Author: Dr. Saeed Qureshi, Ph.D.
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.
First, assume a pandemic and then assume that people are getting sick and dying (starting point). Then “confirm” the pandemic spread based on random evaluation of hospital visits, mostly one (indicator) patient per hospital/country. If most “indicator” patients evaluated were successfully treated with common and standard treatments under the situation and recovered without serious illness or deaths, still assume that countries are in the midst of a deadly pandemic. Next, assume that infection is virus-based and assume the virus is novel, call it SARS-CoV-2, “confirmed” by a PCR test. Understandably, the test has never been shown to work for the virus or its illness (because it cannot test them) but still assume that the test works for the novel virus. It is unnecessary to validate the test against the reference (gold) standard but assume it is validated. To provide “scientific” proof of the novel virus existence, conduct isolation of the “isolate” and assume that isolate/lysate is the virus. Once labeled with the virus infection (i.e., PCR positive), isolate the patients from others and assume they will recover. If not recovered, then assume that they died of virus illness or CVID-19.
Further, assume that the only effective treatment has to be a vaccine and assume it has to be a new one. Assume no current medicine or therapy is workable. Conduct clinical trials in healthy volunteers (not patients sick with the virus). However, assume that with the PCR-test negative results, subjects got protected from the virus, which was assumed to be present. Calculate the RVE (Relative Vaccine Efficacy) not real or absolute Vaccine Efficacy to assume that the vaccines have been highly successful.
Oh, sorry, assume the word assume as “science” and shout out repeatedly. Voila, you have been working with science or following the science – “the medical/pharmaceutical science”!
Yesterday, someone inquired that the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its variant are commercially available, so why do people say it has not been isolated? If the virus has not been isolated, what are they selling in vials for $1200/vial?
Please consider reading the description carefully. It is not the (isolated) virus but the lysate/isolate, i.e., soup from “culturing” the swab sample. For example, see here
Heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2, Delta variant (link)
Under Detailed product information/Comments
“This isolate is lineage AY.24″
“The following mutations are present in the clinical isolate:”
(Note the word “isolate,” which is cell culture/gunk, not the isolated virus)
Under Shipping information:
“Each vial contains approximately 0.25 mL of heat-inactivated, clarified cell lysate and supernatant”
(note the word “lysate,” which is the soup from the breakup of cells in medium/culture, not the virus).
For $1200, what’s the customer really buying? A diluted human mucus/phlegm/mucus from swab samples with all kinds of added chemicals (30+), including African green monkey kidney cell (Vero cells) broth.
In short, they are faking it and lying all the way with confidence and authority!
No wonder Costcos-, Walmarts, Amazons, etc., of the world, do not sell this stuff. They will be behind bars the following day for making such false claims and marketing. Remember Theranos (link)
The fact remains, no one has isolated, purified, and characterized the virus. Therefore, it is not available from anywhere. Sorry!
If one likes to study something, one needs to have its purified sample. The process of getting the purified samples is called isolation. Or saying the other way around that isolation means getting THE thing (the virus) in a test tube or vial free from other material presents.
In this respect, the virus has never been isolated – this is a fact. Unfortunately, the “scientists” and “experts” got caught lying about it. They are struggling to get out of this lie. However, unfortunately, it is not possible.
These “scientists” and “experts” have shown enormous power in manipulating authorities worldwide in enforcing laws to subdue the public by forcing illogical and inhumane mandates, vaccinations, and other restrictive measures for hiding the lies and to “prove” themselves correct. However, their claims will remain invalid and false as they cannot show any virus sample. Therefore, the time is up for them, and they must face the music!
Dear Lord – forgive us and help us save from the humiliation we are about to face.
We accept that we lied and cheated the public and patients. We have never been scientists. We never studied science, but people believed us. So we went along with it as it paid us so handsomely.
People mistakenly believe that we know what medicines are and how they work. We don’t think that this is our fault. Everyone knows medicines are chemicals and very potent and dangerous ones. We never learned or studied chemicals or chemistry in any detail. However, we dosed a majority of the public with chemicals (labeled mRNA) without knowing or testing if they were any good for killing the virus.
