C19 Injections are four times worse than the WHO's declaration of a PHEIC - so far
“There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.” — John Heywood
The C19 clinical trials were intended to estimate the path of the C19 pandemic with and without injections. The design of the trials is of critical importance to their validity and utility. Later on in this piece I provide some details on the clinical trial parameters. Data indicates that the clinical trials were not a good predictor of outcomes making them invalid in the changed environment we have seen since the injection roll-out. The world has moved on. As will all pandemics, there is a beginning, a middle and an end. There may very well be a new pandemic, forced by new versions of the injections, but to continue with the present injection roll-out is folly.
Previous posts have indicated that there could be 20 million deaths and 2.2 billion injuries from adverse events from the injections. The Pfizer clinical trial indicated 0.1% of the injected group (slightly less in the placebo group) died during the 6 month clinical trial, with 24% suffering an adverse event.
If we apply the 6 month clinical trial outcomes for 21,926 in the injected group to the 5.5 billion of people injected globally over the 22 months of the injection roll-out whilst acknowledging the very low statistical relevance of doing so (same applies to the low statistical relevance of the clinical trial numbers in general!) we need to multiply the clinical trial data for cases, deaths and adverse events by around 250,000. There is an obvious temporal issue between 6 months of clinical trial data and 22 months of adverse event data post-authorization of injections. The same temporal issue applies to the 4.9 million C19 deaths and additional 550 million C19 cases since the roll-out date of the injections on 10 December 2020.
To get some sense of the annualized numbers, the table below doubles the 6 month clinical trial data, scales to global doses, annualizes C19 numbers since the roll-out of injections and annualizes the adverse event assumptions of 20 million dead/2.2 billion adverse events (multiple per person) to get to a kind of “granny smith apples with crab apples” comparison.
This gives some sense of the accuracy and quality of the clinical trial design using the “back of an envelope”.
In this “in silico” world, adverse events and deaths are four times higher than C19 cases and deaths.
The Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC, pronounced FAKE, you cannot make this up!) for C19 is potentially a QUARTER the scale of the harms from injections.
THERE NEEDS TO BE A PHEIC FOR THE INJECTION PANDEMIC
This abomination must be halted immediately until quality data can be compiled. The clinical trials for injections need to be redone independently alongside IVM, HCQ protocols that are easy, available and cheap (plus Proxalutomide and others?) conducted on three sites remote from each other and audited. Distribution and manufacturing quality has had an impact on the potency of the vials, as has the propensity to aspirate the injections, or not. More work needs to be done on the toxicity of the PEG coating, the nanoparticle delivery mechanism as well as the spike protein AND the manufacturing/distribution/adverse event reporting standards around the world.
(Side note: I sympathise with medics coming off 12 hour shifts handling injection injuries that take half an hour each to complete a VAERS, EUDRA or other adverse event report in the face of any sneering from pro-vaxx colleagues – get 4 adverse events, work 2 hours reporting them? Yeah right!)
Personally, I view causing the body to manufacture the spike protein in the same way as causing the body to manufacture snake bite – whether a person has been bitten or not. Anti-venom is extracted from a super immune host – more snake venom is not the cure for snake bite!
Vile Vials - by Peter Halligan - Peter’s Newsletter (substack.com)
The clinical trials indicated there would be around 10.5 million annualized cases for those injected, compared to 115 million C19 cases In the placebo group. Actual C19 cases (with 2.6 doses) came in almost 30 times higher and almost triple the clinical trial cases. The number of deaths indicated for the injected group and C19 itself (not a useful comparison!) were around the same, but the direct comparator of almost 11 million injection deaths is 14 times higher than that indicated by the clinical trial. Annualized adverse events (using the under-reporting factor (URF) of 40 and the one eighth share of EUDRA+VAERS data) could be almost 70% higher than indicated by the clinical trial. The clinical trial should have ZERO under-reporting of adverse events. This indicates that either the URF of 40 is too high, or, more likely, adverse events were not fully captured for the most “at risk” group in the population by the clinical trials. For example, CCCA estimate that the most vulnerable population makes up 58% of C19 risk, whilst the clinical trial had just 4% of this vulnerable population in its injected group.
As a reminder, here is a snapshot of the US situation on which the need for injections was based:
The odds of an under 19 dying from an infection were one in 37,000. Note these odds are within a case rate globally of less than 3% per annum. The recovery rate of that 3% is around 97% - there have been 607 million recoveries from 627 million cases so far – these 607 million should have high levels of natural immunity.
(Apologies for not making the source reference clearer – it came from a screen image of a podcast).
The clinical trial design is critiqued by the BMJ (Peter Doshi) here:
Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us | The BMJ
A pop-up embedded in the article – cropped for Pfizer and Moderna “vaccines” (there are another 5) is worth a look at.
Just for a little context, check out this quote from Moderna CMO:
Zaks said, “Would I like to know that this prevents mortality? Sure, because I believe it does. I just don’t think it’s feasible within the timeframe [of the trial]—too many would die waiting for the results before we ever knew that.”
The hubris is stunning. The trial should be revealing potential risks. Zaks is not the judge and jury. More people died in the injected group than the placebo group, so injecting them exposed them to greater harm than the infection! In the Pfizer trial two more people died when they were unblinded and injected!
From the pop-up, here are some elements of the trial design that would, eventually be scaled to today with 5.5 billion people globally, injected 2.6 times. This number is derived from OurWorldinData showing 12.79 billion injections administered to date, with 68.2% receiving at least one dose.
Table 1 Characteristics of ongoing phase III covid-19 vaccine trials
‡ Endpoints “undergoing formal study” include those listed as primary outcomes in ClinicalTrials.gov, publicly available study protocols, or those not listed as primary outcomes, but the company has confirmed that the study is powered sufficiently to find an effect (if one exists).
The primary was the prevention of systematic disease, not emergency care or death or transmission. The explosion in “cases” since the roll-out amongst those injected makes this sole end-point, uncontestably a “failure to meet”.
Out of interest, a snap shot of each of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine EUA approvals is here
https://www.justfacts.com/document/moderna_covid-19_vaccine_approval_summary_fda_2022.pdf
Individual “vaccine approval” summaries for each are here and here, including end clinical trial dates from 2023-2025 that endorse (or not) all EUA’s:
Summary Basis for Regulatory Action - COMIRNATY (justfacts.com)
January 30, 2022 Summary Basis for Regulatory Action - SPIKEVAX (justfacts.com)
Here are two analyses of the quality of the clinical trials.
The analysis shows a vaccine fatality rate of around 0.1% for both Pfizer and Moderna and the placebo group in each trial – there is ZERO reduction in mortality captured In these 6 month trials:
covid-19_mrna_vaccines_mortality.xls (live.com)
Here is my “go to” analysis of the Pfizer clinical trial completed by the Canadian Critical Care Alliance (CCCA) of 500 medics. This 51 page analysis basically destroys the Pfizer clinical trial.
The COVID-19 Inoculations - More Harm Than Good FINAL Video & Print - MoreHarm.pdf | DocDroid
A 39 minute video version is here:
The Pfizer Inoculations Do More Harm Than Good (rumble.com)
Pages 11 and 12 show a summary of outturns that I have combined below:
A stark risk to benefit observation would be “exchange 773 fewer C19 cases for 3,930 adverse events and 6 more deaths, for every 21,926 people double dosed”.
Note the complete lack of recovery data for those infected (who would have gained natural immunity). A C19 infection lasts an average of 15 days. The 850 cases in the placebo group could quite feasibly have been only 70 by the end of the trial (just those infected in the last 15 days of 180 days of the trial). There is no detail on cause of death in either group, maybe they were gunned down, died in car accidents or from heart attacks and not from infection or injection! Similarly there is no age stratification of the data (I may have missed this in the 51 page CCCA document).
For those of you who have waded through all that, here are few bonus links.
The Most Objective Evidence Shows No Indication That Covid Vaccines Save More Lives Than They Take - Just Facts Daily
https://www.justfactsdaily.com/most-objective-evidence-covid-vaccines-lives
Onwards!
PS - interesting article from the UK. Same in the US?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/record-numbers-of-healthy-patients-stuck-in-hospital-amid-care-shortage/ar-AA12NrzX
Thank you for your brilliant analysis warning the public about these killer jabs.
In my opinion, the main impediment to stopping this revolves around the courts. Even the most open-minded judges have not grasped the concept that a monopoly has been granted to the CDC and the WHO as to their theory that the novel SARS-Cov-2 virus has been proven to exist. These theories have never been vetted by outside skeptics because the mainstream theory is sacrosanct--you cannot question it or else you will be accused of spreading medical misinformation.
The appeal to a majority "scientific" consensus opinion inherently violates the Constitution's right to free speech. Nonetheless if there was one judge who allowed questioning of the consensus theory on the grounds that the original study to determine the existence of the virus was fundamentally flawed, inadequate or simply fraudulent, they would order a "proper" study to make a definitive interpretation.
Skeptics would still be forced to play by the rules of "virology," but the study would not be based on one or a few patients as it was done in China. Nor would a computer simulation be "proof" that the virus exists. No, it would naturally have to be a massive study with a control group (which of course was not done when the mainstream virologists came to their conclusions which brought economic ruin to millions not to mention all the deaths from the killer jabs).
One such proposal has been introduced by Dr. Sam Bailey along with other signatories in which a real clinical study can be done to prove or deny the claims of the mainstream consensus view.
The proposed study entitled "Settling the Virus Debate," can be found here: https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/