PQC: When they said 95% efficacy, what does it mean? Where does that 95% come from?

Pfizer/BioNTech “trial vaccine” was injected into 42,000 people (human Guinea pigs.) But only half of these people guinea pigs got the REAL experimental vaccine. All the rest got a placebo (saline or whatever). The result was 170 of them fell ill with “Covid” (wink, wink). However, only 8 of these 170 sick guinea pigs got the real “shot”, 162 “fell ill” with just salted water (saline!). Since 8 is around 5% of 170. Or 162 “fell” ill of placebo is 95% of 170.. So, that’s how they declared 95% efficacy rate! Go figure, Folks! Please , do not take my words or any others for this. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH FOLKS.. To me Jon Rappoport is one of the best in this issue. (I know, in the game of power, he is very dumb like most of scientists and nationalists)

COVID vaccine clinical trials doomed to fail – fatal design flaw

 … NY Times opinion piece exposes all three major clinical trials

Or do the vaccine manufacturers have a devious trick up their sleeves?

by Jon Rappoport

September 24, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

PART ONE: THE FAILURE

Peter Doshi, associate editor of the medical journal BMJ, and Eric Topol, Scripps Research professor of molecular medicine, have written a devastating NY Times opinion piece about the ongoing COVID vaccine clinical trials.

They expose the fatal flaw in the large Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna trials.

September 22, the Times: “These Coronavirus Trials Don’t Answer the One Question We Need to Know”:

“If you were to approve a coronavirus vaccine, would you approve one that you only knew protected people only from the most mild form of Covid-19, or one that would prevent its serious complications?”

“The answer is obvious. You would want to protect against the worst cases.”

“But that’s not how the companies testing three of the leading coronavirus vaccine candidates, Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca, whose U.S. trial is on hold, are approaching the problem.”

“According to the protocols for their studies, which they released late last week, a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.”

“To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick. That’s not what these trials will determine.”

This means these clinical trials are dead in the water.

The trials are designed to show effectiveness in preventing mild cases of COVID, which nobody should care about, because mild cases naturally run their course and cause no harm. THERE IS NO NEED FOR A VACCINE THAT PREVENTS MILD CASES.

Now let’s go deeper. Read the next section from the Times piece, and then I’ll make comments.

“The Moderna and AstraZeneca studies will involve about 30,000 participants each; Pfizer’s will have 44,000. Half the participants will receive two doses of vaccines separated by three or four weeks, and the other half will receive saltwater placebo shots. The final determination of efficacy will occur after 150 to 160 participants develop Covid-19…”

Here’s how it works. The vaccine companies are looking for a total of 150 (mild) COVID cases to occur, combined, in the two groups; those receiving the placebo and those receiving the vaccine. How would that happen? The researchers believe ‘the coronavirus is spreading everywhere and it will pounce on some of the volunteers in the clinical trial.’

Let’s say that, during the trial, 100 people receiving the placebo develop mild COVID-19, and only 50 people receiving the vaccine develop mild COVID.

The vaccine companies would say, ‘We just proved the vaccine is 50% effective in preventing COVID, and that’s all we need to do, in order to win authorization from the FDA. Release the vaccine. Inject the world.’

The irrelevant outcomes for 150 people equal ‘let’s shoot up seven billion people.’ That’s staggering.

But it gets even worse. The magic number of 150 COVID cases? How is a COVID case defined? The authors of the Times piece have the answer:

“In the Moderna and Pfizer trials, even a mild case of Covid-19 — for instance, a cough plus a positive lab test — would qualify and muddy the results. AstraZeneca is slightly more stringent but would still count mild symptoms like a cough plus fever as a case.”

But wait. The NY Times itself recently published an article stating that up to 90% of US COVID cases could very well be false positives—in other words, not cases at all. Why? Because the diagnostic PCR test, as it is performed by many labs, is too sensitive. It registers ‘positive for COVID’ when it shouldn’t.

So, in these vaccine clinical trials, the whole process of determining that ‘150 people developed COVID-19’ is completely unreliable, useless, absurd, and nonsensical.

Other than that, the clinical trials are perfect. Yes, perfectly ridiculous.

There is much more in the Times opinion piece, but I’ll leave it there.

“So the magic number is 150? That’s the number that will decide the immediate fate of the planet?”

“Of course.”

“And these 150 people, who you say develop COVID-19…you really can’t confirm that because the definition of a COVID case is so vague and the PCR test is so unreliable.”

“Correct.”

“And come to think of it, the people receiving the vaccine in the clinical trials could develop symptoms indistinguishable from COVID-19, as a result of the effects of the vaccine.”

