When the figures don't stack up...
A number of people have asked me to explain some of the figures that are bandied about by the Government and MSM regarding the efficacy of the different jabs, and what the stats mean in real life. Firstly, I’m no statistician, but it is clear to me from both the language and convenient use of the figures that there is skulduggery afoot as you’d expect from the Pharma giants who have regularly been found guilty of hiding adverse reactions or other misdemeanours that have previously resulted in massive fines. However massive the fine is in absolute terms, if they are only a fraction of the overall profit they are simply viewed as a wrap across the knuckles and a “working loss”. This doesn’t reflect the damage to those who have suffered, or lost loved ones. When an individual dies it’s a tragedy; however when many die they are tragically disregarded as a statistic.
I think we’ve all heard the phrase that is famously credited to the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli:
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics",
although Mark Twain is often associated with it too?!! How apt is that confusion in the present climate?!!
If I take the table from the Pfizer/BioNTech results as submitted within the data used to be awarded the emergency (temporary) medicine authorisation (EUA) then I will show the difference between the relative risk rate (RRR) and the absolute risk rate (ARR). I will then discuss these figures in light of other knowledge and known figures and activities too.
As shown in the first, highlighted line of the table/figures above, the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA gene therapy product claims to have 95% efficacy which is calculated as follows.
In the test group 8 out of 17,411 people “got COVID” 7+ days after the 2nd jab (= 0.04594%), whereas 162 out of 17,511 “got COVID” in the control group (= 0.92513%). Comparing these 2 percentages which are now corrected for the 100 person difference in group size, it does indeed work out that only just under 5% of those who were jabbed “got COVID” compared with the placebo group. This is the RRR calculation.
The ARR improvement looks rather different. It is simply the difference between the 2 percentages 0.92513 – 0.04594 = 0.87919%. In other words, having 2 jabs 3 weeks apart reduces your absolute risk less than 1%. It could be argued that such a small percentage benefit within a large population amounts to a significant number, but if we now add some other knowledge into the mix, it’s not quite so clear cut, especially given that it is experimental with unknown medium and long term adverse effects, although a number of highly significant ones are predicted.
So the first line of figures I used in the comparison above says that the 8 and 162 are occurrences of Covid-19 “without evidence of infection” in the test and placebo groups respectively. The definition used to identify people “with COVID” covers anything with the mildest of symptoms and worse, not the full blown serious illness requiring hospitalisation that should be the only true qualification for being called a COVID patient.
Given that the majority of people in the trial were under 65 years old, the chances of any of these people dying was/is under 1% anyway If we look at significance in terms of death between the test group and the placebo then it could be argued that there is no statistical significance between the groups because nobody in either group died, or were likely to die either if given proper treatment, and therefore no lives were saved by the jab.
If we consider that natural immunity is ALWAYS more efficacious than artificially derived immunity, then it could be argued that the jab prevented a higher degree of immunity from developing in the jabbed individuals and could therefore be considered to be contra-indicated! What we also don’t know is how many of the control group showed symptoms for another cause, or contracted another virus that wasn’t SARS-CoV2 but tested positive on PCR, which as we know could well be a high level of false positives? In light of the near zero risk of dying from SARS-CoV2 infection for the vast majority under 65 years old (unless suffering from a comorbidity or 2), a reduction in ARR <1% has to be of questionable benefit, especially given the high health and financial cost of implementing systems of lockdown, testing and shutting down treatment of other much more serious and common diseases.
Bear in mind that deaths from COVID are currently only number 24 in the list of all cause deaths for the UK. The number of collateral deaths from other causes due to failure to diagnose and treat in time must also be taken into consideration within the overall picture.
The real situation
AS this video from Ivor Cummins indicates, the risk of dying from COVID is very small and reduces to almost zero for the youngest in our society.
I can only presume that those who are going to jab their children are also going to move from their house to a bungalow and avoid stairs, and find other ways of removing all situations of greater risk than COVID?!! It is impossible to justify risking death by giving an experimental gene therapy where the risk of death and serious injury from VAERS exceeds the risk of the disease it is trying to prevent.
Throughout the Plandemic figures have been either grossly inaccurately predicted as with Neil Fergusson’s now discredited model that seems to be still in use by the Government, or totally inaccurately recorded.
Deaths have been attributed to COVID based on a positive PCR test within 28 days, later extended to 60 days too. We know that many of these positive tests were false positives due to over-cycling, ie Ct>25. We also know that a significant number of these COVID deaths were recorded as such because it didn’t require the individual’s regular Dr who knew him/her and his/her medical history to sign the death certificate. Autopsies weren’t performed either, so there is no way to correct the record retrospectively. We will never know the true figure for deaths from COVID. Many who died had potentially fatal comorbidities – the average age of those dying was 84 with between 2 and 3 comorbidities - yet the reason recorded for the death was frequently given as COVID even if there were no symptoms to support this. Incorrectly signing a death certificate is a criminal offence, yet it seems many (not all I'm sure) were happy to do so knowing that they were protected from prosecution by the contingencies of the emergency legislation.
