Ever since Pfizer’s executive recently and infamously claimed that the vaccine maker never tested its shots for efficacy at preventing covid-19 infections, because of the “speed of science” or something, I’ve been wanting to do a deeper dive on that questionable premise. Yesterday I finally got the opportunity.
The Ethical Skeptic, an independent data analyst collecting and charting covid data since the beginning of the pandemic, updated a chart that I reported on a couple weeks ago. Then, he’d concluded that new covid infections were preferring recently-jabbed folks 4:1, even after adjusting for relative populations and testing frequency.
But now, just two weeks later, covid’s preference for recently-jabbed folks appears to have nearly doubled, to 7:1.
October 18:
October 31:
The good news is that the recently-jabbed are the very smallest group. The repeat jabbers seem to be real gluttons for punishment, not only enduring the “transient” side effects from the shots, but also voluntarily encountering the highest risk for covid infection.
When a vaccine makes it more likely that you’ll catch the targeted disease, that’s called “negative efficacy,” which, apart from killing you with blood clots and strokes, is about the LAST thing you want your vaccine to do.
I mean, stopping you getting sick is the vaccine’s ONLY JOB.
But don’t complain! Pfizer recently told the European Union’s commission that it was moving at the speed of science and NEVER tested the shots to see if they’d prevent infections. On purpose. Nor did they test to see if the shots would reduce hospitalizations or deaths. They claimed they only tested whether the shots produced certain antibodies. So it’s your own fault if you thought the shots did something else like stopping infections.
Or, is it?
While I had the kids out for Halloween last night wearing my C&C t-shirt, I ran into a long-time C&C fan who’d been reading the blog since it was just a Facebook post. He even remembered the local “experts,” who used to plague the comments with smart aleck quips like “you can take your medical advice from a lawyer if you want to.”
It true, I’m “just” a lawyer. I’m not a doctor or a vaccine scientist. But, as a lawyer, I know how to search for source documents, and I went looking to see if I could find how Pfizer described the original clinical trials.
Here it is!
I might need some help from some of our C&C team who have the relevant expertise. But Pfizer’s description of its Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials looks to me to be aimed at testing for REDUCED INFECTIONS:
Nowhere in the clinical trial description does it mention testing for reducing severity of the disease. I defy you to find it.
Again, since I’m “only” a lawyer, I went looking for what the subject-matter experts thought the language from Pfizer’s clinical trials meant.
On December 17, 2020, the World Economic Forum triumphantly reported a story headlined, “The Results From Pfizer’s Vaccine Trial and What They Tell Us.” That headline seemed like the article might help interpret Pfizer’s results.
Here’s how the WEF’s vaccine experts summarized the trial results:
There it is! I knew I wasn’t crazy. WEF’s experts calculated the so-called “95% efficacy” by dividing the number of infected people in the jab group by the number who were infected in the placebo group (a meaningless figure, but let us not quibble). We heard a lot about that 95% efficacy, remember? It was about infections, not antibodies.
But, maybe it was just the WEF’s vaccine experts who read Pfizer’s results this way? Nope. Everybody did. In a November 2020 article titled “What do the efficacy results of Pfizer’s clinical trial mean?”, Medeen’s Health-Desk, billed as “public health experts in service of journalism,” described Pfizer’s trials like this:
Link.
These citations also blow away the pro-vaxxers’ condescending argument that “Covid-19,” the illness, is materially different from “SARS-CoV-2,” which is the virus that CAUSES Covid-19. But the Pfizer trial said it was testing for efficacy against “confirmed Covid-19,” the illness, not SARS-CoV-2, the virus.
In other words, they DID test for “confirmed Covid-19.” And they DID claim that their dumb shot was “95% effective” at preventing a Covid-19 infection.
PREVENTING. As the public health experts at Medeen explained, Pfizer said the shots made people “much less likely to contract Covid-19.”
But the actual real-world data appears to show the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Pfizer claimed its carefully controlled clinical trials proved. After a short, misleading burst of immunity, the shots’ efficacy seems to ultimately go negative. People appear to be much MORE LIKELY to contract Covid-19, if they get the shots.
Oh, if only Pfizer had moved at the speed of medicine instead of moving at the speed of science, and done NORMAL vaccine trials that lasted longer than 90 days. Maybe we could have figured this unhappy contretemps out, before people got hurt?
But now, negative efficacy appears to be showing up INSIDE three months. The group that Ethical Skeptic calculated was second-most-likely to get infected are people who got their last shot within 90 days.
You’d have to be pretty crazy to take the shot now.
Don’t come arguing that the shots might give you an infection but “at least” you won’t get sick, or arguing that it’s mostly unvaccinated people dying from covid. There’s not one single randomized controlled trial showing any of that. I don’t care what Pensyltucky’s Covid Dashboard shows. We have no idea how they’re identifying “unvaccinated.” That’s just “uncontrolled, non-randomized” data.
You’d think these ‘experts’ would understand the difference between a legitimate scientific trial and some data reported by bureaucrats. Oh, if you give them 1,000 studies showing ivermectin’s efficacy, they can microscopically identify the failures of each and every one. But talk about covid efficacy, and suddenly, study standards are completely irrelevant.
