A Pandemic of the Vaccinated

Two studies show new evidence that Covid-19 vaccines “cause more illness than they prevent”

Two newly released studies show that – after a brief period of moderate protection – the experimental Covid-19 vaccines actually end up causing more illness than they prevent – especially when it comes to new variants like the now-predominant, and highly-mild Omicron.

The first study, a pre-print that was released on MedRXiv by a team of researchers in Denmark, shows that the experimental vaccines provide absolutely zero protection against Omicron beginning two months after vaccination (which they refer to as “peak” protection).

After just three months, fully vaccinated individuals begin to experience sharp negative protection. Researchers found that those who received the Pfizer vaccine were an astounding 76.5 percent more likely to have a breakthrough infection than their unvaccinated counterparts once 90 days had passedthose who received Moderna’s were 39.3 percent more likely.

According to the study, the spread of the new Omicron variant was “likely” caused by “super-spreader events” “among young, vaccinated individuals.”

Only those who had taken a complete two-dose vaccination or a two-dose vaccination and a booster were counted as vaccinated in the study.

Somehow, the study’s authors still conclude that mass vaccination and the rollout of boosters is nessecary.

Take your booster, sheep.

Look:

As if that wasn’t enough proof that this is the ‘pandemic of the vaccinated,’ the Canadian Covid Care Alliance – a non-profit government watchdog group of independent health care professionals – released a separate report this week that came to similar conclusions.

After examining Pfizer’s own vaccine clinical trial data, the CCCA team of experts also found that the Pfizer vaccine had serious negative protection against Covid, and so much so that they concluded the “vaccine causes more harm than good.”

The CCCA panel conducted a thorough analysis of Pfizer’s vaccine trial report from December 31st, 2020. The Pfizer report claims that the inoculations were safe and showed a robust 95% efficacy 7 days after the 2nd dose. But what researchers failed to mention was that the 95 percent was actually Relative Risk Reduction. Absolute Risk Reduction, which is what should have been factored in – especially if this vaccine is going to be mandated across the board, was less than one percent.

“The claim was that the inoculations were safe and showed 95 percent efficacy 7 days after the 2nd dose. But that 95 percent was actually Relative Risk Reduction. Absolute Risk Reduction was only 0.84 percent.”

For context, relative risk reductions only relate to a percentage reduction in one group compared to another, which can easily be misleading and over-exaggerate how helpful something is. Absolute risk reductions give the actual difference in risk between one group and another.

The report also shows that Pfizer had recorded an increased risk of illness – and even an increased risk of death – in individuals who had taken the vaccine compared to those who were in the placebo group – something that was also backed up by Pfizer’s latest clinical trial data that was published last month.

From CCCA:

“Pfizer’s most recent report indicates an Efficacy of 91.3 percent. (Which means a reduction in positive cases compared to placebo group.)

But it also showed, compared to the placebo group, an increase in illness and deaths.

There is no benefit to a reduction in cases if it comes at the cost of increased sickness and death.”

“Severe adverse events” were up by 75 percent in the trial group that had received the vaccine.

Overall, adverse events that were attributed to the vaccine were an astounding 300 percent higher than in the placebo group.

As for deaths, there were more who died in the vaccinated group 20 out of 34 total. What’s even more concerning is that 9 of the vaccinated deaths were related to “cardiovascular events.

The CCCA panel also found several questionable and corrupt practices that were used when Pfizer compiled their report.

Not only did the vaccine maker downplay the side effects of the experimental jab, but they also did not follow established clinical trial protocols, had inadequate control groups that were mixed and unblinded early, and tested the jab on misleading demographics in order to generate the best results.

Instead of focusing the trials on the target population who could most benefit from a Covid-19 vaccine – a la the elderly and those with severe comorbidities – Pfizer chose participants from younger demographic that would be:

a) less likely to need a vaccine,

b) less likely to suffer an adverse event during a trial,

c) more likely to respond well to a vaccine, than the elderly who need protection against this virus.

Keep in mind, children and young adults have a whopping 99.995% recovery rate from this nominal virus. 

Additionally, because Pfizer unblinded their clinical trial groups early, they are unable to produce any relevant long-term safety data because they don’t have a control group for reference anymore.

By early 2021, nearly everyone in the study, even the placebo group, had been vaccinated, which effectively ended any hope for meaningful data.

