I thought the same, I've heard many vaccine trials do not use saline as the placebo, but often another already approved vaccine, which made me wonder how that can be considered a "placebo" in the first place?! I do not know what was the placebo for the Pfizer Covid "vaccine" trial, hopefully it was saline solution or something else harmless...
See Chapter 1 from "Turtles All The Way Down". None of the vaccines in the childhood schedule use an inert placebo. Rather, It's another vaccine or an adjuvant from another, or the same, vaccine.
Del Bigtree mention somewhere that it was a true placebo - saying, for that reason, at least, it was better than what has been done with vaxes in the childhood schedule. But, in the end, it's like you say. "who knows"?
It wouldn't surprise me if they injected all the cr@p from the actual product just minus the mRNA as the supposed placebo, they have done similar with other vaccine trials.
According to Dr. Sebastian Rushworth, the Pfizer trials used saline solutions. (This info is from his book Covid: Why most of what you know is wrong.) It's a good question, though. AstraZaneca, for example, used the meningococcal vaccine in the control arm.
I think that's an excellent question. I always assumed they used saline or something neutral but I've learned that isn't always true. Sometime they just compare it to a different drug.
there is to the best of my knowledge no indication a placebo other than saline was used in C4591001, and i've looked very closely.
disclaimer: the following is entirely speculative, but due to the faux blinding, it is within the realm of possibility that non-placebo patients may have been changed to placebo. i have not seen evidence of this either.
another speculation i entertain from time to time is the possibility of non-random trial arm assignations. if you go through the individual participants' CRF files, you'll quickly notice the high proportion of people with considerable pre-existing health conditions, the presence of which make masking AEs much simpler.
I read in Kennedys book they used the new menagitis jab. They never use a true placebo. Turtles All The Way Down has excellent explanations of vaccine testing.
My guess, lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). Moderna trials with their LNPs never succeeded in animal trials due to toxicity. A properly designed clinical trial would have included saline, LNPs, and LNPs plus mRNA. This data gap exists because those controlling the narrative (RCTs, publications, and media coverage) know how deadly LNPs and mRNA technology really are.
That's a good point. Some researchers are saying the LNPs are a bigger problem than the spike proteins (which are still a huge problem). Then the mRNA itself may have toxic effects. Just toxic all the way down.
Reportedly Pfizer/Moderna has 13 billion LNPs per shot and AZ/J&J 50 billion.
My understanding is that all vaccines are tested against a ‘placebo’ identical to the vaccine but without the active ingredient. So the Pfizer placebo would be the same as the vaccine but without the mRNA element. The reason is vaccine adjuvants are designed to amplify immune response to the vaccine component and and known to cause adverse, allergenic type reactions, some fatal, in some. If the placebo were just saline, and adverse events occurred in the vaccine group, it would be uncertain whether this was caused by the mRNA or the adjuvants.
Then have 3 arms: trial therapy, true placebo (saline, or nothing at all, since the placebo effect is pseudoscientific bunk), and everything except the new ingredient.
I would have thought that book be rather popular. Salt Lake City and County libraries and local used book stores don't have it, though plenty of copies of the John Green novel. WickedPedia also has no article on it. Did Bezeq hide it?
Yes I would like to know that answer too. I am not buying that "saline" had this many deaths and reactions. @Mr Siri could you please find out and post?
Great question. If it's not in the documents ask over at dailyclout.io as they may have covered it already. I haven't read all 54+ reports LOL. If not then time for a YAFR (Yet Another FOIA Request).
With the use of an interactive Web-based system, participants in the trial were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive 30 μg of BNT162b2 (0.3 ml volume per dose) or saline placebo. Participants received two injections, 21 days apart, of either BNT162b2 or placebo, delivered in the deltoid muscle. Site staff who were responsible for safety evaluation and were unaware of group assignments observed participants for 30 minutes after vaccination for any acute reactions.
The placebo deaths are over 5-6 months, out of 22000 people, so don't seem too unexpected.
What we should focus on is the clear DANGER SIGNALS in the two "gold standard" clinical trials. The separate Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials BOTH had a 15-17% increase in non-COVID deaths, and specifically a 40-50% increase in cardiovascular-related deaths, with vaccine vs. placebo. In the two clinical trials, the overall net effect of mRNA vaccination was "4 killed for every 3 saved".
To be fair, no one really knows the goal. We just know the "vaccines" came from the military. Now did the military get THEIR orders from the Chinese, or the WEF, or someone else?
And what was their goal? Did they plan on COVID being more deadly? Did they understand the risk profile of the shots? Did they intend to "vax" the developed world much more than the "developing" world?
Excellent analysis and summary. The "bottom line" is simple to ascertain: More vaccinated people died than unvaccinated after receiving these shots. And once they "unblinded" the trials (basically did away with the placebo group), the disparity became even greater. Thanks. I'm going to share this via a cross-post on my Substack site.
