Dec. 11, 2020 the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine became available under EUA Emergency Use Authorization
The Clinical Trial Data was Censored by The Biden/Harris Administration and Not released until SO ORDERED ON 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022 By a Federal Judge
Biden Executive Order 14043 Mandating the Vaccine was on September 9, 2021. Here is a direct quote from that Order.
” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within the Department of Health and Human Services has determined that the best way to slow the spread of COVID–19 and to prevent infection by the Delta variant or other variants is to be vaccinated.”
This was simple not truthful. The Clinical Trial Data showed: The Absolute Risk Reduction from getting Covid was only 0.84% with taking the Vaccine. That is less then 1 % reduction or protection.
Not a Single Doctor, Governor, CEO of a Company, News Media or any Clinical Researcher was allowed to View the Clinical Trial Data Before January 6, 2022
Yet Your Doctor Prescribed It, The President Mandated Every worker take it and You the Consumer had no way to know if it was indeed Safe or Effective.
Repeat: The Clinical Trial Data clearly shows 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 taking 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? Why Not ?
Here is the Data
“Absolute risk reduction (ARR)” or “risk difference,” represents “the proportion of patients who are spared the adverse outcome as a result of having received the experimental rather than the control therapy.”
The Absolute Risk Increase in Not taking the Vaccine is also the ARR. The Clinical Data Clearly Shows 0.84 % Absolute Risk Reduction if you took the Shot, and only a 0.84% increase in getting the virus if you did not take the shot. Science Facts, not Media or Politicians Misinformation.
The Absolute Risk Reduction ( ARR )Gives us the the Number Needed to Treat NNT or the Number Needed to Vaccinate NNV to prevent 1 infection. The Number Needed to Vaccinate from the Clinical Trials the Vaccine was approved with, is 119. That Means only 1 in every 119 people would be expected to have not contracted Covid.
See: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772653322000740
Here are the absolute risk reductions (ARRs) for various COVID vaccines.
Remember This is also known as the Risk Difference if you don’t take it.
AstraZeneca: 1.3%
Moderna: 1.2%
Johnson & Johnson (J&J): 1.2%
Pfizer: 0.84%
These values represent the absolute decrease in risk of contracting COVID-19 after receiving the respective vaccines, compared to the placebo group. This also is used to find the NNV or Number Needed to Vaccinate to prevent 1 infection. Example; for the Pfizer jab it would be 119 people to be jabbed to prevent 1 infection.
Be a Good Medical Consumer and Know the Facts. Harris Lied and the Dems Censored Science. Our Children are being harmed, and Granny too.
Consequences of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy misinformation
Misinformation is defined as “false information that is spread, regardless of whether there is intent to mislead” [16]. One of the consequences of misinforming the public that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine efficacy is very high is the expectation that the vaccines will protect people from severe infections, hospitalizations, and death [30]. This expectation is reinforced by observational studies showing that vaccinated people are more likely to have mild and moderate infections. But such observations only provide evidence of associations and are not causative evidence that the vaccines protect against severe infections, hospitalizations, and death.
The primary endpoints of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine clinical trials were a non-severe infection with at least one clinical symptom [31,32]. Furthermore, “the mRNA vaccine clinical trials were not powered to address severe disease” [33], nor were the trials “designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths” [34]. “
In a County Like Taos New Mexico with a Population of about 30,000 people. If everyone took the Vaccine, only 250 people would have been expected to not contract the Virus.
29,750 people would have been expected to not be protected.
Censorship of this Clinical Data was Ordered by President Biden. You, Me, Your Doctor and Science Experts were all denied Access. It Took this Law Suit and a Court Order to Have the Science Released.
Not Only was the Effectiveness of the Shot Hidden from the Public, the Adverse Events in the Control Group who took the Shot was also Hidden. The Shocking number is listed below including 1,223 Deaths
See: https://phmpt.org/pfizer-16-plus-documents/
Further Research After the Shot was Approved showed there is a Causal Relationship with Heart Disease. All for less than 1% protection.
Unfortunately, it gets Worse. Science Now Clearly Shows in Peer Reviewed Journals that the Spike Protein which is created from the Shot, Reverse Transcribes into Our DNA itself.
Line 1 Integration into our DNA will lead to problems like Cancers and Auto Immune Disease. Watch Below
See: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35723296/
Click here to watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azwt2pxn3UI
Add to all This the Brain Fog and Mental Illness associated with the shot, because the Spike Protein Crosses the Blood Brain Barrier.
