Search Results for: vaccine efficacy

Someone inquired, “How would you interpret the 60% efficacy difference (decrease) for Emergency Use Approval? Or is it scandalous?”

For example, in a recent statement from CDC, it is described that “In its latest (27 Dec 2021) official guidelines, the CDC announced that “the efficacy against infection for a two-dose mRNA vaccine is approximately 35% !” (link).

It is one of the examples of the assumptions made in “medical science”/virology of many, I explained in one of my recent blogs (link).

People might have heard the saying lies, damn lies, and statistics – explaining that if one tortures the data enough, it will confess to anything (or any lie).

Calculating efficacy in virology is an example of a lie or torturing the data. First, the vaccine’s efficacy is determined based on a PCR test, which is a scientifically invalid. Therefore, it must never be used. It can never provide valid and relevant results or conclusions. (2) The vaccine efficacy is determined as Relative Vaccine Efficacy (RVE) but presented as the real or true Vaccine Efficacy (VE).

From the CDC website, “vaccine efficacy (VE) is interpreted as the proportionate reduction in disease among the vaccinated group. So a VE (it should be RVE) of 95% indicates a 95% reduction in disease occurrence among the vaccinated group or a 95% reduction from the number of cases you would expect if they have not been vaccinated”. (link). (emphases are mine).

In one of my blog posts, I described how the efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was calculated, which is as follows “… the way the study outcome, i.e., vaccine efficacy, has been calculated is bizarre. The efficacy was calculated as follows; the number of infected people was counted in both groups (treated and placebo, about 20000 volunteers in each group) and found eight vs. 162. An assumption is made that as the treatment group has only eight infected subjects, not 162 as in the placebo, the vaccine treatment stopped 154 (162- 8) people from getting infected. It leads to the vaccine’s efficacy of 95% {(154/162)*100]. How about that!” (link).

On the other hand, there is no way of knowing that 162 or 8 people were really infected. It is just an assumption because these are only PCR positive numbers (not infections) from the invalid test. However, the way the vaccine efficacy is presented undoubtedly helped promote the success or use of vaccines. Now, mind you, interpretation is from a supposedly controlled study (“clinical trial”).

On the other hand, the reduction in numbers (efficacy) appears from hospital data. The actual number of volunteers or patients involved is not published and known to me (please share if anyone has such information). One requires (two PCR-positive) numbers (1) positive with vaccination (2) positive without vaccination. Let us assume one gets 130 positives with vaccination and 200 for unvaccinated for this discussion. The RVE will be 35% [{(200-130)/200}*100], hence a 60% reduction from the earlier 95%. They are finding relatively more positives with vaccination, thus, presumed reduction in efficacy.  

In the real world, such data would be considered a failure of the vaccination, which indeed it is. However, it is promoted as a need for boosters in virology or vaccination. How nice!

In conclusion, “is it scandalous?” indeed, it appears so, as you asked.

Details (1, 2, 3}

People, including mainstream “scientists” and “experts,” do not realize that vaccines, mRNA-based or otherwise, have never been tested for their efficacy. To test the efficacy for developing and testing the vaccines, the virus (SARS-CoV-2) must be available in pure isolated form. This is not only a scientific requirement but simple logical consideration as well. It is impossible to establish the usefulness and effectiveness of the vaccines without the use or presence of the target, i.e., the virus.

It is a commonly known fact now that no purified isolated specimen of the virus is available anywhere in the world. Therefore, no one can test the efficacy of the vaccines, and it has not been done either. Saying it otherwise is simply a lie.

The development of vaccines is based on testing against the PCR test, which is not a test for the virus but an RNA/DNA-based marker of the unknown or imaginary virus (commonly known as SARS-CoV-2). The PCR test is an arbitrary “dipstick” type test without any link to the virus, infection, or illness. As the virus has never been isolated, it is impossible to link the marker to it and validate the PCR test for its relevancy and accuracy as well.

Testing and assessing viruses and their link to illnesses and the treatments, as currently described and promoted, reflect ignorance and incompetency of the “experts” and “scientists.” Therefore, the medical and pharmaceutical areas require urgent scrutiny and audit of their scientific claims.