“Yes, that’s right.”

“But you’re very confident in the success of the vaccine.”

“Indeed.”

“Why?”

“I have to be confident. If we’re exposed as incompetent frauds, our bottom line will take a huge hit.”

“Thank you, sir. And that’s tonight’s news. Make sure you take the vaccine, everyone. It’s vital. This is Fred J Clown, for CBS-NBC-ABC-CNN-FOX-PBS-AP-Reuters and all official news sources East, West, North, and South. The News, brought to you by Venom-X-2, a medicine that has only 463 adverse effects. Ask your doctor if Venom is right for you.”

PART TWO: THE DEVIOUS TRICK

Now I’m going to go over the vital information again, but this time I’m going to show you how…

The vaccine companies can use the fatal flaw in their protocol design to…

Actually win approval of their COVID vaccine.

Stick with me. This is big.

Only 150 people are needed to make the major clinical trials of a COVID vaccine look like a success.

Out of 30,000 volunteers in a trial, researchers are waiting for 150 people to “come down with COVID-19.” MILD cases. They assume this will happen because they believe the coronavirus is everywhere, and it’ll infect their volunteers.

Of course, their definition of a mild case of COVID-19 is meaningless. Cough plus fever, and a positive PCR test. The test spits out false positives like a rigged slot machine, and the visible symptoms could result from flu, polluted air, or too many candy bars.

Nevertheless, the researchers are waiting for a total of 150 people to “catch a mild case of COVID.” When that number is reached, everything stops.

Now comes the big moment. How many of those 150 COVID cases occurred in the group that received the vaccine, and how many in the group that received the placebo shot of salt water?

Let’s say only 50 COVID cases occurred in the vaccine group, and 100 in the placebo group. The researchers pop champagne corks. They say, “Look, the vaccine is 50% effective at preventing COVID, and that’s all we need to win authorization from the FDA.”

BUT suppose 70 cases occurred in the vaccine group and 80 in the placebo group? No good. No good at all. No way to call the vaccine effective.

Now comes the “reshaping of the data.”

HERE WE GO.

The researchers say, “Wait. Thirty of the COVID cases in the vaccine group were REALLY just adverse reactions to the vaccine. They weren’t cases of COVID. You see, the vaccine can cause symptoms that are indistinguishable from mild COVID. Cough, fever, chills. ACTUALLY, there were only 40 cases of COVID in the vaccine group. Half as many as in the placebo group. The vaccine IS 50% effective. We don’t really need to wait until we have a total of 150 COVID cases. We’re good. We’re golden. We can get authorization from the FDA right now to shoot up everybody in America!”

Vaccine manufacturers HAVE KNOWN ALL ALONG that they could pull this trick.

Why leave things to chance?

Why risk a few hundred billion dollars of profit on a random distribution of mild COVID cases among the volunteers in their clinical trials?

There is yet a further devious twist. The New York Times article I just analyzed torpedoed the vaccine manufacturers for designing their trial protocols to prevent MILD cases of COVID. Why?

Because no one needs a vaccine that can do that. Mild cases are not a problem or a threat. They cure themselves quickly. No vaccine is necessary in the first place.

BUT the definition of a mild COVID case is EXACTLY what the vaccine manufacturers needed. It enabled them to hatch a plan, to make sure they didn’t fail.

They could pawn off a MILD case of COVID on a vaccine reaction. They could fake that without causing ripples. The FDA would say, “The vaccine reactions aren’t serious. All right, no problem. We’ll approve this vaccine for emergency use.”

However…If the manufacturers designed their clinical trial protocol to prevent serious cases of COVID, they would be waiting to see 150 cases of really sick people to occur. That might never happen.

If it did happen, and the manufacturers had to pull their devious switcheroo trick and blame the vaccine for some of these SERIOUS cases…

They would have to tell the FDA that their vaccine was causing life-threatening pneumonia; and the FDA, under a lot of scrutiny these days, would find it very difficult to overlook that.

FDA: “We can’t approve this vaccine. It could cause a few million cases of dire pneumonia…”

The vaccine companies didn’t make a titanic stupid mistake in their protocol design. In gearing the protocol to prevent MILD COVID cases, they did what they did on purpose. It allows them to “reshape their data” and win FDA approval for their vaccine.

These companies have no intention of failing, starting over, and spending a year recruiting 30,000 new volunteers. They want success and money now. They want to win the race.

And they could win, if the truth isn’t known and shared widely.