We know we have never seen or isolated the virus. Yet, we went along with lab results without questioning the test and its results. How could we question the test? We have no idea how the test and testing work. That has never been part of the medical curriculum, but it was a very lucrative business and went along with it. People trusted us, and we lied to them as if we knew what we were doing.
We are guilty of promoting so-called safety and protective measures such as social distancing and mask use, hence damaging the social fabric of the families and societies. However, there was absolutely no scientific research or evidence that these measures could benefit. Sorry, Lord – we lied!
Now we are changing our jingle from testing to modeling. We have no clue how modeling or simulation work either. Hired guns show us pretty and convincing pictures and graphs. But now politicians are buying this crap to scare people, not realizing that modeling depends on testing. There are no valid test results available. Everyone knows that. However, we are going along with the story because we have no other option but to delay our unavoidable humiliation and doom.
Please, Lord, forgive us. Get us out of this situation. We promise to tell the public the first thing that we are not scientists and never followed science. Like any other trade or service group, we should be working for people. Never to get involved in creating disease and its medicines, again. Lord, we promise!
Today someone asked me to review an article published in The Lancet, titled, “Remdesivir plus standard of care versus standard of care alone for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy): a phase 3, randomised, controlled, open-label trial (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00485-0/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR0A-7A34yvpYrviTX5zZ1PBHwUxyRKGpGuR5QRUQrSNsqzegeyhPJHU3jE).
The article appears to be considered a scientific study (because it is published in The Lancet) conducted in a hospital environment. So the question asked, “Dr could you tell me if what I’m reading here means remdesivir is worse for patients.”
I prefer not to respond from the scientific perspective and evaluation because such studies are to trick the public into convincing that COVID-19 (and its associated virus) exists. In the summary section (second sentence), it is stated, “We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of remdesivir plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, with indication of oxygen or ventilator support.”
Scientifically speaking, there has been no evidence available or provided that “COVID-19” exists. For a COVID-19 to exist, the presence of the virus must be established in humans. However, that has not been done so far. Hence there cannot be COVID-19. Period! Therefore, treating the imaginary illness just does not make sense. It is purely a marketing strategy for promoting diseases and medicines.
Unfortunately, collecting some subjects and treating them with potent chemicals is a terrible practice, certainly not scientific or logical. Instead, they should re-evaluate the patients and their illness and relate it to some measurable endpoint using scientifically valid tests for the illness or the virus (if it exists). Without such an approach, one can obtain any outcome at random with any treatment. Therefore, consider ignoring and discouraging such non-scientific studies for promoting the disease or its treatments.
The picture shown is of some (protein?) structures, not the virus. There is no evidence to indicate that structures belong to the virus. These are not pictures but computer-generated graphics.
There is no supporting (scientific/experimental) information provided or available to show that an actual or real physical sample of the structures isolated from a purified and fully characterized virus or its variant. It cannot be because the virus has never been isolated, purified, and fully characterized.
Please take away computers, graphic programs, and chemistry lab equipment to stop the flow of such claims from people about chemicals (chemistry) without training, expertise, and understanding of the subject.
It just appeared on the computer screens. It has a hole in the middle. Therefore appropriately named A-holeIRIS (aka Omicron). So far, it has not bothered its viewers but looks scary because of the hole. Considering its better aerodynamic design, it is predicted that it can travel much faster speed hence more contagious. Now what?
Furthermore, rumors (“science”) indicate it has structural similarity to a popular food item (shown on the side). Therefore, experts advise that consumption of all related food items and their ingredients should be stopped immediately. Experts are working on developing a Wackoccine for the A-holeIRIS. However, in the meantime, using any of the current “90%+ effective” vaccines be considered essential. Please, remain fearful!
Bottom line: It is just another picture with a fancy name. So take it as it should be – a picture of an imaginary object. Its existence is as fake as its original version, which has yet to be found anywhere!