The fix was in. It’s a DOD operation. That’s why the CDC & the FDA continue to ignore reality & allow catastrophic harm to the public. This is not a mistake or incompetence. It’s an orchestrated event & everyone should be terrified as to why and why they continue to ignore such obvious and unprecedented harm. They are killing children and they don’t care. They’re monsters!
What would be interesting data would be the ages of the cardiovascular deaths in both the placebo and vaccine subjects. Also the health and physical conditions of each patient that died.
This whole gene therapy rollout was too fast, sloppy and given the go by the agency we thought was there to protect us, the FDA.
There should never be a gene therapy rollout, regardless of speed. I’ve got a spry aunt living energetic and happy life in her 90s. She didn’t need gene therapy to get there.
i know! both my parents age 88 got covid-19 before vaccine roll out... both were later vaccinated and both refused to further vaccinate... neither got very sick from covid-19 in 12/2020.. and neither have got it again. my mom who was sharing a king bed with me during a wedding for my son, didn’t get it even though i got it along with my neice sharing the room. those highly vaccinated and claiming to be boosted just before the wedding all got it so, i don’t equate it to the vaccine, rather to the early contraction of the virus end of 2020 which developed a healthy immunity to it for her... we all know the vaccine doesn’t prevent spread... proven by all those at wedding boosted just weeks before! lol
I haven't thought that since ICIA (now AstraZeneca) demanded contributions to a PAC to lobby the Congress to allow the FDA to accept bribes to expedite drug approvals.
Believe it or not, the excess vaccine deaths in both the Pfizer and Moderna RCTs were confined to the OLDER age groups. In the two RCTs combined, among the older age groups, there were 21 deaths in the vaccine groups versus 16 deaths in the placebo groups. A 31% INCREASE in overall mortality with the "lifesaving" vaccine, in the OLDER age groups. (Many reasons for the younger folks NOT to risk the vaccine, even if the 6-month mortality effect is mildly favorable for them in the RCTs, considering that it's ALREADY unfavorable for the older folks by 6 months. It's not hard to imagine that the old would be more vulnerable to any deadly effects EARLIER than the young).
Among the older age group (>55) in the Pfizer RCT, there were 12 deaths in the vaccine group versus 10 deaths in the placebo group. https://www.fda.gov/media/152256/download - see page 57, BOTTOM of Table 25
What's crazy is that this has all been known for well over a year. The other garbage is that the trial "end point" was chosen as Covid cases vs. all cause death rate. The 95% efficacy was calculated on a RELATIVE RISK basis. The control group had 162 Covid cases vs. the trial group's 8 cases (8/162 = 5%... a 95% lower case rate). Everybody assumed that meant that the vaccine would protect you against 95% of the risk. Not.
The trial and control arms combined had 40,000 participants. The 162 control arm cases represented an ABSOLUTE RISK 0.4%. The trial arm 8 represented a 0.02% ABSOLUTE RISK. If the absolute risk reduction had been known by the general public to be so low, would they have run down to CVS to be jabbed? Especially after 1,223 people died from the jabs in the first 90 days of the roll out?
What you are saying is true of every pharmaceutical trial. They never highlight absolute risk. Because you were absolutely correct, that they would lose most of their market share if people realized the tiny tiny benefit that most pharmaceuticals provide. Which should be required by the FDA if they were not captured entirety by big Pharma
Is the publication of NNT versus NNH. THE FIRST IS NUMBER NEEDED TO TREAT, AND THE SECOND IS NUMBER NEEDED TO HARM. THESE NUMBERS WOULD SHOW THE PUBLIC THAT MANY DOZENS OF PEOPLE EVEN HUNDREDS WOULD NEED TO BE TREATED FOR EVEN ONE PERSON TO BENEFIT AND DEPENDING UPON THE RISK OF THE DRUG A SIMILAR NUMBER OF PEOPLE, OR EVEN LESS, WOULD BE NEEDED TO TREAT TO HAVE ONE PATIENT HARMED. Big Pharma literally gets away with murder every single day and virtually everything they do.
They think they can escape death with enough of these forced global experiments and mRNA artificially created to heal or prevent cancer or other diseases. Plus the more people who die the less chance they have of being murdered. So for those doing this to the world it’s a win-win.
We already knew the 15 to 14 number, but the unblinded number just drives home the point that the clinical trial didn't support the need for these products. Absolutely criminal.
What were the reasons given by Pfizer and accepted by the FDA as to the cause of deaths among the spike protein injected? It seems illogical that “random health issues” could have been accepted as a cause of a statistical anomaly, so there must have been a better explanation. It’d be interesting to know what overwhelming convincing explanation was claimed.
What your article does not indicate is that standard statistical tests presumably showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the vaccine deaths and the placebo deaths. Meaning that there is a good chance that the disparity occurred by chance alone and not because the vaccines were more lethal. That is stat 101.
So global health authorities mandate an experimental injectable product for billions of people based on data that shows no significant improvement in all cause mortality between placebo and drug group? Which makes Pharma over >$100B in revenue? And that seems OK to you?
