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.
ESG is a contrived subject that belongs firmly within the Sociology field and therefore should be added to the curriculums of those places of “learning” within the tertiary sector that feel the need to peddle this crap.
If your business is dealing with interest rates, or making cars, or building homes or whatever then ESG is none of your workload and would certainly eat in to expensive management time whilst providing sweet F A in return for god knows what cost.
Those companies that feel the need to jump on the ESG bandwagon are simply proclaiming that they are badly managed. In these cases “go woke, go broke,” is just reward for management incompetence.
ESG, another disease of the age. A virus which kills poorly businesses.
You gotta laugh.
Curricula – but apart from that,yes.
Indeed. My apologies.
No need to apologise, huxleypiggles:
https://www.grammar-monster.com/plurals/plural_of_curriculum.htm
‘The plural of “curriculum” is “curricula” or “curriculums.”’
‘Both “curricula” and “curriculums” are accepted plurals of “curriculum.”’
The noun “curriculum” has a Latin root, which is the derivation of the plural “curricula.” “Curriculums” (which adheres to the standard rules for forming plurals) is also an accepted plural.’
I prefer “curriculums”. Some people don’t care which is used:
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/dr-wordsmith-makes-a-house-call-at-the-tower-of-babel-1099283.html
Wordsmith writes: When it comes to the behaviour of foreign plurals in English, there are two schools of thought. One maintains that you should stick to foreign rules – that the plural of “poltergeist” is “poltergeister” and the plural of “curriculum vitae” is “curricula vitae”. And the other – the Jack Straw school of thought, perhaps – thinks that immigrant words should obey English rules while they are here, and that the plural of “stadium” should be “stadiums” and not “stadia”.
Dear Dr Wordsmith, And which school of thought do you belong to?
Dr Wordsmith writes: I belong to a third school, the A-Plague-On-Both- Your-Schools School, whose motto is: I couldn’t give a monkey’s.’
Many thanks. I too prefer the proper use of words, punctuation and grammar and in this instance I should have used “curricula” but as usual I was posting in haste (
).
On the topic of laughing, I did enjoy this mini clip. Let’s hope they’re verbalizing the general consensus, haha..
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/celtic-fans-sing-you-can-shove-your-coronation-up-your-a-347611/
That’s wonderful. Thanks Mogs.
Consolidation of a diverse banking market into a select few big players. Guess it will make CBDC’s easier to roll out.
Here in the UK we have seen similar consolidation with the energy market with a reversion to more or less the same old ‘big six’.
Net Zero appears to be concentrating the power and the wealth away from smaller players and into the hands of the elites.
“Net Zero appears to be concentrating the power and the wealth away from smaller players and into the hands of the elites.”
So for the Davos Deviants it’s all coming together nicely.
BlackRock does not permit anything that does not support ESG and DIE – they pull the strings
Well, it sure didn’t help.
But that bank now folded so quickly because the Feds signalled through their ridiculous SVB actions that your deposits are only safe with JPM and some other too big too fail banks and that at a ridiculous 100% regardless of deposit size: a bailout of the ultra-rich.
That’s why large deposits now flee regional banks and go the the biggies.
And the biggies then get to pick them up for free, as is custom for a fascist large company oligarchy.
The Bear, Stearns&co. takeunder actually served as the blueprint for these steals and the ones to come.
I doubt they have the self-awareness to understand, but highly paid executives charged with managing woke programs should probably be feeling nervous right about now.
Took most of my savings out of the bank and bought some property. Savings are just numbers on a spreadsheet and can be devalued at the whim of the market. I don’t want to be a victim of contagion and offered 60p in the pound. Like with the hoax pandemic, I don’t trust the authorities