The expert group HART (Health Advisory and Recovery Team) has delved into the Pfizer trial documents released following a U.S. court order and discovered that according to Pfizer’s own antibody data the vaccine efficacy in the trial was massively overstated and appears to be as low as zero.
While the official results found only eight PCR-positive ‘cases’ in the vaccine arm, Pfizer’s antibody testing shows that in fact 75 people in the vaccinated arm seroconverted (developed N-type antibodies), implying there were actually 75 ‘cases’ of Covid in the vaccinated, not just eight.
By itself that would cut efficacy in half. However, HART points out that it’s been shown with the Moderna mRNA vaccine that only around 40% of the vaccinated who go on to have a symptomatic PCR-positive Covid ‘breakthrough’ infection develop N-type antibodies, owing to immune imprinting (‘original antigenic sin’) by the vaccine to favour S-type antibodies (which target the spike protein). Assuming this also applies to the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, this means the 75 seropositive individuals are only around 40% of the total number who had Covid, giving an estimated total of 188 Covid ‘cases’ in the vaccine arm – more than the 165 in the unvaccinated arm, implying zero vaccine efficacy or worse.
How did Pfizer get away with claiming there were only eight Covid cases in the vaccinated arm? Mainly by excluding PCR-positives in the jabbed until seven days after the second dose. The problem with this is that, since Covid waves tend to infect only 10-20% of a population, evidently not everyone is equally susceptible to the virus. This means if those most susceptible to the virus in the vaccine arm catch it in the weeks before they are ‘fully vaccinated’ and so don’t count towards the vaccine arm ‘cases’, those remaining in the vaccine arm of the trial will be primarily those who are less susceptible to the virus, and so the trial will suffer from survivor bias, exaggerating efficacy.
HART explains:
Pfizer set out in its protocol that efficacy would be measured based on PCR positive test results in symptomatic individuals and, as a secondary measure, N-antibody levels showing who had been infected.
Pfizer chose to ignore PCR positive results, even in symptomatic people, if they occurred in the month before “seven days after the second dose”. However, the antibody testing is a measure of who had Covid for the entire period of the trial. Concerns about higher incidence in the early period after dosing, or an illusion of efficacy from a drug that caused cases to occur earlier rather than preventing cases, would be addressed by measuring the numbers who developed antibodies.
The original trial claimed there were only eight symptomatic PCR positive ‘cases’ in the dosed arm compared to 162 in the placebo arm. The graph always looked odd – how could the treatment arm have such a dramatic flattening to the horizontal?
There were 165 people who started with negative antibodies but became positive during the trial in the placebo arm. That is a pretty close match to the 165 who were positive by PCR testing. However, there were 75 in the vaccine arm, far more than the eight claimed by PCR testing. That would mean that treatment only reduced the risk of infection by about half the 95% claimed.
Only 40% of people who had been given Moderna produced N-antibodies after symptomatic, PCR positive infection. Moderna and Pfizer have products that are very similar in terms of mechanism of action, so it is not unreasonable to assume that a similar issue would be seen with Pfizer.
If that is the case, then the 75 figure would only be a fraction of the people in the treatment arm who had been infected. Assuming the 40% figure holds, that would mean that there was no efficacy from Pfizer vaccination against risk of infection when measuring the entire period from first needle to end of the trial.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Surprise, surprise; one of the members of the General Medical Council is deputy chairman of the JCVI (a clear conflict of interest in regard to Dr Malhotra’s case):
‘Professor Anthony Harnden,Registrant member, England, GMC ref. no. 2807869, is currently the Deputy Chairman of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) which advises the UK government on vaccine policy. He is currently advising government on the optimal Covid-19 vaccination strategy.’
https://www.gmc-uk.org/about/who-we-are/our-council
He is a paediatrician.
None of the members of the council are cardiologists
No wonder, then, that the GMC statement said of renowned cardiologist Dr Malhotra:
‘….there is a question around the accuracy of his statements.’
Dr Malhotra’s stance threatens the reputation of one of the GMC’s councillors and none of them have a clue about cardiology.
If you have a state run health service and that state is a ‘democratic’ socialist fascist state, this is the kind of overmighty behaviour that the state’s various panjandrums, in this case within the nationalised state health establishment, get up to:
Arrogant bigotry
Vote this government out, annihilate it at the polls, and then do the same for the next government.
Only by rocking the worlds of these dreadful people on a regular basis is there any chance of them getting the message.
Good analysis. Similar to the MHRA. The Light has analysis of the MHRA board. It is a clown show like the GMC or JCVI. The MHRA holds a lot of power -but how many know anything about them?
On the 15 member MHRA, 7 are purported to be Doctors all linked to Pharma, one tested for quacksine ‘quality’. 5 or so are from Pharma, either paid currently as employees or ex- including the Chair who ran GE Pharma. None are virologists. One is a paid Gates Institute employee. One is an IT guy with zero med credentials. One is an ex Parliamentary accountant, zero med knowldge. There are others who are not doctors as well. Yet these idiots are the ones assessing if the quackines are safe for children and pregnant moms. What clown world do we live in?
The sainted June Raine decided that the role of the MHRA was to expedite the approval of the toxic jabs, not regulate the pharmaceutical industry.
Because 86% of her salary and pension come from pharma
Is there any public body in the UK that is free of conflicts of interest, venality and hypocrisy?
I agree with annihilating the current ruling party at the next general election but the lot who would take over are no better. They will annihilate the country and in a further 5 years leave a note saying “tee hee, we’ve spent all the money”. A plague on all their houses
Hello….is anyone in Westminster/Whitehall listening?
‘Japan’s health ministry has approved lump-sum payments for the deaths of five people after they received coronavirus vaccinations. The ministry determined that a causal link between the vaccinations and the deaths of the recipients cannot be ruled out.