The focus should be treating the illness/infection, if and when it occurs, and not developing the treatments (such as vaccines) for the imaginary virus and its mutants.

For further reading:

COVID-19: The virus does not exist – it is confirmed! (link)
The science behind COVID and vaccines! (link)
COVID-19: Vaccine ‘Not Possible’ For A Virus Not Yet Quantifiable (link)

The mRNA (vaccine) is described as a chemical molecule interacting with body subcellular structures and their chemical contents. Therefore, if one requires to study such interactions, one has to deal with their chemical characteristics and the chemistry subject. But, unfortunately, this has not been done.

The interaction has been evaluated under medical practices, not chemistry (or science)- hence, flawed and false conclusions. For example, medical practitioners have widely claimed that the efficacy of these mRNA-based vaccines is 95%+ while the safety profile is assumed to be good to excellent. However, this claim has purely been based on imagination because no virus or illness interaction study with the vaccine has ever been conducted. Thus the false conclusions (link, link).

Now, serious concern has been raised about the efficacy and safety of these vaccines. But, as described in this article (link), their assessment (or re-evaluation) is being suggested, and apparently, using the same approach, i.e., working under medical practices, which created the problem to start with. The chances of a valid and successful conclusion from such an exercise are about zero.

The focus is assessing the damage caused by the spike protein (directly or indirectly), a chemical compound or substance. Therefore, its assessment can only be conducted by testing based on chemical principles and practices. Unfortunately, this requires an authentic specimen of the spike protein to develop valid tests and testing, which is not available. Therefore, the adverse effect of spike protein and vaccines cannot be evaluated appropriately and accurately.

Thus, the tragedy of vaccination will continue until some sober and logical thinking takes over. I hope soon.

More information is here.

For further reading:

1. The virus – deception at its best! (link)
2. COVID-19: Open letter to physicians, pharmacists, and laboratory managers (link)
3. Buyer Beware! (link)
4. Vaccines efficacy (link)
5. COVID and science divergence (link)
6. COVID and vaccines – ask and listen (link)
7. COVID-19: The virus does not exist – it is confirmed! (link)
8. (Video) Virus, COVID, pandemic, vaccine, and testing: fiction, not reality or science! (link)

The current opinion on vaccine efficacy is that vaccination is not effective as anticipated in controlling the positive PCR test results (aka infections) or the spread (aka person-to-person transmission). However, the new “flavor” is that it (vaccination) certainly works but requires a booster shot. The “works” mean reducing severe illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths. Note that vaccines have never been developed and evaluated against these endpoints during clinical studies. These are just afterthoughts, not science-based reasoning, to promote and justify continued vaccination. 

The claims appear to be based on the recent observations from hospitals’ activity, not from a controlled or valid laboratory or experimental study. However, an experimental (scientific) study to support the claim can easily and quickly be conducted by administering the virus to live healthy animals, if not humans, or using cell cultures to show that animals or cells react as claimed (illness or death). Ever wondered why such a simple study is not done or even considered. The reason is that such a study will require a sample of the virus that does not exist. Do people need any more evidence for the fakeness of the virus story and its illness or pandemic?

The absence of virus specimens could also explain OSHA’s recent suspension of the vaccination mandate (link). 

The court ordered that OSHA must show that the emergency regulation is necessary to protect employees from “grave danger” due to exposure to “substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful.” (link)  That is, the court ordered to prove the existence of the toxic agent (virus) and its hazard – OSHA could not provide the proof. 

Therefore, consider requesting the virus specimen from the scientists and the experts (through court) – pandemic and vaccination will go away like a poof!

For further reading (1, 2, 3)

On December 10th, 2020, the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC or the Committee) hold a meeting to evaluate the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for the COVID-19.

