Who will finally release the elephant?

When the allegedly high efficacy vanishes into thin air...

Anyone who read the study protocols of the COVID "vaccines" before they were approved already noticed then that the study design was not made to answer the supposedly most important core question for a drug that is to be used as a pillar to fight a "pandemic": The question of whether "COVID vaccines" reduce the burden on the health care system. The primary efficacy endpoint, on which drug approval is usually based, was the construct of "confirmed COVID disease," which primarily examined trivial events combined with a positive result from the demonstrably questionable PCR test. [1]


The 2-month results, when analyzed in more detail, were as meaningless as the design of the studies. Based on these data, the temporary approvals of the COVID "vaccines" were granted in Switzerland and worldwide. The registration dossier was incomplete both in terms of the preclinical module (animal studies) - animal studies were largely omitted with the argument that according to a WHO guideline of 2005 [2] no such studies were required for vaccines - and in terms of the clinical module (studies in humans).


The absolute risk reduction for both mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna for "confirmed COVID disease" was about 1%:


For the Pfizer vaccine, 162 of 21,728 persons (= 0.74%) "contracted" COVID-19 in the placebo group, and 8 of 21,720 persons (= 0.04%) in the vaccine group. [3] Thus, the absolute risk reduction (ARR) was just 0.70% (0.74% minus 0.04%). The efficacy was "inflated" to 95% by using the relative risk reduction (RRR), because out of a total of 170 events, a full 162 events were formally "prevented" in the vaccine group (with only 8 events). This means, however, that of the total of over 40,000 study participants, not about 95 out of 100 vaccinated persons were protected. Rather, it takes 141 people vaccinated to prevent a single "confirmed COVID disease," a primarily trivial event. [4]


For the Moderna vaccine, the numbers of "confirmed COVID illnesses" were 11 of 14,134 (=0.08%; vaccine group) vs. 185 of 14,073 (=1.3%; placebo group). [5]


Again, the de facto barely proven efficacy was "inflated" to 94.1% by using the RRR. [6] In absolute terms, the risk reduction (ARR) was just 1.2%. [7] This means that 91 persons have to be vaccinated to prevent a single "confirmed COVID disease" with a mild course of disease. [8]


Even the medically renowned journal The Lancet questioned the published results and the benefits derived from them as early as in April 2021 in an article entitled "COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness-the elephant (not) in the room". [9]


None of this is getting through in the public media. The narrative of the "highly effective COVID vaccines" persists. Anyone who disagrees is a "conspiracy theorist" and faces serious sanctions from their employer, if they even do so publicly.


Who among the doctors and scientists have analyzed the underlying data themselves in the last two years? Who among the physicians engaged in the vaccination campaigns has informed themselves in such a well-founded manner that they can, in good conscience, provide patients with balanced information on the benefits and risks so that they can make an "informed" decision for or against “vaccination”? Who in all this time has blindly believed only what has been communicated by the media, authorities and professional societies? Is it possible that academics in particular tend to blindly comply with a system and have completely abandoned their own curiosity to investigate a matter for themselves?


Meanwhile, various regulatory documents have been disclosed by the FDA in response to a request from Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT).


A briefing document of the FDA, [10] which was prepared for a meeting on December 10, 2020, shows that in the pivotal study of the Pfizer vaccine not only 8, as officially declared, but 1'594 and in the placebo group not only 162, as officially declared, but 1'816 "symptomatic COVID cases" occurred.


For inexplicable and undisclosed reasons, however, no PCR test was performed on these 3410 cases despite their symptomatology, and the corresponding cases were summarily "sorted out" ("suspected but unconfirmed cases"). [11] Why in the vaccine group of a total of 1'602 symptomatic cases 1'594 were not considered and only 8 were reported, is in no way

comprehensible (the same applies of course to the placebo group). Thus, the data must be considered extremely unreliable.