Can you point out where I wrote that I am supportive of mandating the vaccine. I don’t appreciate your misrepresentation of my comments. All I said, is that one cannot draw statistically significant conclusions from the number of deaths in the two arms.
Can you point out where the author wrote that these results were statistically significant? I don’t appreciate your misrepresentation of the author’s comments. Why focus on the insignificant minutiae when people are dying from these jabs? What’s your point? If not as a distraction, or worse, to discredit the argument that the trials show no benefit and may actually be dangerous, then to what end are you commenting? The whole point of trials are to show a benefit. The burden of proof weighs on those who want emergency use authorization, not on those who don’t want to be injected. The point here is that the trials did not meet that criteria, and in fact, more people died in placebo arm than in the drug arm. Is your comment solely an effort to assuage your ego by making a statistically accurate comment that serves no end purpose? If so, bravo, you have a rudimentary understanding of statistics.
The FDA established endpoints for the trial to show that the vaccine was safe, and had efficacy in preventing cases of COVID. The trial showed that it had an efficacy of about 95% in preventing symptomatic Covid cases and at least according to the Pfizer data and you could choose to believe them or not did not have adverse safety consequences. The number of deaths were close enough in the two arms that the feds did not conclude that the vaccines were a hazard for death. It’s as simple as that. You may and the author may believe that the deaths attributed to the vaccine group were actually from the vaccines. Pfizer said they are not from the vaccines perhaps Pfizer is lying or incorrect but what evidence does the author of this article show that that is the case?
I think the appropriate remedy at this point would be, for the feds to closely review all of the data surrounding all of the deaths, in the trial, based upon what we now know about the mechanisms of action, and the adverse impacts of the vaccine to determine as best as possible whether a reasonable case could be made that some or all of those deaths in the vaccine group were in fact from the vaccine, and not coincident with the vaccine. Would you be supportive of that?
Below, please see some of the challenges that I have yet to overcome when it comes to believing the data and conclusions resulting from the Pfizer/FDA/CDC trials. You may think all of my points are superfluous, and that would be your right.
Starting with heart inflammation issues that have arisen post jab introduction to a broad population:
1) Much higher rates of myocarditis in certain demographics than stated by the CDC/Pfizer;
2) The majority of myocarditis cases are much more dangerous than represented by many in public and private health.
IMHO one would need a firm grasp on the risks and benefits of this drug before recommending the Covid experimental, injectable products to anyone. Especially across the broad demographics for which it has been mandated. What is the evidence of this based on RCT? If the evidence is solely the Pfizer/FDA trials, please help me to understand how you resolved the following challenges?
1) The trials do not offer LONG TERM evidence of safety, nor efficacy, because a) we don’t have LONG TERM data, and b) the Pfizer trial participants were unblinded, on average after about 3 months. The trials also did not segregate different demographics, including by age, gender or other current characteristics (pregnant/lactating women, etc.). The trials also did not test for efficacy against transmission. The trials did not test effects in proximity to other medications.
2) There is strong evidence of mismanagement and even fraud during the trials as provided by whistleblower(s) employed by Pfizer trials’ subcontractors. See Brook Jackson.
3) There is strong evidence of fraud as shown by trials participants like Maddie de Garay who suffered serious adverse events that were not correctly documented as such and not investigated promptly as such. Also see Augusto Roux.
4) The Pfizer trials did not classify participants as “vaccinated” until 14 days after the second shot. This methodology of delayed classification excludes from the “vaccinated group” what may be a significant immunosuppressive period (the time between 1st jab and 14 days after 2nd jab) and all the accompanying adverse events from that group. This potential major transfer of adverse events via a classification methodology was continually carried out (in several studies I have reviewed) comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated adverse events like hospitalization and death.
5) The FDA and Pfizer worked together (is “conspired” too pejorative? Probably not...) to ask the judicial system to slow the release of the trials data to a tiny drip over 75 years. Who doesn’t want to immediately release data that puts them in a good light?
6) Pfizer and other Big Pharma companies are convicted criminal organizations who are known to cheat to make money. Dr. Marcia Angell (former editor of NEJM) doesn’t pull any punches when she says, "Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself." And, “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor ofThe New England Journal of Medicine.” Dr. Angell left her position as Editor-in-Chief of NEJM in 2000. Dr. Angell is now a faculty member of Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics. Do you believe Big Pharma has become more ethical in recent years?
7) The Pfizer trials showed higher all-cause mortality in the vaccinated group than the placebo group. (Our starting point, today).
8) The significant increase in Covid vaccine adverse events (orders of magnitude when compared to all other vaccines) reported in VAERS and V-safe (and the equivalent systems in the UK, Germany, and the US DoD) should not be casually dismissed as unimportant due to the voluntary nature of the reports. It is a felony to commit a fraudulent claim to VAERS. The authorities should be doing a thorough investigation on the explosion in adverse events reported, and press charges against fraudulent event reporting, if in fact it exists. This is a government mandated early warning system that includes defined protocols that are supposed to be followed to potentially trigger stopping conditions. The government has provided research that implies a significant amount of UNDER reporting into the system in the past. Why have the government/public health officials and anti-anti-vaxxers maligned and abandoned the government’s only population wide, early-warning, defense mechanism when it comes to Covid vaccines? (This is where Herb’s suggestion resides).
