand, efficacy can’t be declared because their clinical trial didn’t test it and the data doesn’t show it. The clinical trials only addressed symptom reduction. There wasn’t any methodology or data addressing infection or transmission; conclusions about transmission or infection of SARS-CoV-2 can’t be drawn because those variables weren’t tested. To conclude that the COVID-19 “vaccine” “(BNT162b2) prevents COVID-19 effectively” is a fraudulent conclusion.
The only claim that these companies can make at this point is that receiving the experimental shot can lower symptom severity if contracting SARS-CoV-2, in some individuals. Yet, many others are experiencing terrible adverse effects and dying from the shot.
The question remains, given the fact that people are not dropping like flies from SARS-CoV-2, that there are other efficacious treatment options available, and that the COVID-19 shot is creating numerous adverse reactions, why do these experimental gene therapies keep being pushed to market after only being tested for a few months? Could it be because our health authorities aren’t concerned about the collateral damage of mass vaccination (check out Dr. Fauci’s conversation with Zuckerberg, FB Founder, about it)?
To a Fitter Healthier You,
The Fitness Wellness Mentor