===

Why You Shouldn’t Believe Anything The Government Says About Vaccines And Viruses

By Jon Rappoport

Jon Rappoport’s blog

August 19, 2020DonateFacebookTwitter

In this article, I’m putting together several pieces I wrote in years past, to reveal scandals on a scale most people have never considered.

Why? Because the credibility of information you’re getting now, from government agencies, about COVID, is connected to the credibility of information you’ve received from the same government agencies in years gone by.

If they lied to you then—in mind-boggling ways—there is no reason to think they’re telling the truth now.

Buckle up.

SCANDAL ONE: In 2013, Dr. Peter Doshi, writing in the online BMJ (British Medical Journal), revealed this monstrosity.

As Doshi states, every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples are taken from flu patients in the US and tested in labs. Here is the kicker: only a small percentage of these samples show the presence of a flu virus.

This means: most of the people in America who are diagnosed by doctors with the flu have no flu virus in their bodies.

So they don’t have the flu.

Therefore, even if you assume the flu vaccine is useful and safe, it couldn’t possibly prevent all those “flu cases” that aren’t flu cases.

The vaccine couldn’t possibly work.

The vaccine isn’t designed to prevent fake flu, unless pigs can fly.

Here’s the exact quote from Peter Doshi’s BMJ review, “Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease” (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037):

“…even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.

“…It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”

Because most diagnosed cases of the flu aren’t the flu.

So even if you’re a true believer in mainstream vaccine theory, you’re on the short end of the stick here. They’re conning your socks off.

But the mainstream press can’t report any of this.

It would topple the flu-treatment money machine. It would topple public health agencies.

SCANDAL TWO: Widely reported in the press, health authorities admit the seasonal flu vaccine may be only 10% effective in a given year.

But of course, they urge you to take the vaccine anyway.

Why is this vaccine ineffective? Because it’s made using chicken eggs, and researchers have discovered that the flu virus—which is placed in the vaccine—mutates in chicken eggs.

Therefore, by the time a person takes the flu shot, he’s not being protected against this year’s seasonal flu virus. He’s being protected against a mutated virus that isn’t causing the flu this year.

This is the conventional explanation. If you think it’s the whole story, I have condos for sale on the moon.

You see, vaccines have been made using chicken eggs…for the past 70 years.

Oops.

That would mean the flu vaccine has been ineffective for decades.

Healthline.com: “The majority of flu vaccines are grown in chicken eggs, a method of vaccine development that’s been used for 70 years.”

SCANDAL THREE: In December of 2005, the British Medical Journal (online) published another shocking Peter Doshi report, which created tremors through the halls of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), where “the experts” used to tell the press that 36,000 people in the US die every year from the flu.

Here is a quote from Doshi’s report, “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?” (BMJ 2005; 331:1412):

“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”

Boom.

You see, the CDC created one overall category that combines both flu and pneumonia deaths. Why do they do this? Because they disingenuously assume that the pneumonia deaths are complications stemming from the flu.

This is an absurd assumption. Pneumonia has a number of causes.

But even worse, in all the flu and pneumonia deaths, only 18 revealed the presence of an influenza virus.

Therefore, the CDC could not say, with assurance, that more than 18 people died of influenza in 2001. Not 36,000 deaths. 18 deaths.

Doshi continued his assessment of published CDC flu-death statistics: “Between 1979 and 2001, [CDC] data show an average of 1348 [flu] deaths per year (range 257 to 3006).” These figures refer to flu separated out from pneumonia.

This death toll is obviously far lower than the old parroted 36,000 figure.

However, when you add the sensible condition that lab tests have to actually find the flu virus in patients, the numbers of flu deaths plummet even further.

In other words, it’s all promotion and hype.

“Well, uh, we used to say that 36,000 people die from the flu every year in the US. But actually, all we can prove is about 20 deaths. However, we can’t admit that, because if we did, we’d be exposing our gigantic psyop. The whole campaign to scare people into getting a flu shot would have about the same effect as warning people to carry iron umbrellas, in case toasters fall out of upper-story windows…and, by the way, we’d be put in prison for fraud.”

SCANDAL FOUR: The so-called Swine Flu pandemic of 2009. This one is a real eye-opener. The CDC was caught with its pants down.

Swine Flu was hyped to the sky by the CDC. The Agency was calling for all Americans to take the Swine Flu vaccine. Remember?

The problem was, the CDC was concealing a very dirty secret.

At the time, star CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, was working on the Swine Flu story. She discovered that the CDC had secretly stopped counting cases of the illness—while, of course, continuing to warn Americans about its unchecked spread.

Understand that the CDC’s main job is counting cases and reporting the numbers.

What was the Agency up to?

