Search Results for: vaccine efficacy

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”!

Further details (1, 2, 3)

The mRNA vaccine’s lack of usefulness and severe adverse effects have generally been recognized (e.g., see link), which I accurately predicted at the pandemic’s beginning, even before the vaccine’s introduction (link).

The basis of this prediction was that proper vaccine clinical trials (for safety and efficacy assessment) would require pure and isolated virus specimens and a valid test to monitor it. Both were missing; therefore, the appropriate vaccine could not be developed.

There is a trend in highlighting the toxicity of the mRNA vaccine linking to various components, e.g., spike-protein and DNA/RNA contamination (link, link).

 If one reads the articles critically, it should be evident that these are typical biology/virology narratives (fairy tales) presented as science, like claiming the existence of the virus, with heavily worded scientific jargon.

Sorry, the described narratives are unrelated to science or the issue. It is a narrative to continue to promote the virus and mRNA vaccine theory/philosophy and, more importantly, seek more funding for “science research” to find the source of impurity/contamination, which they will never find. Why? Because they are dealing with chemicals (vaccines, RNAs, proteins) manufacturing and their isolation and purification, a subject (chemistry) most experts involved have limited or no knowledge of, including the authorities such as the FDA and CDC.

 As I described in my recent articles (here and here), the people (including “scientists”) assume they are dealing with mRNA, but in fact, it is not mRNA but selectively concentrated filth from bacterial culture (labeled as “vaccine”). The isolation and purification of mRNA or vaccines (and its quality controls) can only be established using validated tests that do not exist.

So, read such articles cautiously, and to address the cause of the lack of efficacy and adverse effects, consult knowledgeable subject experts with experience in isolating and purifying substances. In the meantime, ask for stopping the vaccination (preferably all vaccines) by an independent third (non-medical) to complete an appropriate analysis of the products and to further prevent the tragedy of vaccination. May Almighty save us all from this witchcraft that currently is in practice.

If one carefully reads the recently released FDA guidance/amendments (link), it should be clear that the vaccines lack scientific support for their relevance and need. The FDA has become an unprofessional and non-scientific organization.  

From the guidance, “Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration amended the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 bivalent mRNA vaccines to simplify the vaccination schedule for most individuals. This action includes authorizing the current bivalent vaccines (original and omicron BA.4/BA.5 strains) to be used for all doses administered to individuals 6 months of age and older, including for an additional dose or doses for certain populations. The monovalent Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines are no longer authorized for use in the United States.”

If the vaccines had been safe and effective, as claimed, their use would have changed from “authorized” to “approved.” Unfortunately, it is not the case. The vaccines’ fakeness was predicted, by the author, at the beginning of the pandemic, before their introduction, stating,

“Therefore, a fake vaccine will most likely be developed to satisfy the regulatory wish and calm down the created public hysteria and fear. Unfortunately, such vaccines, if developed and administered, will undoubtedly create potentially dangerous side effects, without any presumed benefits, by interfering with the body’s immune system and other related physiological processes.” (link)

Therefore, indirectly, FDA acknowledges that the vaccines did not work, hence discontinued, without disclosing the safety and efficacy data from clinical trials, which was expected soon, as reported earlier [“estimated study completion date” of Jan. 31, 2023,” see link here and here].

However, a bigger mystery is why they have suggested an alternative version of the vaccine without any supported clinical trial or testing when in their view pandemic is over and most people are showing immunity against the virus and its variants.

Furthermore, the FDA announcement states, “Most UNVACCINATED individuals MAY RECEIVE a single dose of a bivalent vaccine, rather than multiple doses of the original monovalent mRNA vaccines.” So it appears that the vaccine is not recommended or mandated but a suggestion. That is interesting.

It could be argued that FDA realizes that the new suggested version also does not have the needed safety and efficacy support; hence, its vaccine recommendation could only be implemented with the EUA. Therefore, the FDA AMENDS the EUA, rationalizing EUA without the emergency (link). It is bizarre! How can they claim to be a science-based organization caring for the public’s health? 