Results: Findings showed an increased incidence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI). and Alzheimer’s disease (AD )in vaccinated individuals, particularly those receiving mRNA vaccines, within three months post-vaccination. The mRNA vaccine group exhibited a significantly higher incidence of AD (Odds Ratio [OR]: 1.225; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.025-1.464; p = 0.026) and MCI (OR: 2.377; CI: 1.845-3.064; p < 0.001) compared to the unvaccinated group.
- The study, published in QJM, an International Peer reviewed Journal analyzed data from a random 50% sample of city residents, totaling 558,017 individuals. They Found:
- A 22.5% increased incidence of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in the mRNA vaccine group compared to the unvaccinated group.
- A 137.7% increased incidence of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI ) in the mRNA vaccine group compared to the unvaccinated group.
See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38806183/
QJM, in the past subtitled Monthly Journal of the Association of Physicians and now An International Journal of Medicine, is a British peer-reviewed medical journal which was established in October 1907 as the Quarterly Journal of Medicine. Originally published quarterly, it changed to being a monthly publication at the beginning of 1985. While retaining its original initials for continuity, its name was changed in recognition of its new frequency of publication.
QJM focuses on internal medicine and publishes articles covering medical science and practice.
On a Side Note, President Joe Biden who dropped out of the 2024 Presidential Race due to Cognitive Impairment took 6 Covid Vaccine Shots and Contracted Covid 3 Separate Times.
Slowly we are recovering from the Government and Drug Company Mis Information Provided to us by the Media.
Unfortunately Censorship is Still Ongoing
Unfortunately for All of US, the United States Supreme Court, with All the Democrat Judges agreeing, decided Censorship of this important information is permissible.
On June 26,2024 in the decision
MURTHY, SURGEON GENERAL, ET AL.
v. MISSOURI ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
The Court Ruled Biden Censorship of the Facts about Covid is permissible. The Court ruled 6-3 that the government’s communications with social media platforms, to remove factual content about Covid-19 dangers, did not violate the First Amendment.
Direct from the Supreme Court Ruling
“This case involves what the District Court termed “a far reaching and widespread censorship campaign” conducted by high-ranking federal officials against Americans who expressed certain disfavored views about COVID–19 on social media. Missouri v. Biden, 680 F. Supp. 3d 630, 729 (WD La. 2023). Victims of the campaign perceived by the lower courts brought this action to ensure that the Government did not continue to coerce social media platforms to suppress speech. Among these victims were two States, whose public health officials were hampered in their ability to share their expertise with state residents; distinguished professors of medicine at Stanford and Harvard; a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Irvine School of Medicine; the owner and operator of a news website; and Jill Hines, the director of a consumer and human rights advocacy organization. All these victims simply wanted to speak out on a question of the utmost public importance. To protect their right to do so, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction, App. 278–285, and the Court of Appeals found ample evidence to support injunctive relief. See Missouri v. Biden, 83 F. 4th 350 (CA5 2023).”
“Of course, purely private entities like newspapers are not subject to the First Amendment, and as a result, they may publish or decline to publish whatever they wish. But government officials may not coerce private entities to suppress speech, see National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, 602 U. S. 175 (2024), and that is what happened in this case. The record before us is vast. It contains evidence of communications between many different government actors and a variety of internet platforms, as well as evidence regarding the effects of those interactions on the seven different plaintiffs. For present purposes, however, I will focus on (a) just a few federal officials (namely, those who worked either in the White House or the Surgeon General’s office), (b) only one of the most influential social media platforms, Facebook, and (c) just one plaintiff, Jill Hines, because if any of the plaintiffs has standing, we are obligated to reach the merits of this case. See Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U. S. 47, 52, n. 2 (2006).”
“For months in 2021 and 2022, a coterie of officials at the highest levels of the Federal Government continuously harried and implicitly threatened Facebook with potentially crippling consequences if it did not comply with their wishes about the suppression of certain COVID–19-related speech. Not surprisingly, Facebook repeatedly yielded. As a result Hines was indisputably injured, and due to the officials’ continuing efforts, she was threatened with more of the same when she brought suit. These past and threatened future injuries were caused by and traceable to censorship that the officials coerced, and the injunctive relief she sought was an available and suitable remedy. This evidence was more than sufficient to establish Hines’s standing to sue, see Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 561–562 (1992), and consequently, we are obligated to tackle the free speech issue that the case presents. The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think. That is regrettable.”
The case can be read here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411new_7mio.pdf