9) The 95% efficacy claim was a relative (not absolute) risk reduction number on a tiny percentage of test population, using dubious classification methodology, with evidence of fraud and mismanagement, with a technology (MRNA) that Merck couldn’t get to elicit any efficacy, over a very short time period. Even after all these biases Pfizer couldn’t show an improvement in all-cause mortality. And, we now know, that the efficacy wanes rapidly.
10) There are about $100 billion reasons why Big Pharma would conspire to do all these things.
11) The spike protein does not degrade after a couple of days, nor does it stay localized at the injection site as promised. Several studies have shown evidence that the MRNA ingredients spread throughout the body, including the brain and reproductive organs.
I’m not a doctor, but I spent nearly 40 years on Wall Street analyzing data that was often used to try and manipulate investors into allocating to unworthy opportunities. It seems to me that the people at Big Pharma who run the FDA trials are very good at bending the data to their needs (just like money managers). They apparently got an antibody response in trials participants (to the original, Wuhan variant) that was optimized during the first few months. But, unfortunately, the jabs elicited some adverse events that clustered between the (1) first jab and 14 days after the second jab, and then again (2) after about 3-5 months (i.e., after they ended the trials). They then came up with a narrative to match the data (again, not unusual in my previous profession) and the FDA vacated their role as public fiduciary (and rubber stamped the whole process).
I have been searching but can’t find any significant evidence the jabs have improved broad population outcomes since implementation. Some of the more jabbed countries are seeing significant jumps in excess mortality, and drops in birth rates. The rates of death per population from covid are extremely high in highly jabbed places like UK and USA when compared to ROW. The jabs haven’t slowed the spread of Covid in previous lockdown countries like Australia and NZ. Of course, there are many confounding factors here, but I’m struggling to find any evidence that these experimental injections have improved outcomes since introduction.
I am only sharing this information because it seems many aren’t aware of some of these differing views/theories and I believe the scientific method requires a robust and open debate. I would love for anyone to disabuse me of my notions as presented here. It’s quite unmooring to review primary data and come to conclusions that differ from the mainstream narrative.
The person I am today, after much (reluctant) primary research, would be considered a crazy conspiracy theorist by the person I was 3 years ago. I was an active donor to organizations like the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and many medical research organizations. Not any more. It’s not fun when you choose TRUTH over COMMUNITY, but I couldn’t live any other way.
I think the main point is that because the product being studied performed WORSE than placebo, it should NOT have been rolled out to the world, let alone MANDATED.
Do we know what was used as the placebo? Seems an extraordinary number of deaths for saline injection.
I thought the same, I've heard many vaccine trials do not use saline as the placebo, but often another already approved vaccine, which made me wonder how that can be considered a "placebo" in the first place?! I do not know what was the placebo for the Pfizer Covid "vaccine" trial, hopefully it was saline solution or something else harmless...
I’ve read they sometimes will use a more dangerous “placebo” to make their product look better
Sometimes they use the adjudeficants from other vaccines.
Right! How do we know it wasn’t a flu shot or straight PEG?
good point! we as public need full disclosure!
See Chapter 1 from "Turtles All The Way Down". None of the vaccines in the childhood schedule use an inert placebo. Rather, It's another vaccine or an adjuvant from another, or the same, vaccine.
Supposedly it was a true placebo, but who knows...
Del Bigtree mention somewhere that it was a true placebo - saying, for that reason, at least, it was better than what has been done with vaxes in the childhood schedule. But, in the end, it's like you say. "who knows"?
It wouldn't surprise me if they injected all the cr@p from the actual product just minus the mRNA as the supposed placebo, they have done similar with other vaccine trials.
In any event, we should have that information. We should know what was used in the trials!
I wouldn't believe whatever Pfizer claimed.
According to Dr. Sebastian Rushworth, the Pfizer trials used saline solutions. (This info is from his book Covid: Why most of what you know is wrong.) It's a good question, though. AstraZaneca, for example, used the meningococcal vaccine in the control arm.
All Rushworth could know is what Pfizer claim and Pfizer is a compulsive liar.
No arguments with you there.
I think that's an excellent question. I always assumed they used saline or something neutral but I've learned that isn't always true. Sometime they just compare it to a different drug.
there is to the best of my knowledge no indication a placebo other than saline was used in C4591001, and i've looked very closely.
disclaimer: the following is entirely speculative, but due to the faux blinding, it is within the realm of possibility that non-placebo patients may have been changed to placebo. i have not seen evidence of this either.
another speculation i entertain from time to time is the possibility of non-random trial arm assignations. if you go through the individual participants' CRF files, you'll quickly notice the high proportion of people with considerable pre-existing health conditions, the presence of which make masking AEs much simpler.
i'd be gladly corrected!
i had heard at one point that many others receiving trial injection who sustained serious advert side effects where actually removed from trial….