This article provides a critical review of the underlying scientific aspect of the evaluation process and its outcome. The Committee’s judgment is considered biased, lacking scientific vigor – including for chemistry and manufacturing, and misleading for describing efficacy and safety assessment for the vaccine use. Continue here

A little over six years ago, I wrote a blog describing the practice of nonsensical science for pharmaceutical evaluations at the regulatory authorities and the industry. My decades of experience seeing the “science” at regulatory authorities could be summarized as shown in the post here (Link).

In this regard, the “science” in the pharmaceutical area is based on a technique known as drug dissolution testing,  which forms the basis of product quality assessments, particularly tablets and capsules. The testing is a mandatory requirement and is done worldwide.

Unfortunately, scientifically it is an invalid technique and should not be used for any purpose because it will provide a false assessment of the product quality and hence their safety and efficacy (Link).

Almost four years ago, I submitted a Citizen Petition to the FDA requesting to remove the invalid testers from the regulatory requirements. However, while acknowledging the invalidity of the testers, the FDA recently rejected the petition (Link).

It clearly shows incompetency in science at the authorities and disregard in addressing the issue related to assessing the safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products.

If such a deficiency had occurred and been acknowledged by a manufacturer, it would have been shut down immediately, followed by legal ramifications – not so with the authorities or FDA.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a direct result of this ignorance and incompetence. The pandemic is also based on testing, which is known as PCR. The same problems have been noted with PCR testing, i.e., invalid testing that cannot detect viruses and their variants and vaccine efficacy (Link).

Therefore, by default, the pandemic becomes fake and false. Everything about viruses, vaccination, and the pandemic is based on flawed testing. Consequently, it has to be scientifically fake and false – period! However, authorities are promoting them as science-based, like the false claims of (high-quality) approved pharmaceutical products.

Moreover, like dissolution testing, highly confusing and irrelevant fancy technical jargon authenticated by high credential (mostly medical/pharmaceutical, not science) experts promoting the fake science of PCR-based viruses, testing, and vaccination (Link).  

The problems associated with the virus, testing, and pharmaceutical products, including vaccines, are because of invalid testing (aka fake or pseudo-science), which requires immediate attention.

Virology, in particular, and modern medical “science,” in general, have so successfully brainwashed people that to be considered intelligent or worth listening to, one must first say that “I am not an anti-vaxxer.” Otherwise, they will be considered science deniers or intelligence deficient.

It is a very smart and effective con-artistry to protect and promote fraudulent science. Fortunately, this con-artistry will soon end at a huge human and financial cost!

The story (or tragedy) of COVID-19 is a case in point. I should qualify that practices and the tragedy of mandates (masks, social distances, vaccination, etc.) are ending. But unfortunately, vaccination’s tragedy (adverse effects) may continue for a long time.

The question is, why and how did this tragedy happen? It is because of the flawed (fraudulent) science of the vaxxers. But, first, people must recognize that it has never been science but an illusion (deception or fraud) of the science of naming diseases and selling  “remedies,”  which brought the tragedy.

Vaccination (vaxxers) is just one version of that broader tragedy, often sold as science-based medicines. In this respect, anti-vaxxers are, in fact, anti-false science of medicines and should be respected and not be labeled with disqualification.

Some say, “I am a Covid -19 mRNA gene therapy; Experimental “vaccine” anti-vaxxer, not an anti-vaxxer.”

But, the current “vaccine” or its claims are made by the experts who claimed the goodness of earlier vaccines. They used the same old “scientific” approach to define the current vaccine’s goodness, e.g., calculating Relative Vaccine Efficacy (RVE) but promoted Vaccine Efficacy (VE) fraudulently, an unpardonable act (link). Furthermore, they used a test to monitor the virus, which has no link or relevance (link, link). Moreover, no study has ever been conducted with an (isolated) virus, but with some filth (isolate/cell culture) presented as the virus – this is not scientific or science but a fraud! (link, link)

Believe it or not, the vaxxers have nothing to show for the past four decades of “scientific research” but false claims and deceptions supported by buddies (peers). Therefore, saying that I am not an anti-vaxxer indirectly supports the vaccination and its false science. Please do not do that – communicate clearly and directly your objections to challenge the fraudulent science of viruses and/or virology.