Unfortunately, this change/update has to be made because the usual standards for product approval for the vaccines/drugs could not be met.

Certainly, it would further damage the FDA and the medical profession’s already significantly lost credibility as an unbiased evaluator of medicines. FDA seems to have placed itself in a difficult position, perhaps more accurately, on its deathbed with a few remaining gasps for air.

My involvement with viruses/virology started with the pandemic almost three years ago, specifically with an evaluation of PCR testing. As an analytical chemist involved in test developments, validations, and applications, all my life, I naturally became interested in exploring the PCR test.

What I found was disturbing, and I described it in a video here. In short, the concern was that virus tests (PCR or any other) were being developed and conducted without a reference standard.

From the test development perspective, I was shocked to note how one could claim to develop a test without the availability of reference standards. Developing tests and using them without reference standards is impossible and a case of criminal negligence. However, it is unclear how this negligence happened at the regulatory authorities, including the FDA and CDC.

So, I started looking into why no reference standard was used and found that no one has isolated the virus. Hence my view and declaration that the virus does not exist.

On the other hand, the claim of the virus’s existence and isolation is based on a procedural narrative. It means that if one follows certain procedures, e.g., culturing, centrifugation, computer modeling, etc., it will be called the isolation of the virus without obtaining any actual virus specimen. This is a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of science and its principles. So, from the scientific perspective, no isolation has been done, and no virus has been isolated.

However, looking further at the virus isolation aspect, it is clear that virologists have used the same procedure for decades to claim “isolation” of the virus, considering it a standard (“scientifically valid”) isolation procedure. Therefore, it is safe to say that virologists have never isolated any virus. Thus virology becomes a non-scientific subject and more like false science or fraud.

Experts often claim that “vaccines” have been used to nearly eliminate some human diseases transmitted from animals such as bats and swine. Furthermore, it has been claimed that the mRNA vaccine showed very high efficacy against SARS-COV-2 and no appreciable toxicity. However, it is clear from the current literature that efficacy and safety claims are incorrect. The claims have been found inaccurate, with no or extremely low efficacy and many adverse effect reports.

It is important to note that in virology, the term virus efficacy is reported as relative efficacy, which provides an inaccurate picture of the situation. If one sees the true efficacy, one will observe that vaccines have never shown any valid efficacy. Like virus isolation, where isolate (junk) is reported as the virus, reporting relative efficacy as real/true virus efficacy is another clear fraudulent claim.

However, this time the fraudulent claims (balloons) have been exposed because of impositions of unscientific and inhumane mandates to promote vaccines. As a result, professions have been subjected to greater challenges and public scrutiny (not by peers or authorities) and have been exposed as fraudulent. There is a strong possibility that virology as a science and medical profession as a science-based profession will be critically judged in the coming days.

So, in short, it is evident that from a scientific perspective, there is no virus, no pandemic, vaccines have not shown effectiveness as claimed, and medical professionals have made vastly inaccurate claims about the disease and its treatments.

An independent third-party (not-peers) assessment of the medical practice is urgently needed.

• The pharmaceuticals, including vaccines, are not medical issues or materials. Their characterization, production, and evaluation belong to chemical science or chemistry. Find a good chemist who will explain that there is no virus, RNA, or s-protein or test for them, and that science has not been followed.
• Claimed ivermectin efficacy indirectly shows that COVID-19 or its virus does not exist. Ivermectin is used to treat infection, most likely parasitic. Nothing, including ivermectin or vaccines, has been tested against the virus or COVID-19.
• Claims made by physicians and medical experts about chemicals (aka medicines) should be taken with a grain of salt, as they do not study their development, characterization, evaluation, or related science.
• Consider obtaining a copy of Helpful Notes (here) to learn the weakness of current thinking and the science of pharmaceuticals, including vaccines.