From our good colleague Ben (@USMortality on Twitter) we now have some very strong evidence and actual calculations on the likely surprisingly low efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine based on a patchwork of released documents under FOIA. Recall that Pfizer purported that the efficacy of their vaccine was 95%! Ben walks us through that veritable statistical lie and how they got away with it.
Interestingly enough I took my dog to a vet last night - diarrhea and vomiting - and they tested her for parvo despite having had the parvo shots as a puppy. The veterinarian doctors were honest enough to say that the jabs don't actually prevent parvo completely and there are now vaccine-resistant strains out there - luckily she tested negative! Wish the Public Health experts mixed with the vets more often, as they seem to be living in the real world on efficacy of these damn "vaccines" and not in the LaLa land of 95% effective and completely safe. Now I am questioning all the shots for both humans and pets!
Canadian immunologist Byram Bridle said this in a video in Feb 2021 and if I could post a photo Iād show a screenshot of his slide showing how they noodled the numbers.
This was figured out very early on by a scientist from India. I wish I could remember his YouTube channel, I sent it to several people to show how he laid it out in detail how they fudged the math to get 95%. This is what happens when we have an innumerate society.
I don't get it. I'm still with the explanation Dr Chris Martensen gave in his Youtube vid about Pfizer's Report where they claimed 95% efficacy or somesuch.
Martensen pointed out what a weird way of calculating efficacy it was that they were using and showed that using a more sensible, transparent, direct and intuitive measure the actual benefit they were claiming was only a 0.1% increase on existing 'benefit' or protection.
I've always stayed with that and have gotten to head banging despair at the perversion of that fact by govt and dupes to where they now claim and most of the population apparently believes that 'vaccine = protection' with the unspoken corollary 'no vaccine = no protection'.
An egregious, a mammoth perversion of the truth which enables them to handily totally remove from the public consciousness the whole fact of the immune system.
The principal player in the game: the ONLY player in the game, is redacted and the whole narrative proceeds without mention of it.
I don't see I've been in error at all.
Dr Ioannidis I think came back to the public quite recently with a more contemporary analysis than those he did back in '19 and '20 and again came up with covid IFR of less than 1%.
In a 'naive' population if I may put it that way. I mean one devoid of any help from adequate vitamin and mineral levels, one replete with people with comorbidities such as overwhelming obesity rates as a starter, a population not using any anti-virals, banned by homicidal governments, a population psychologically stressed with insane masks and paranoid 'deep cleanings' and 'distancing' and forced into confinement for unspecified periods.
Even in such populations less than 1% I believe. WITHOUT vaccines. As I said 'naive', free of any helps whatever.
So on that background it seems reasonable that even a useful vaccine correctly operating, without AE's aimed at the specific strain, only has less than 1% 'room' for improvement.
So I think I had it right, have it right. Vaccines 'offer' (different to deliver and that's different again to deliver free of hidden dangers) only < 1% 'protection'.
So I don't follow all your calculations and I think taking this tack, well meant though it is, tends to lead the public to wrong conclusions.
Not drastically wrong as in 'protection = vax; no vax = no protection', no. Nothing like as bad as that.
But baldly in essence the story for public consumption should bring the immune system back to life in the public mind and should read something like 'vaccine at best improves immune system performance by <1%'. followed by : 'which would easily be exceeded by appropriate, nutrition, help, prophylaxis, removal of govt fearmongering, etc ' followed by ' and which 'performance' omits to take into account the as yet incompletely assessed dangers long and short term of the thing'.
And so on.
Here's the actual vid I got that from. Martensen actually never says '0.1%', those are my words, he says risk moved from 99.866% chance of avoiding severe covid to 99.9% chance of avoiding.
An actual 'improvement' of 0.04% but I just tried to make it easy.
I'll actually print his sentence for you;
"...absolute risk reduction is actually the difference between these two numbers and it's between you had a 99.9 percent chance of not going to severe covet if you had the vaccine and you had a 99.866 percent chance of not going to severe covid if you had placebo..."
There's never been any doubt about it all. Since early days in '19. The madness has always been boldly apparent.
