Pfizer Vaccine’s ‘Efficacy’ for a Severe Adverse Reaction Is 450%

The vaccinated are 19 times less likely to contract Covid and 4.5 times more likely to report a severe reaction that requires hospitalization

“Efficacy” is a weasel term but two can play the game

8 of 17411 subjects vaccinated in the Pfizer trial went on to nonetheless test positive in the next two months, while 162 of the 17511 in the control group did so.

Pfizer therefore calculates the vaccine has a “95% efficacy” in warding off a COVID infection. (Ie it is not at all a guarantee that 95% of the vaccinated are now immune. It is simply the observation that in the vaccinated group infection incidence was reduced by 19 times from 0.9% to 0.05%.)

The same trial also reported 2 grade 3 or higher adverse reactions in the control group, and 9 in the vaccinated group. By the same comparative calculation, the vaccine’s “efficacy” when it comes to giving you a severe adverse reaction is 450%. (Incidence rose 4.5 times from 0.01% to 0.05%.)*

A grade 3 reaction is classified as a reaction causing hospitalization, or prolonging existing hospitalization:

“Severe or medically significant but not immediately lifethreatening; hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization indicated; disabling; limiting self-care ADL”

Grade 4 is life-threatening, and grade 5 is death.

For the record, of the non-vaccinated group 5 ended up in the hospital due to COVID, and 0 of the vaccinated group. However, since 9 from the latter group experienced grade 3 severe reactions and just 2 in the control group that means that when vaccine-related hospitalizations are added, overall there were actually slightly more (28%) hospitalizations in the vaccine group. (0 + 9 compared to 5 + 2.)

These are the short-term hazards. What the long-term hazards are nobody knows for sure this being a completely new type of vaccine. One that is theoretically far safer than the old kind, but that we simply won’t be in the position to know for sure for another 5-10 years.

 


*More formally you would say not vaccinating has a 78% (1-1/4.5) efficacy in staving off a severe adverse reaction to the vaccine.



You may back the site at:




Subscribe
Notify of
guest
5 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Muhammad Abbass
Muhammad Abbass
29 days ago

It is my understanding these vaccines are experimental and have been experimented with for 30 years. Aimed at corona-viruses tall previous trials have ended at the animal testing stage with severe neurological reactions prevalent. This time there have been no animal trials. Unless you classify Homo-sapiens-sapiens as animals and in which case you are going to be part of the trial. If you submit to this insanity.

Garry Compton
Garry Compton
29 days ago

And how do we know that the vaccines were made – only to fool the fake PCR into not showing a positive results ?

Muhammad Abbass
Muhammad Abbass
29 days ago
Reply to  Garry Compton

No need at all. The PCR tests are manipulated by the cycle threshold. If you cycle it enough times anyone will be positive and if few enough times then nobody. They up the ‘cases’ by testing more and increasing the cycle threshold and this most critical information is not even provided to doctors when they get test results back.

They can go down from the currently ridiculous, way beneath even bad science level of 45 cycles. Just 35 cycles gives about 98% false positives for infections if one assumes (wrongly) that the only source of RNA could be corona-visuses. The test sensitivity increases exponentially but only to false positives as this was never designed to test for active viral infection. After their phony vaccine with whatever properties it has intended or not, has been introduced they can wind it back to 25 cycles a sensible level or even lower and voila, they’ve saved the world. So line up for your next shot.

arnieus
arnieus
29 days ago
Reply to  Garry Compton

… or how do we know the PCR test is not a worthless flip of a coin, which makes all the statistics on vaccine effectiveness, based on PCR, garbage data. Coke, unused tests, goats, fruit all test positive. Should all goats wear masks and Coke banned?

Muhammad Abbass
Muhammad Abbass
26 days ago
Reply to  arnieus

It actually is a very precise test and unmatched in what it is designed for as I understand it. However it was never designed for what they are using it, The test identifies RNA. A fragment of DNA as a rule and in fact likely to be present at any time in very tiny amounts in any sample taken from people. It can be viral RNA or even fragments of viral RNA being eliminated by an overlooked (by design) part of our DNA which serves as a first line of defense and trigger for our immune system. Called Exosomes they not only are often to be found in human samples of any sort but especially if the subject is under any stress, like flu or cold, some illness or even fear! These remove toxins from the body and go on the attack whilst sounding the alarm to action> To put it simply. They are going to carry along with them toxins and RNA fragments from previous viral intrusions which have been dealt with as often happens to us all without us ever being aware. This is the likely source of the material with which they are spoofing the world.

To really make it interesting, if one considers the implications is this. The Exosomes, (look them up) happen to weigh the same as and perchance be the same weight and size we’re told CV-19 has. As if that co-incidence doesn’t amaze us all, how about the fact they are little round things with blobs sticking out. They’re the spitting image of a so-called corona-virus. Just for fun see if you can discover the result of knocking these critters out of action. Say with a DNA changing vaccine. Here’s a hint to go by. Downs Syndrome folks lack this gene, I think, but don’t quote me. Do the research and figure it out yourselves. I am just one rabbit looking for answers down in this tunnel myself.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!