Based on these 1816 vs. 1594 "suspected but unconfirmed" cases, the relative risk reduction (RRR, "efficacy") would be 12%. [12] If the numbers of "confirmed COVID cases" and the "suspected cases" were added up, this would result in a total of 1978 (placebo group) vs. 1602 (vaccine group) - which would correspond to a relative risk reduction (RRR, "efficacy") of only 19%. [13]


Such figures would definitely no longer meet the international requirement for an approval.


Many may wonder whether the topic of COVID "vaccination" has not become somewhat "hackneyed" at a time when we are bombarded by the media on a daily basis with the topic of the "Ukraine war". Due to the already signed contracts for further millions of vaccine doses and in view of the fact that an investigation of the "CORONA measures", which have mainly done harm and no good in the last two years, [14] is not taking place, the chances are high that at the latest in autumn the "pandemic orchestra" will play again.


Everyone should use the current "Corona break" to inform himself thoroughly at the latest now regarding effectiveness, safety and sense of the COVID "vaccines", in order to decide whether he and his relatives would like to hold out the arm also a fourth or fifth time and whether he can be blackmailed for this at the latest a further time with non-medical arguments.


Anyone who has been lucky enough to survive the COVID "vaccination" with little or no side effects should be aware that the risk for side effects is potentiated with each additional "prick" and that the COVID "vaccinations" are fraught with great risks. [15]


It shows immense greatness to admit that one has been fooled.


Every life is worth too much to be simply indifferent to it!


Informative information on COVID "vaccination" and Corona measures is available via:


www.aletheia-scimed.ch

https://juristen-komitee.ch

https://doctors4covidethics.org

https://7argumente.de


Links:

[1] https://cormandrostenreview.com

[2] WHO, «WHO expert committee on biological standardization», 2005, http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/43094/WHO_TRS_927_eng.pdf;jsessionid=64155AFF93B13895E1A78876139255A7?sequence=1

[3] Polack et al., «Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine», 12.2020, https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed .

[4] Montastruc, «Efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines: Several modes of expression should be presented in scientific publications», Juli 2021, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/fcp.12715 .

[5] Baden et al., «Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine», 1.2021, https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389?articleTools=true.

[6] https://investors.modernatx.com/news/news-details/2020/Moderna-Announces-Primary-Efficacy-Analysis-in-Phase-3-COVE-Study-for-Its-COVID-19-Vaccine-Candidate-and-Filing-Today-with-U-S--FDA-for-Emergency-Use-Authorization-11-30-2020/default.aspx

[7] Baden et al., «Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine», 1.2021, https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389?articleTools=true .

[8] Montastruc, «Efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines: Several modes of expression should be presented in scientific publications», 7. 2021, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/fcp.12715 .

[9] Olliaro, «COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room”, 4.2021, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext

[10] https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download .

[11] CCCA, “More Harm than Good», https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The-COVID-19-Inoculations-More-Harm-Than-Good-REV-Dec-16-2021.pdf .

[12] https://brownstone.org/articles/on-what-basis-did-pfizer-claim-95/ .

[13] CCCA, “More Harm than Good», https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The-COVID-19-Inoculations-More-Harm-Than-Good-REV-Dec-16-2021.pdf .

[14] https://brownstone.org/articles/more-than-400-studies-on-the-failure-of-compulsory-covid-interventions/ .

[15] https://tkp.at/2022/02/22/abrechnungsdaten-der-krankenkassen-belegen-sicherheitsdesaster-der-gen-impfstoffe/ ; https://sciencefiles.org/2022/01/23/beschreibung-wissenschaftlich-belegter-schwerer-erkrankungen-die-von-covid-19-impfstoffen-verursacht-werden/ ; https://ploetzlich-und-unerwartet.net ; https://reitschuster.de/post/exklusiv-umfrage-zeigt-wie-haeufig-starke-impfnebenwirkungen-wirklich-sind/ ; https://www.saveusnow.org.uk/covid-vaccine-scientific-proof-lethal/ .