In what’s probably a glowing testament to its credibility, Dr. Robert Malone – the inventor of the mRNA vaccine – was permanently kicked off of Twitter for sharing the CCCA report last week.

If it’s getting censored, you know they are over the mark.

See more here: thegatewaypundit.com

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.

Comments (8)

  • Avatar

    Alan

    |

    Pfizer were in control of the trial of their own product. This should never be allowed. We need regulations to ensure that all drug trials are independent and follow a standard protocol to ensure no manipulation of results. The Canadian report is welcome, and the video describing is excellent and easily understood, but the use of RRR is nothing new. It was obvious from looking at the Pfizer report and was widely discussed.

    What this really shows is the failure of all governments and their advisers to draw attention to this. It looks like they are all in the pay of the drug companies. They are certainly not working for the benefit of the electorate. It also shows the poor educational standards of people. They don’t seem to be capable of demanding safety studies after all the problems there have been with drugs in the past.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      JaKo

      |

      Hi Alan,
      You wrote: “They are certainly not working for the benefit of the electorate. It also shows the poor educational standards of people.”
      You seem to think that you’re bringing a novel perspective on these issues.
      Now, may I ask you, during the lifetime of recent generations:
      WHEN EXACTLY DID “THEY” WORK FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ELECTORATE?
      The collapse of educational standards is very much a result of deliberate actions OBO the ruling “elites,” isn’t it?
      And do not forget the sophisticated Mass Formation (crowd hypnosis) fanned by MSM (incl. socials), intensive propaganda and censorship; btw, at levels never seen since the hey-day of the Soviet Empire.
      Cheers, JaKo

      Reply

      • Avatar

        yougottaloveme

        |

        “… during the lifetime of recent generations:
        WHEN EXACTLY DID “THEY” WORK FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ELECTORATE?”

        I understand your angst, I do…but please, your point is too sweeping. Suppose seat belt laws had not been passed. Suppose laws had not come into force limiting auto exhaust emissions. Suppose clean water acts had not been implemented. Suppose the Pure Food and Drug Act had not been passed… and much etc.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

          |

          @yougottaloveme, your points are also too sweeping:

          Suppose seat belt laws had not been passed..“. Always to the “seatbelt laws” argument. Just like motorbike helmets and space suits, they don’t have a tendency to kill the wearer! The quackxines are in a totally different league. Note that there are NO laws regarding mountain-climbing/rappelling harnesses (or parachutes for that matter) and that you MUST wear them or face LEGAL consequences. The fact is people (men and women – not “persons”) have the infinite RIGHT to their own risk providing they don’t risk the lives or safety of another living soul.

          In general, Clean Water, Exhaust Emissions and Food and Drug acts aren’t particularly necessary as companies that polluted way back in the 60’s and 70’s were already cleaning up their practices as consumers were beginning to boycott them. What all those acts do is apply specific red tape to companies that require a different method to arrive at the same intended outcome, but are hampered by the “law” in doing so, making things far more difficult and therefore expensive, all passed down to the consumer.

          The quackxines DO kill and maim people and the desperation of the FDA, quackxine manufacturers, Fauci, MSM, WHO, UN, WEF elites and all manner of grabbermint trying to hide these facts means they want to sell and profit from this poison shot no matter the consequences to the slavish sheeple.

          Reply

        • Avatar

          JaKo

          |

          Hi Imaynotloveyou,
          There is a difference: Working for someone AND being forced to do something on that one’s behalf.
          Even the poor doctor who stopped this “Morning Sickness Remedy” = fetus disrupter in the US (Thalidomide) didn’t get her much deserved reward — you see, Dr Faust (aka Fauci) was paid 10,000 times more for what he did — is that fair? Therefore, the latter is going to be faced with a real reward, the G-girl…
          Cheers, JaKo

          Reply

  • Avatar

    very old white guy

    |

    there is no such thing as partial efficacy, it either is or is not.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi VOWG,

      Welcome back with your SIMPLE TRUTHS!!! Missed them.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Ted

    |

    The first part of this article is pure nonsense if not intentional misinformation. The vertical lines on the graph represent confidence levels, not effectiveness. It is the dots that represent vaccine effectiveness: blue for Delta and Green for Omicron. Yes, the mRNA vaccines are still effective against these variants as the dots show. I did not even bother to read the second part

    Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via