168825
Book your tickets here to the FSU’s live discussion with Matthew Goodwin about his new book. Book your tickets here to the FSU’s live discussion with Matthew Goodwin about his new book. Book your tickets here to the FSU’s live discussion with Matthew Goodwin about his new book.
  • Log in
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Forum
  • Donate
  • Newsletter
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

The Scam That Spins ‘95% Vaccine Efficacy’ From a Placebo

by Norman Fenton and Martin Neil
3 May 2023 7:00 AM

We have provided numerous explanations (see here, and here) and videos (see here and here) explaining why a vaccine that is actually merely a placebo will inevitably appear to have high efficacy if there is a time delay after vaccination during which the participant is classified as ‘unvaccinated’.

Some people have claimed that the examples – using hypothetical data – are unrealistic and that, with different assumptions about the underlying infection rate, the illusion would not happen. Not true.

This example simulates a vaccine roll-out and efficacy evaluation which is essentially how all the 2021 observational studies of the Covid vaccines were conducted.

Assumptions:

  • The entire population starts week 1 as unvaccinated and by week 14 about 90% of the population has received a single jab (note that we start with a population of one million but the efficacy results are exactly same irrespective of the starting population).
  • The vaccination rollout starts with 1% of the unvaccinated population vaccinated in week 1 and peaks at 35% in week 8 falling back to 10% in each of the last three weeks.
  • There is a constant weekly infection rate throughout the period (in the example below it is 2% but, as the video shows, the ‘efficacy’ numbers are exactly the same no matter what the fixed rate is).
  • Any vaccinated person who becomes infected within the first two weeks of his or her vaccination is classified as unvaccinated (in fact, as can be seen here, the Office for National Statistics classifies a person as infected within the first three weeks of his or her vaccination as unvaccinated. And also note this is the case in Sweden).

The Excel model can be downloaded from here.

Based on these assumptions, we find that a placebo is 86% ‘effective’ under a 14-day rule.

Here are the results shown in our new video.

To calculate the infection rate for week n for those classified as vaccinated we divide the cumulative number of people classified as infected and vaccinated by week n by the cumulative number of people classified as vaccinated by end of week n.

For example, by end of week 4 a total of 161,147 people have been classified as vaccinated, of whom a total of 596 have been classified as infected. So the week 4 infection rate for the vaccinated is 596/161,147 which is 0.37%. We do the same for those classified as unvaccinated, so the week 4 infection rate for the unvaccinated is 2.22%. Note that, although the real weekly infection rates of the vaccinated and unvaccinated are always the same 2%, the infection rates after the ‘classification’ are always lower than 2% for those classified as ‘vaccinated’ and higher than 2% for those classified as ‘unvaccinated’.

To calculate the week n efficacy rate we divide the vaccinated infection rate by the unvaccinated infection rate and subtract this from 1, expressing the result as a percentage. Hence, the week 4 efficacy rate is 1 – (0.37÷2.22) = 0.834 = 83.4%.

Now we see that a completely useless (with true efficacy 0%) vaccine appears to have very high efficacy in the first few weeks. Although it continually wanes it is still above 50% after week 9. By week 14 the efficacy is still positive but only 12.1% – hence the need for a new booster dose! These simulated results are very similar to the real-world efficacy rates that were observed in the first three months of a new vaccine or booster.

Here are the results if there is a three-week (21-day) period before a person is classified as vaccinated (as per ONS method).

The efficacy achievable under the three-week (21-day) period is 95%.

So now they could claim the vaccine starts with 95% efficacy, but again you need the booster after three months for vaccination to be truly effective.

For those who doubt the ONS calculates vaccine efficacy this way, here is a screenshot from its document.

The same applies for further doses where there is always a 21-day delay before being classified as having that latest booster shot.

Even negative efficacy can be made to look 95% effective.

Note that for a placebo vaccine it is impossible to get negative efficacy. However, if there is a slightly higher infection rate for the vaccine compared to no vaccine then the same assumptions as above still yield high efficacy initially (92% at week 4) before eventually becoming negative. Here are the results if the vaccine actually increases the infection rate by 50% (so a 3% infection rate in the vaccinated rather than the assumed 2% in the above simulations).

Some caveats. In practice there are a number of factors which, if we included them in the simulation, would produce an even higher efficacy rate than could be claimed for a placebo vaccine. For example:

  • The 2021 U.K. rollout happened during a period when the Covid infection rate was declining.
  • Asymptomatic unvaccinated people were much more likely to be required to take PCR tests (to go to work or attend events, restaurants etc.) than asymptomatic vaccinated people, since the latter only had to show their proof of vaccination. In Israel during this period an unvaccinated person was six times more likely to have to be PCR tested than a vaccinated person. The high false positive rate for asymptomatics would therefore artificially increase the infection rate of the unvaccinated.
  • People who were (or had recently been) PCR positive were not allowed to be vaccinated until 14 days after a negative test. This means the vaccinated cohort contained a higher proportion of people who already had natural immunity.

