"Follow the Science" recap

Video clips from down under summarizing the COVID vaccine fraud and propaganda

She skeptically asks, “Is the COVID vaccine 100% Effective?”

These videos and text were obtained from various posts on “X” provided by Kiwi accounts “coronavirus plushie” and “reality check radio”

The "95% effective" Scam

How many people would have chosen to take the Covid-19 vaccines had they understood that they offered less than 1% actual protection from infection?

“The 95% number was relative risk reduction — real efficacy was just 0.84%. That’s what should’ve been told to the people of New Zealand.” - Dr Alison Goodwin

Big Pharma’s spin, backed by government silence, painted a false picture of safety and efficacy.

What does the CDC have to say about this? The propaganda push and denialism continue unabated.

Did you ever hear the full truth about the vaccine trial data?

And it turned out that "less than 1% benefit" wasn't even true, because the mRNA products often had negative efficacy. That means that the more doses you receive, the more likely you are to develop COVID disease

Abstract

Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data are poorly understood by health professionals and the public. The absence of reported absolute risk reduction in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy. The present article uses clinical epidemiologic tools to critically appraise reports of efficacy in Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine clinical trials. Based on data reported by the manufacturer for Pfzier/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2, this critical appraisal shows: relative risk reduction, 95.1%; 95% CI, 90.0% to 97.6%; p = 0.016; absolute risk reduction, 0.7%; 95% CI, 0.59% to 0.83%; p < 0.000. For the Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273, the appraisal shows: relative risk reduction, 94.1%; 95% CI, 89.1% to 96.8%; p = 0.004; absolute risk reduction, 1.1%; 95% CI, 0.97% to 1.32%; p < 0.000. Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.

Conclusions

A critical appraisal of phase III clinical trial data for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2 and Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273 shows that absolute risk reduction measures are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Yet, the manufacturers failed to report absolute risk reduction measures in publicly released documents. As well, the U.S FDA Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) did not follow FDA published guidelines for communicating risks and benefits to the public, and the committee failed to report absolute risk reduction measures in authorizing the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines for emergency use. Such examples of outcome reporting bias mislead and distort the public’s interpretation of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine efficacy and violate the ethical and legal obligations of informed consent.

So what about Myocarditis caused by these products?

Myocarditis: Not Rare, Not Mild, and Much Greater Risk From COVID-19 Vaccination Than Infection

---

---

For those craving a deeper dive into the current science of the COVID mRNA vaccine fraud, I recommend following these accounts on “X”. Understanding of “The Science” is becoming extremely sophisticated, and is pushing the boundaries of what is known about the molecular biology of transcription (producing proteins from mRNA), microbiology (relating to shedding and horizontal transmission of plasmid DNA between bacteria) and exosome biology (ergo “shedding”), and the immunological consequences of the shift to anti-spike IgG4 antibodies driven by repeated inoculation with COVID mRNA products.