I read in Kennedys book they used the new menagitis jab. They never use a true placebo. Turtles All The Way Down has excellent explanations of vaccine testing.
My guess, lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). Moderna trials with their LNPs never succeeded in animal trials due to toxicity. A properly designed clinical trial would have included saline, LNPs, and LNPs plus mRNA. This data gap exists because those controlling the narrative (RCTs, publications, and media coverage) know how deadly LNPs and mRNA technology really are.
That's a good point. Some researchers are saying the LNPs are a bigger problem than the spike proteins (which are still a huge problem). Then the mRNA itself may have toxic effects. Just toxic all the way down.
Reportedly Pfizer/Moderna has 13 billion LNPs per shot and AZ/J&J 50 billion.
My understanding is that all vaccines are tested against a ‘placebo’ identical to the vaccine but without the active ingredient. So the Pfizer placebo would be the same as the vaccine but without the mRNA element. The reason is vaccine adjuvants are designed to amplify immune response to the vaccine component and and known to cause adverse, allergenic type reactions, some fatal, in some. If the placebo were just saline, and adverse events occurred in the vaccine group, it would be uncertain whether this was caused by the mRNA or the adjuvants.
Some vaccine placebos are other vaccines with known side effects.
I did read that somewhere too.
Then have 3 arms: trial therapy, true placebo (saline, or nothing at all, since the placebo effect is pseudoscientific bunk), and everything except the new ingredient.
These vaxxes might give you three arms. :-)
Would that be the arm with the gripping hand?
Not so...read Turtles All the Way Down.
I would have thought that book be rather popular. Salt Lake City and County libraries and local used book stores don't have it, though plenty of copies of the John Green novel. WickedPedia also has no article on it. Did Bezeq hide it?
Yes I would like to know that answer too. I am not buying that "saline" had this many deaths and reactions. @Mr Siri could you please find out and post?
The aortic rupture death in the "placebo" group seems especially suspicious to me.
Thank you, I appreciate the recommendation. I will watch. Cheers
0nly a depop agenda explains it perhaps?
Great question. If it's not in the documents ask over at dailyclout.io as they may have covered it already. I haven't read all 54+ reports LOL. If not then time for a YAFR (Yet Another FOIA Request).
If I remember correctly this “vaccine” was the only one ever given with a true placebo... that we know of
Allegedly...
TRIAL PROCEDURES
With the use of an interactive Web-based system, participants in the trial were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive 30 μg of BNT162b2 (0.3 ml volume per dose) or saline placebo. Participants received two injections, 21 days apart, of either BNT162b2 or placebo, delivered in the deltoid muscle. Site staff who were responsible for safety evaluation and were unaware of group assignments observed participants for 30 minutes after vaccination for any acute reactions.
SOURCE: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577
Elderly people?
The placebo deaths are over 5-6 months, out of 22000 people, so don't seem too unexpected.
What we should focus on is the clear DANGER SIGNALS in the two "gold standard" clinical trials. The separate Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials BOTH had a 15-17% increase in non-COVID deaths, and specifically a 40-50% increase in cardiovascular-related deaths, with vaccine vs. placebo. In the two clinical trials, the overall net effect of mRNA vaccination was "4 killed for every 3 saved".
Pfizer: https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345/suppl_file/nejmoa2110345_appendix.pdf – Table S4
Moderna: https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2113017/suppl_file/nejmoa2113017_appendix.pdf – Table S26
The cardiac deaths in the Pfizer trial were very lopsided towards the vaccinated group. What do you mean 40-50% increase?
Pfizer trial cardiovascular-related deaths: 9 vaccine vs 6 placebo=50% higher w/ vax
Moderna trial cardiovascular-related deaths: 7 vaccine vs 5 placebo=40% higher w/ vax
Total mRNA cardiovascular-related deaths: 16 vaccine vs 11 placebo=45% higher w/ vax
This is a danger signal for sure, and is very consistent with people's concerns based on real-world observations.
And there were 5 more vaccine deaths they counted before unblinding according to Siri. That number is likely higher...
I'm wondering what the status of comorbidities was in the participants that may have factored into the deaths in both groups.
The FDA was only pretending to look at anything. It is all play-acting. The goal is to kill a bunch of us and get rich doing it.
To be fair, no one really knows the goal. We just know the "vaccines" came from the military. Now did the military get THEIR orders from the Chinese, or the WEF, or someone else?
And what was their goal? Did they plan on COVID being more deadly? Did they understand the risk profile of the shots? Did they intend to "vax" the developed world much more than the "developing" world?
Excellent analysis and summary. The "bottom line" is simple to ascertain: More vaccinated people died than unvaccinated after receiving these shots. And once they "unblinded" the trials (basically did away with the placebo group), the disparity became even greater. Thanks. I'm going to share this via a cross-post on my Substack site.
