Last week we told you how the Covid-19 vaccines were proving to have a collective negative efficacy in everyone over the age of 40 in the UK as low as minus-sixty-six-percent. Today we can reveal that the latest report available from the UK Health Security Agency, which has recently replaced Public Health England, shows that the Covid-19 vaccines are now proving to have a negative efficacy in everyone over the age of 30 in the UK as low as minus-eighty-six-percent.
Pfizer claim that there Covid-19 mRNA injection has a vaccine effectiveness of 95%. They were able to claim this because of the following –
During the ongoing clinical trial, 43,661 subjects were split evenly between the placebo and vaccine groups (about 21,830 subjects per group).
In the placebo group — the group that got didn’t have the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine — 162 became infected with the coronavirus and showed symptoms.
Whilst in the vaccine group — the group that got the real vaccine — that number was only 8.
Therefore the percentage of placebo group who became infected equated to 0.74% (162 / 21830 x 100 = 0.74).
Whilst 0.04% of the vaccinate group became infected (8 / 21830 x 100 = 0.04)
In order to calculate the efficacy of their Covid-19 mRNA injection, Pfizer then performed the following calculation –
They first subtracted the percentage of infections in the vaccinated group from the percentage of infections in the placebo group.
0.74% – 0.04% = 0.7%
Then they divided that total by the percentage of infections in the placebo group, which equated to 95%.
0.7 / 0.74 = 95%.
Therefore, Pfizer were able to claim that their Covid-19 mRNA injection is 95% effective.
We don’t need to go into the fact that this calculation was extremely misleading and only measured relative effectiveness rather than absolute effectiveness. Neither do we need to go into the fact that Pfizer chose to ignore thousands of other suspected infections during the ongoing trial and not perform a PCR test to confirm the infection because it would have thrown efficacy below the required minimum of 50% to gain regulatory approval.
The reason we don’t need to go into it is because the general public are being told that the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine is 95% effective due to the calculation performed above. The same calculation was also used based on individual results to claim a vaccine efficacy of around 70% for AstraZeneca, and around 98% for Moderna.
Now, thanks to a wealth of data published by the new UK Health Security Agency we are able to use the same calculation used to calculate 95% effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine, to calculate the real world effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines.
Table 2 of the UK Health Security Agency Vaccine Surveillance report, published October 7th 2021, shows the number of recorded infections by vaccination status between week 36 and week 39 of 2021. It also shows the confirmed case rate among persons fully vaccinated, and rates among persons not vaccinated per 100,000 people.
Pfizer had an equal amount of people who had been vaccinated, and had not been vaccinated in the ongoing clinical trial in order to calculate the effectiveness of their vaccine, so in order to calculate the real-world effectiveness all we have to do is perform the same calculation using the rates per 100,000 numbers supplied by the UK Health Security Agency, which are as follows –
The efficacy of all available vaccines combined is as low as – 85.71% within the 40-49 age group, and as high as – 3.4% in the 30-39 age group. This shows that the Covid-19 vaccines are making people more susceptible to catching Covid-19, rather than preventing cases of Covid-19 by the claimed 95%.
By combining the numbers provided for all age groups over the age of 30, we have been able to calculate an average vaccine effectiveness of – 47.69%, and we’re definitely seeing this in the number of confirmed cases by vaccination status.
Between week 36 and week 39 of 2021 there were 41,149 confirmed Covid-19 cases in the unvaccinated over 30’s, 14,649 confirmed cases in the partly vaccinated over 30’s, and a frightening 243,373 confirmed cases in the fully vaccinated over 30’s.
The new UK Health Security Agency report proves without a shadow of a doubt that the Covid-19 vaccines do not work, and actually make the recipients worse.
Read and Share – ‘Deaths among male children have increased by 400% since Chris Whitty decided they should have the Covid-19 Vaccine’
Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
WE URGENTLY NEED YOUR HELP…
We’re not funded by the Government
to publish lies & propaganda on their
behalf like the mainstream media.
Instead, we rely solely on our support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring you
honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy…
Just choose your preferred method
to show your support below support
Categories: Breaking News, Did You Know?, World News
And when are these bastards going to be jailed or hanged for this mass murder?
This is clearly what Table 2 shows, however, the data contained in Tables 3 & 4 (a and b) need to be addressed.
This is what the pro-poisoners jump upon as that data appear to show conclusively that, while infections may be higher in the vaccinated group, hospitalisations and deaths are way lower – hence “the vaccines are working”.
The clue is in how they arrive at that conclusion. Unlike Table 2, which simply looks at cases on the basis of vaccine status, the other tables impose specific date filters. This is a prime example of data manipulation to achieve the required illusion.
It is not clear, for example, how they define “vaccinated”. It has been suggested that “vaccination” is only effective after 14 days of receiving the shot. Therefore, if anything were to occur within those 14 days, the victim would be considered to be “unvaccinated”.
This is highly convenient since other studies and data show that the vaccines cause a number of deaths almost instantly (e.g. evidence from the US of almost 50,000 Medicare deaths within 14 days of vaccination). Clearly, if the surveillance report adopts the same methodology, such deaths would be classified as “unvaccinated” and vaccine deaths (and hospitalisations) grossly understated.
Similarly, imposing a cut-off date is a big distortion. In Pfizer’s own submission to the FDA (FDA Briefing Document – Application for licensure of a booster dose for COMIRNATY), they state on page 22, “An additional analysis appears to indicate that incidence of COVID-19 generally increased in each group of study participants with increasing time post-Dose 2”. In other words, the likelihood of illness increase with lapsed time post-vaccination, consistent with immunity suppression and ADE.
This is why the date framing used in the surveillance report is so crucial. Short-term vaccine deaths could be recorded as “unvaccinated” while longer-term illness due to vaccination would be ignored completely.
[…] Source […]
[…] Because that’s precisely what it is showing in everyone over the age of 30 in the UK, with a negative effectiveness as low as minus-eighty-six percent. (See full report here) […]
[…] Because that’s precisely what it is showing in everyone over the age of 30 in the UK, with a negative effectiveness as low as minus-eighty-six percent. (See full report here) […]
Gee, that would be because the experimental drugs which are known to cause death are not “vaccines”, they are experimental mRNA drugs.
[…] vaccine that reason should be to prevent infection and transmission; which it does not do (see here), or prevent illness; which it will not do as children are at such low risk of suffering serious […]
[…] vaccine that reason should be to prevent infection and transmission; which it does not do (see here), or prevent illness; which it will not do as children are at such low risk of suffering serious […]
[…] vaccine that reason should be to prevent infection and transmission; which it does not do (see here), or prevent illness; which it will not do as children are at such low risk of suffering serious […]
[…] Covid-19, esa razón debe ser para prevenir la infección y la transmisión; lo que no hace (ver aquÃ), ni previene enfermedades; lo que no hará ya que los niños tienen un riesgo tan bajo de sufrir […]
[…] Source […]
[…] esa razón debe ser para prevenir la infección y la transmisión; lo que no hace (ver aquà ), ni previene enfermedades; lo que no hará ya que los niños tienen un riesgo tan bajo […]