Revealing How Vaccine Efficacy Became So Distorted
If the original trials of Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines delivered true results.
we would have seen 90% percent reductions in the incidence of acute COVID-19.
In fact we saw just the opposite—explosive increases in the risk for acute illness after vaccination both on an individual and population basis.
I asked pharmacist and philosophy researcher Dr. Raphael Lataster from the University of Sydney to join me and explain how vaccine efficacy became so distorted and grossly overestimated.
Raphael Lataster holds a PhD from the University of Sydney, and occasionally lectures there and at other institutions. His main academic research interests include misinformation, disinformation, and fake news, in Health and Politics.
Raphael has a Bachelor of Pharmacy, a Masters of Applied Finance, and several postgraduate research degrees in the Arts.
Initially focussing his academic efforts around misinformation in Religion, he has shifted focus to misinformation in Politics and Health, particularly around COVID-19.
He currently runs Okay Then News, which highlights counter-narrative news pieces and journal articles.
Click here to watch videos:
See more here Substack
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATI ONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.Â
Trackback from your site.
Alan
| #
The vaccine efficacy of 95% was correct. The issue is what did it mean. It was actually the relative risk reduction expressed as a percentage, done deliberately to create a large number which implies success. So there is deliberately missing information which is what is it relative to? It is relative to the absolute risk reduction. Work it out. It was next to useless.
Reply
VOWG
| #
Efficacy, interesting word. How about it works or doesn’t. Percentages of effectiveness are meaningless, other than proving a product does not work.
Reply