The fix was in. It’s a DOD operation. That’s why the CDC & the FDA continue to ignore reality & allow catastrophic harm to the public. This is not a mistake or incompetence. It’s an orchestrated event & everyone should be terrified as to why and why they continue to ignore such obvious and unprecedented harm. They are killing children and they don’t care. They’re monsters!
"They are killing children and they don’t care. They’re monsters."
This statement is so true. Let's use the Socratic method to test this statement for veracity:
Are they killing children? Yes. Obviously.
Do they care that this is happening? No. Obviously.
Are people who don't care about killing children actually "monsters" or "evil?"
People who knowingly kill children are NOT evil or monsters?
What would be interesting data would be the ages of the cardiovascular deaths in both the placebo and vaccine subjects. Also the health and physical conditions of each patient that died.
This whole gene therapy rollout was too fast, sloppy and given the go by the agency we thought was there to protect us, the FDA.
There should never be a gene therapy rollout, regardless of speed. I’ve got a spry aunt living energetic and happy life in her 90s. She didn’t need gene therapy to get there.
i know! both my parents age 88 got covid-19 before vaccine roll out... both were later vaccinated and both refused to further vaccinate... neither got very sick from covid-19 in 12/2020.. and neither have got it again. my mom who was sharing a king bed with me during a wedding for my son, didn’t get it even though i got it along with my neice sharing the room. those highly vaccinated and claiming to be boosted just before the wedding all got it so, i don’t equate it to the vaccine, rather to the early contraction of the virus end of 2020 which developed a healthy immunity to it for her... we all know the vaccine doesn’t prevent spread... proven by all those at wedding boosted just weeks before! lol
I haven't thought that since ICIA (now AstraZeneca) demanded contributions to a PAC to lobby the Congress to allow the FDA to accept bribes to expedite drug approvals.
Believe it or not, the excess vaccine deaths in both the Pfizer and Moderna RCTs were confined to the OLDER age groups. In the two RCTs combined, among the older age groups, there were 21 deaths in the vaccine groups versus 16 deaths in the placebo groups. A 31% INCREASE in overall mortality with the "lifesaving" vaccine, in the OLDER age groups. (Many reasons for the younger folks NOT to risk the vaccine, even if the 6-month mortality effect is mildly favorable for them in the RCTs, considering that it's ALREADY unfavorable for the older folks by 6 months. It's not hard to imagine that the old would be more vulnerable to any deadly effects EARLIER than the young).
Among the older age group (>65) in the Moderna RCT, there were 9 deaths in the vaccine group versus 6 deaths in the placebo group. https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2113017/suppl_file/nejmoa2113017_appendix.pdf - see page 53, Table S19
Among the older age group (>55) in the Pfizer RCT, there were 12 deaths in the vaccine group versus 10 deaths in the placebo group. https://www.fda.gov/media/152256/download - see page 57, BOTTOM of Table 25
What's crazy is that this has all been known for well over a year. The other garbage is that the trial "end point" was chosen as Covid cases vs. all cause death rate. The 95% efficacy was calculated on a RELATIVE RISK basis. The control group had 162 Covid cases vs. the trial group's 8 cases (8/162 = 5%... a 95% lower case rate). Everybody assumed that meant that the vaccine would protect you against 95% of the risk. Not.
The trial and control arms combined had 40,000 participants. The 162 control arm cases represented an ABSOLUTE RISK 0.4%. The trial arm 8 represented a 0.02% ABSOLUTE RISK. If the absolute risk reduction had been known by the general public to be so low, would they have run down to CVS to be jabbed? Especially after 1,223 people died from the jabs in the first 90 days of the roll out?
What you are saying is true of every pharmaceutical trial. They never highlight absolute risk. Because you were absolutely correct, that they would lose most of their market share if people realized the tiny tiny benefit that most pharmaceuticals provide. Which should be required by the FDA if they were not captured entirety by big Pharma
Is the publication of NNT versus NNH. THE FIRST IS NUMBER NEEDED TO TREAT, AND THE SECOND IS NUMBER NEEDED TO HARM. THESE NUMBERS WOULD SHOW THE PUBLIC THAT MANY DOZENS OF PEOPLE EVEN HUNDREDS WOULD NEED TO BE TREATED FOR EVEN ONE PERSON TO BENEFIT AND DEPENDING UPON THE RISK OF THE DRUG A SIMILAR NUMBER OF PEOPLE, OR EVEN LESS, WOULD BE NEEDED TO TREAT TO HAVE ONE PATIENT HARMED. Big Pharma literally gets away with murder every single day and virtually everything they do.
Thanks for reminding me of all of these facts Lawrence. So true.
Thank you so much for the work you are doing for all of us!!!
Those FDA and other Government officials think they’re getting away with Murder. They’re right, they are, for now.
But the Bible reminds us our lives are but a vapor (James 4:14). They’re facing the Righteous Judge sooner than they realize, though.
