Should You Believe The Shots Are 90% Effective?


In the US the two main shots being rolled out are claimed to be super effective. As the results started being reported back in November 2020 the first numbers we saw reported were just over 90% effective and as the days rolled by they kept going up as the competing pharma companies Pfizer and Moderna rolled out their preliminary results.

But did we see any raw data to prove these numbers?

In past reports we've covered some of the scant details that were shown in these media reports. As you may have seen in these reports the issues with this data was that of a sample size between 30,000 and 45,000 (approx) participants in these various studies we were seeing under 200 people that were reporting being sick (regardless of whether they were in the placebo group or the vaccinated group).

What this means is that the reporting data was incredibly small.

Of course this also begs the question of why we would need an invasive "shot in the arm" for something that is so rare (and arguably treatable with less invasive drugs and nutritional protocols that when used correctly may have great outcomes.

Here's the bigger problem - the data.

Peter Doshi, an editor at the British Medical Journal did a detailed critique of the data from both the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials and called for the release of the raw data on January 4th 2021. He pointed out a group of participants who while they tested negative did show respiratory symptoms and the fact that these participants were simply disregarded from the data.

How convenient.

Does only pharma get away with data manipulation like this or is barely anyone actually paying attention to this stuff?

His point was that if that group hadn't been simply thrown out instead of 90% effectiveness we may have seen actual numbers of either 19% or 29%.

You can read his report in it's entirety (link above) if you are curious what an editor of a prestigious medical journal is actually saying as the media rolls out this shot with little regard for any real science.

Now when you see reporting such as what is coming out about the Novavax numbers bouncing all over the place you might be able to put it in perspective. After all these pharma companies are getting away with reporting trials based on barely any released data. Talk about cherry picking info for creating the best headlines...

Vaccine trials were held in nearly half a dozen countries, but in the UK, 62 people (out of roughly 15K) came down with COVID-19 symptoms after receiving either the vaccine or a placebo. Of these, six had received the vaccine, while 56 had gotten the placebo.

Yet, in a separate, middle-stage study in South Africa, the trial data suggested the vaccine was much less effective. In South Africa, the Novavax shot was about 49.4% effective against Covid-19 in the study. Preliminary results showed that more than 90% of the sick subjects for whom sequencing data were available were infected with the new variant circulating in South Africa.

The news comes at an inopportune time: A few hours ago, the CDC revealed that the first two confirmed cases of the hyper-infectious South African COVID mutation had been confirmed in South Carolina.

In a separate Novavax trial held in South Africa, the efficacy was significantly lower. In a small trial the rate of protection was just 50%. Almost all the cases that scientists have analyzed there so far were caused by the mutated strain, known as B.1.351.

What's even more disturbing: The data also showed that many trial participants were infected with the variant even after they had already had COVID-19.

It's important when hearing these reports about the "new variants" to have the perspective about the way these are being tested.

Mostly it's the same types of PCR testing to confirm the new variant - but unfortunately these "PCR Positive" confirmations don't relate directly to actual sickness (i.e. real "infection") yet they still call them infections in the media.

And viruses mutate rapidly anyway so we should expect new variants all over the world and simply looking a "spread" based on this type of testing is important to question especially when looking at these sorts of vaccine trials where the reporting rates are sub 0.1% (this means that of the tens of thousands of people tested only that many are actually getting sick whether they get the shot or the placebo.

So when we combine that with the changes from the World Health Organization in how PCR testing protocols are changing. This has the effect of lowering the number of "cases" by lowering the "Cycle Threshold" and thus automatically lowering the number of people that test positive (we've been bugging about that for the last year - hello WHO!) this looks more and more like a political virus.

The organization sent out a notice specifically to laboratory professionals and users of PCR tests. For over a year, the WHO was okay counting a Covid case as a high cycle PCR test. Now it instructed labs to resume doing what science has always done.

The new WHO guidance states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed. 

“The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.” 

The WHO continues:

“Careful interpretation of weak positive NAAT results is needed, as some of the assays have shown to produce false signals at high Ct values.”

With the new guidance, it is a near certainty that case counts, directly used to justify rolling lockdowns, masks and the originally-stated premise of needing to vaccinate every last person, may one day soon become a moot point.

As you can see real data gets hidden by rather deceptive bad news when it's meant to ramp up fear and "good news" when it comes to supposed data about a shot they want to put in your arm.

But as you can see from our previous report on Pathogenic Priming that the safety of these shots is rather questionable with a rather quick death toll that may include such people as famous baseball player Hank Aaron who died just days after a shot of "natural causes".

mRNA injections are a very new thing. These are the first of their type ever "released" on the public and these are not "approved" but rather being dosed out as an Emergency Use Authorization.

And is this shot one that should be called a "vac  cine"? mRNA injections are actually a treatment and should be called a treatment. Dr David Martin and other experts discuss this:

A 39 year old healthy nurse has been reduced to this after getting this shot:

This interview with Dr Lee Merrit MD may help put some of this whole story into perspective:

And in this video Dr Simone Gold shares some important info on these injections:

Please share your feedback in the comments below. And if you've found this report to be helpful share it with your friends as much as you can to help get the word of caution out to those who are open to knowing the truth.
WHO PCR Test Reference:

Image courtesy of: stockcatalog
Image courtesy of: Pickersgill Reef
Image courtesy of: joshc
Photo By danielfoster437

Share The Knowledge!

One comment on “Should You Believe The Shots Are 90% Effective?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Knowing The Truth Topics

linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram