Pfizers own study shows that the shot doesn't do much

Very interesting obscured study from Phizers own study which was the third trial gold standard one.This shows that it saved one person in ten thousand from dying of Covid. But it also accidentally shows that death by other means negates the person it saved. Which is a worry that it is causing full-on meltdown. You can read the study for yourself, and how they keep it obscured, but leave their conclusions. So the Nordic countries that have called it a day they did so for very good reason. It shows that if you were in the placebo group you were less likely statistically to have died.
So the governments of the western world have run with this. Just an addenum to any person reaching the conclusion that it was pretty pointless as a vaccine in the trials, then what is it? After the trial was over did they do any follow-ups on any ensuing later damage it might be doing? it doesn't look like it they seemed to have called it a day and ran with what they had.

.www.bitchute.com...

a reply to: anonentity

I have trouble trusting anything Steve Kirsch says, his non-expert opinion is not really grounded in facts. The closest he got to credibility was his talks alongside Brett Weinstein

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: anonentity

I have trouble trusting anything Steve Kirsch says, his non-expert opinion is not really grounded in facts. The closest he got to credibility was his talks alongside Brett Weinstein

So what do you think about Phizers own study?

Or do you have trouble trusting anything Phizers says, based off of the record number of lawsuits they have had to pay out on for lying to the public about their products?

Inquiring minds want to know your opinion on that...

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: anonentity

I have trouble trusting anything Steve Kirsch says, his non-expert opinion is not really grounded in facts. The closest he got to credibility was his talks alongside Brett Weinstein

Well it's a good thing you don't have to take his word for it, then. Pfizer has a peer-reviewed paper out that he is using and it proves his statistical analysis for you. So take your time and read the paper for yourself and make your own conclusions.

When they put the numbers out there, it's hard to deny the science behind it. (And by "they", I mean Pfizer.)

I say it very compelling.

There’s a simple reason it’s a fake vaccine…….it’s fake.

a reply to: havok

It is what it is. It's amazing that they actually let this go through. The salesmen must have spun it to all the dumb chooks waiting for their handouts, Which they praised and passed it. Never bothering to actually look through it.If its no good as a Vaccine. I am guessing it will be a great sterilization tool. if it is the figures should show up pretty soon. but by then we will be in so much # no one will care anyway.

Here is a link to the info being talked about in the video....for anyone that doesn't want to watch

US COVID-19 Vaccines Proven to Cause More Harm than Good Based on Pivotal Clinical Trial Data Analyzed Using the Proper Scientific Endpoint, “All Cause Severe Morbidity”

Web-Link
PDF

Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine
Link

The side effects of stimulating the immune system the way their vaccine does causes extra deaths and hospitalizations, which is relayed into their statistics. The pfizer vaccine overall does not save many people. The results of the research have been twisted and exploited by media and government health agencies and of course politics. For every person they save, one dies because of a different reason plus it loses it's benefit after around six months.

I do not blame pfizer for this kind of problem, I read their initial results and what they said nowhere matched what the government and their agency heads said about it. I may not like big pharma much, but in this case they did not falsify the information they gave to the government, the government blew it out of context.

originally posted by: TarantulaBite
Here is a link to the info being talked about in the video....for anyone that doesn't want to watch

US COVID-19 Vaccines Proven to Cause More Harm than Good Based on Pivotal Clinical Trial Data Analyzed Using the Proper Scientific Endpoint, “All Cause Severe Morbidity”

Web-Link
PDF

Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine
Link

THANK-YOU! Written words are far easier to bookmark and show to doubters, in person and on the internet.

Especially this document, proving that the vaccines do more harm than good: www.scivisionpub.com... er-scientific--1811.pdf

HUGE THANK-YOU.

I have trouble trusting anything Steve Kirsch says,

a reply to: MDDoxs

Do you have trouble Trusting Dr Fauci or Joe Biden ?

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: anonentity

I have trouble trusting anything Steve Kirsch says, his non-expert opinion is not really grounded in facts. The closest he got to credibility was his talks alongside Brett Weinstein

Cool. Then I guess the experts that started out by telling us “2 weeks…” etc. etc. are just fine.

These nameless people, these “experts” that help foster fear and make society cower. Reminds me of “anonymous sources”.

Oh well. According to you, people with name ought not be trusted.

Weird.

a reply to: rickymouse
But surely any Government that ran with this, while it is in the public domain is toast.

Additional Scientific evidence that Covid-19 vaccines increase the chances of developing Venous Thrombosis (aka: Blood Clots).

Medical Research paper dated August 1, 2021: www.news-medical.net...

This will be the medical complication that causes mass suffering (in families -and- from violence), if the vaccines are forced upon our children.

originally posted by: rickymouse
... plus it loses it's benefit after around six months.

I guess that depends on what you still count as a benefit. If you count 1% less chance of being infected vs unvaccinated as a benefit it lasts longer than 6 months. This news article, which has a link to a published paper, says:

...
It showed that while Pfizer offers higher protection following a second dose compared to AstraZeneca – defined by measuring the viral burden detected via an RT-PCR diagnostic test – its protection fades faster.