The ministry made the decision on Thursday based on the country’s immunization law. Such payments have already been approved for the deaths of 15 people in their 20s to 90s.
The latest decision follows the deaths of five people aged 36 to 96. They died of acute heart failure, hemorrhagic shock and other causes after their immunizations.
Four of them reportedly had underlying conditions such as high blood pressure. The ministry says it could not deny a causal link between their deaths and the vaccinations, given the contents of their death certificates and clinical records.’
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20230113_01/
I suspect they do not fancy arguing the case for vaccines in open court.
Call me old fashioned, but what really grates in this article and therefore diminishes it, is the constant reference to Dr Malhotra as the untitled ‘Malhotra’. I find it dreadfully discourteous to a medical professional who has earned and therefore, should be shown respect. It’s akin to scribblers who deride Baroness Thatcher, referring to her disparagingly as ‘Thatcher’, when in terms of personal qualities, they’re not in the same universe.
Quality is the sum of our character! Please don’t use Thatcher and Maholtra in the same sentence! There are vast differences.
To some people Thatcher is a hate figure, necessary at the time,but not a hero, Maholtra is a hero!
Regarding unsolicited advice. I’d be grateful if you’d stop proffering it to me.
Margaret Thatcher did not get everything right but at her finest she would have run rings round the garbage politicians we have had inflicted on us since she left office.
A hero would have spoken out against the jabs when they started.
If I knew the virus posed a trivial threat to the vast majority and that the gunks couldn’t possibly have been properly tested, so did Malhotra.
Margaret Thatcher is only a hate figure to those who believe that unelected trades union leaders should run the country into the ground rather than the elected government try to improve matters. For a current example see Mr Lynch.
A damn fine point but by the same token the likes of Whitty, Valance, Fraudci and that television doctor and the rest have trashed their professions and so are equally not entitled to their prefixes.
I would never dream of referring to Whitty and the like as Doctor, or Professor or whatever.
A good generic term for them would be arseholes
The GMC are of course not unaware of the masses of scientific data and real world evidence to support it ( e.g the increase in cardiac-related admissions ) and they know that if they suspended Malhotra or took away his license they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in court because he’s very careful to always back up anything he says by citing the study to support his statement. You can’t cry ”conspiracy theorist” or ”anti-vaxxer” when somebody is actually demonstrating an evidence-based approach and quoting scientific data. The GMC would not be able to justify investigating Malhotra on that basis. They also won’t be blind to what happened with Andrew Bridgen. The mafia government attempted to silence him by removing him and look what happened. Complete own goal!
Yes, it’s an astute move by the GMC.
Ivor Cummins is using the same approach in his podcasts. He only references official documents so he can’t be censured by the YouTube cancellers.
You make your bed, lie in it!
It’s called a rock and a hard place!
Be careful, because history will tell!
“The GMC’s decision not to act against Malhotra is a victory for science, ethics and common sense”
Not sure about that. It’s a victory for our side in that they obviously didn’t feel they could push this one without big risk to themselves. It’s a tactical retreat. A victory for science, ethics and common sense would be the utter destruction of the leadership tier of the entire medical establishment – doctors, public health, government, civil servants, regulators, big pharma, unions, medical journalists.
In some ways a better result for us would have been for them to pursue the Dr flagrantly and expose themselves more fully as the evil bunch that we know they are.
Anyway, why doesn’t the bbc stick to what it’s good at, transgender box ticking, blm, climate change etc? What on earth is it doing trying to report the news?
Spot on
The BBC doesn’t try to report the news. The BBC tries to spin the news.
According to their statement (see below) they are scared witless (sic) and are terrified of what evidence a hearing, ie the disinfectant of sunlight, might expose.
Ba boom:
“a forum for further scepticism to be heard.”
Actually Dr Malhorta would be right to challenge that statement implying as it does that his scientifically supported views are not entirely accurate.
The tone of these statements by these official bodies is quite chilling.
They have an air of the menace of a gangster that will not tolerate being challenged.
On this occasion they’re indicating Malhotra is a worthless little fly not even worth reprimanding.
What a world this has become.
Right about the unwanted publicity. People like the GMC and their patsies are in too deep now and a full reverse ferret would be catastrophic. But as long as William Gates keeps filling their pockets, they’ll be perfectly happy to keep lying – no matter how many people it kills.
The GMC (and whoever is controlling them) has obviously decided it is safer to, effectively, ignore Malhotra’s apostasy rather than challenge it.
In other words, they’re running scared.
This is the link to the outcome of Dr Sam’s court case, which has been sent to the oubliette…. Why??
iamdrsamwhite
But of course, it’s not just Twitter. This is the link to my win one year ago on the national judiciary website: (check the link)
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/White-v-GMC-judgment-031221.pdf
Get the torpedoes in the water and let them run. All of these organisations are past their sell-by date, they’re not there for any reason other than to perpetuate their power.
I went to the rally in London yesterday, highlighting the plight of the vaccine injured, Lack of acknowledgment and lack of help. There was also emphasis on the need to stop mRNA vaccines.
We started at the BBC headquarters with speeches. Matt Letissier’s was very powerful as was Andrew Bridgen’s, who went for a walk-about after his speech.
This was followed by a ‘silent’ March to Downing Street.
A reasonable turnout, but far fewer people than for the lockdown protests.
Interestingly there was more positive interaction with people watching the protest. Thumbs up, asking questions.
Maybe people are waking up to the reality of these ‘vaccines’. In a previous life this vaccine campaign would have been halted 2 years ago.
From your own correspondent ;).
All that the GMC is concerned about is that Malhotra didn’t impede the ‘vaccine’ rollout! They’ve let him off the hook because he woke up late.