It’s almost like the experts only believe what they WANT to believe.
The Ethical Skeptic, an independent data analyst collecting and charting covid data since the beginning of the pandemic, updated a chart that I reported on a couple weeks ago. Then, he’d concluded that new covid infections were preferring recently-jabbed folks 4:1, even after adjusting for relative populations and testing frequency.
But now, just two weeks later, covid’s preference for recently-jabbed folks appears to have nearly doubled, to 7:1.
October 18:
October 31:
The good news is that the recently-jabbed are the very smallest group. The repeat jabbers seem to be real gluttons for punishment, not only enduring the “transient” side effects from the shots, but also voluntarily encountering the highest risk for covid infection.
When a vaccine makes it more likely that you’ll catch the targeted disease, that’s called “negative efficacy,” which, apart from killing you with blood clots and strokes, is about the LAST thing you want your vaccine to do.
I mean, stopping you getting sick is the vaccine’s ONLY JOB.
But don’t complain! Pfizer recently told the European Union’s commission that it was moving at the speed of science and NEVER tested the shots to see if they’d prevent infections. On purpose. Nor did they test to see if the shots would reduce hospitalizations or deaths. They claimed they only tested whether the shots produced certain antibodies. So it’s your own fault if you thought the shots did something else like stopping infections.
Or, is it?
While I had the kids out for Halloween last night wearing my C&C t-shirt, I ran into a long-time C&C fan who’d been reading the blog since it was just a Facebook post. He even remembered the local “experts,” who used to plague the comments with smart aleck quips like “you can take your medical advice from a lawyer if you want to.”
It true, I’m “just” a lawyer. I’m not a doctor or a vaccine scientist. But, as a lawyer, I know how to search for source documents, and I went looking to see if I could find how Pfizer described the original clinical trials.
Here it is!
I might need some help from some of our C&C team who have the relevant expertise. But Pfizer’s description of its Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials looks to me to be aimed at testing for REDUCED INFECTIONS:
Nowhere in the clinical trial description does it mention testing for reducing severity of the disease. I defy you to find it.
Again, since I’m “only” a lawyer, I went looking for what the subject-matter experts thought the language from Pfizer’s clinical trials meant.
On December 17, 2020, the World Economic Forum triumphantly reported a story headlined, “The Results From Pfizer’s Vaccine Trial and What They Tell Us.” That headline seemed like the article might help interpret Pfizer’s results.
Here’s how the WEF’s vaccine experts summarized the trial results:
There it is! I knew I wasn’t crazy. WEF’s experts calculated the so-called “95% efficacy” by dividing the number of infected people in the jab group by the number who were infected in the placebo group (a meaningless figure, but let us not quibble). We heard a lot about that 95% efficacy, remember? It was about infections, not antibodies.
But, maybe it was just the WEF’s vaccine experts who read Pfizer’s results this way? Nope. Everybody did. In a November 2020 article titled “What do the efficacy results of Pfizer’s clinical trial mean?”, Medeen’s Health-Desk, billed as “public health experts in service of journalism,” described Pfizer’s trials like this:
Link.
These citations also blow away the pro-vaxxers’ condescending argument that “Covid-19,” the illness, is materially different from “SARS-CoV-2,” which is the virus that CAUSES Covid-19. But the Pfizer trial said it was testing for efficacy against “confirmed Covid-19,” the illness, not SARS-CoV-2, the virus.
In other words, they DID test for “confirmed Covid-19.” And they DID claim that their dumb shot was “95% effective” at preventing a Covid-19 infection.
PREVENTING. As the public health experts at Medeen explained, Pfizer said the shots made people “much less likely to contract Covid-19.”
But the actual real-world data appears to show the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Pfizer claimed its carefully controlled clinical trials proved. After a short, misleading burst of immunity, the shots’ efficacy seems to ultimately go negative. People appear to be much MORE LIKELY to contract Covid-19, if they get the shots.
Oh, if only Pfizer had moved at the speed of medicine instead of moving at the speed of science, and done NORMAL vaccine trials that lasted longer than 90 days. Maybe we could have figured this unhappy contretemps out, before people got hurt?
But now, negative efficacy appears to be showing up INSIDE three months. The group that Ethical Skeptic calculated was second-most-likely to get infected are people who got their last shot within 90 days.
You’d have to be pretty crazy to take the shot now.
Don’t come arguing that the shots might give you an infection but “at least” you won’t get sick, or arguing that it’s mostly unvaccinated people dying from covid. There’s not one single randomized controlled trial showing any of that. I don’t care what Pensyltucky’s Covid Dashboard shows. We have no idea how they’re identifying “unvaccinated.” That’s just “uncontrolled, non-randomized” data.
You’d think these ‘experts’ would understand the difference between a legitimate scientific trial and some data reported by bureaucrats. Oh, if you give them 1,000 studies showing ivermectin’s efficacy, they can microscopically identify the failures of each and every one. But talk about covid efficacy, and suddenly, study standards are completely irrelevant.
It’s almost like the experts only believe what they WANT to believe.