Here is an excerpt from my 2014 interview with Sharyl Attkisson:

Rappoport: In 2009, you spearheaded coverage of the so-called Swine Flu pandemic. You discovered that, in the summer of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control, ignoring their federal mandate, [secretly] stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Yet they continued to stir up fear about the “pandemic,” without having any real measure of its impact. Wasn’t that another investigation of yours that was shut down? Wasn’t there more to find out?

Attkisson: The implications of the story were even worse than that. We discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one [CBS] executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was “the most original story” he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others pushed to stop it [after it was published on the CBS News website] and, in the end, no [CBS television news] broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.

–—end of interview excerpt—–

It was routine for doctors all over America to send blood samples from patients they’d diagnosed with Swine Flu, or the “most likely” Swine Flu patients, to labs for testing. And overwhelmingly, those samples were coming back with the result: not Swine Flu, not any kind of flu.

That was the big secret. That’s what the CDC was hiding. That’s why they stopped reporting Swine Flu case numbers. That’s what Attkisson had discovered. That’s why she was shut down.

But it gets even worse.

Because about three weeks after Attkisson’s findings were published on the CBS News website, the CDC, obviously in a panic, decided to double down. If one lie is exposed, tell an even bigger one. A much bigger one.

Here, from a November 12, 2009, WebMD article is the CDC’s response: “Shockingly, 14 million to 34 million U.S. residents — the CDC’s best guess is 22 million — came down with H1N1 swine flu by Oct. 17 [2009].” (“22 million cases of Swine Flu in US,” by Daniel J. DeNoon).

Are your eyeballs popping? They should be.

In the summer of 2009, the CDC secretly stops counting Swine Flu cases in America, because the overwhelming percentage of lab tests from likely Swine Flu patients shows no sign of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu.

There is no Swine Flu epidemic.

Then, the CDC estimates there are 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu in the US.

SCANDAL FIVE: This one involves a vaccine manufacturer. It goes back to at least 2016, and it keeps unfolding.

—The Philippines, where drug giant Sanofi’s Dengvaxia, was given to prevent Dengue Fever. Sanofi is facing enormous pushback from government officials, who stopped the national vaccination campaign, after thousands of children already received the shot.

The issue? Safety.

FiercePharma: “The Philippines stopped vaccinations shortly after the company warned that Dengvaxia can cause more serious infections in those who previously hadn’t had exposure to the virus. The country also kicked off a probe and plans legal action, according to health secretary Francisco Duque.”

Did you get that? The company (Sanofi) itself warned that vaccine might not be safe.

FiercePharma: “…the [Philippine] Department of Health didn’t heed warnings from an advisory group of doctors and pharmacologists, who concluded early last year that the vaccine’s safety and efficacy were unproven.”

My, my.

But let’s dig even deeper. Sanofi saying is saying the vaccine might be dangerous for those who haven’t been exposed to the Dengue virus before getting the shot. What on Earth does that mean?

It means a child who had naturally come in contact with the virus would have developed his own antibodies to it. And later, those antibodies would protect him against the Dengue virus IN THE VACCINE. Otherwise, the virus in the vaccine could give him a case of Dengue or cause some other form of damage.

This is saying, “If a child is ALREADY immune to Dengue Fever, because his immune system has successfully dealt with the virus, then the vaccine won’t damage him.”

And THAT is saying, “If the child has naturally developed an immunity to Dengue, then the vaccine, WHICH HE DOESN’T NEED, won’t harm him.”

Of course, the press isn’t getting the picture. If any reporters are seeing the light, they’re keeping their mouths shut. The scandal is too big and too crazy.

Between the lines, a vaccine company is admitting their vaccine is only safe for children who don’t need it.

A tree just fell in the forest. Who heard it?

Mainstream reporters don’t want to uncover the true meaning of vaccine scandals. Therefore, they cultivate ignorance as a defense against admitting their own unconscionable bias. And that’s the essence of their own mental “vaccine,” which works very well. For them.

These five scandals, as boggling as they are, are just a brief sampling from the recent history of governments and pharma.

History matters.

The titanic load of nonsense and lies about COVID now being dropped on the population is one more chapter of business as usual:

In 2019, a new and unique coronavirus was discovered through the application of proper scientific procedures. LIE.

The diagnostic test (PCR) is dependable and highly accurate. LIE.

The case numbers and deaths numbers are accurate and meaningful. LIE.

The containment measures are effective. LIE.

The destruction of national economies, through lockdowns, is necessary. LIE.

In over 150 articles, I’ve provided evidence to support the assertion that these are all egregious lies.