They think they can escape death with enough of these forced global experiments and mRNA artificially created to heal or prevent cancer or other diseases. Plus the more people who die the less chance they have of being murdered. So for those doing this to the world it’s a win-win.
We already knew the 15 to 14 number, but the unblinded number just drives home the point that the clinical trial didn't support the need for these products. Absolutely criminal.
What were the reasons given by Pfizer and accepted by the FDA as to the cause of deaths among the spike protein injected? It seems illogical that “random health issues” could have been accepted as a cause of a statistical anomaly, so there must have been a better explanation. It’d be interesting to know what overwhelming convincing explanation was claimed.
Aaron, thanks for the shout-out but I was just cross-posting from Ben from usmortality.substack.com
What your article does not indicate is that standard statistical tests presumably showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the vaccine deaths and the placebo deaths. Meaning that there is a good chance that the disparity occurred by chance alone and not because the vaccines were more lethal. That is stat 101.
So global health authorities mandate an experimental injectable product for billions of people based on data that shows no significant improvement in all cause mortality between placebo and drug group? Which makes Pharma over >$100B in revenue? And that seems OK to you?
Not to mention nothing in the way of medium to long term safety data.
Can you point out where I wrote that I am supportive of mandating the vaccine. I don’t appreciate your misrepresentation of my comments. All I said, is that one cannot draw statistically significant conclusions from the number of deaths in the two arms.
Can you point out where the author wrote that these results were statistically significant? I don’t appreciate your misrepresentation of the author’s comments. Why focus on the insignificant minutiae when people are dying from these jabs? What’s your point? If not as a distraction, or worse, to discredit the argument that the trials show no benefit and may actually be dangerous, then to what end are you commenting? The whole point of trials are to show a benefit. The burden of proof weighs on those who want emergency use authorization, not on those who don’t want to be injected. The point here is that the trials did not meet that criteria, and in fact, more people died in placebo arm than in the drug arm. Is your comment solely an effort to assuage your ego by making a statistically accurate comment that serves no end purpose? If so, bravo, you have a rudimentary understanding of statistics.
The FDA established endpoints for the trial to show that the vaccine was safe, and had efficacy in preventing cases of COVID. The trial showed that it had an efficacy of about 95% in preventing symptomatic Covid cases and at least according to the Pfizer data and you could choose to believe them or not did not have adverse safety consequences. The number of deaths were close enough in the two arms that the feds did not conclude that the vaccines were a hazard for death. It’s as simple as that. You may and the author may believe that the deaths attributed to the vaccine group were actually from the vaccines. Pfizer said they are not from the vaccines perhaps Pfizer is lying or incorrect but what evidence does the author of this article show that that is the case?
I think the appropriate remedy at this point would be, for the feds to closely review all of the data surrounding all of the deaths, in the trial, based upon what we now know about the mechanisms of action, and the adverse impacts of the vaccine to determine as best as possible whether a reasonable case could be made that some or all of those deaths in the vaccine group were in fact from the vaccine, and not coincident with the vaccine. Would you be supportive of that?
Yes, I would be supportive of that.
Below, please see some of the challenges that I have yet to overcome when it comes to believing the data and conclusions resulting from the Pfizer/FDA/CDC trials. You may think all of my points are superfluous, and that would be your right.
Starting with heart inflammation issues that have arisen post jab introduction to a broad population:
1) Much higher rates of myocarditis in certain demographics than stated by the CDC/Pfizer;
2) The majority of myocarditis cases are much more dangerous than represented by many in public and private health.
https://open.substack.com/pub/ravarora/p/the-truth-about-vaccine-induced-myocarditis-b4d?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
IMHO one would need a firm grasp on the risks and benefits of this drug before recommending the Covid experimental, injectable products to anyone. Especially across the broad demographics for which it has been mandated. What is the evidence of this based on RCT? If the evidence is solely the Pfizer/FDA trials, please help me to understand how you resolved the following challenges?
1) The trials do not offer LONG TERM evidence of safety, nor efficacy, because a) we don’t have LONG TERM data, and b) the Pfizer trial participants were unblinded, on average after about 3 months. The trials also did not segregate different demographics, including by age, gender or other current characteristics (pregnant/lactating women, etc.). The trials also did not test for efficacy against transmission. The trials did not test effects in proximity to other medications.
2) There is strong evidence of mismanagement and even fraud during the trials as provided by whistleblower(s) employed by Pfizer trials’ subcontractors. See Brook Jackson.
3) There is strong evidence of fraud as shown by trials participants like Maddie de Garay who suffered serious adverse events that were not correctly documented as such and not investigated promptly as such. Also see Augusto Roux.
4) The Pfizer trials did not classify participants as “vaccinated” until 14 days after the second shot. This methodology of delayed classification excludes from the “vaccinated group” what may be a significant immunosuppressive period (the time between 1st jab and 14 days after 2nd jab) and all the accompanying adverse events from that group. This potential major transfer of adverse events via a classification methodology was continually carried out (in several studies I have reviewed) comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated adverse events like hospitalization and death.