In no other year have deaths been counted over into a second season and reported as if the annual total. All this has been done to maintain the fear and justify the ongoing “emergency” so that emergency auithorisation of the jabs is maintained, and the lower price to Government under their agreements with the jab manufacturers. Coming back to the jabs, the same criteria used to attribute a COVID death has not been used to attribute an adverse reaction to the jabs. People seem to be in denial that blood clots, migraines, neurological problems, and other issues too numerous to list here, could be caused by their jab unless it happened within a few minutes or hours of it. It is quite extraordinary to read of a relative who has lost a loved one to the jab but still encourages others to have it! If they had died because of an inherent manufacturing fault in a car there would be a worldwide demand to recall all vehicles of that type, and families of those who had died would be advising all other drivers to stop!! Injecting something irreversible and more dangerous into the body is somehow OK?!
Falsification of figures hasn’t stopped there as the following video shows.
The CDC appear to be systematically altering the VAERS records of some who have died and miraculously brought them back to life. It would appear that some 150,000 records are suspect. Those are the ones that have been found. How many others are there, and how many have been downgraded from a severe non-fatal reaction to a lesser adverse reaction? Thankfully there are people who are recording this information and exposing it. What is even more criminal is that these records are effectively part of the Phase 3 Trial that all who take the jabs are taking part in. These falsified figures will presumably be submitted as part of the application for full authorisation. The Pharma companies have a legal obligation to keep accurate records and oversee the trial too, yet according to Dr Peter McCullough in one interview I saw him give, this is not occurring. They have been absolved of any come-back for injury or death, but they seem to have extended this to include any obligations to follow regulations and procedures whatsoever. If this behaviour is going on in the USA how do we know it isn’t going on here, given the manipulation of other figures here to date?
If we think back to July 2020 and the Great Barrington Declaration, Prof Sunetra Gupta calculated that herd immunity had very nearly already been achieved. She calculated that when you factor in different susceptibilities in different age groups and risk factors that herd immunity was potentially achieved when 10-20% of the population had antibodies, and estimated that the UK was nearly there at that time. These figures have been conveniently forgotten and suppressed as the Government narrative now appears to be “jab ‘em all, and bugger the consequences”. Even if Prof Gupta was wrong by 50%, it would still only require 30% of the population to have antibodies!
If we look at the number of people in the UK who have had 1 jab (about 32m) and the number who have had 2 (43m) then the UK is already past this point of herd immunity, yet still the Government are pushing the jabs and encouraging children to have them despite eminent Drs from a number of different fields speaking out about the dangers. Given the prevalence of antibodies in the UK there is no reason, and there would be no loss of face to stop now…. but they aren’t. Why not?
Don’t tell me its all about variants because as Ivor Cummins explains using the Government’s own figures, that’s a myth too.
Even before this, the lies were evident because SARS was around in 2003 and T cell immunity has been found to last to the present time. SARS and SARS-CoV2 share 78% of their genome, so if cross-over protection from SARS T cells is protective against SARS-CoV2 with only 78% genome in common then a <10% alteration to form other variants are no issue to those who have SARS-CoV2 immunity.
However you really look at the figures, the situation is a house of cards ready to fall. There are other official figures that undermine the narrative too. More people are in hospital and die of COVID after 2 jabs than those without any, who have a shorter stay, yet PHE is still trying to make out that “2 doses of vaccine are effective at providing protection against risk of hospitalisation”?! A recent letter from a Consultant within the NHS was bemoaning the number of NHS staff who have had adverse reactions, which then removes them from being able to treat the public for all sorts of illnesses. Far from saving the NHS, the "jab 'em all" policy is leaving the NHS short staffed. If you think it's bad now wait until ADE hits in Autumn/Winter when not only will the demand from the public be at its highest with the worst symptoms, but staffing levels will be at their lowest for the same reason.
Other figures indicate that those who have been jabbed are reportedly 6 times more likely to die than the unjabbed, which is surely an early indication of immune priming and ADE. This was warned about before - following past experiences with attempted SARS and MERS vaccines. It is currently indicated as a real risk by a number of papers that indicate spike protein exposure re-programmes macrophages in the long term to increase the inflammatory response.
The final nail in the coffin for the jabs I think is this paper published 24th June 2021 which found the following, and recommends Governments rethink jab policies, although there has been no back down as of yet.
Currently, our estimates show that we have to accept four fatal and 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations in order to save the lives of 2–11 individuals per 100,000 vaccinations, placing risks and benefits on the same order of magnitude.
If we then consider that VAERS are only reported at 1-10% of actual and factor this in at the 10% level, the statement would then read as follows
Currently, our estimates show that we have to accept forty fatal and 160 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations in order to save the lives of 2–11 individuals per 100,000 vaccinations…
And at the 1% level
Currently, our estimates show that we have to accept four hundred fatal and 1600 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations in order to save the lives of 2–11 individuals per 100,000 vaccinations…
And this takes no consideration of the medium and long term risks from ADE (now that the jabbed have been primed), prion diseases and auto-immune diseases.
It isn't hard to see the pitfalls ahead, yet the Government is ploughing on regardless. If the medical experts being suppressed and significant numbers of lay public can see these too, it begs the question why those "experts" advising and within the Government apparently cannot. It's either gross incompetence or deliberate. Seeing what's going on in other countries tends to push me towards the deliberate viewpoint.