As we have shown the illusion of high efficacy is also present if the vaccine is worse than a placebo. In particular we know that, for the Covid vaccines, there was a disproportionately high infection rate within the first 14 days after vaccination. Given all of those infected within the first 14 days are classified as unvaccinated, this would lead to even higher efficacy rates than shown in our simulation.

On the issue of immunity, one simplification made in the simulation is that it does not take account of the fact that those who become infected during the period (whether vaccinated or not) would almost certainly not become infected again (and therefore should be removed from the count in subsequent weeks). However, unless the general infection rate is very high this has minimal impact on the efficacy results.

In conclusion, it may be reasonable to allow a certain amount of time for a vaccine to ‘work’. However, classifying a person who becomes infected within 14 or 21 days of vaccination as an ‘unvaccinated case’ in the calculation of vaccine efficacy is nothing short of a scam. It guarantees that any vaccine which is no different (or even worse) than a placebo will be seen to have high initial efficacy.

By using the 21-day period before considering a person vaccinated – as the ONS and others do for the Covid vaccines – means fraudulently high artificial efficacy rates are guaranteed. The apparent but completely artificial ‘waning’ of efficacy can also be used deviously to support the idea that after three or four months another dose of the vaccine is required to regain protection. Since the same delay in classification is used for those who have received a further dose, it is then guaranteed that high efficacy can again be claimed for the subsequent doses.

All of this creates a repeatable business model for Big Pharma.

Until he retired in January, Norman Fenton was Professor in Risk Information Management at Queen Mary University of London. Martin Neil is Professor in Computer Science and Statistics at Queen Mary University of London. This article first appeared on their Substack page, Where Are the Numbers?

Tags: Big PharmaCOVID-19ONSVaccineVaccine efficacy

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

News Round-Up

Next Post

Princess Anne Says Lockdown “Stole” Father Prince Philip’s Final Years

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

49 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

 

DONATE

PODCAST

Nick Dixon and Toby Young Talk About Philip Schofield’s Swift Exit, the BBC’s Fondness for Satanists and the Target Boycott

by Toby Young
30 May 2023
0

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editors Picks

Just Stop Oil’s Hollywood Patron Has Holiday Home in Ireland That he Jets Off to “When the Going Gets Tough”

29 May 2023
by Toby Young

News Round-Up

30 May 2023
by Toby Young
A participant holds a drawing depicting Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg during a protest march to call for action against climate change, in The Hague, Netherlands September 27, 2019. REUTERS/Piroschka van de Wouw

Media Bombshell: Shocking Outbreak of ‘Climate Disinformation’ in the Media, i.e., Journalists Asking Questions About Net Zero on GB News and Talk TV

30 May 2023
by Chris Morrison

A Note to Legislators About What Ceding Power to the World Health Organisation Really Means

30 May 2023
by Dr David Bell

As an Oncologist I Am Seeing People With Stable Cancer Rapidly Progress After Being Forced to Have a Booster

26 November 2022
by Dr Angus Dalgleish

News Round-Up

38
A participant holds a drawing depicting Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg during a protest march to call for action against climate change, in The Hague, Netherlands September 27, 2019. REUTERS/Piroschka van de Wouw

Media Bombshell: Shocking Outbreak of ‘Climate Disinformation’ in the Media, i.e., Journalists Asking Questions About Net Zero on GB News and Talk TV

37

A Note to Legislators About What Ceding Power to the World Health Organisation Really Means

21

Rishi Sunak Backs Kathleen Stock in Free Speech Row

19

On Wokeness, Its Nature, and Its Prospects

11

On Wokeness, Its Nature, and Its Prospects

30 May 2023
by Eugyppius

Elon Musk’s Claim to be Defying the EU’s Censorship Code is an Empty Boast

30 May 2023
by Robert Kogon

A Note to Legislators About What Ceding Power to the World Health Organisation Really Means

30 May 2023
by Dr David Bell
A participant holds a drawing depicting Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg during a protest march to call for action against climate change, in The Hague, Netherlands September 27, 2019. REUTERS/Piroschka van de Wouw

Media Bombshell: Shocking Outbreak of ‘Climate Disinformation’ in the Media, i.e., Journalists Asking Questions About Net Zero on GB News and Talk TV

30 May 2023
by Chris Morrison

Sunak’s Solution to Food Price Inflation: Socialism!

29 May 2023
by Noah Carl

POSTS BY DATE

May 2023
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
« Apr    

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

Twitter

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Forum
  • Donate
  • Newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Create New Account!

Please note: To be able to comment on our articles you'll need to be a registered donor

Already have an account?
Please click here to login Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment