The Following is the science from the Clinical Trials for the Covid Vaccine. Notice the Absolute Risk Reduction from getting Covid was only 0.84% with taking the Vaccine. That is less then 1 % reduction or protection.
Notice the Absolute Risk Increase if not getting the Vaccine is also only 0.84%. What was the Value in Taking the Vaccine, if it did not stop Transmission and has Serious Side Effects with 1 in 800 people?
Did your Health Care provider tell you these Facts?
We were only told of the Relative Reduction. Why?
The Consort Statement is an agreement to publish Clinical Trials with easy to understand data, like Absolute Risk Reduction ARR, Number to Treat or Vaccinate NNT or NNV and the Risk Ratio RR. Side Effect ratio are also to be provided. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6398298/
We were only told about the Relative Risk Reduction and NOT the Absolute Risk Reduction or the Absolute Risk Increase if we did not take the Shot. There were no other Clinical Trails and this is the Science that the Vaccine was Approved with.
Not only was the Absolute Risk Reduction less then 1 %, the number to treat to prevent any infection was 119. This means only one person out of 119 would be protected if they took the vaccine.This is why most people got covid, not because a new variant caused greater contraction. The Science showed the Vaccine was not truly Effective in stopping transmission.
“Let’s put this in perspective. First, a relative risk reduction is being reported, not absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%. Second, these results refer to the trials’ primary endpoint of covid-19 of essentially any severity, and importantly not the vaccine’s ability to save lives, nor the ability to prevent infection, nor the efficacy in important subgroups (e.g. frail elderly). Those still remain unknown. Third, these results reflect a time point relatively soon after vaccination, and we know nothing about vaccine performance at 3, 6, or 12 months, so cannot compare these efficacy numbers against other vaccines like influenza vaccines (which are judged over a season). Fourth, children, adolescents, and immunocompromised individuals were largely excluded from the trials, so we still lack any data on these important populations.”
Here is the data on all of the shots.
All of this data is found here in this Journal
Source :Efficacy and effectiveness of covid-19 vaccine – absolute vs. relative risk reduction
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9115787/
This is technical science. Here is Professor Fenton explaining it in more detail.
The Risk of a vaccinated person having a serious side effects is 1 in 800 people. The following chart compared the number needed to vaccinate to prevent Hospitalization or Severe Hospitilization
Hospitalization Severe COVID-19 Hospitalization
20 – 29 Years NNV 1 vax to 169,200 NNV 1 vax to 706,500
50 – 59 Years NNV 1 vax to 43,600 NNV 1 vax to 256,400
60 – 69 Years NNV 1 vax to 3,600 NNV 1 vax to 27,300
70 + Years NNV 1 vax to 700 NNV 1 vax to 7,500
The FDA Tried to Hide All This From The Public
The Clinical Research showed only a 0.84% Absolute Risk Reduction from taking the Vaccine. and 1,540 Different Side Effects
It took a court order to Have this Data Released. The FDA Refused to Let Scientist Study the Clinical Trails. Not One Major News Outlet Covered this Lawsuit.
Those scientist filed the following Law Suit.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISIONPUBLIC HEALTH AND MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS FOR TRANSPARENCY , Plaintiff,V.No. 4:21-cv-1058-PFOOD AND D RUG ADMINISTRATION, Defendanthttps://www.sirillp.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/ORDER_2022_01_06-9e24e298ae561d16d68a3950ab57077b.pdf
“In response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the Food and Drug Administration asked a federal judge for permission to make the public wait until the year 2096 to disclose all of the data it relied upon to license Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine.
That is not a typo. The FDA wanted court approval to have up to 75 years to publicly disclose this information.”
“U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman, Northern District of Texas, expressed dismay at the FDA’s proposed rate of production. He found the duration requested by the FDA unreasonable, comparing it to the actions of totalitarian nations. As such, the judge on Jan. 6 ordered the FDA to produce at least 55,000 pages per month.
In his ruling, the judge recognized that the release of this data is of paramount public importance and should be one of the FDA’s highest priorities. He quoted James Madison as saying a “popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy” and John F. Kennedy as explaining that a “nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” “
The Judge Direct Ruling Said
““Open government is fundamentally an American issue”—it is
neither a Republican nor a Democrat issue.2 As James Madison wrote,
“[a] popular Government, without popular information, or the means of
acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps, both.
Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be
their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which 2
knowledge gives.”3 John F. Kennedy likewise recognized that “a nation
that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open
market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”4 And, particularly
appropriate in this case, John McCain (correctly) noted that “[e]xcessive
administrative secrecy . . . feeds conspiracy theories and reduces the
public’s confidence in the government.”5
Echoing these sentiments, “[t]he basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure
an informed citizenry, [which is] vital to the functioning of a democratic
society.” NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1977).
“FOIA was [therefore] enacted to ‘pierce the veil of administrative
secrecy and to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny.’” Batton
v. Evers, 598 F.3d 169, 175 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Dep’t of the Air Force
v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976)). And “Congress has long recognized
that ‘information is often useful only if it is timely’ and that, therefore
‘excessive delay by the agency in its response is often tantamount to
denial.’” Open Soc’y Just. Initiative v. CIA, 399 F. Supp. 3d 161, 165
(S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting H.R. REP . N O. 93-876, at 6271 (1974)). When
needed, a court “may use its equitable powers to require an agency to
process documents according to a court-imposed timeline.” Clemente v.
FBI, 71 F. Supp. 3d 262, 269 (D.D.C. 2014).”
SO ORDERED on this 6th day of January, 2022.
Mark T. Pittman
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court order source: https://www.sirillp.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/ORDER_2022_01_06-9e24e298ae561d16d68a3950ab57077b.pdf
The Following Document Was Part of Those Records Produced
An Adverse Event is a Side Effect. The PDF file of this document can be found here
BNT162b2
5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 1
5.3.6 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT
REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021
In this document you will see Pfizer reported there were 1,540 different side effects in the Vaccine Group
51,335 General Disorders
25,957 Nervous System Disorders
17,283 Musculoskeletal Disorders
14,096 Gastrointestestinal Disorders
8,476 Skin and Tissue Disorders
8,848 Repertory Disorders
4,610 Infections
1,403 Cardiovascular Disorders
Were You Told of The Risks ? Following the Science we Know the Vaccine was not effective in stopping transmission.
Was , or is it Safe?
Were You Told of The Risks ?
Did it Prevent Deaths? There was a 99.73 % similar recover between Vax and unvaxed. You can see the 2021 numbers here https://data.cdc.gov/Public-Health-Surveillance/Rates-of-COVID-19-Cases-or-Deaths-by-Age-Group
The CDC stopped recording Deaths by vax status.
Were you told of Alternatives to the Product?
Under Title 21 Food and Drugs of the US Code
Under Emergency Authorization Use the FDA must Disclose Side Effects to the User
“to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed—
(1) Unapproved product,(A) Required conditions, (III) of the alternatives to the product
that are available, and of their benefits and risks.
(ii) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed—
The Science of Risk Assessment Ratio to Side Effects.
Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95 % CI -0.4 to 20.6 and -3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 2.1 to 22.9); risk ratio 1.43 (95 % CI 1.07 to 1.92). The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group; risk difference 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 1.2 to 34.9); risk ratio 1.36 (95 % CI 1.02 to 1.83). The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group: risk difference 7.1 per 10,000 (95 % CI -23.2 to 37.4); risk ratio 1.06 (95 % CI 0.84 to 1.33). Combined, there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients: risk difference 13.2 (95 % CI -3.2 to 29.6); risk ratio 1.16 (95 % CI 0.97 to 1.39).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/
What the Heck does all that gibberish Mean?
The relative risk (RR) of a bad outcome in a group given intervention is a proportional measure estimating the size of the effect of a treatment compared with other interventions or no treatment at all.
It is the proportion of bad outcomes in the intervention group divided by the proportion of bad outcomes in the control group.
The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group; risk difference 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 1.2 to 34.9); risk ratio 1.36 (95 % CI 1.02 to 1.83).
The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group: risk difference 7.1 per 10,000 (95 % CI -23.2 to 37.4); risk ratio 1.06 (95 % CI 0.84 to 1.33).
Combined, there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients: risk difference 13.2 (95 % CI -3.2 to 29.6); risk ratio 1.16 (95 % CI 0.97 to 1.39).
When a treatment has an RR greater than 1, the risk of a bad outcome is increased by the treatment; The Science Clearly show the Relative Risk High and the Treatment Ineffective.
When the RR is less than 1, the risk of a bad outcome is decreased, Meaning that the treatment is likely to do good. Now you know why so many people are having ill effects. https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson3/section5.html
It Appears that censorship of this Science was attempted, and suppression of this science was aborted by Scientist willing to Go to Court to release Data. Thank a scientist for being brave.
What does the Current Data show? New Data Just Released from a Massive Cleveland Clinic Study shows the more Vaccine Doses received, the Higher the Covid Infection Rate.
Source;
Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine
Nabin K. Shrestha,1 Patrick C. Burke,2 Amy S. Nowacki,3 James F. Simon,4 Amanda Hagen,5 Steven M.Gordon1
1Departments of Infectious Diseases, 2Infection Prevention, 3Quantitative Health Sciences, 4Enterprise
Business Intelligence, and 5Occupational Health, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
In addition to this shocking news, it appears more Science is being Censored.
Scientist Calling for Release of Data
“Covid-19 vaccines and treatments: we must have raw data, now”
https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o102
Scientist Claiming Suppression of Data
See; “Censorship and Suppression of Covid-19 Heterodoxy: Tactics and Counter-Tactics
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36340971/
It appears Data on the Side Effects is being suppressed. Like this one
WITHDRAWN: A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34601006/
The CDC now admits ” Evidence from multiple monitoring systems in the United States and around the globe supports a causal association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis. ” See https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html
So what has happened on the Ground. Have we been protected and are there side effects to worry about?
To monitor potential risk the CDC set up VAERS. “Adverse reactions, also known as side effects, are considered to be caused by a vaccine. Usually, vaccine side effects are identified during clinical trials.”
You can see from the beginning of this page, what adverse events ( side effects ) had been identified during the Clinical trials. Remember, the FDA tried to Hide them. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/sideeffects/index.html
So Far 1,466,370 side effects have been reported to VAERS. Including 41,757deaths.
The recognized general under reporting of these side effects is usually a factor of 10. So the total data may be over 10 million side effects and over 390,000 deaths. Remember , the Absolute Risk Reduction was only 0.84%
What happen in the Past with other Vaccine that showed high side effects? They had been withdrawn. In 1976 the Swine Flu Vaccine was Withdrawn when VAERS showed a 1 serious event per 100,000. In 1999 the Rotavirus Vaccine was withdrawn with 1-2 serious event per only 10,000.
The Current serious events for this Vaccine is 1 event per 800 people. See the Science Here : Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/
Lastly, A Federal Judge has ruled the Biden Administration has censored this science about Covid Research on Social Media Platforms. The Federal Judge issued an injunction prohibiting him from continuing that practice. In his ruling the Judge said;
“The right to free speech is not a member of
any political party and does not hold any political ideology. It is the purpose of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of the market, whether it be by government itself or private licensee.” Read the Court Case and Ruling here: Missouri v. Biden
Update: The Fifth Circuit granted a stay of this injunction on July 14, 2023. That case is pending so stay tune. What appears to be factual is the Biden administration wants censorship and is working to have it continue.
So Please Follow the Science Not the Media or your Favorite Politician
- Critical Thinking In Taoist Training
- Fascia Tensegrity in Qigong/TaiChi
- Mind Intent or Imagination in Qigong and Tai Chi
- Privacy Policy
- Proper Speed in Performing Tai Chi
- Richard’s Book ” From Wu Chi to Tai Chi: A Story of Ancient Beginnings
- The Ideogram for Tai Chi and the True Hidden Meaning of the Characters.
- Understanding Original Antigenic Sin (OAS) and Vaccine Effectiveness
- Very Basic Taoist Meditations
- Videos
- Contact
- Bio
- Medical Qigong Therapy
- Qigong and Tai Chi Research
- Tai Chi and Taoist Qigong Samples