Interestingly enough I took my dog to a vet last night - diarrhea and vomiting - and they tested her for parvo despite having had the parvo shots as a puppy. The veterinarian doctors were honest enough to say that the jabs don't actually prevent parvo completely and there are now vaccine-resistant strains out there - luckily she tested negative! Wish the Public Health experts mixed with the vets more often, as they seem to be living in the real world on efficacy of these damn "vaccines" and not in the LaLa land of 95% effective and completely safe. Now I am questioning all the shots for both humans and pets!
Canadian immunologist Byram Bridle said this in a video in Feb 2021 and if I could post a photo Iād show a screenshot of his slide showing how they noodled the numbers.
https://odysee.com/@Dryburgh:7/byram-bridle-coronavirus-vaccine-concerns:9?src=open&r=GXeCW6HWaKb1wtFgfUW95qquG1m1SHiV
This was figured out very early on by a scientist from India. I wish I could remember his YouTube channel, I sent it to several people to show how he laid it out in detail how they fudged the math to get 95%. This is what happens when we have an innumerate society.
I don't get it. I'm still with the explanation Dr Chris Martensen gave in his Youtube vid about Pfizer's Report where they claimed 95% efficacy or somesuch.
Martensen pointed out what a weird way of calculating efficacy it was that they were using and showed that using a more sensible, transparent, direct and intuitive measure the actual benefit they were claiming was only a 0.1% increase on existing 'benefit' or protection.
I've always stayed with that and have gotten to head banging despair at the perversion of that fact by govt and dupes to where they now claim and most of the population apparently believes that 'vaccine = protection' with the unspoken corollary 'no vaccine = no protection'.
An egregious, a mammoth perversion of the truth which enables them to handily totally remove from the public consciousness the whole fact of the immune system.
The principal player in the game: the ONLY player in the game, is redacted and the whole narrative proceeds without mention of it.
I don't see I've been in error at all.
Dr Ioannidis I think came back to the public quite recently with a more contemporary analysis than those he did back in '19 and '20 and again came up with covid IFR of less than 1%.
In a 'naive' population if I may put it that way. I mean one devoid of any help from adequate vitamin and mineral levels, one replete with people with comorbidities such as overwhelming obesity rates as a starter, a population not using any anti-virals, banned by homicidal governments, a population psychologically stressed with insane masks and paranoid 'deep cleanings' and 'distancing' and forced into confinement for unspecified periods.
Even in such populations less than 1% I believe. WITHOUT vaccines. As I said 'naive', free of any helps whatever.
So on that background it seems reasonable that even a useful vaccine correctly operating, without AE's aimed at the specific strain, only has less than 1% 'room' for improvement.
So I think I had it right, have it right. Vaccines 'offer' (different to deliver and that's different again to deliver free of hidden dangers) only < 1% 'protection'.
So I don't follow all your calculations and I think taking this tack, well meant though it is, tends to lead the public to wrong conclusions.
Not drastically wrong as in 'protection = vax; no vax = no protection', no. Nothing like as bad as that.
But baldly in essence the story for public consumption should bring the immune system back to life in the public mind and should read something like 'vaccine at best improves immune system performance by <1%'. followed by : 'which would easily be exceeded by appropriate, nutrition, help, prophylaxis, removal of govt fearmongering, etc ' followed by ' and which 'performance' omits to take into account the as yet incompletely assessed dangers long and short term of the thing'.
And so on.
Here's the actual vid I got that from. Martensen actually never says '0.1%', those are my words, he says risk moved from 99.866% chance of avoiding severe covid to 99.9% chance of avoiding.
An actual 'improvement' of 0.04% but I just tried to make it easy.
I'll actually print his sentence for you;
"...absolute risk reduction is actually the difference between these two numbers and it's between you had a 99.9 percent chance of not going to severe covet if you had the vaccine and you had a 99.866 percent chance of not going to severe covid if you had placebo..."
There's never been any doubt about it all. Since early days in '19. The madness has always been boldly apparent.
and here's his video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRP-_2v8mSQ
Not bad! About as useful/less as typical flu vaccine then. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/past-seasons-estimates.html