5) The FDA and Pfizer worked together (is “conspired” too pejorative? Probably not...) to ask the judicial system to slow the release of the trials data to a tiny drip over 75 years. Who doesn’t want to immediately release data that puts them in a good light?
6) Pfizer and other Big Pharma companies are convicted criminal organizations who are known to cheat to make money. Dr. Marcia Angell (former editor of NEJM) doesn’t pull any punches when she says, "Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself." And, “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor ofThe New England Journal of Medicine.” Dr. Angell left her position as Editor-in-Chief of NEJM in 2000. Dr. Angell is now a faculty member of Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics. Do you believe Big Pharma has become more ethical in recent years?
7) The Pfizer trials showed higher all-cause mortality in the vaccinated group than the placebo group. (Our starting point, today).
8) The significant increase in Covid vaccine adverse events (orders of magnitude when compared to all other vaccines) reported in VAERS and V-safe (and the equivalent systems in the UK, Germany, and the US DoD) should not be casually dismissed as unimportant due to the voluntary nature of the reports. It is a felony to commit a fraudulent claim to VAERS. The authorities should be doing a thorough investigation on the explosion in adverse events reported, and press charges against fraudulent event reporting, if in fact it exists. This is a government mandated early warning system that includes defined protocols that are supposed to be followed to potentially trigger stopping conditions. The government has provided research that implies a significant amount of UNDER reporting into the system in the past. Why have the government/public health officials and anti-anti-vaxxers maligned and abandoned the government’s only population wide, early-warning, defense mechanism when it comes to Covid vaccines? (This is where Herb’s suggestion resides).
9) The 95% efficacy claim was a relative (not absolute) risk reduction number on a tiny percentage of test population, using dubious classification methodology, with evidence of fraud and mismanagement, with a technology (MRNA) that Merck couldn’t get to elicit any efficacy, over a very short time period. Even after all these biases Pfizer couldn’t show an improvement in all-cause mortality. And, we now know, that the efficacy wanes rapidly.
https://technofog.substack.com/p/the-vaccinated-now-account-for-a
10) There are about $100 billion reasons why Big Pharma would conspire to do all these things.
11) The spike protein does not degrade after a couple of days, nor does it stay localized at the injection site as promised. Several studies have shown evidence that the MRNA ingredients spread throughout the body, including the brain and reproductive organs.
I’m not a doctor, but I spent nearly 40 years on Wall Street analyzing data that was often used to try and manipulate investors into allocating to unworthy opportunities. It seems to me that the people at Big Pharma who run the FDA trials are very good at bending the data to their needs (just like money managers). They apparently got an antibody response in trials participants (to the original, Wuhan variant) that was optimized during the first few months. But, unfortunately, the jabs elicited some adverse events that clustered between the (1) first jab and 14 days after the second jab, and then again (2) after about 3-5 months (i.e., after they ended the trials). They then came up with a narrative to match the data (again, not unusual in my previous profession) and the FDA vacated their role as public fiduciary (and rubber stamped the whole process).
I have been searching but can’t find any significant evidence the jabs have improved broad population outcomes since implementation. Some of the more jabbed countries are seeing significant jumps in excess mortality, and drops in birth rates. The rates of death per population from covid are extremely high in highly jabbed places like UK and USA when compared to ROW. The jabs haven’t slowed the spread of Covid in previous lockdown countries like Australia and NZ. Of course, there are many confounding factors here, but I’m struggling to find any evidence that these experimental injections have improved outcomes since introduction.
I am only sharing this information because it seems many aren’t aware of some of these differing views/theories and I believe the scientific method requires a robust and open debate. I would love for anyone to disabuse me of my notions as presented here. It’s quite unmooring to review primary data and come to conclusions that differ from the mainstream narrative.
The person I am today, after much (reluctant) primary research, would be considered a crazy conspiracy theorist by the person I was 3 years ago. I was an active donor to organizations like the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and many medical research organizations. Not any more. It’s not fun when you choose TRUTH over COMMUNITY, but I couldn’t live any other way.
well of course this is the reasonable thing to do and it wont happen. Even the FDA release will NOT contain that granular data.
I think the main point is that because the product being studied performed WORSE than placebo, it should NOT have been rolled out to the world, let alone MANDATED.
Correct.
True, but shouldn't there have been statistically significant less deaths among the vaccinated?
https://billricejr.substack.com/p/this-family-is-fighting-back
Great article Bill! I keep spreading your word!
Thanks! I admire your persistence. Even if it's just the "alternative media," these stories are reaching some people.
funny how they think we don’t know. truth is, we are just not talking enough!
Who can even trust them to do a clinical trial?
Fauci -'Take this injection'
You -'What does it do?'
Fauci -'Increases your chances of death'
You-'That sounds like a bad idea'.
Fauci 'I am science, now take the f##king shot before I get you fired'.