...

However, while the results indicate that efficacy may drop substantially as time passes – in Pfizer’s case by as much as 22% for every 30 days after the second dose – ...

Source: RACGP - COVID-19 vaccine efficacy fades over time: Study

So if you start with about 80% efficacy for the Pfizer vaccine (as defined there in the bolded part and shown in the published paper as 77% average less chance of being tested positive vs unvaccinated for the Delta dominant period, for the age group 35-64, see figure 2, "By age" graph, page 20), 14 days after the 2nd shot (which is considered the highest point), the following efficacy numbers apply, counting from that point as point zero (so 30 days after that is actually 44 days after the 2nd shot):

after 30 days (44 after 2nd shot): 80 * 0.78 = 62.4%
after 60 days: 62.4 * 0.78 = 48.72%
after 90 days: 48.72 * 0.78 = 37.96%
after 120 days: 29.61%
150 days: 23.1%
180 days: 18.02%

However, it doesn't show that in the "By age" graph. There it has about 58-59% average less chance of being tested positive vs unvaccinated after 90 days for that age group. But these numbers are affected by the reality that vaccinated are tested less vs the unvaccinated (also because you don't need a test to go places as a vaccinated person), obviously that will skewer the numbers in favor of perceived vaccine effectiveness, when the real reason that vaccinated have lesser and lesser chance of being tested positive vs unvaccinated is then caused by vaccinated simply not getting tested as often. If you don't get a test, there's 0% chance of being tested positive, that will raise the perceived efficacy number (i.e. a higher number for "less chance of being tested positive vs unvaccinated").

I'd say that if you drop below 30% there isn't all that much benefit in terms of avoiding a positive test anymore (I guess it's still better than nothing). So working with the claims from the news article, that's about after 120 days from the highest point (134 days after 2nd shot). Working with the graph alone it's quite a bit more; the graph stops at 90 (104) days, with 58 - 59%. Using the rate of drop in that graph would suggest you still have nearly 35% efficacy (as defined on the y-axis) after 270 days. So I wonder, where does the 22% droprate claim in the news article come from? Cause that's quite different (perhaps testing frequency has something to do with it, since the y-axis is slightly differently defined than what it says in the news article, and the "By age" graph already has the sharpest drop compared to the other graphs, but it's still not 22% from what it was for every 30 days).

Here's the link to the published paper with the graph on page 20 (looking at the "By age" graph for the age group 35-64):

Impact of Delta on viral burden and vaccine effectiveness against new SARS-CoV-2 infections in the UK

a reply to: whereislogic
"Pfizer’s case by as much as 22% for every 30 days after the second dose – .. "


30 days after second dose.
For 14 days of those 30 days you are considered unvaccinated.

So 16 days after you are fully vaccinated......it starts to wane.

So potentially, 16 days after being fully vaxxed 80% drops to 58%.
Potentially.....46 days after being fully vaxxed it drops to 36%.
78 days after being fully vaxxed = 14%.

Will look at it properly later but in a skim read they're using the wrong p-value calculation and the conclusion makes no sense as p-values don't prove causality - They should be using Fisher at best or chi-square with Yates correction at a push but using basic chi-square is the most innacurate p value calculation and wouldn't yield accurate/valid results. The author also admits to ignoring differences in outcome totals for convenience despite the fact this would yield invalid results and render the entire study useless.

There's basic errors in the terminology used in the methodology section which make it very hard to believe they know any stats (i.e p-value, chi-square are hyphenated and the sentence 'Given the statistical significant p, values generated (see Table 1), these small differences do not appear to be material. ' makes no sense whatsoever.

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

I have trouble trusting anything Steve Kirsch says,

a reply to: MDDoxs

Do you have trouble Trusting Dr Fauci or Joe Biden ?

Yes, why?

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: anonentity

I have trouble trusting anything Steve Kirsch says, his non-expert opinion is not really grounded in facts. The closest he got to credibility was his talks alongside Brett Weinstein

I have trouble trusting ANYTHING the CDC, FDA, NHS and all the rest of the medical industrial complex has to say, especially the Pharma Division like Pfizer. That company has pleaded guilty to criminal fraud charges several times going back to 2004.

Sadly, I have trouble believing what the AMA has to say anymore.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: anonentity

I have trouble trusting anything Steve Kirsch says, his non-expert opinion is not really grounded in facts. The closest he got to credibility was his talks alongside Brett Weinstein

I have trouble trusting ANYTHING the CDC, FDA, NHS and all the rest of the medical industrial complex has to say, especially the Pharma Division like Pfizer. That company has pleaded guilty to criminal fraud charges several times going back to 2004.

Sadly, I have trouble believing what the AMA has to say anymore.

Agreed. Unfortunately it takes a lot more energy then before to sift through all the BS. Unfortunately, the majority of people lack the interest to do that.

a reply to: MDDoxs

I live by a simple rule: I do not trust known liars. I presume that known liars will most often lie and deceive. That takes no energy at all.